View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001 Location: London, England
|
Post subject: Trading Witts | |
|
Would we be stupid to do this?
It is debatable which of Witts and Grundy should be out #1 Ruck.
But considering that Grundy is doing well and Moore will be coming up, are we in a position to move big Wittsy to his homestate in NSW?
There is talk about the Pies trying to lure Treloar. And there is also talk about Hannebery wanting a return to Vic.
Now sure, these players would require more than a young ruckman to get a deal done, but would it be a good start?
The Swans are probably in more of a need for a ruck than GWS are right now, but does Hannebury really want to come to Vic and would he want to come to Collingwood?
Would the Swans go for Witts and Collingwoods first & third pick? (In return for Hannebery and say their 4th or 5th pick).
(In a sidenote; these are the rucks who are going to be free agents come years end: Luenberger, Bellchambers, Sandilands, Kruezer, Jamar). _________________ A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Would have to get a Mature Age Ruckman 1st.
IF Pies traded Grundy they would Regret it. As I think Grundy can be a Dominate Ruckman/Tall _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Remember what happened to Josh Fraser? That'd be what we do to Grundy by getting rid of Witts.
Keep them both, if they both make it and one is head and shoulders above the other then trade at maximum value if the other doesn't want to sit in the twos. One of the worst things that happened to Fraser was when Steve McKee quit (due to rule changes that made him obsolete) and Fraser was left to ruck pretty much alone until Jolly came in and took his place. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Remember what happened to Josh Fraser? That'd be what we do to Grundy by getting rid of Witts.
Keep them both, if they both make it and one is head and shoulders above the other then trade at maximum value if the other doesn't want to sit in the twos. One of the worst things that happened to Fraser was when Steve McKee quit (due to rule changes that made him obsolete) and Fraser was left to ruck pretty much alone until Jolly came in and took his place. |
That probably exactly what the Club will do and It does mean we over do it with Either Grundy or Witts.
Save there Bodies and don’t wind up like Kurezer or Leuernberger _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Remember what happened to Josh Fraser? That'd be what we do to Grundy by getting rid of Witts. |
Disagree. Grundy is a different cat to Fraser who never really enjoyed the contact part of rucking.
IF Witts could be used to nab a gun (Shiel, Treloar, MCCarthy) then I would definitely do it. It's easy enough to get a mature aged, back-up ruckman, and Cox looks like he could be ready to go by 2017 so if the price is right, I say go for it.
Of course, if a gun is not on the table then I would be very happy to keep Witts because I believe he will be a very good player. _________________ kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
My preference is to keep Witts, I believe he will develop into a dominant ruckman. Him and Grundy are different styles and I don't see why we can't play both in the same team. I'd even be happy to try putting both in the centre bounce a few times like Geelong with Stanley and Blicavs. Imagine the opposition rover looking at Grundy charging forward to take the Witts tap out, talk about your brown pants moment. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | My preference is to keep Witts, I believe he will develop into a dominant ruckman. Him and Grundy are different styles and I don't see why we can't play both in the same team. I'd even be happy to try putting both in the centre bounce a few times like Geelong with Stanley and Blicavs. Imagine the opposition rover looking at Grundy charging forward to take the Witts tap out, talk about your brown pants moment. |
Could do that in the Future but not sure IF Grundy has the Engine at the Moment to do it for long enough _________________ I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
I've gone from being completely against it to not discounting it for the right player.
Shiel, Treloar or McCarthy would be that player. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm completely against it. The Witts/Grundy combination rotating between the ruck and the forward line is going to be a cornerstone of our structure going forward. It takes rucks and KPP five years to develop and Witts isn't even halfway through his fourth year yet. I say keep him and persist with playing him in the seniors. He could be anything and as we've seen when he strings a run of senior games together he usually adjusts to playing at that level.I wouldn't want to trade him for a midfielder. |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
Its stupid what happens when Grundy gets injured?
Does anyone think White is a viable option as first ruck?
Does anyone think Gault is a viable option as first ruck?
Moore is yet to play a senior game and is injured and is being developed as a KPP
How about getting a quality mature ruckman to replace Witts probably would cost our first round pick.
So get rid of Witts lose our first round pick and than we can trade what?
Remember rucks are far rarer than mids _________________ Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
I don't know why the discussion. Dim isn't going anywhere. Big blokes don't grow on trees. |
|
|
|
|
MJ23
Joined: 28 Feb 2011 Location: Sydney
|
Post subject: | |
|
Culprit wrote: | I don't know why the discussion. Dim isn't going anywhere. Big blokes don't grow on trees. |
Hopefully this
Whole discussion is madness............. _________________ "Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Oh I missed the extra t! Thought it might be a congrats to our recruiting staff.
Not happening, good honest tall, with more maturing to do. Crazy talk. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Stinger
Joined: 01 Dec 2003 Location: Canberra
|
Post subject: | |
|
For years I've watched our solo ruck toil against one ruck, and with envy, sometimes against two. How good would it be if we had two top-line rucks, I would think to myself. Well that day is almost upon us.... and you want to trade Witts???? Are you kidding?
I know he looks like value to lure a midfielder to the club but in 2-3 years when we are bashing teams up in the middle, getting first bite of the pill and dominating forward entries, we will reap the benefits of a patient build.
Rucks don't grow on trees. You either develop them or pay overs for one. I'd rather spend that money on a key forward. |
|
|
|
|
mattys123
Joined: 06 Jul 2009 Location: Narre Warren, VIC
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, let's put 10 years of development into a kid then trade him for a 3rd round pick, genius that. |
|
|
|
|
|