Trade target discussion (merged thread)

[Ludwig]

I've drunk eight beers tonight. This @@@@ is too complicated for me

After eight beers that's not surprising. If you can understand anything it's a miracle.

Best thing to do is to imagine we got Nat Fyfe for our 3rd round draft pick, then go to bed.

[Mug Punter]

i dumb it down to if you can pick up a top 5 player that you rate massively and will be a serious weapon for our team for 10 years plus........well pick him...........its not like our round 1 and 2 picks of late i.e. last 3 or 4 years are ground breaking

i say pick mills no matter

I think that at this stage we would pick him no matter what - for no other reason that it really sends out a poor message to both the kids at the academy and the AFL that we will fight for our academy and then not want the best kids (yes I know it is not quite that simple).

Then again I also agree with Ludwig about at some stage taking a stand re phantom bids. And my head really says if he goes at 1 or 2 we should let him go, especially Carlton.

I think we'll take him regardless with the knowledge we got Heeney with 17 last year as a balance but at some stage we will need to let an academy kid we want to draft go to another club because we feel the bid is too high.

Another example how the real benefit of this system will be at the second rounder level because this area will have a greater relative draft pick re what we get and what we give up

- - - Updated - - -

After eight beers that's not surprising. If you can understand anything it's a miracle.

Best thing to do is to imagine we got Nat Fyfe for our 3rd round draft pick, then go to bed.

[Bloods05]

When will Australian sport get over it's obsession of club legends? Players are club assets to be deployed in the best future interest of the organisation.

Ugh. Just ugh. As Liz intimated, love of the club matters. Emotion matters. Sport is utterly devoid of meaning without it. Your persistent proselytising for the sport-as-commerce religion is extremely distasteful. Please desist.

[Mug Punter]

I'm aware that players are human and my views can be perceived as cold.

What I cannot tolerate is players holding all the power. Cam McCarthy decides he is homesick and people say "okay mate let's get you home".

There are professional sporting organisations around the World that would laugh at Cam McCarty and he would be flipping burgers at McDonald's within a year if he brought his current attitude to training.

It's time for the clubs to regain the power, stop indulging players and focus on doing all they can to win premierships. If that means doing deals that involve club legends then so be it.

It can never be forgotten that the Hawks became a better football team after Buddy left.

I'm sitting on the fence with a few of your posts on this thread 6'2-Matt but I have to agree with this one.

More than one commentator has commented on the trend for players to nominate their club of destination in the press even when they are under contract. The tail is wagging the dog.

Forget the name of the pundit but someone was saying that the Lions need to be very very strong with Aish and unless they absolutely get what he is worth (and I'd say that is a top 10 pick) they MUST let him go to the PSD a la Stevens from Port Adelaide in the early 00s. Sure they may lose a player for nothing but it sends a clear message to the playing group as to who is in charge.

As for Cam McCarthy, this is an absolute no brainer. Regardless of what Freo offer he must go nowhere. Let him honour his contract in the twos if need be but the reality is that if they play finals next year and then a GF the year after he'll be more than happy to stay.

It really does re-inforce the need for the Northern Clubs to become home grown and it is for that reason that any further watering down of the academy system in any form needs to be met with a legal response. The Lions should be drafting 3 quality academy kids this years draft (Hipwood, Keays, Chol) but it will take 10 years of a crop like this (i.e. a good one) to get them to the required 75%. And then when they do @@@@s like Eddie will want the system shredded as soon as any of us have any success at all.

[PerthSwannie]

No way in the world. The game has moved on and he has nothing to offer it.

So sorry for voicing an opinion. I`ll just head back into my box...........

[Mug Punter]

So sorry for voicing an opinion. I`ll just head back into my box...........

No need to be like that, it was just universally viewed as a rubbish idea....

[6'2, 220, 4.53]

How is it a thread hijack? The poster is talking about trades in a trade thread. I don't agree with the JPK thing but I agree with him/her on McCarthy.

Thanks Doctor. This is a thread on player movement and my posts relate to player movement.

I have said all along that JPK is needed for the 2016 season, but things may be looked at going into the 2017 season.

When it comes to the trade game it's all about timing. Do we want to keep a 28 - 30 year old in the team and use them up to when they retire at 32 - 34 years old? Will the amazing standard that they set from ages 22 - 29 be replicated from 30 - 34? If you could get a mega trade deal for them at 28, why not take it. They may give their new club two great years, but the probabilities show that they will not be as effective from 30 - 34.

Chris Judd was the shadow of a player at 30 compared to five years before.

Adam Goodes legendary years ended at the end of 2011. From 2012 - 2015 he struggled with injury and was not able to hit the highs of his younger years. If someone had come to the Swans at the end of 2009 and said that we will offer you the world for Goodes (two early first round draft picks), why should that offer not be up for discussion.

Why are we so afraid to discuss the possibilities of trading our best players? Why can the timing of a deal not be a major consideration.

Just remember that we get nothing for a player when he retires.

Why can we not see that we have brilliant young players in a certain position and that losing one older player may open the way for the younger player to hit the elite standard more quickly. The young 20 year old has 9 great years in them while the older player may have 1-2 more great years.

The best thing that happened to the Hawks was Buddy leaving. Other forwards stepped up and kicked the goals, they used the extra money to fill weaknesses in their list and they found an attacking strategy that was better than "let's just kick it to Lance".

[PerthSwannie]

No need to be like that, it was just universally viewed as a rubbish idea....

A rubbish idea?? Crowley would be great for our team. I`m sticking with it. Bugga ya..HaHa.

[Mug Punter]

Thanks Doctor. This is a thread on player movement and my posts relate to player movement.

I have said all along that JPK is needed for the 2016 season, but things may be looked at going into the 2017 season.

When it comes to the trade game it's all about timing. Do we want to keep a 28 - 30 year old in the team and use them up to when they retire at 32 - 34 years old? Will the amazing standard that they set from ages 22 - 29 be replicated from 30 - 34? If you could get a mega trade deal for them at 28, why not take it. They may give their new club two great years, but the probabilities show that they will not be as effective from 30 - 34.

Chris Judd was the shadow of a player at 30 compared to five years before.

Adam Goodes legendary years ended at the end of 2011. From 2012 - 2015 he struggled with injury and was not able to hit the highs of his younger years. If someone had come to the Swans at the end of 2009 and said that we will offer you the world for Goodes (two early first round draft picks), why should that offer not be up for discussion.

Why are we so afraid to discuss the possibilities of trading our best players? Why can the timing of a deal not be a major consideration.

Just remember that we get nothing for a player when he retires.

Why can we not see that we have brilliant young players in a certain position and that losing one older player may open the way for the younger player to hit the elite standard more quickly. The young 20 year old has 9 great years in them while the older player may have 1-2 more great years.

The best thing that happened to the Hawks was Buddy leaving. Other forwards stepped up and kicked the goals, they used the extra money to fill weaknesses in their list and they found an attacking strategy that was better than "let's just kick it to Lance".

I personally like the idea of the Swans creating a culture of one club players and I really don't like your approach to treating players like a bit of cattle because for mine those years from 30-31 or 32 can still be valuable years on and off the field.

Are you seriously saying we should have traded Goodes at the end of 2009? Well we probably wouldn't have won that flag in 2012 for starters....

Plus, most players at the age you are talking at will be free agents anyway so their "re-sale" value is not possible. And there is no way we should be putting players up for trade at age 25 just for their trade value because the next 3-4 years is where we get our return

I accept your argument re drafting but your treatment of players as if they were part of a share portfolio is quite daft IMO

[Levii3]

One of the reasons this club is loved is because of its culture which is passed on to the next generation of players each year, it's the elder players that do it if we trade our champions when they turn 29 this club will disintegrate and turn into what it was prior to 2003.

Are you sure your not Craig Hutchison?

[S.S. Bleeder]

Thanks Doctor. This is a thread on player movement and my posts relate to player movement.

I have said all along that JPK is needed for the 2016 season, but things may be looked at going into the 2017 season.

When it comes to the trade game it's all about timing. Do we want to keep a 28 - 30 year old in the team and use them up to when they retire at 32 - 34 years old? Will the amazing standard that they set from ages 22 - 29 be replicated from 30 - 34? If you could get a mega trade deal for them at 28, why not take it. They may give their new club two great years, but the probabilities show that they will not be as effective from 30 - 34.

Chris Judd was the shadow of a player at 30 compared to five years before.

Adam Goodes legendary years ended at the end of 2011. From 2012 - 2015 he struggled with injury and was not able to hit the highs of his younger years. If someone had come to the Swans at the end of 2009 and said that we will offer you the world for Goodes (two early first round draft picks), why should that offer not be up for discussion.

Why are we so afraid to discuss the possibilities of trading our best players? Why can the timing of a deal not be a major consideration.

Just remember that we get nothing for a player when he retires.

Why can we not see that we have brilliant young players in a certain position and that losing one older player may open the way for the younger player to hit the elite standard more quickly. The young 20 year old has 9 great years in them while the older player may have 1-2 more great years.

The best thing that happened to the Hawks was Buddy leaving. Other forwards stepped up and kicked the goals, they used the extra money to fill weaknesses in their list and they found an attacking strategy that was better than "let's just kick it to Lance".

Well said. All you need to do is refer to what GWS offered Geelong last year for Stevie J. Two top ten picks! They were crazy for rejecting it. I don't agree with you suggestion but those who slammed you for making it are in the wrong.

[andreww1]

Has Sydney announced any player delistings yet?

[Mug Punter]

Has Sydney announced any player delistings yet?

No, which is odd really.

With Goodes, Shaw, Pyke and Jetta leaving already and let's say two traded out (Bird and Robbo) then maybe we'll just bring six in (Sinclair, Naismith, Mills, Dunkley, A defender and one additional Academy draftee) and not delist anyone.

Harry would seem the most at risk but if they believe that all the list apart from TDx have senior potential then I'd be happy with that approach

[Auntie.Gerald]

hhmmm

my guess is that we will keep most of our guys except Pyke, Jetts, Goodes, Shaw and simply bring on board Mills and Dunkley

So 4 out and 4 in

Sinclair
Mills
Dunkley
Talia ?

I think there is strong upside on most of the guys on our list

[The Big Cat]

hhmmm

my guess is that we will keep most of our guys except Pyke, Jetts, Goodes, Shaw and simply bring on board Mills and Dunkley

So 4 out and 4 in

Sinclair
Mills
Dunkley
Talia ?

I think there is strong upside on most of the guys on our list

Naismith is to be elevated according the Tom Harley.