Just got delisted from Swans. 195cm defender/forward. Wants to move to Melbourne - only 23 years old. Could be that defender we are looking for?

Collingwood are crying out for a backman.  I expect him to end up in the prison bars uniform in 2017.

Definitely worth a look.

He played as a forward primarily for the swans didn't he? I'd happily recruit him as a delisted free agent - would be cheap and who knows:)

8 minutes ago, Wunders said:

He played as a forward primarily for the swans didn't he? I'd happily recruit him as a delisted free agent - would be cheap and who knows:)

Yep, played mostly forward, but at 195cm, he could provide some decent depth to our KPD stocks. Get his retired brother to teach him a thing or 2 about it.

58 minutes ago, wattsindawes said:

Just got delisted from Swans. 195cm defender/forward. Wants to move to Melbourne - only 23 years old. Could be that defender we are looking for?

Didn't think we were looking for a defender?

To replace who?

i would've thought we have enough defenders, with Hibberd now in the team and Garland not able to get a game

Seems not all is rosy at the Swans.

maybe they should jettison some more young talent and pick off the big names from other clubs to keep the dream alive?

Frauds.

Wanted more cash than Sydney thought he was worth, management obviously had him in higher stock that the club. Could provide depth, but if he's chasing a bigger contract probably best we steer clear as he is unproven really 

don't we have to take 3 picks to the draft, who are we going to delist to bring him in as a DFA.

Interesting case, he requested a trade when he had a new offer on the table from Swans due to struggling on a low $ contract. No one wanted him. 

He goes back tail between the legs but they have moved on. Must be massive shock for him. Could be a really motivated player worth little $$ and looking to prove a point but as the Viscount noted who gets the chop? 

Others noted in trade threads they didn't rate him, didn't see enough of him to form an opinion and he isn't the only one to struggle on a grand final day.

15 minutes ago, Viscount Cardwell said:

don't we have to take 3 picks to the draft, who are we going to delist to bring him in as a DFA.

My first choice would be Garland, but he is still contracted for a few years. Whoever gave him the contract really slipped up on that one. One of very few mistakes under this administration.

25 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

My first choice would be Garland, but he is still contracted for a few years. Whoever gave him the contract really slipped up on that one. One of very few mistakes under this administration.

So you would delist a defender with 100+ games experience and pay out his contract and maybe with a decent pre season under his belt get back to where he was to get the extension,   to recruit a guy who has managed 12 games in 3 yrs? And one who threw a sulk

Older brother Ted was average at Essendon until he was traded to Sydney at about this age.

He came good as a tall rebounding defender under the Roos regime in Sydney.

I know we are reasonably well stocked for tall defenders (fingers crossed OMac keeps improving) but he wouldn't be that far off best 22 at the Dee's and if family history proves anything, will probably get better with age. And he can go forward as he proved in Sydney.

I'd take him late in the ND, but not at any inflated contract price.

If no one takes him, then I'd be happy to pick him up with our 2nd Pick in the Rookie Draft.

Like the cut of his jib. Yes please.

15 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you would delist a defender with 100+ games experience and pay out his contract and maybe with a decent pre season under his belt get back to where he was to get the extension,   to recruit a guy who has managed 12 games in 3 yrs? And one who threw a sulk

If you actually read my post correctly, i stated that Garland would be my first choice to go, but for the fact that he remains contracted for another 2 years.

If he was only contracted for another year and he wasn't on much coin (he shouldn't be), then i would cut him.

Garland is a very average footballer. He might have a high football thinking IQ, but on the field he is slow, reluctant to take the game on and not overly smart (ironic).

 

A decent pre-season? How many do you want to give him? As for his 100+ games.............they very much flatter him. Like you said, Richards has played bugger all games, but he is still somewhat of an unknown. Garland is a known quality (that quality is not very good).

Garland doesn't improve our side, Richards might. That's all i need to know.

 

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you actually read my post correctly, i stated that Garland would be my first choice to go, but for the fact that he remains contracted for another 2 years.

If he was only contracted for another year and he wasn't on much coin (he shouldn't be), then i would cut him.

Garland is a very average footballer. He might have a high football thinking IQ, but on the field he is slow, reluctant to take the game on and not overly smart (ironic).

 

A decent pre-season? How many do you want to give him? As for his 100+ games.............they very much flatter him. Like you said, Richards has played bugger all games, but he is still somewhat of an unknown. Garland is a known quality (that quality is not very good).

Garland doesn't improve our side, Richards might. That's all i need to know.

 

I'm actually hoping for Garlands sake that they give him a new role as a genuine utility who spends time back, forward, on the wing etc with tne view to see if he can force his way into the seniors in that role.

He's got 2 years to run, so no point seeing him rot in a back pocket at Casey all that time. Give him a new role and see if he can make it work.

If they do that with Col, combined with Dunn's departure, there's a few key defensive posts on our list that need filling as back up to the McDonald brothers and Frost. I suspect we'll rookie draft one from the U18's and target a matute age rokie with the other. Possibly Xavier, Mitch Brown, Silvagni etc.

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you actually read my post correctly, i stated that Garland would be my first choice to go, but for the fact that he remains contracted for another 2 years.

If he was only contracted for another year and he wasn't on much coin (he shouldn't be), then i would cut him.

Garland is a very average footballer. He might have a high football thinking IQ, but on the field he is slow, reluctant to take the game on and not overly smart (ironic).

 

A decent pre-season? How many do you want to give him? As for his 100+ games.............they very much flatter him. Like you said, Richards has played bugger all games, but he is still somewhat of an unknown. Garland is a known quality (that quality is not very good).

Garland doesn't improve our side, Richards might. That's all i need to know.

 

Now there's your first mistake. Was never going to happen. 

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you would delist a defender with 100+ games experience and pay out his contract and maybe with a decent pre season under his belt get back to where he was to get the extension,   to recruit a guy who has managed 12 games in 3 yrs? And one who threw a sulk

Garland was ordinary when he signed the extension. He didn't really get any worse, he's just no good. I hope he improves this year with a good preseason but it seems very unlikely.

Xavier Richards might not be any good either but he's young enough that he might change. And yeah, he wasn't happy with the Swans pay offer so he threw the toys from the cot, that doesn't bother me. No club would trade for him and there doesn't seem to be a huge line up to sign him now. I think he'd find the whole experience rather humbling and want to prove himself at a new home.

Anyway, I'm not convinced we'd want him and we'd have to get him as a rookie or pull a shock delisting, both of which seem unlikely. 

12 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

So you would delist a defender with 100+ games experience and pay out his contract and maybe with a decent pre season under his belt get back to where he was to get the extension,   to recruit a guy who has managed 12 games in 3 yrs? And one who threw a sulk

i wonder where Garland sits, because clearly Oscar and Tom are ahead in the pecking order and Frost seems to bring some things to the table that Garland doesn't. 

i wouldn't be bringing in RIchards but Garland has surprised me, i thought he'd be a very reliable 3rd defender for us last year and he barely got a look in

35 minutes ago, Abe said:

i wonder where Garland sits, because clearly Oscar and Tom are ahead in the pecking order and Frost seems to bring some things to the table that Garland doesn't. 

i wouldn't be bringing in RIchards but Garland has surprised me, i thought he'd be a very reliable 3rd defender for us last year and he barely got a look in

He seems to be insurance right now. I don't think that was the reason he was signed for 3 years, rather that the kids came on a lot quicker than expected

13 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

If you actually read my post correctly, i stated that Garland would be my first choice to go, but for the fact that he remains contracted for another 2 years.

If he was only contracted for another year and he wasn't on much coin (he shouldn't be), then i would cut him.

Garland is a very average footballer. He might have a high football thinking IQ, but on the field he is slow, reluctant to take the game on and not overly smart (ironic).

 

A decent pre-season? How many do you want to give him? As for his 100+ games.............they very much flatter him. Like you said, Richards has played bugger all games, but he is still somewhat of an unknown. Garland is a known quality (that quality is not very good).

Garland doesn't improve our side, Richards might. That's all i need to know.

 

All the above is your opinion, I don't agree with it, being your opinion doesn't necessarily mean your assessment of Garland is the correct one, same as mine, but to suggest we pay out a contract to bring in a virtual unknown playing wise seems to be an adventurous suggestion

27 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

All the above is your opinion, I don't agree with it, being your opinion doesn't necessarily mean your assessment of Garland is the correct one, same as mine, but to suggest we pay out a contract to bring in a virtual unknown playing wise seems to be an adventurous suggestion

Lol. 

I think his assessment of Garland's history and therefore opinion of Garland is much closer to reality in comparison to yours.

See, you have no foresight in regards to list management. And it's largely because of your inability to objectively look at the trajectory of form coupled with the age and games experience of a player who you have emotional ties to and so your view becomes incredibly clouded. Or plainly biased. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Lol. 

I think his assessment of Garland's history and therefore opinion of Garland is much closer to reality in comparison to yours.

See, you have no foresight in regards to list management. And it's largely because of your inability to objectively look at the trajectory of form coupled with the age and games experience of a player who you have emotional ties to and so your view becomes incredibly clouded. Or plainly biased. 

 

 

 

 

And you are the expert right? So what position and what club are you on the list management team, would like to run an eye, non critical of course, over some of your list decisions

I could then bow down to your superior knowledge,  maybe not

As this is a forum and the thread is about looking at recruiting Xavier Richards, there will be differing opinions on his worth, mine is in the negative especially if it requires a payout of a contract

You will have to.live with that, or not read or reply to my posts, this course of action may suit us both

17 hours ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

Wanted more cash than Sydney thought he was worth, management obviously had him in higher stock that the club. Could provide depth, but if he's chasing a bigger contract probably best we steer clear as he is unproven really 

I don't know about steering clear. He played 12 games with the Grand Finalists this year so he's got the potential. 

He could however be another Garland..