List changes and trade bait

[mcs]

Its a tough one with Membrey. I can't see how he will fit in our top 22 with Goodesy around - but in my book, at least to a point, he is a different option up forward, that isn't a resting ruckman or a rotating midfielder, that has shown he can kick bags of goals. He could be our Gunston style 3rd forward given a chance. I fear he will go if Goodesy stays on.

I have no doubt that Goodesy will contribute well again next season - but I fear as others have said, it would be at our longer term detriment.

[ernie koala]

I hope this isn't a really monumental mistake- he was a liability in any circumstances other than when ball was in our hands. I hope with a pre season and fire in the belly and no aoty responsibilities things will be different next season, but I really doubt it.

It amazes me how few footy players know when to stop. It seems like an addiction for most, they need to hit the wall, or be shown the door, before retiring.

It was a testament to Goodsey this year that he hung in and contributed just enough, with the ball, to hold his spot.

But his defensive work was abysmal. Chasing and tackling virtually non existent. Even resorting to staging, he's so much better than that.

IMO, another pre season, at age 35, isn't going to change his output.

Meanwhile he keeps a spot locked up.

If we loose Membrey, which will be more likely if Goodsey stays, and he fulfils his potential elsewhere.....That would be disappointing to say the least.

Goodsey is a champion of our club. But as the cliche goes.."No player is bigger than the club".

After the debacle of Saturday we need to start afresh in some ways.

All great things come to an end...And I think we'd be better off if Goodes, and Shaw for that matter, both retired.

IMO, it's time to move on, it's someone else's time.

[Ludwig]

Goodes stays. Membrey goes. Simple as that

The club is pretty good about keeping players it wants to keep. Assuming the story about Goodes staying on is true, I would assume the issues regarding other players would have already been resolved. If the club wants Membrey to stay, I don't think they would let the Goodes decision affect Membrey's future with the club. If they did, it would be a substantial change from how things have been done in the past.

I think Goodes still has something to give, but hopefully it doesn't impact on the longer term development of the club.

I can't imagine Goodes going off on his own and making an announcement about playing on without all of these ancillary factors already resolved.

I would imagine that discussions about Membrey's future have been going on with his management for some time, and the issues worked out one way another. We have to file our Academy nominations on Friday, so the status of the playing list should well and truly be known at this time. I assume the announcements of lesser players (Walsh, Lockyer and Dick) cover those changes, and perhaps the announcements regarding the retirements of Goodes and Shaw will be made at the B&F.

[Ampersand]

Regardless of Membrey's plans, I worry that Goodes does damage to our forward structure, particularly in terms of defence. Sure, he may still contribute a couple of goals a game but how many does he cost on the rebound or allowing the ball out of our forward 50?

[Melbournehammer]

You simply can't have Goodes Parker Reid and Tippett (as well as Mitchell) all playing in the forward line. It is a turnstile...ball goes in and goes out. Goodes spends so much time pointing and the better sides have just exploited him over and over again defensively. And if one person isn't doing their job the whole thing falls down.

Goodes isn't the only poor defender, but he simply has no lateral movement currently. Straight line running he is still very quick. But he is playing as a forward fifty small. He plays more like Breust Elliott, dustin Martin when forward. He isn't a pack marking player. So he needs to do more than compete he can't just skirt packs looking for easy goals - he has to be able to tackle not just corral.

[GordonS]

The club is pretty good about keeping players it wants to keep. Assuming the story about Goodes staying on is true, I would assume the issues regarding other players would have already been resolved. If the club wants Membrey to stay, I don't think they would let the Goodes decision affect Membrey's future with the club. If they did, it would be a substantial change from how things have been done in the past.

I think Goodes still has something to give, but hopefully it doesn't impact on the longer term development of the club.

I can't imagine Goodes going off on his own and making an announcement about playing on without all of these ancillary factors already resolved.

I hope you're right mate. But I don't think the swans can guarantee him a spot in the 22, even if he is good enough (and we know he is) and combined with the fact that he has put off contract talks until now (read that somewhere on news.com.au) and you get the feeling that membrey might wanna seek more opportunities elsewhere. But yeah, i hope i'm wrong

[Ludwig]

I hope you're right mate. But I don't think the swans can guarantee him a spot in the 22, even if he is good enough (and we know he is) and combined with the fact that he has put off contract talks until now (read that somewhere on news.com.au) and you get the feeling that membrey might wanna seek more opportunities elsewhere. But yeah, i hope i'm wrong

I don't know if he's staying or going, I am just saying that the answer is already known by club management at this moment. It could well be that we couldn't come to terms with him and no announcement has been made because we will be working on a deal to trade him.

[Matt80]

It stated in the trade winds article on AFL.com that Hanners has been linked to Richmond.

It may be like the Victorian speculation that went around Nick Smith at the end of 2013 or he may be eyeing a return to Victoria and a massive salary upgrade.

If Richmond want to deal with us for Hanners, the only deal I would entertain would be Alex Rance in a straight swap. Rance is a gun and won that game for Richmond at ANZ.

Richmond can also deal with St Kilda at get the number one pick and on forward to the Swans for Hanners.

[churry]

Can't see anything on hanners at AFL.com.au and I can't believe that al5hough Richmond get "linked" to various top midfielders each trade week..

[sprite]

Could we move Membrey to defence in the short term and put Reg on the market??

[lwjoyner]

I too love goodsy BUT I think its time. He should retire and hand the his role to Membrey with loads of love.

[Ampersand]

If Goodes plays in the starting 21 in Round 1 it is safe to say that the coaching staff have learned nothing from the Grand Final or have any interest in correcting our biggest weakness all season: reward for inside 50 entries. From memory we were 14th in the league for scoring off i50s.

Incredibly frustrating to see so many missed opportunities and it must be disheartening for players to do the hard work downfield only to see the ball continually rebounded with ease.

While Buddy works his backside off defensively, Reid, Tippett and Goodes share a large portion of the blame for this awful stat and it has to be addressed.

[chammond]

My apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else (I'm too lazy to go through all the posts), but what are we likely to get as compensation for Malceski when he goes?

[Conor_Dillon]

My apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else (I'm too lazy to go through all the posts), but what are we likely to get as compensation for Malceski when he goes?

Most likely a pick straight after our first pick...so it will end up being 18 or 19.

[Chookbilly]

It stated in the trade winds article on AFL.com that Hanners has been linked to Richmond.

It may be like the Victorian speculation that went around Nick Smith at the end of 2013 or he may be eyeing a return to Victoria and a massive salary upgrade.

If Richmond want to deal with us for Hanners, the only deal I would entertain would be Alex Rance in a straight swap. Rance is a gun and won that game for Richmond at ANZ.

Richmond can also deal with St Kilda at get the number one pick and on forward to the Swans for Hanners.

You either severely underrate Hanners, or severely overrate Rance. Either way, it's a farcical trade suggestion that the Swans would never entertain.

Hannebery is in my eyes our next captain. Rance is a hugely inconsistent defender with poor disposal.