We've apparently spoken to Townsend and a West Coast reject either Kapeny or Partington.

Menzel, Hartung, Oxley, Sheriden, Murdoch and Neade are also options thoughts?

I’d rather punt on some kids and maybe find a gem later in the draft.

We got both Macs at 53!

Is Partington related to the Phil Partington who played with our reserves in the 80s?

Townsend worth a shot, we now have no depth so filling them with ready to go players in case of injury is what I'd prefer, even if that means taking Menzel with pick 100.

I think we will take one, given our draft position and available list spots.

Townsend would be an upgrade on Bugg in terms of depth, but I think he will go somewhere he will be guaranteed best 22.

3 hours ago, D4Life said:

I’d rather punt on some kids and maybe find a gem later in the draft.

We got both Macs at 53!

Don’t we have 6 or 7 spots to fill?? Our 3rd or 4th pick will be in the 50s. We won’t be filling our list without one or even two delisted agents I don’t think

Townsend is just another Tom Bugg.. will spend most of his days at Casey.

If anything we need a mature age ruckman to just have on our list or another depth midfielder. 

Other then that i dont see the need for other clubs rejected spuds. Go to the draft and back Taylor to get us another Bayley Fritsch or Charlie Spargo.

22 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Don’t we have 6 or 7 spots to fill?? Our 3rd or 4th pick will be in the 50s. We won’t be filling our list without one or even two delisted agents I don’t think

Agreed, I think we probably take 2-3. In saying that, I'd wager that Taylor has his eye on a few mature age players in the draft, similar vein to Fritsch, Vanders, Hannan. 

Wouldn’t be against Townsend just to have another big physical guy at training and at Casey to drive the standards. Plus I’d roll him out for the Anzac Eve game.

Partington was delisted early for a high pick, not sure he’s much of a player but I can see the appeal of a mid/half forward type. I think he has decent pace/fitness. Skill level and size the concerns

Karpany probably appeals more because of our lack of crumber but he’s been in the system for a long time with little results.

Edited October 25, 20186 yr by DeeSpencer

I'd like to see us pick up Townsend and Sheridan as depth players for the midfield.

Then take picks 23, 28, 54 & 62 in the draft.

Could look something like:

23 - Bailey Williams

28 - Ely Smith

54 - Toby Bedford

62 - no idea  

I'd certainly be sniffing around Neade. Has a good goal sense and if he gets it right, will fit into Goodwin's system.

Thoughts on Jordan Murdoch from Geelong or Alex Morgan from North as outside runners?

Mitch Honeychurch? Played 13 AFL games in 2018.

On 10/26/2018 at 6:15 AM, Thehardtackler said:

Mitch Honeychurch? Played 13 AFL games in 2018.

He actually has played some pretty good footy. Definitely AFL standard. Dominated VFL but just    needed a better run.  Would be upgrade on prior midfield depth. Better than Jkh or Maynard. 

On 10/25/2018 at 3:36 PM, Ozymandias Greenblerg said:

Thoughts on Jordan Murdoch from Geelong or Alex Morgan from North as outside runners?

Spuds

55 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

He actually has played some pretty good footy. Definitely AFL standard. Dominated VFL but just    needed a better run.  Would be upgrade on prior midfield depth. Better than Jkh or Maynard. 

Don't agree 'norm'...he's not up to the level no where near AFL standard. Gets knocked off the ball too easily, not quick enough or enough tricks for his size.

I think JKH finally started to come good toward the end of season 2018 and showed enough to be kept on as depth.

As for Maynard, he still has some growth left in football terms and gives coverage as an inside, hard at it player. A position Honeychurch can't cover.

He would add nothing to our list...

My Dogs fan mate who has a good eye for talent says Honeychurch is not up to it.  Lamented every time he  was selected.  Him and Roarke.

Rohan traded to Geelong and now Sydney looking at Menzel.  Hmmm.

5 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Rohan traded to Geelong and now Sydney looking at Menzel.  Hmmm.

Yes.  It was very odd that Sydney traded him for just pick 61...

Some post-trade/DFA player movements are interesting...

• Hawks delist the contracted, Will Langford ('for list management reasons').  He is then a DFA, he announces his retirement, then a week later the Hawks announce they will rookie him as a DFA so he doesn't go into a draft. Hawks to rookie Langford
• Brisbane coax the contracted Jarryd Lyons to join them (after the trade period closes) and GCS conveniently acquiesce and delist him and he becomes a DFA.  Brisbane get a contracted player for zip, Gold Coast get nothing in return...?? Lyons to Brisbane
• Mumford seems to qualify as a DFA, altho delisted last year, and can go to club of his choice ie bypass the draft Mumford to GWS

From a far, these look premeditated to happen post the trade period closing as no attempt was made to trade Langford or Lyons and neither requested a trade.  And, there seems to be a new rule for Mumford:  I think the rule is that if a player retires he needs to wait a certain number of years and come back thru the draft, but not entirely sure how that works.  

The DFA status gives clubs a convenient way to 'manage' their list  'by-pass' draft/trade rules.  The whole area of what is a DFA is becoming very murky!

Edited November 1, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

The players hold too much power. Only free agents should be able to nominate a club of choice. Contracted players should be forced to play their contract or be traded somewhere else of the clubs choosing. Free agency changed the landscape for the worse, and now the balance is just spiralling further out of control. You've now got clubs delisting contracted players and other clubs picking them up for free post-trade period. Lyons should only have moved in a trade scenario. Not only is the trade period too long as it is, now you've got players moving outside of it anyway. It's rubbish.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes.  It was very odd that Sydney traded him for just pick 61...

Some post-trade/DFA player movements are interesting...

• Hawks delist the contracted, Will Langford ('for list management reasons').  He is then a DFA, he announces his retirement, then a week later the Hawks announce they will rookie him as a DFA so he doesn't go into a draft. Hawks to rookie Langford
• Brisbane coax the contracted Jarryd Lyons to join them (after the trade period closes) and GCS conveniently acquiesce and delist him and he becomes a DFA.  Brisbane get a contracted player for zip, Gold Coast get nothing in return...?? Lyons to Brisbane
• Mumford seems to qualify as a DFA, altho delisted last year, and can go to club of his choice ie bypass the draft Mumford to GWS

From a far, these look premeditated to happen post the trade period closing as no attempt was made to trade Langford or Lyons and neither requested a trade.  And, there seems to be a new rule for Mumford:  I think the rule is that if a player retires he needs to wait a certain number of years and come back thru the draft, but not entirely sure how that works.  

The DFA status gives clubs a convenient way to 'manage' their list  'by-pass' draft/trade rules.  The whole area of what is a DFA is becoming very murky!

I wasn't aware of the Langford one, that's just plain wrong, they can't do that. If he's delisted he must go to another club via free agency, or the draft. There are quite a few players this year going through the same processes - and following the rules.

The Mumford one is similar. Needs to go through the draft. His situation is particularly odd. I'll throw this out there without any accusations, but a move like that has a lot of '3 strikes' about it. Remember the old mysterious injuries from a few years back.

The Lyon one, whilst dodgy, I'd say is within the rules at this stage. Need to be watching for future pick trading between the 2 clubs to make sure any trades are 'even'. If there are trades done that are unbalanced towards the GCS, we all know what it's for.

4 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I wasn't aware of the Langford one, that's just plain wrong, they can't do that. If he's delisted he must go to another club via free agency, or the draft. There are quite a few players this year going through the same processes - and following the rules.

The Mumford one is similar. Needs to go through the draft. His situation is particularly odd. I'll throw this out there without any accusations, but a move like that has a lot of '3 strikes' about it. Remember the old mysterious injuries from a few years back.

The Lyon one, whilst dodgy, I'd say is within the rules at this stage. Need to be watching for future pick trading between the 2 clubs to make sure any trades are 'even'. If there are trades done that are unbalanced towards the GCS, we all know what it's for.

Didn't we do the same with Jetta some years back?

25 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I wasn't aware of the Langford one, that's just plain wrong, they can't do that. If he's delisted he must go to another club via free agency, or the draft. There are quite a few players this year going through the same processes - and following the rules.

The Mumford one is similar. Needs to go through the draft. His situation is particularly odd. I'll throw this out there without any accusations, but a move like that has a lot of '3 strikes' about it. Remember the old mysterious injuries from a few years back.

The Lyon one, whilst dodgy, I'd say is within the rules at this stage. Need to be watching for future pick trading between the 2 clubs to make sure any trades are 'even'. If there are trades done that are unbalanced towards the GCS, we all know what it's for.

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! 

To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this:  "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback.  One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat".  Lyons to Brisbane

I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! 

As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by Lucifer's Hero

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! 

To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this:  "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback.  One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat".  Lyons to Brisbane

I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! 

As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

There are murmurings that there might be an exchange of picks on the horizon, but I think it's more likely just what's happened is the end of it and there's nothing more to come.

I thought the whole thing sounded bizarre to start with as I thought he was one of their better players, so I was expecting to hear outrage from the (few) GCS fans, or their administration, or whatever, but it seems they are happy enough to let him go. More to it than meets the eye I think.

49 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, 'weird' manoeuverings! 

To add to the Lyons intrigue, I just saw this:  "He was in exclusive company this year with Brownlow medallist Tom Mitchell, Patrick Cripps and new teammate Lachie Neale as the only players to average at least 24 disposals, 13 contested possessions and seven clearances...and part of why some industry figures AFL.com.au spoke to were so taken aback.  One called Gold Coast's decision "mind blowing", while another said "I'd have him in a heartbeat".  Lyons to Brisbane

I can see why GCS no longer believed in him but to let a contracted and seemingly good player go, without testing his trade value, for zero return is mind-boggling, to say the least! 

As you say - watch this space to see what future trades bring.

I actually don’t think it’s that weird.  If you read between the lines there’s clearly a number of reasons why he was delisted by the Suns.

1. It seems clear he has no defensive aspect to his game - or an unwillingness to follow the game plan at any rate (you would think that as a senior player this might not go down well with the FD - think Lynden Dunn)

2. Despite getting a lot of the ball he butchers it.

3. We know the Suns were having a salary squeeze and the article alludes to the fact he was on good coin.  He would have been happy to be delisted I suspect to pick up a three year contract now rather than the uncertainty of what sort of contract he could get after running around in the NEAFL for twelve months.

4.  It’s highly likely their crosstown rivals knew this - so why trade for him if you don’t have to.

 

The Suns win because they free up salary cap space at the same time as moving on a senior player who chooses to run his own race rather than follow team rules.

Edited November 2, 20186 yr by grazman