Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:48 am**

watt price tully wrote:
Breadcrawl wrote:We'll still get Greenwood.

The main reason Varcoe concerns me is Geelong wants to get rid of him. And not for the first time.

We are on our way to being a very bloody quick side though. There will be some softness out there, but we are going to have pace all over the ground.
Yes, we'll be able to chase our opponents even faster

..and we'll have another chance to win the half time sprint at next year's GF

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:57 am**

According to papers this morning if Beams stays we don't have room in the cap to accommodate Varcoe.

seems a little odd given the retirements of Q, Ball, Maxy and Huddo. We haven't signed that many contract extensions since those announcements were made - and certainly no big contracts, all young players etc.

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:15 am**

GoWoodsmen wrote:According to papers this morning if Beams stays we don't have room in the cap to accommodate Varcoe.

seems a little odd given the retirements of Q, Ball, Maxy and Huddo. We haven't signed that many contract extensions since those announcements were made - and certainly no big contracts, all young players etc.

Yes it appears pendles, cloke and swan are getting a lot!
If we can't get a dud like varcoe in under the cap then something is
truely wrong

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:26 am**

GoWoodsmen wrote:According to papers this morning if Beams stays we don't have room in the cap to accommodate Varcoe.

seems a little odd given the retirements of Q, Ball, Maxy and Huddo. We haven't signed that many contract extensions since those announcements were made - and certainly no big contracts, all young players etc.

So we asked about Dangerfield? WTF!

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:54 am**

GoWoodsmen wrote:According to papers this morning if Beams stays we don't have room in the cap to accommodate Varcoe.

seems a little odd given the retirements of Q, Ball, Maxy and Huddo. We haven't signed that many contract extensions since those announcements were made - and certainly no big contracts, all young players etc.

We rather have Beams then Varcoe

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:11 am**

Not signing Varcoe for salary cap reasons if Beams stays does not mean we are at or over the cap right now. It's more that it would no longer fit our salary plans going forward. Remember that we are also looking to bring in Greenwood.

The idea would be to bring in established players to replace Beams and Lumumba on either less or equivalent dollars so that our plans remain intact. If Beams stays we only have Lumumba to replace. If we sign both Greenwood and Varcoe this increases our TPP and affects our plans into the future.

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:50 pm**

Can' believe we're going for Varcoe. At 26/27 he has literally no upside left. He will be another NQR recruit like Young, Russell, Armstrong except this time we're giving up something good to get him. Would have preferred to keep Harry TBH.

If we're going for NQR recruits, at least go for players young enough to still improve like a Karnezis.

Posted: **Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:59 pm**

Harvey wrote:Can' believe we're going for Varcoe. At 26/27 he has literally no upside left. He will be another NQR recruit like Young, Russell, Armstrong except this time we're giving up something good to get him. Would have preferred to keep Harry TBH.

If we're going for NQR recruits, at least go for players young enough to still improve like a Karnezis.

I agree, but it seems the club is determined to recruit a couple of mature bodies, regardless of how good they actually are. It makes no sense to me, but what would I know?

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 6:50 am**

Varcoe? It seems we have learned nothing from the past 2 years when it comes to trading. Lose very good players & replace them with softies. I have no idea why Bucks would want him.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:48 am**

^I think there is a broad consensus on this call. Smacks of desperation.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:13 am**

It appears that the Cats may need him out to accommodate Clark. Given that they've already thrown a spanner in the works by taking the pick 21 we wanted in the Beams deal, why would we be helping them to snatch Clark from under our nose?

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:27 am**

jackcass wrote:Jesus, all we need is a fringe softcok NQR outside runner from each of Freo and Port and we'll have the full suite...

Sydney - Armstrong (still hope for White)
Hawthorn - Young
Geelong - Varcoe
Port - ??
Freo - ??

Not to mention
Melbourne - S Buckley
Carlton - Russell

One can only assume they are a collectors item, and their collective value doubles once you get the full set. Smart way for the club to recoup costs I'd say

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:26 pm**

Do we really have to recruit this dud, we'd be much better off with the draft pick...? I still can't think of any upsides to recruiting him!!!

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:02 pm**

I can understand those who don't like Varcoe in particular, but the strategy is perfectly logical and exactly in line with comments coming from the club before the trade period. We are, as much as possible, looking to keep our team development plan intact. That means bringing a player 25+ years of age in for Lumumba and one around 25 for Beams, that would be likely to play in our best 22. At the moment the two we are looking at are Greenwood (25) and Varcoe (26). Greenwood for the Beams-like inside work and Varcoe for Lumumba-like line-breaking. Neither are facsimiles of the players they are replacing, but they are of a broadly similar type.

For those who question Varcoe based on age, he is only 26 and we have 2/3 players over 28 in our entire squad. We are at no risk of being too old even for a team that is rebuilding.

So, question his ability if you like, that's completely legitimate. But in terms of age profile and type, his signing makes perfect sense, as does the list management strategy behind it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 12, 2014 6:04 pm**

AN_Inkling wrote:I can understand those who don't like Varcoe in particular, but the strategy is perfectly logical and exactly in line with comments coming from the club before the trade period. We are, as much as possible, looking to keep our team development plan intact. That means bringing a player 25+ years of age in for Lumumba and one around 25 for Beams, that would likely to play in our best 22. At the moment the two we are looking at are Greenwood (25) and Varcoe (26). Greenwood for the Beams-like inside word and Varcoe for the Lumumba-like line-breaking. Neither are facsimiles of the players they are replacing, but they are of a broadly similar type.

For those who question Varcoe based on age, he is only 26 and we have 2/3 players over 28 in our entire squad. We are at no risk of being too old even for a team that is rebuilding.

So, question his ability if you like, that's completely legitimate. But in terms of age profile and type, his signing makes perfect sense, as does the list management strategy behind it.

Yep, I agree. Not convinced his form will warrant a spot in the 22 every week, but he'll play some games and bring a level of professionalism to his training that should have a good effect on all our young guys. We don't have anyone out of the Geelong system, so it'll be good to get a bit of inside info there. And if we draft another young indigenous kid or two, Varcoe will be a good influence on them.

He's gotta come cheaply though. If Geelong really need him out to get Clarke, then really there should be no problem with using Lumumba and pick 30 to bring in both Greenwood and Varcoe. Pick 48 could be used as well, but not the Beams compo. That deal should be kept separate.

Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Welcome to Collingwood Travis Varcoe (Official)