A trade for Seaby

[laughingnome]

As for the existential question, Port's as viable as the Kangas and the Dogs. Moreso, really.

They have more members than we do and their crowds used to be plenty good. Their problems are not existential. It's a combination of their current terrible onfield state (result of a few years of bad recruiting and some questionable coaching staff choices), their worst-in-the-league stadium deal, the SANFL bleeding both AFL clubs to prop up the local league, and an awful windswept ground in the middle of nowhere which nobody wants to go to any more.

Once they abandon Footy Park for Adelaide Oval (an infinitely superior ground in an infinitely superior location) and their form starts to improve their crowds will pick up again, certainly enough to keep them viable.

All true, but there is a reason the AFL was never warm to the idea of promoting Southport (or, for that matter Labrador or Broadbeach) for a Gold Coast team: they didn't want to replicate the problem that had already established itself in Adelaide. They may pick up, they probably will be viable, but I can't see Port as ever being the powerhouse of Adelaide, West Coast or even Fremantle. I don't doubt their fans' passion; just their number.


Anyway, Seaby won't go to Adelaide. GWS is most likely, obviously, but I can't think of any other clubs crying out for a big man and prepared to offer their number 1 spot to someone not already on their list.

[ernie koala]

GWS would be a first round pick.

I doubt GWS will just give away first round picks because they have plenty.
GWS will give up market value.
IMO market value for Seaby would be 2nd round at best.

[Dosser]

Seaby to GWS is the most logical option as he doesnt have to relocate and GWS will need a big, seasoned body on the park. If we get a draft pick can we use it in a couple of years' time or does it have to be used at the next draft?

[goswannie14]

Must be used this year.

I would trade Seaby to Richmond for Reiwoldt. That would put Chamberlain in a quandry, to penalise him for being a Swans or to not penalise him because he is a Reiwoldt!

[Mountain Man]

If Seaby goes, that leaves Pyke aged 27, Mumford aged 24 and Currie 22 (ages as at start of season).

If (as indicated in this thread) Currie is "gone", that is a pretty small list of No1 Ruckmen in this age of 3 on the bench and the consequent TOG required of that position.

Without a strong No1 Ruckman, the pressure on the Swans game-style would be immense IMHO - it would make our current forward structure discussions pale into insignificance.

[magic.merkin]

I see him asking for a trade, most likely to GWS and the swans in good faith agreeing. Picks wise hard to say what deal is to be done, it's an uncertain time.

Unfortunately for him/us he was meant to be number 1, the we got Mummy as well. He starts number 1'ish but with that foot injury ruining his first year and Mumford and Pyke seizing their opportunities the setup was rearranged by circumstances. Then the AFL introduce the sub rule in 2011, and his shot at number 2 is gone, as he has yet to prove himself as anything else but a solid ruckman. But he is wasted as such.

I envisage Mummy #1, Pyke to number 2 and play down back/forward. LRT to settle back down in defense. Jesse god knows. Currie to get one final reprieve due to Seaby leaving purely for depth. We then target another young ruckman in the draft to develop for the next 3-5 years.

[Lucky Knickers]

If we can trade to GWS would it be on the basis that we have one of the those reserve picks you can use any time in the next few years? That would be nice and handy.

[Plugger46]

I doubt GWS will just give away first round picks because they have plenty.
GWS will give up market value.
IMO market value for Seaby would be 2nd round at best.

Exactly. A first rounder for a 27yo bloke who couldn't get a go at the Eagles and now can't get a crack with us? Not knocking him but turn it up.

[S120]

GWS have a pretty decent ruckman atm anyway. Jonathan Giles is definitely an AFL standard ruckman in my mind.

Richmond and Port are the clubs in most need for a strong, experienced ruckman as far as I can tell. The rest of the clubs either have that already or are definitely blooding a talented big man atm (Port have Lobbe who looks OK, so maybe Port won't bother with looking for a ruckman). Richmond are in desperate need for one though.

[R-1]

Giles was in the SANFL team of the year last year and I reckon he's actually a shot at retaining the captaincy.

It's possibly also worth considering whether Freo's Griffin will be on the market too.

[GongSwan]

If Seaby asks to be traded the best option would be GWS ( for us) a first round draft pick would be a winner, but if he wants to stay a good stock of ruckmen is not a bad thing to have

[lwjoyner]

should package him (maybe with Bevan and another) to get hands on one of the 17 yr olds they have to trade.

[Robbo]

He's too good to be playing reserves every week, but I would be sad to see him go. People seem to forget that he was actually ahead of Mumford at the start of 2010 and was playing exceptionally well before he broke his ankle against Brisbane in about round 5. He has been very good for us in the games he has played in 2011 aswell, and if it wasn't for the new sub rule he would still be in the side.

Clearly a better overall player than Pyke, and I would be worried if we lost Seaby and Pyke became our 2nd ruckman.

[aardvark]

Discussion on SEN this morning suggested the Bullies may be looking for a ruckman as Hudson will retire, Minson is a dud and young Roughhead isn't ready yet. Seaby would be a good fit there and we have a recent history of trading with the bullies.

[Triple B]

It's a tough one because the AFL are so unpredictable with how they go about their rules and changes. Next year they may well decide to go with 4 on the bench and a sub in which case a true second ruck may well again become fashionable.

Of course if those changes are made, they will be well after the trade period which happens within a fortnight of the GF hooter sounding for the last time of the year.