I was being more realistic with Bate and Valenti!

More hoping they might be silly enough with Miller and Valenti.

What would you throw up for a Pick 8 if Sydney would trade?

Honestly, i don't think we have anything that i'd be willing to part ways with that they would give their first pick up for. Paul Roos' love for recycling players is well documented, but given where they are with their list and losing a lot of ageing stars, i just can't see them being willing to give away such an early pick.

The timing might not be right, but i have a feeling the Swans will be looking to rebuild thru youth. Perhaps not a full scale rebuild as we've done, but they will want to get some highly rated youth into the club.

I just can't see us getting another pick in the top 10, at least not from Sydney, unless we're willing to part with something substantial, like a Colin Garland, Sylvia (neither of which i'd want to trade).

I think they might be willing to trade their second pick, around mid-20's, and for that, i'd offer up someone like Jones perhaps? But even then, i'm not sure that would benefit either side really. Maybe Miller + our 3rd rounder for their 2nd round pick?

Bate and Miller and exchange of 3rd round Picks for Bulldogs Pick 14 or thereabouts? Is that realistic?

That would push us back another round in the draft, so I don't like that.

Bate and Miller might get you 14 but probably not.

MFC: Pick 14, Pick 46, Pick 66 (because we are trading two players for a pick so we go further into the draft) for Miller, Bate and 34.

WB: Miller, Bate, Pick 34 for Pick 14 and Pick 46.

Wouldn't happen because Miller is not good enough, and Bate isn't the power forward that the Bullies need.

Getting closer though.

the players other teams would like from our list. in no order

watts

davey

jurrah

sylvia

grimes

aussie

green

maybe rivers at a pinch if someone lacked a tall defender.

i wouldnt trade frawley, although he might be in the same boat as rivers - someone might want him if they wanted a young full back.

IMHO all those players are OFF the trade list. big time.

Add Garland to that list, and take Rivers off.

Garland is extremely highly rated, even if he has missed all of 2009. Would command at least a top 20 pick IMO.

good call doggo

That would push us back another round in the draft, so I don't like that.

Bate and Miller might get you 14 but probably not.

MFC: Pick 14, Pick 46, Pick 66 (because we are trading two players for a pick so we go further into the draft) for Miller, Bate and 34.

WB: Miller, Bate, Pick 34 for Pick 14 and Pick 46.

Wouldn't happen because Miller is not good enough, and Bate isn't the power forward that the Bullies need.

Getting closer though.

Bate and Maric for Bulldogs Pick 14 or Bate and Maric for Essendons Pick 9 + 3rd round exchange?

Newton and 4th round pick for Geelong's 3rd round pick.

Bell and 3rd round pick acquired from Geelong for Adelaide's 3rd round pick

Johnson and 3rd round pick acquired from Adelaide for Richmond's 3rd round pick

Buckley and our 3rd round pick & 3rd round pick acquired from Richmond for North Melbourne's 2nd round pick.

All these players would serve a purpose at those respective clubs.

Very long and drawn out but would leave us with 4 picks probably in the top 20 and would clear up roster space for the National draft, PSD and allow Valenti & Spencer to be promoted. This is of course assuming McKenzie is kept on the rookie list one more year and McDonald, Whelan, Robertson & Wheatley all retire.

Newton and 4th round pick for Geelong's 3rd round pick.

Bell and 3rd round pick acquired from Geelong for Adelaide's 3rd round pick

Johnson and 3rd round pick acquired from Adelaide for Richmond's 3rd round pick

Buckley and our 3rd round pick & 3rd round pick acquired from Richmond for North Melbourne's 2nd round pick.

All these players would serve a purpose at those respective clubs.

Elaborate....

Newton would not fit into the Geelong side. They've got mooney and Hawkins who aren't cutting it, they don't need another dud up there.

Richmond have Graham, Pattison, Vickery, Simmonds, on their list already. They dont need another ruckman.

Buckley is worth more than that. So, Buckley+p34+p37 for p20? Nah.

So, in your proposal:

In: Picks 20

Out: Newton, Bell, Johnson, Buckley, Picks 34 and 50

That is ridiculously inbalanced.

Edited August 11, 200915 yr by Stop: Jurrahtime

Bate for Hale?

Bate and Maric for Collingwoods Pick 15?

Miller for Marty Clark?

Elaborate....

Newton would not fit into the Geelong side. They've got mooney and Hawkins who aren't cutting it, they don't need another dud up there.

Richmond have Graham, Pattison, Vickery, Simmonds, on their list already. They dont need another ruckman.

Buckley is worth more than that. So, Buckley+p34+p37 for p20? Nah.

So, in your proposal:

In: Picks 20

Out: Newton, Bell, Johnson, Buckley, Picks 34 and 50

That is ridiculously inbalanced.

Inbalanced yes, but the main thing it does do is improve the positioning in the draft, as you said though it would be very elaborate.

Johnson probably would be the biggest far fetch I guess as you pointed out Richmond do have a few ruckmen, mabe Hawthorn would be a better suit seeing as Taylor is such a dumb ruckman?

As for Newton to Geelong with Mooney over 30 and Geelong toying around with Hawkins as a 2nd ruckman they may be looking for another forward. Who knows, maybe Newton would be a lot better with the ball being delivered to him by Geelong midfield??

Bate and Maric for Collingwoods Pick 15?

Miller for Marty Clark?

If we could get Marty Clark for Miller that would be great but doubt it.

Don't want to let go of Maric though, he'll be a gun! Looking forward to the forward line of Watts, Jurrah, Wonna, Maric, Sylvia & Bate.

Car boot sale for footballers a thing of the past?

Can ANY of this lot play?

This is just one - I'll find more on other forums.

http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/forum/view...=10&t=13805

Article

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ontentID=159663

I think newton is contracted for one more year so trade him to the dogs for nothing. The dogs would just have to pick up his contract. Its a long shot but would free up a spot on our list a we would get rid of that dud a year earlier.

I think both Watts and Jurrah are too versatile to be considered classical key forwards. Both will be more effective switching between the forwardline and the middle where they will create matchup havoc with their athleticism, skill and decision making. So we still need more of a 'stay at home' key forward like a Jarryd Roughead to provide a focal point for mine...

Who's to say we need a classical key forward? The game is constantly evolving, our versitile forwardline of Jurrah, Watts and Bate, may just be the next evolution of forwardline.

Maybe Miller + our 3rd rounder for their 2nd round pick?

I've been thinking this myself. We will get an upgraded pick by about 7-8. Sydney will get Miller.

I've been thinking this myself. We will get an upgraded pick by about 7-8. Sydney will get Miller.

As long as Pia stays...

Miller for Marty Clark?

Nah, i'm not a fan of Marty's. I'd prefer to keep the rugged Miller than get that Squib.

I'm yet to make up my mind on Buckley and if he's delisted I won't lose any sleep. Having said that look at it another way. Buckley runs hard and fast, takes possession of the pill, looks up and has absolutely nothing to kick or handball too, so he kicks long. His fault or the fault of a team that over the last 2 years has had no structure for this kind of fast movement. Just a thought.

Personally, if he's upto a full preseason I think they should retain him for 1 more year.

Well, he's barely played this season. I don't even remember him playing, but someone on here said he played Round 1. Anywho, last year, we were an absolute wreck. We had no one to kick too, we seemingly lacked direction. I think you've got to give him at least one more year. If he'd turned the ball over all season in '09 I would be questioning his spot on the list, but as things stand, he hasn't had enough chance to prove himself, IMO.

7 pages not enough to convince the mods about reinstating the draft/trade room? Hate to harp on...

Would it be an idea to look at a Naitanui/Warnock-like trade for this year?

Last year people talked about trading pick one for pick 3 and Warnock, saying that WC and Freo would both take Naita and Rich, Leaving us with Watts who we'd have taken anyway and Warnock as an up and coming ruckman. No clearly there are problems with this, They might have gone with Watts anyway etc etc... but in theory maybe it's worth looking at?

Trade pick 2 to WC for their pick 6 and McKinley... Something like that. Or maybe if they can get their hands on a pick in the early teens, make it that one and #6 for our #2 and #18/#34. That way they get their Western Australian before Freo look at them.

The same can be looked at for Port and Adelaide for Trengove. Trading pick #2 (Trengove) for, somehow, two picks in the first round?

I am assuming that MFC hold picks 1,2,18,34,50 and 66 (PSD#1)

This years draft is headed by Scully then either Trengrove or Morabito. In the absence of U17s, this draft apparently drops away a little after the first six picks and further trends downward in quality.

A couple of points:

1. I dont know why we are so keen to trade required players into a skinny draft.

2. I am not sure why any Club would trade a higher level pick to get a lower level pick plus a dud from MFC (ie Bell, PJ or Newton).

3. I dont know why MFC or any other Club would be overly keen to trade or deal in picks down in the third and fourth rounds.

4. I cant see why another Club will trade picks to get a fronge player like Miller that is coming out of contract. They will get him in the PSD.

5. I dont see the need to trade to free up a spot for Valenti on our list. He will be cut from the Rookie List at year end.

6. We wont trade pick 2!

Also, any chance trade deals put forward could provide even a small amount of benefit for the other Club? Some of the deals put forward are so lopsided that a Club would have to nuts to even entertain such folly.

The only deal providing any basis of consideration is Rivers for Hale. MFC have an abundance of defenders and North have possibly one ruck too many on its list. I am saying we should do it but its the only proposal thus far that actually puts up a reasonably balanced deal considering the strengths and weaknesses of the respective clubs.

The others trades put forward are nerarly pure fantasy.

I dont think MFC has much that is surplus and has market value at this point to trade

7 pages not enough to convince the mods about reinstating the draft/trade room? Hate to harp on...

Would it be an idea to look at a Naitanui/Warnock-like trade for this year?

Last year people talked about trading pick one for pick 3 and Warnock, saying that WC and Freo would both take Naita and Rich, Leaving us with Watts who we'd have taken anyway and Warnock as an up and coming ruckman. No clearly there are problems with this, They might have gone with Watts anyway etc etc... but in theory maybe it's worth looking at?

Trade pick 2 to WC for their pick 6 and McKinley... Something like that. Or maybe if they can get their hands on a pick in the early teens, make it that one and #6 for our #2 and #18/#34. That way they get their Western Australian before Freo look at them.

The same can be looked at for Port and Adelaide for Trengove. Trading pick #2 (Trengove) for, somehow, two picks in the first round?

"7 pages not enough to convince the mods about reinstating the draft/trade room? Hate to harp on"...

It's a bit different this week as things changed last week with Freo.I hope it will be even better situation after this round.

I am suprised people rate Hale.

His one-off 8 goal haul seems to get a lot of mentions. The latter half of 2008 he was good, that is it though. The latter half of Michael Newton's 2007 was good too.

I remember nearly choking on my breakfast last year or earlier this year when I first read Hale had been signed up for another 3 years.

He is extremely hot and cold, for every week he kicks a couple he'll have a dot game. And he has never had much of an impact as a ruckman.

He is 25. Half a good season in 8 years in the system?

I would consider trading Rivers for somebody who has the potential to be there at our next premiership tilt and make an impact. Hale does not fit that category for me.

I am not convinced we have an excess of defenders just yet either. Garland & Martin could still develop into different roles yet.

Edited August 11, 200915 yr by torpedo

Is there any footage of jack trengove on the net. Cant find a thing!

Is there any footage of jack trengove on the net. Cant find a thing!

There's not much at all.

The best is probably that Adelaide news clip on youtube with Josh Francou talking for the 2st half, and thats pretty average.

What's really surprising to me is that there seems to be even less of Tom Scully! (from 2009, not 2008)

Lucas is just class all over.

I'd be happy with him, but I just think Trengove edges him and Morabito destroys him on potential.

But Lucas will be a very good player one day, no doubt in my mind.