2017 trading, drafting, list management

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Boddo
    Senior Player
    • Mar 2017
    • 1049

    Originally posted by 707
    So that kind on contract we will get Band 1 compo, straight after our first rounder which could be as high as 4.
    Reid goes to a big offer from Vic and we have picks 4 & 5, plus another $6-700, 000 to use elsewhere, yeah, I'd settle for that!
    But the killer is you then are forced to either draft or trade for a key forward & have to wait 4-5 years for them to develop which means you either trade for a forward at that price which will not get you much better than Reid or wait that amount of time which leaves Franklin as the lone target for those years. If Schache was interested in Sydney I'd say yeh I could take letting Reid go n use the compo for him as he has 2 years of development in him but it sounds like his heart is set on going to a Melbourne club. I love watching Jones but personally think Reid is more important to our structure. He can play as a target up front or if needed helps down back plus plays as a link from out of the back half. If we had more targets coming through I'd totally agree but basically the cupboard is bare.

    Comment

    • 707
      Veterans List
      • Aug 2009
      • 6204

      Aliir the wildcard new forward!

      Comment

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

        Our next big forward is Pink.

        I think.
        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

        • Boddo
          Senior Player
          • Mar 2017
          • 1049

          Originally posted by 707
          Aliir the wildcard new forward!
          That's what I was hoping when ugg mentioned he played forward but he sounds like nothing has changed since I saw him in his junior days in the WAFL. Just not a forward sadly, will pinch hit when desperate but you wouldn't want to rely on him week in week out. Pink is half a chance to make it but he's a fair way off from holding down a key forward position in an afl senior side.

          Comment

          • Nico
            Veterans List
            • Jan 2003
            • 11329

            How did we ever get Nankervis wrong?
            http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

            Comment

            • Boddo
              Senior Player
              • Mar 2017
              • 1049

              Originally posted by Nico
              How did we ever get Nankervis wrong?
              We didn't. We identified his talent n drafted him & then developed him. We got Sinclair wrong. We don't trade Jetta for Sinclair n we end up keeping Nankervis.

              Comment

              • Ludwig
                Veterans List
                • Apr 2007
                • 9359

                Originally posted by Boddo
                We didn't. We identified his talent n drafted him & then developed him. We got Sinclair wrong. We don't trade Jetta for Sinclair n we end up keeping Nankervis.
                Exactly right. The problem has been Longmire's obsession with ruckmen.

                I think Nankervis is overrated, at least at this stage of his career. He's a very average ruckman at best. He gets a lot of the ball around the ground, because no one bothers to cover him as they don't view him as being very dangerous with ball in hand. He will kick the odd goal or 2, but his disposal is not that great overall. I think we will do better with Cameron in the long run.

                Comment

                • Boddo
                  Senior Player
                  • Mar 2017
                  • 1049

                  Originally posted by Ludwig
                  Exactly right. The problem has been Longmire's obsession with ruckmen.

                  I think Nankervis is overrated, at least at this stage of his career. He's a very average ruckman at best. He gets a lot of the ball around the ground, because no one bothers to cover him as they don't view him as being very dangerous with ball in hand. He will kick the odd goal or 2, but his disposal is not that great overall. I think we will do better with Cameron in the long run.
                  Agree 100%

                  Comment

                  • 707
                    Veterans List
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 6204

                    Weekend over, pick 4 is ours!

                    Well at this stage at least

                    Comment

                    • Blood Fever
                      Veterans List
                      • Apr 2007
                      • 4040

                      Thought Nankervis was just ok last night. Commentators went right over the top after he kicked last goal. He is a smart footballer and good luck to him because he has a crack but he is a bullocking player who is not real quick. We were a much better team towards the end of last year with Naismith. Hope he is not as injury prone as Tippett! Pattern not good so far.

                      Comment

                      • 707
                        Veterans List
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 6204

                        Video on the AFL website "Sydney's botched trading" which I can't view at present. Assume it's saying Mitchell and Nankervis for Florent and Cameron is flawed?

                        Comment

                        • mattybloods
                          Warming the Bench
                          • Jul 2016
                          • 482

                          Originally posted by 707
                          Video on the AFL website "Sydney's botched trading" which I can't view at present. Assume it's saying Mitchell and Nankervis for Florent and Cameron is flawed?
                          I watched it earlier. Just about how we traded away Nankervis and them not rating any of our current ruckmen. Standard media BS, Nankervis kicks a goal and he's the best Ruckman in the comp all of a sudden

                          Comment

                          • rojo
                            Opti-pessi-misti
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 1100

                            Their premise was that Nankervis is a player with who plays with 'presence' and in their opinion KT, Sinclair, and Reid do not, they added NS to that but I don't think they could remember enough about the game of NS to know whether he can impose himself on a game or not. I think they might have referred to Mummy also being a ruckman with 'presence' that we traded out. They may have a point, but I don't think their discussion warranted the headline.

                            Their comments about Alistair Clarkson taking a leaf out of Collingwood's book of tactics on how to beat the Swans was however irritaitingly very close to the mark. How could we fall to the same tactics twice!!

                            Comment

                            • mattybloods
                              Warming the Bench
                              • Jul 2016
                              • 482

                              Originally posted by rojo
                              Their premise was that Nankervis is a player with who plays with 'presence' and in their opinion KT, Sinclair, and Reid do not, they added NS to that but I don't think they could remember enough about the game of NS to know whether he can impose himself on a game or not. I think they might have referred to Mummy also being a ruckman with 'presence' that we traded out. They may have a point, but I don't think their discussion warranted the headline.

                              Their comments about Alistair Clarkson taking a leaf out of Collingwood's book of tactics on how to beat the Swans was however irritaitingly very close to the mark. How could we fall to the same tactics twice!!
                              We lost by a point to Collingwood and a goal to Hawthorn, one kick would've made the difference in either game and we would be having a different conversation

                              Comment

                              • rojo
                                Opti-pessi-misti
                                • Mar 2009
                                • 1100

                                Their premise was that Nankervis is a player with who plays with 'presence' and in their opinion KT, Sinclair, and Reid do not, they added NS to that but I don't think they could remember enough about the game of NS to know whether he can impose himself on a game or not. I think they might have referred to Mummy also being a ruckman with 'presence' that we traded out. They may have a point, but I don't think their discussion warranted the headline.

                                Their comments about Alistair Clarkson taking a leaf out of Collingwood's book of tactics on how to beat the Swans was however irritaitingly very close to the mark. How could we fall to the same tactics twice!!

                                Comment

                                Working...