| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | We're way ahead on the Beams deal, why would we want to do that in reverse? Grabbing a free agent should be #1 priority if there's money to splash around. |
More on this side of the fence than the other. This kind of trade rarely works out for the team giving up depth. However, Treloar would potentially be a top 3 player for us and add needed class to our midfield. If we have a player or players who are good but may never be part of our core due to the makeup of our list (Witts is the obvious one, or maybe Greenwood  ), then you'd definitely consider a deal. It would probably take our first rounder, second rounder and Witts, though if we finish too high on the ladder you can forget about it.
The other question would be whether we need another mid: Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Adams, Greenwood, De Goey, Crisp, Freeman, Broomhead, Kennedy. Not all proven of course, but a decent mix for the medium term. Right now I'd say we could do with one more top mid and Treloar would be a great get. But, if we're giving up a tall it might be better to receive one in return, a young tall forward could be the perfect fit.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
 |
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This whole thread is a big big bucket of salt..... so much water to yet go under the bridge.
In all honesty and taking off my Collingwood supporter hat, and putting on my honest trade table hat.
We would have to give up Sidebottom and first round pick i would say. IF GWS were going to look at us seriously.... The honest question we have to ask is how much do we want him? .....and are we willing to pay big to get him...because lets be honest, we will have to pay big to get him.
_________________
"To know nothing of events before your birth, is to forever remain a child" - Cicero (Roman Lawyer/Senator) 46 BCE. |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| derkd wrote: | This whole thread is a big big bucket of salt..... so much water to yet go under the bridge.
In all honesty and taking off my Collingwood supporter hat, and putting on my honest trade table hat.
We would have to give up Sidebottom and first round pick i would say. IF GWS were going to look at us seriously.... The honest question we have to ask is how much do we want him? .....and are we willing to pay big to get him...because lets be honest, we will have to pay big to get him. |
If a player requests a trade to us we won't have to sell the farm to get him, our first round pick and Witts should get the job done (assuming it's GWS).
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| We are just having a little chat |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | We are just having a little chat |
Pouring oil on troubled waters. Good on ya, Hal.  |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Glad to hear it. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | If we are in a position to get Treloar and I think that is a big IF then you have to offer up what GWS want and I would suggest Witts isn't what they are after in the broader scheme of things. This could be a case of giving away this years draft pick/s and our next draft pick/s.
I seriously think people need to realised that offering up brass and wanting gold in return isn't going to happen. You have to give something up to get Treloar.
I believe he will stay with GWS and this is his Managers way of milking more dollars from the AFL Cash Cow in GWS. |
What Rucks do GWS have behind Mumford. Lobb is the only 1 I can think of and I have heard nothing about him.
Witts be a Okay Successor to Mumford
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I love Treloar but if we lose Witts and Grundy goes down, who do we have?
Presumably we then go and get a cheap back up?
No way we give up Sidebottom and first rounder. GWS wins that trade. Sidey is a top 3 B&F finisher, our best runner and one of few with good foot skills. No way we offer that.
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: | I love Treloar but if we lose Witts and Grundy goes down, who do we have?
Presumably we then go and get a cheap back up?
No way we give up Sidebottom and first rounder. GWS wins that trade. Sidey is a top 3 B&F finisher, our best runner and one of few with good foot skills. No way we offer that. |
We would Trade or Draft a Mature-Age Ruckman IF we trade Witts
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: | I love Treloar but if we lose Witts and Grundy goes down, who do we have?
Presumably we then go and get a cheap back up?
No way we give up Sidebottom and first rounder. GWS wins that trade. Sidey is a top 3 B&F finisher, our best runner and one of few with good foot skills. No way we offer that. |
It's OK - I'm reasonably confident that the Club isn't stupid enough to trade our second-best player for a guy who is about half as good as he is. |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| We don't need to sell the farm to get a good midfielder. These days we just have to wait for one to become a free agent and we can grab them for nothing. Speaking of players out of contract I notice Motlop, Hawkins and Guthrie are out of contract this year. Geelong are going to have their hands full trying to get Dangerfield and keep the other three happy as well. So I'd rather see us go after Dangerfield rather than give up players and draft picks for Treloar. Guthrie might even be worth looking at too if the Cats have to make some room for Dangerfield. At 22 he's the right age to slot in with our emerging talent. |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Geelong would have to see the writing on the wall as far as this cycle is concerned. Their window is shut for the time being.
So assuming they want another tilt while Selwood is still there then they have to bottom out now. They are currently in line for pick 7 and could add another 4 top 10's in 2016/7 if they trade well. Give it another 2 years after that and they could be running for top 4 again with Selwood and Hawkins at about 30 yo, Cockatoo and Murdoch looking good, as well as the 5 top tenners they've picked up over 2015-7.
Reckon Dangerfield would get in the way of those plans and stop them from bottoming out properly. Same deal with Carlton. No FA worth their salt would want to go to North or St Vomit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Hawks make a major play, with Mitchell and Hodge in their twilights |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Geelong side that spanked us a few weeks back were only 42 days on average older than us.
They have have been rebuilding on the run for a time now and if they get Dangerfield who has 5+ years left of good footy it would be unwise to think that wouldn't push them further ahead of us in the race for another flag.
Given the players we've lost in recent years like Beams, Shaw and Thomas we should have the salary cap room to make a massive play for him and we really do need another elite grade mid with the talent of Dangerfield.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
toovmeister
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| cannot believe people seriously suggesting we trade witts. The grundy/witts combination will be a cornerstone of the the pies next push into the top 4, they are both top liners in the making. and yes they can play in the same side |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | The Geelong side that spanked us a few weeks back were only 42 days on average older than us.
They have have been rebuilding on the run for a time now and if they get Dangerfield who has 5+ years left of good footy it would be unwise to think that wouldn't push them further ahead of us in the race for another flag.
Given the players we've lost in recent years like Beams, Shaw and Thomas we should have the salary cap room to make a massive play for him and we really do need another elite grade mid with the talent of Dangerfield. |
As well as Keefe and Josh Thomas coming off the list. There should be plenty of space in the cap. Bucks had said in the past that we have the room but it's a matter of waiting for the right time ( ie topping up for a tilt at the flag) before you pull the trigger on a big money FA. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
