The suns stand to lose more than just those two, several key playes considering their options

It's hard to work out what happened on Saturday. Was it Ablett? Was it the Suns being resilient after an awful week? Was it North Melbourne not bothering to turn up, or just being found out?

I suspect we'll have a clearer idea in a few weeks.

  On 06/07/2015 at 14:24, Sir Paul Roos said:

The suns stand to lose more than just those two, several key playes considering their options

THis is why we must win as many games as possible for the rest of the season and make the club an attractive destination

It pisses me off when supporters say ladder position doesn't matter cos we are rebuilding.. thats such [censored].. it matters more to the MFC than anyone considering the last 8 years of hell

Edited July 6, 20159 yr by hogans_heroes

http://www.wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9005192

According to this article three Vic clubs are chasing Treloar and we're not one of them.

  On 06/07/2015 at 22:50, Ethan Tremblay said:

http://www.wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9005192

According to this article three Vic clubs are chasing Treloar and we're not one of them.

We don't have to chase everyone...

I'm sure we have some irons in fires.

  On 06/07/2015 at 23:25, rjay said:

We don't have to chase everyone...

I'm sure we have some irons in fires.

I understand this. Posters have previously asked about Treloar that's all.

To be honest I've never seen him play a game or taken much notice. The type of money being quoted makes me think Roo's and Co. wouldn't be interested.

Edited July 6, 20159 yr by Ethan Tremblay

  On 06/07/2015 at 14:24, Sir Paul Roos said:

The suns stand to lose more than just those two, several key playes considering their options

Homer: Prestia?

Marge: No we can't afford Prestia...

Homer: Prestia?

Marge: We are on a budget.

Homer: Prestia?

Marge: Umm, yeah, sure. Prestia...

It sounds like we were offering a comparable (to Tigers & North offer to Treloar) package to Hannebury, but put an offer on Hannebury’s table well after others had.

Wouldn’t be surprised if the same happened here. We’ve seen with the Boyd deal last year, things can move quickly in the modern age of player movement.

  On 06/07/2015 at 23:29, Ethan Tremblay said:

I understand this. Posters have previously asked about Treloar that's all.

To be honest I've never seen him play a game or taken much notice. The type of money being quoted makes me think Roo's and Co. wouldn't be interested.

You would do well to treat every rumour in here as just that - rumour. There are too many in here who post stuff as if they truly know what's going on behind closed doors. They don't. The sooner you take it with a grain of salt the better off you'll be.

  On 06/07/2015 at 09:25, Wiseblood said:

It just reminds me of the NBA. Smaller market teams offering huge deals to lure players who don't end up working out, and then they are stuck with a contract that no one else wants to take on. And when they do find a suitor they are given well below market value for the player.

I'm not against long term deals for marquee players, but a club has to also be realistic. You don't want to be lumped with too many of those types of deals otherwise it can leave much of your list short on talent in too many areas.

Hogans is contracted until 2017, he turns 22 that year. By the end of next year all going well with regards to injury we need to offering him a long term deal. Pav is just about cooked. More than happy for everyone else to receive 3 year deals. By then we should be a club that stands for something and retains its players.

  On 06/07/2015 at 01:46, DemonAndrew said:

whether or not he's in play might be irrelevant, as we're at 100% of the cap, don't have anyone notable on big money going (possible exception being jamar), and have a couple of reasonably significant players - garland, howe - out of contract.

also, i can't see treloar leaving gws, and if he does, i can't seem him heading for the dees.

  On 06/07/2015 at 01:48, hogans_heroes said:

That cant be true, unless its a strange season where a lot of players staggered contracts are getting the bulk of their money in 2015

We will have a lot of room in the cap next season for sure

700k Dawes

450k Grimes

350k Garland

300k Howe

200k Toumpas

If we are maxed out this year lets hope that's because management are/were smart enough to manage it that way so we have space to make a play for a established player/s. Weren't we offering Hanners a massive deal?

Would anyone really be against any of the above named players being moved on if it ended up like a Vince/Sylvia situation.

garland has already been speculated to be worth $500k+ on the open market.

tall third defenders are hard to find.

  On 07/07/2015 at 01:51, DemonAndrew said:

garland has already been speculated to be worth $500k+ on the open market.

tall third defenders are hard to find.

The wages I posted are speculative but if Garland and Howe can demand 5-600k they're welcome to it. Play Tmac, Frost and Dunn as our 3 key backs. Jetta, Salem and H/Cross.

Ultimately, I'd take Bennell, Dixon and Prestia, but I suspect we won't have enough currency to get that done. So maybe just Dixon and Prestia. :D Imagine Hogan and Dixon. Wow. I'd offer him Dawes-like money and a five year deal.

Garland and Howe need to go if we're going to continue to make inroads as a club. Take the picks and continue to trade well.

Consistent, dynamic, hungry and skilled players across the list. All of whom need to play at the same level of intensity every game.

  On 06/07/2015 at 22:50, Ethan Tremblay said:

http://www.wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9005192

According to this article three Vic clubs are chasing Treloar and we're not one of them.

So, the article says no, so that's it? I would have no doubt at all that our guys are at least asking the question behind the scenes. There are always some surprises at the

trade table.

  On 07/07/2015 at 01:57, AdamFarr said:

Ultimately, I'd take Bennell, Dixon and Prestia, but I suspect we won't have enough currency to get that done. So maybe just Dixon and Prestia. :D Imagine Hogan and Dixon. Wow. I'd offer him Dawes-like money and a five year deal.

Can / will Dixon do even just a bit of ruck work if needed? Can he hold a mark?

  On 06/07/2015 at 12:01, DemonAndrew said:

Caro is saying Bennell is on the move - would love him, I reckon with Roos, Goodwin, McCarthy and Jetta to take him under his wing like he has with Garlett GET HIM TO THE DEMONS!!

Interesting - one can only wonder what could have been had Roos, Goodwin, McCarthy and Jetta been at the club when Wona and Jurrah were there, starring, but having "serious domestic off field issues"?

Of course one will never know, but.......

Edited July 7, 20159 yr by monoccular

  monoccular said:

Can / will Dixon do even just a bit of ruck work if needed? Can he hold a mark?

Yes and yes.

  On 07/07/2015 at 02:00, stevethemanjordan said:

Garland and Howe need to go if we're going to continue to make inroads as a club. Take the picks and continue to trade well.

Consistent, dynamic, hungry and skilled players across the list. All of whom need to play at the same level of intensity every game.

This it it, not all picks have to be used on kids, we can on trade them for established talent.

  On 06/07/2015 at 09:12, Wiseblood said:

And which club will be the first to offer a long term deal like this and see it backfire when the player is underwhelming or goes down with regular injuries?

I hope we don't do the same, although FA puts plenty of pressure on clubs to lock up players for long periods of time. It's a risky business.

I continually say it but I already think WBD have absolutely shafted themselves with the Boyd deal.

  On 07/07/2015 at 01:11, Al said:

700k Dawes

450k Grimes

350k Garland

300k Howe

200k Toumpas

If we are maxed out this year lets hope that's because management are/were smart enough to manage it that way so we have space to make a play for a established player/s. Weren't we offering Hanners a massive deal?

Would anyone really be against any of the above named players being moved on if it ended up like a Vince/Sylvia situation.

Based on the above figures, I would prefer to retain Garland and Toumpas. I quite like Demon Andrew's proposal to trade Howe and our first two picks for Bennell and Dixon.

Dawes is not on $700k, please show me where they got that figure from if you are going to throw it out there.

He is rumoured to be on around $500k.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dawes-now-a-2-million-demon-20121016-27pmn.html

Edited July 7, 20159 yr by rpfc

  On 07/07/2015 at 02:14, Django said:

I continually say it but I already think WBD have absolutely shafted themselves with the Boyd deal.

Time will tell on that one, but it's a HUGE risk. Their desperation for a key forward meant they had to grossly overpay and they will be hoping like crazy he comes on and turns in to the dominant forward they expect him to. If not... well... that's a lot of money tied to an average player.

  On 07/07/2015 at 03:00, Wiseblood said:

Time will tell on that one, but it's a HUGE risk. Their desperation for a key forward meant they had to grossly overpay and they will be hoping like crazy he comes on and turns in to the dominant forward they expect him to. If not... well... that's a lot of money tied to an average player.

If the Fitz played on him every week, he would be cooked. Lucky for him he isn't.

  On 07/07/2015 at 03:16, monoccular said:

If the Fitz played on him every week, he would be cooked. Lucky for him he isn't.

That game shows just how far he has to go as a player. That's no disrespect to Fitzy, but if you plonk down that sort of money on a bloke you would expect him to do far better than that on a bloke who only just started playing in defence this year.

Plenty of water to go under the bridge but you would hope, for the clubs sake, it works out. I would be comfortable giving good money to Hogan as he has shown he can play very, very well at AFL level. Boyd has yet to do that.