e25 5 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 You're forgetting about promoting McKenzie & Spencer to the senior list. This effectively cancels out the delistings of Miller & Bell. As of right now, we have 1 pick in the draft courtesy of Junior's retirement. If we delist Johnson and bring in Hale then we still only have 1 pick in the draft. I highly doubt we're going to retain Tom McNamara rather than take a 2nd pick in the draft, probably in Round 3 if we trade our Rnd 2 pick for Hale. Summary: OUT Miller Bell McDonald Johnson McNamara IN Pick 1 Pick 2 Hale McKenzie Spencer I was, but partly because I'm not certain Spencer will be elevated. Also I half expect Warnock to be traded for a pick.
Roost It 1,434 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 so we gain Hale for pick 32 - Thats Fair!!! and we lose 5 spots with our first pick! (from 12 to 17) Hale will give both Jamar and our young lean forward line a chop out! was pick 7 in 2001 Draft is stil only 26 and kicks goals i like the deal and we need him whilst we wait until watts, jurrah, fitzpatrick, gawn put on size good deal for us and it is going to happen!!!! your scenario is what north have allegedly requested. We haven't and nor should we agree to these terms. He's not that good. a second round pick is generous enough. But feel free to explain it to me again
titan_uranus 25,268 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 You're forgetting about promoting McKenzie & Spencer to the senior list. This effectively cancels out the delistings of Miller & Bell. As of right now, we have 1 pick in the draft courtesy of Junior's retirement. If we delist Johnson and bring in Hale then we still only have 1 pick in the draft. I highly doubt we're going to retain Tom McNamara rather than take a 2nd pick in the draft, probably in Round 3 if we trade our Rnd 2 pick for Hale. With the new interchange rules Spencer has a snowball's chance in hell of being promoted IMO. Even as a number 1 ruck in the event Jamar goes down I'm not sure I would play him as he would then have to play forward for 25-40% of the game. I do realise, however, that if we get Hale, for example, and get rid of Spencer and PJ (which would have to happen to keep McNamara, which I want), our rucks would be Jamar, Hale and then Martin and Gawn, which is clearly a thin list, but to me I'd prefer McNamara on the list than Spencer.
e25 5 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 With the new interchange rules Spencer has a snowball's chance in hell of being promoted IMO. Even as a number 1 ruck in the event Jamar goes down I'm not sure I would play him as he would then have to play forward for 25-40% of the game. I do realise, however, that if we get Hale, for example, and get rid of Spencer and PJ (which would have to happen to keep McNamara, which I want), our rucks would be Jamar, Hale and then Martin and Gawn, which is clearly a thin list, but to me I'd prefer McNamara on the list than Spencer. If we do get rid of McNamara we'll have zero developing young talls, beyond ruckmen. Granted Gawn may be able to play forward and Fitzy fwd and back, but no specialist tall defenders or forwards plying their trade in the VFL developing for years to come. That worries me.
titan_uranus 25,268 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 If we do get rid of McNamara we'll have zero developing young talls, beyond ruckmen. Granted Gawn may be able to play forward and Fitzy fwd and back, but no specialist tall defenders or forwards plying their trade in the VFL developing for years to come. That worries me. Me too. Furthermore McNamara can play forward or back (or at least has been afforded the opportunity at Casey). He looked OK for an 18/19 year old last year when he got those three games, he is a long kick too. I see massive potential in him.
Inner Demon 1 Posted October 7, 2010 Author Posted October 7, 2010 Me too. Furthermore McNamara can play forward or back (or at least has been afforded the opportunity at Casey). He looked OK for an 18/19 year old last year when he got those three games, he is a long kick too. I see massive potential in him. I'd be reasonably confident that McNamara would be available for us to pick up again in the rookie draft.
H_T 3,049 Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 I was, but partly because I'm not certain Spencer will be elevated. Also I half expect Warnock to be traded for a pick. Possibly Carlton ? Thornton wants out.
e25 5 Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Well Hawthorn and Carlton can't both get Tarrant. Warnock is a viable alternative and there seem to be afew other teams out there in need of a mature tall defender. He has currency.
H_T 3,049 Posted October 7, 2010 Posted October 7, 2010 Well Hawthorn and Carlton can't both get Tarrant. Warnock is a viable alternative and there seem to be a few other teams out there in need of a mature tall defender. He has currency. Agree. Particularly since Tarrant allegedly wants to get to Collingwood.
e25 5 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 In terms of the draft, the Jared Brennan trade throws up an interesting situation at our pick 12 (future trades notwithstanding). The suns currently hold picks 9,10,11, (we have 12) and 13. This could easily see a situation where the Suns leave someone til pick 13 that they think we're unlikely to want and take another player earlier than expected so that we can't swoop. It's all very academic, but we're now in a position where the player we take at pick 12 is heavily influenced by GC17.
Inner Demon 1 Posted October 8, 2010 Author Posted October 8, 2010 With the new interchange rules Spencer has a snowball's chance in hell of being promoted IMO. Well there you have it. A snowball in hell. Spencer promoted and signed for 2 years.
sylvinator 96 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 Well there you have it. A snowball in hell. Spencer promoted and signed for 2 years. The club appears to rate Spenser highly. Cam Schwab in his stream a few weeks ago went on for a couple of minutes how he thinks Spenser is a beauty and, although he was raw, would develop into a very good player
titan_uranus 25,268 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 Honestly don't believe it. But it happened. Doesn't help PJ.
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 Honestly don't believe it. But it happened. Doesn't help PJ. Why not? He's as raw as most ruckman his age. If we had the same attitude with Jamar, who was far less athletic than Spencer at that age, we'd now be looking at a list devoid of any rucks. He is a low investment player and I'm glad we're giving him the right amount of time to develop. I can definitely see the potential the club sees in him.
Nasher 33,686 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 I find it staggering that people can't at least see the potential with Spencer. I guess where some see a dilapidated old dump, I see a renovator's delight.
sylvinator 96 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 I now assume we have finished our trade week exploits... i'm quite happy we're doing nothing, I don't understand why so many teams are swapping and trading for average fringe players (McKinley, Grigg, Houli, Tambling etc), we are going to continue relying on the draft, which is good. Spots available through: - Miller - Bell - McDonald (technically the spot opens up by Bruce being moved to the veterans list) Coming in: - Spenser - McKenzie - pick 12 - pick 32? - pick 49? In order to use our 2nd rounder (pick 32) and 3rd rounder (pick 49), we'll need to delist 2 more players. At the moment the players you would suspect would be in serious trouble would be - PJ... still unsigned, but now that Hale trade didn't go through, does he get a life line? - McNamara... i believe he's contracted, but if we really want to use pick 32, he would have to be a little worried we'll just pay out his contract - Cheney? Another contracted player, he's going to China I think he'll almost definitely stay - Maric & Stefan Martin the two other guys who will have their spots scrutinised - ??? who else could go to open up spots.
e25 5 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 I find it staggering that people can't at least see the potential with Spencer. I guess where some see a dilapidated old dump, I see a renovator's delight. I don't see much skill and coordination in him. That doesn't often just materialize over time... or does it?
Axis of Bob 11,945 Posted October 8, 2010 Posted October 8, 2010 There are countless uncoordinated junior ruckmen who don't look so uncoordinated at 25. Sandilands was only rookie listed when he was 20. Cox's lack of coordination as a kid are legendary. It's amazing how added physical strength as well as just time to adjust to their rapid growth can turn lanky young boys into AFL ruckmen.
titan_uranus 25,268 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 I find it staggering that people can't at least see the potential with Spencer. I guess where some see a dilapidated old dump, I see a renovator's delight. I was more expressing my surprise that it happened, not that I think Spencer is an absolute dud. I too think there's potential in him, but more as a number 1 ruck than anything, and with the new sub rules I wasn't expecting a player like Spencer to be kept on the list, and I thought we'd be extending PJ's contract instead. Now that Spencer's been promoted it can't bode well for PJ.
e25 5 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 So... If Spencer's contract has been extended by 2 years, does that mean he is guaranteed to be upgraded to the senior list, or he is destined to stay on the rookie list, or is it immaterial? I'd imagine the wage for a rookieis significantly less than a player on the senior list. If Spencer is consigned to the rookie list for the foreseeable future, surely this increases the chances of retaining PJ or bringing in another backup ruck..?
45HG 1,559 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 So... If Spencer's contract has been extended by 2 years, does that mean he is guaranteed to be upgraded to the senior list, or he is destined to stay on the rookie list, or is it immaterial? I'd imagine the wage for a rookieis significantly less than a player on the senior list. If Spencer is consigned to the rookie list for the foreseeable future, surely this increases the chances of retaining PJ or bringing in another backup ruck..? Hasn't he spent two years on the Rookie List already? I think he must be promoted.
sylvinator 96 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 Hasn't he spent two years on the Rookie List already? I think he must be promoted. answer found within... http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/103951/default.aspx
45HG 1,559 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 answer found within... http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/103951/default.aspx Cool, thanks.
titan_uranus 25,268 Posted October 9, 2010 Posted October 9, 2010 So with Miller, Bell and McDonald going, and McKenzie and Spencer being elevated, at the moment we can only use our first pick. Looks like at least one of PJ and McNamara are gone, possibly both if we want to use our third round pick or go to the PSD.
Inner Demon 1 Posted October 11, 2010 Author Posted October 11, 2010 Post Trade Week breakdown OUT Miller Bell Cheney McDonald IN McKenzie Spencer Round 1 Pick Round 2 Pick UNCONTRACTED Johnson McNamara Bruce (Bruce would only open up a rookie spot however as he is on the Veteran's List and with Green moving on to take Junior's spot we have no other eligible players to move from Senior List) We now have an extra 3rd round pick as a result of trading Cheney so both Johnson & McNamara being delisted would open up 2 more 3rd round picks.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.