Jed Lamb trade - Poll

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • CureTheSane
    Carpe Noctem
    • Jan 2003
    • 5032

    Jed Lamb trade - Poll

    So here's the scenario...

    GWS will not bend and refuse to budge from a pick 48 for Lamb trade.

    What do you think the Swans should do?

    - - - Updated - - -

    For me, it was put really well in another thread...

    Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
    We just got reamed. We could have elected not to trade either and they would only have been able to take one in the PSD. What trade would we expect for 1st round draft pick with 12 games AND a premier ruckman at the height of his career? I'll say it again, we just got reamed.
    In trying to 'do the right thing for another player (Mumford) we've lost power big time.

    And this is why personalities and friendships and loyalties should always be considered, but not carry any great weight in business transactions.

    As we watch Lamb kicking to Mummy for a goal against the Swans there may be a tinge of regret...
    56
    Begrudgingly accept pick 48
    0%
    20
    Decline the offer and let Lamb enter the draft
    0%
    30
    I have no idea
    0%
    6
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
  • lorakf
    Pushing for Selection
    • Sep 2013
    • 53

    #2
    Not much Swans can do. Not going to get any of GWS first four selections (1,2,21,22) and Swans would want to avoid any selection after GWS 6th selection (75,76,93,111). So at this stage GWS 5th selection (48) seems like the best of a bad situation. Unless the swap gets more complicated with other teams or players added in.

    Comment

    • Ajn
      Draft Scout
      • Jan 2003
      • 711

      #3
      Don't take it, should have let Mummy go through and make them sweat... These picks are not acceptable and of little use pick 48 would be a rookie promotion at best
      Staying ahead of the game...

      Comment

      • CJK
        Human
        • Apr 2006
        • 2170

        #4
        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        As we watch Lamb kicking to Mummy for a goal against the Swans there may be a tinge of regret...
        In the NEAFL
        -

        Comment

        • Primmy
          Proud Tragic Swan
          • Apr 2008
          • 5970

          #5
          I look at this and think the swans will park this in their memory banks for future dealings with GWS. They are quite well known for doing good deals and doing right by other clubs and by the players that want to move on. Watch this space., Next year it will be a different scenario.
          If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

          Comment

          • GongSwan
            Senior Player
            • Jan 2009
            • 1362

            #6
            We might well use the pick. We have now lost 5 listed players and brought in Buddy and Perris on the rookie list. We probably need4 or 5 picks in hte draft
            You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

            Comment

            • royboy42
              Senior Player
              • Apr 2006
              • 2078

              #7
              Graciously take 48.

              Comment

              • dimelb
                pr. dim-melb; m not f
                • Jun 2003
                • 6889

                #8
                Lamb was a first round pick, albeit a late one, and has shown he has a real future. He's worth a lot better than 48, and GWS could give us twentysomething and keep their first pick. But I doubt it will happen.
                He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

                Comment

                • aardvark
                  Veterans List
                  • Mar 2010
                  • 5685

                  #9
                  Let him enter the PSD. We don't need to be nice to GWS.

                  Comment

                  • Cheer_Cheer
                    Regular in the Side
                    • Jul 2009
                    • 739

                    #10
                    No more Mr Nice Guy.. PSD or a decent pick thanks..

                    Comment

                    • royboy42
                      Senior Player
                      • Apr 2006
                      • 2078

                      #11
                      Not much point in being a dog in the manger..if he goes in PSD we get zilch. 48 is a lot better than that..

                      Comment

                      • CureTheSane
                        Carpe Noctem
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 5032

                        #12
                        Originally posted by royboy42
                        Not much point in being a dog in the manger..if he goes in PSD we get zilch. 48 is a lot better than that..
                        Well, the point I would make is that if we constantly accept less than what a player is worth, then we won't be regarded as 'fair traders' by the other teams, but as 'patsy's'
                        The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                        Comment

                        • aardvark
                          Veterans List
                          • Mar 2010
                          • 5685

                          #13
                          Originally posted by royboy42
                          Not much point in being a dog in the manger..if he goes in PSD we get zilch. 48 is a lot better than that..
                          He's an ex first round pick with 3 years of developmental time and money put into him who has probably cracked the sads because he thought he should've been playing in finals.
                          He's worth way more than a pick we might not use anyway. I say PSD for him and if GWS really want him they can use their first pick. If they don't he can stay with us and continue his development or take his chances with another club who might not offer him ridiculous money.
                          Its time for us to toughen up again. Send a message to the raiders who will be looking at our developing players as easy targets in the future.

                          Comment

                          • liz
                            Veteran
                            Site Admin
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 16773

                            #14
                            Originally posted by GongSwan
                            We might well use the pick. We have now lost 5 listed players and brought in Buddy and Perris on the rookie list. We probably need4 or 5 picks in hte draft
                            Originally posted by royboy42
                            Graciously take 48.
                            Depends if we're going to use it or not. That will partly depend on Everitt and/or Armstrong and where they land up.

                            Based on known departures (3 retirees and Brown plus White, Lamb and Mumford) less the acquisition of Franklin, that leaves 6 spots to fill. Rampe will take one spot and I will be very surprised if at least one other rookie isn't promoted to the senior list, be it Biggs or BJ. Maybe both will. So that only leaves 3-4 spots on the list to fill and I don't think we need 48 for those. (Obviously we need draft picks to elevate rookies but they are nominal. We can use pick 148 just as well as pick 48.)

                            If we are losing one or both of Armstrong or Everitt too, we would have a live use for pick 48. I would still be inclined to just let Lamb go via the PSD. We might be doing some other club a favour - preventing them getting fleeced too...

                            Comment

                            • aardvark
                              Veterans List
                              • Mar 2010
                              • 5685

                              #15
                              Originally posted by liz
                              I would still be inclined to just let Lamb go via the PSD. We might be doing some other club a favour - preventing them getting fleeced too...
                              By not trading unless it suits us and pushing him into the PSD there is also the chance he may re sign with us if GWS lose interest.

                              Comment

                              Working...