Trade target discussion (merged thread)

[Melbournehammer]

That is false - Hawks capped there contract offering at 5 years. The 9 year deal is the reason the swans are having all these other issues with the AFL now as they are against long term deals (they weren't impressed with the Boyd deal at the Bulldogs either and that looks like turning very sour).

too soon to tell with boyd. from what i have seen of him he could very easily be as good as jesse hogan. they just played him a bit much at the beginning of the year. He will get better as he gets a little more athletic and a little more strength. When he does the bulldogs will have a super impressive forward line

We on the other hand just need franklin back.

[Scottee]

I just wish Gazza would stop tackling with his head.

[KTigers]

It is the nature of the kamikaze player (McGlynn is the other one in our team) that they are going to get injured a lot. I saw a lot of Lloyd Perris in the junior
regional development squads from when he was 13 to 17 and even at that age he used his body as a missile. The coaches loved it and when he was on the field he was the best player, but not surprisingly he got injured more than the other kids. With these guys, I always wonder if they could just let off 10% with the crazy stuff then their on field output would go up 25%, because they might be able to actually string a few games together. I figure they only know one speed, and they definitely pay a price for it.

I just wish Gazza would stop tackling with his head.

[dimelb]

I hope Gaz doesn't feel he has to make up for lost time - if he tries, he'll only lose more.

[Nico]

I am thinking much the same way as you, mcs. Agree with your comments about Hiscox, Rose, BJ, Rohan. Agree Heeney will be shifted to the midfield but not sure how soon. It's looking like Towers may take Goodes' spot in the forward line.

There's no reason to move Gazza to defence. Gazza is great forward because of the defensive pressure he can apply there. He is also a decent (and long) kick for goal. His distribution and ball use running out of defence is perhaps not there yet - but anyway he gets to do that when we rebound.

If Heeney goes to the midfield the sooner the better. Then we might start to win the centre clearances. We got toweled up again at the weekend when North were first to footy almost every time.

[S.S. Bleeder]

The only reason that Buddy's contract is as long as it is, is because the poos and wees are a pack of mean, spiteful and nasty people.
THEY were the ones that offered Buddy the 10 year contract... if we wanted him, we had to match it.
Such is the way of the free-trade agreement.

Who on earth told you that? I'm sure it's incorrect.

[Mug Punter]

I am thinking much the same way as you, mcs. Agree with your comments about Hiscox, Rose, BJ, Rohan. Agree Heeney will be shifted to the midfield but not sure how soon. It's looking like Towers may take Goodes' spot in the forward line.

There's no reason to move Gazza to defence. Gazza is great forward because of the defensive pressure he can apply there. He is also a decent (and long) kick for goal. His distribution and ball use running out of defence is perhaps not there yet - but anyway he gets to do that when we rebound.

I wouldn't rush Heeney into the midfield, I'd like to see him play at least one more season up front.

Also looking forward to seeing Towers have a full year in the ones along with Zak Jones who you'd have to think would be first in line to relace Shaw and Goodesy

[crackedactor]

Need a big engine for the mid field. Heeney needs another season to strengthen up. Forward line is his place. But we desperately need a ruckman, Pyke's knee may be gone and there is no replacement.

[jono2707]

I wonder if we've cooled off on Talia yet???

[dimelb]

That is false - Hawks capped there contract offering at 5 years. The 9 year deal is the reason the swans are having all these other issues with the AFL now as they are against long term deals (they weren't impressed with the Boyd deal at the Bulldogs either and that looks like turning very sour).

You mean we could have had him on a 6 year contract?!

[goswannies]

That is false - Hawks capped there contract offering at 5 years. The 9 year deal is the reason the swans are having all these other issues with the AFL now as they are against long term deals (they weren't impressed with the Boyd deal at the Bulldogs either and that looks like turning very sour).

Don't see why the AFL should have taken umbridge with the length of Buddy's contract, it's not like it wasn't unprecedented. The AFL approved Alistair Lynch's ten year deal with the Bears in 1994.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

I wonder if we've cooled off on Talia yet???

Not cooling, just leaking ????

[Mug Punter]

Don't see why the AFL should have taken umbridge with the length of Buddy's contract, it's not like it wasn't unprecedented. The AFL approved Alistair Lynch's ten year deal with the Bears in 1994.

True but there was always a huge amount of risk attached to this contract as it has come to pass.

I know that at this stage Buddy's health is paramount but the powers that be at the Swans must be bricking it at the moment re the thought of him only playing 2 out of 9 years. The last one or two years were always going to be doubtful at best but this was not in the plan....

I wouldn't think the Doggies are too worried about Boyd at this stage, with the new TV deal coming in it won't look too expensive and he still has huge upside, they get him firing as he can and it will go a long way to them going further next year and maybe all the way.....

- - - Updated - - -

Do we get Pick 14 now that we missed the Prelim Finals?

[ernie koala]

You mean we could have had him on a 6 year contract?!

We could of had him on a 6 year deal, it would of had to of been an average of $1.66 m per year.

The 9 year deal was made to lower the average yearly amount whilst still matching the GWS 6 year/ $10m offer...Not the Hawks offer, which was 5 years for around $6-7m...They were out of the running.

So the length of the contract made it possible for the Swans to match the $10m, knowing that the final couple of years would probably be non playing....

And not to prohibitive, given where they thought TPP would be at by then.

The Swans gazumped the AFL and out smarted them. Hence why the AFL were so pissed off and included the condition that the TPP would stand no matter how long Buddy played for.

Let's hope Buddy comes good , or it will be the Swans that have out smarted themselves... And shot themselves in the foot.

[0918330512]

We could of had him on a 6 year deal, it would of had to of been an average of $1.66 m per year.

The 9 year deal was made to lower the average yearly amount whilst still matching the GWS 6 year/ $10m offer...Not the Hawks offer, which was 5 years for around $6-7m...They were out of the running.

So the length of the contract made it possible for the Swans to match the $10m, knowing that the final couple of years would probably be non playing....

And not to prohibitive, given where they thought TPP would be at by then.

The Swans gazumped the AFL and out smarted them. Hence why the AFL were so pissed off and included the condition that the TPP would stand no matter how long Buddy played for.

Let's hope Buddy comes good , or it will be the Swans that have out smarted themselves... And shot themselves in the foot.

If Buddy leaves after 2 years, does that mean the rest of his TPP remains in our cap but we don't actually pay him the $7.8M (just averaging his $10M/9yr deal to $1.1M/yr) to him?