I wonder if this trading period..

[Cam]

...everyone quits the lowballing bullshit and actually tries to make trades that work for both clubs. What Sydney did to us with Davis was a dog act, what we tried to do to Port was similar. Sure we keep Didak, why couldn't we have parted with something that both of us wanted, but with a long term view in mind.

If you get too greedy, you miss out altogether. I think we need 4 new players (not rookies or draft picks). Who goes i'm not fazed - as long as we are thinking about winning and not just ripping off someone else.

[Johnson#26]

Don't count on it. If we want a Port player (Dew), they are going to make it very tough. And we aren't surrendering Dids for him!

[Nath]

I agree Cam, whats the point of losing somehing great for nothing just in order to make a point. Take the something and see what you can mold with that something.

[Cam]

We shouldn't have played so hard with Port. Should have given them Presti. But then again, at the time I said stuff them Stevens is a cream puff. Which he is. Its the principle of stagnation that concerns me most.

[Cannibal]

Cam, you can't have it both ways. If Stevens is a "cream puff" (with which definition I wholeheartedly agree), then it didn't make sense to trade for him at all. Surely, you only want to trade when the trade is beneficial? He's a cream puff, so I wouldn't even trade the lawn mower for him. We made him look like a hack in last year's PF and collecting a stack of possessions in a weak side this year is no true measure of his worth. Forget him.

That Presti has some trade value is obvious but when I suggested that in the drafting analysis a few weeks ago, it didn't get a good reception!

The reason I put up that drafting analysis was to attempt to put some logic into how we should approach the trading/drafting period. So far, all that seems to have happened is that posters have suggested a great number of players but not whether we really need them (other than the old chesnut, "pace"). And that, even if we got them, it's not an approach that has delivered consistent success, whereas drafting kids has.

Now, the reality (to me, anyway) is that the biggest problem we had all season was an inability to kick goals, not in midfield getting the ball.

Truth is, we haven't adequately replaced Nick Davis since he went to Sydney. The guy we should have recruited last year was Nathan Brown. I would be happy to see us trade for a gun small forward but who is there? Browny kicked 50 goals for Footscray last year and, as far as I am concerned, we should give away a player/top pick only for someone who has shown (shown, not has the potential - Dids and Leon already have the potential) that he can kick 50 goals in that role. No-one playing as a small forward had that type of season but a couple came close (Milne kicked 42 goals, Medhurst kicked 41) and Stuart Dew only kicked 26 to Leon's 23/Did's 21, so where's the merit in chasing Dew, as some posters have suggested?

I suggested elsewhere that putting our experienced players into this role would be a better option. That is, Bucks, Burns and Woey. All three of them could conceivably kick 30 goals in this role next season.

In addition, it pisses me off to the nth degree that our so-called gun forwards (Taz and Pebbles) are so un-productive compared to the measuring sticks. 36 and 27 goals, respectively, is small forward output, not FF/CHF. What we also need is someone who can kick 65-85 goals in the goalsquare. We usually have a good laugh at Richo's hissy fits, but FFS, the guy kicked 65 goals this season! It would make more sense to trade Taz to Richmond for Richo, unless MM puts a flea in his ear about what's expected of him next year.

MM said recently on the club's website, in a couple of articles, that Guy Richards, Tom Davidson, Julian Rowe, Cam Cloke and Nick Maxwell will get plenty of games next year as they had shown they have what it takes to step up, the other five guys given their debuts this year would get another chance to show they, too, can step up, plus that Brent Hall, Billy Morrison and Brayden & Heath Shaw would get a chance to show their stuff.

I would be more than happy to take up two spots on our list after the delisting stage by promoting Rowe and Maxwell to the senior list and having only three picks in the Draft. We have taken Travis Cloke with the third round pick, have pick 7 and a second rounder. If we package the second round pick with a player(s), we might be able to get another high first round pick, which would interest me much more than trading for some second rater from another club.

[Nath]

In order to get quality you have to part with quality. Not emerging quality, but quality at its prime. Didak and Stevens, the debate is done to death, but like Akermanis, Didak will come good, he will be a star and he'll hurt opposition in a manner that Stevens rarely does, on the scoreboard.

As for Presti to Port, personally I would have taken it, and would have done so without any hesitation.

With regard to Nathan Brown, its a bullshit arguement. Brown is a 'cream puff' as well. An outside player who defines a hard ball get as the point in time where he puts his head down to run away from the oncoming pack. Nick Davis is no different, he's a talent in front of goal, but he is either on song or not even near it and on top of that, he's a sook.

If we had half a clue we would have 'targeted' Dean Solomon last year when he was looking at moving from Essendon. What we need is bulk, combined with pace and someone who is the epitomy of a hard nut that gets the job done. Solomon was that bloke, its a boat they missed. I don't think that Mick will make the same mistakes in 2005.

[scud]

Just a quick point Cannible, Rowe was drafted last year so doesn't need to be elevated from the rookie list.
Three players i would look at are Gillbee from the bulldogs, Notting and Dew. What to give up for them is a differnt question although i would argue Presti is tradeable given we will have Wakelin, J Cloke and Clement all capable of plaing down back along with some young players like Maxwell and Walker. However in most cases You trade for show and draft for dough as the old golf saying goes.

[Presti_is_god]

Presti wasnt tradeable last year. The hole left at CHB/FB would have been enormous. When we come up against teams with tall forward lines we are stretched as is because Presti and Wakes are our only quality tal defenders. Clokey isnt good eough and Clemo is too small.

[Cannibal]

I stand corrected on placing Rowe amongst our rookies. (Gees, twice now!)

You trade for show and draft for dough as the old golf saying goes.

I like it!

[Johnson#26]

We shouldn't have played so hard with Port. Should have given them Presti. But then again, at the time I said stuff them Stevens is a cream puff. Which he is. Its the principle of stagnation that concerns me most.

I agree that Stevens is soft but we need a 'creampuff' in our midfield. We have more then enough tough in and under players whow in the ball (Licca, Burnsy, Goughy, O'B, Dutchy etc) but apart from the aging Buckley, we don't have enough. Scotland was one, but surprise surprise, we got rid of him! It hurst now, and thats why weneed a 'softy' this season. Woey can do it, but he has gone back to his early Demon days where he was a tagger. We are in despirite need of a fast and skilled player. Didak and Davis CAN do it. But will they do it consistantly? We will have to wait on that one. Thats why we must chase Brent Harvey and Damian Adkins. A bit of pace and skill would be nice.

[3rd degree]

Nath, I totally agree on solomon he would have been a key asset. Should given it everything, Hard nut, goal kicker, premiership player. What else do u want? Imagine him smashing into akermanis at a stoppage or his former captain!

[Johnson#26]

Nath, I totally agree on solomon he would have been a key asset. Should given it everything, Hard nut, goal kicker, premiership player. What else do u want? Imagine him smashing into akermanis at a stoppage or his former captain!

Soloman would be good, but we already have a similar player (Cole).