15 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Silly statement.

Aside from the fact that we have a number if players we need to build our side around (Turner, Lindsay and Langford) come to mind, a culture of entertaining trades for everyone is a great way to destabilise the club.

We have some players to make trading decisions on, for sure, but that list should only have 3-4 names on it.

Yet the same big name players are destabilising the club on field and through that its costing us in a drop in memberships and lack of on field success.

Im not in the boat of every player should be put up for trade but the following players need to be seriously discussed for trade at the end of the year: Lever, Salem, Fritsch, Oliver, Spargo, Sparrow. All of them haven't played a decent game since 2022-2023.

Now history will say that its a rarity that clubs will just trade out 6 players all in the one go, but we would be absolutely silly if these names aren't seriously brought up as trade discussions for draft or trade capital.

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Hopefully this is just OPTIX management and we've already cleared out Jake's metaphorical locker internally

this is the same bloke that has said to the media several times over the past month he was putting jack fwd and we were putting a lot more players thru the midfield, both of which haven't happen yet. regardless jake needs to pull his finger out his ... and start performing he is only 29 somehow?? but is playing like he is 40. many others are in the same boat. turner and may are well ahead of him same with tmac and he cant even get a game, petty is on the same level as him and he has been stuck fwd all season, the ball is in ur court jake..

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I don’t want add to the vitriol towards Goody, some are too harsh on him!

But the media training and messaging with Goody is way too much and been heard too many times. Learnings, Melbourne man, play the Melbourne way, etc.

It’s tiresome 😴🥱

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yet the same big name players are destabilising the club on field and through that its costing us in a drop in memberships and lack of on field success.

Im not in the boat of every player should be put up for trade but the following players need to be seriously discussed for trade at the end of the year: Lever, Salem, Fritsch, Oliver, Spargo, Sparrow. All of them haven't played a decent game since 2022-2023.

Now history will say that its a rarity that clubs will just trade out 6 players all in the one go, but we would be absolutely silly if these names aren't seriously brought up as trade discussions for draft or trade capital.

I agree with your list but who’s actually going to want them?

No player is more frustrating than Fritta but in my opinion, he’s the only one that may move the needle for another club.

The intercepting defender role that Lever has excelled at has expanded to a role Jake can no longer perform. He’s an awful decision maker with ball in hand and a very slow kick.

Edited Wednesday at 11:054 days by BW511

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Silly statement.

Aside from the fact that we have a number if players we need to build our side around (Turner, Lindsay and Langford) come to mind, a culture of entertaining trades for everyone is a great way to destabilise the club.

We have some players to make trading decisions on, for sure, but that list should only have 3-4 names on it.

I agree and disagree with this. Agree we have some youngsters that are clearly untouchable in trade talks. But I am not too worried about destabilising the club at the moment. Because one way or another with the results we are having it’s coming. As long as the club is honest with the players, which is a big if.

12 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Silly statement.

Aside from the fact that we have a number if players we need to build our side around (Turner, Lindsay and Langford) come to mind, a culture of entertaining trades for everyone is a great way to destabilise the club.

We have some players to make trading decisions on, for sure, but that list should only have 3-4 names on it.

It's not silly and you know it.

This list has a good nucleus for the future as a lot of lists in the comp do, but it has holes, is unbalanced and has backed ourselves into a corner with multiple long term and legacy contracts. The fact is that if we want to be challenging again, we may need to move on someone who has helped bring us success in the past.

The key word here is 'listen' to approaches and have the conversation, not actively shop them around necessarily. 3 - 4 players with the rest untouchable is a bit generous, I'm surprised that some think that most of our players are completely off limits at the trade table. Aside from first and second year players which not trading is a given as well as Max, Koz and possibly Viney, I wouldn’t be rejecting advances out of hand for anyone else. Trade currency is low and if we're going to keep the range narrow then we could miss out on potential strengthening opportunities.

14 hours ago, ANG13 said:

I agree and disagree with this. Agree we have some youngsters that are clearly untouchable in trade talks. But I am not too worried about destabilising the club at the moment. Because one way or another with the results we are having it’s coming. As long as the club is honest with the players, which is a big if.

2x mature players must move on this year, If what i know is correct the 2026 draft is the start of when players can nominate Tassie for the draft.

The AFL are enticing players to nominate Tassie in the 2026 draft and recieve a cash bonus signing on fee.

Some of those kids and their families will take the cash bait where the pool becomes diluted for the rest of the comp.

It becomes to compromised from next year onwards, so things need to move this year.

I'm not aware of prospects in this years pool but if it is supposedly strong maybe we consider trading our 2026 1st rounder into this years draft also.

1 hour ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

2x mature players must move on this year, If what i know is correct the 2026 draft is the start of when players can nominate Tassie for the draft.

The AFL are enticing players to nominate Tassie in the 2026 draft and recieve a cash bonus signing on fee.

Some of those kids and their families will take the cash bait where the pool becomes diluted for the rest of the comp.

It becomes to compromised from next year onwards, so things need to move this year.

I'm not aware of prospects in this years pool but if it is supposedly strong maybe we consider trading our 2026 1st rounder into this years draft also.

Depth not great this year. Not many clubs fighting to get into the first round , GC's pick from Port (currently p8) is up for grabs (due to the number of Academy prospects they have), but we won't see the same frenzy as in previous years. Too much of the talent up top is already tied to clubs.

Not saying there isn't an opportunity to get a good player, but this crop is in the race for 'most compromised draft' status. For reference, if Harvey Langford was eligible this year, he'd be well out in front as favourite for pick 1.

Edited Thursday at 03:353 days by ChaserJ

Ok well then they won't be trading anyone out then if that is the case.

I still think we need to take some calculated risks though.

If the picks coming in are high enough.

19 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Im not in the boat of every player should be put up for trade but the following players need to be seriously discussed for trade at the end of the year: Lever, Salem, Fritsch, Oliver, Spargo, Sparrow. All of them haven't played a decent game since 2022-2023.

Spargo's a free agent so I suspect he'll make that decision for us, but I don't think it was a huge coincidence that our best run of form this year involved him in the side. It's hard to quantify the value of a player who constantly gets to the right spots with and without the ball except you notice the absence when he's not there.

Sparrow's a role player, no one will want him and he's worth more to us than forcing him out. Frustrating but hardly a surprise he never made it as a midfielder.

The other 4 I agree with. Except we missed our window on Salem, can't imagine there's any interest there. Lever probably gets us a useable pick, I'd happily trade him but probably stays for leadership if we trade others.

Fritsch is another we missed a window on. To me it was clear as day last year to cash out whilst he had probably had good value. Early 2nd last year might be a 3rd this year. Glad to take whatever we can get there.

Get what we can for Oliver. I don't mind them not accepting Geelong's rubbish offer last year but I doubt its improved. Hopefully we get a useful pick and ditch the bulk of the contract.

The one you've missed is Tracc who has to go if we can get a proper return. Doesn't run, doesn't tackle, butchers the footy. If it's time for a rebuild then call it.

If reports are true than Jakey boy is delusional

His knees are shot

7 hours ago, layzie said:

It's not silly and you know it.

This list has a good nucleus for the future as a lot of lists in the comp do, but it has holes, is unbalanced and has backed ourselves into a corner with multiple long term and legacy contracts. The fact is that if we want to be challenging again, we may need to move on someone who has helped bring us success in the past.

The key word here is 'listen' to approaches and have the conversation, not actively shop them around necessarily. 3 - 4 players with the rest untouchable is a bit generous, I'm surprised that some think that most of our players are completely off limits at the trade table. Aside from first and second year players which not trading is a given as well as Max, Koz and possibly Viney, I wouldn’t be rejecting advances out of hand for anyone else. Trade currency is low and if we're going to keep the range narrow then we could miss out on potential strengthening opportunities.

To be clear, what I called out as “silly” was your post in which you said you’d entertain trade calls for anyone on our list other than Gawn and Pickett.

Which clearly you yourself agree is silly given in this post you accept that our first and second year players, and maybe Viney, are not to be traded.

When I said 3-4 players, I didn’t mean the rest were “untouchable”. I meant 3-4 players with potential value, who might be capable of being traded out to make our list better.

IMO that list is Fritsch, Salem, Sparrow and, sadly, Oliver. Petty’s borderline.

An example of someone I can’t accept putting on that list is McVee, who’s getting attention in his own thread. He’s precisely the sort of player we need on our list. Trading him for a draft pick doesn’t make us better.

And others have disagreed with my “destabilising” comment around being open to calls on everyone. I stand by that. We will never become a “destination club”, or even an attractive one, if we’re prepared to listen to offers on our entire list. How would Trent Rivers, or Kade Chandler, or Jake Bowey feel upon finding out the club was prepared to consider trading them, instead of backing them in as our future and telling rivals to get stuffed)?

Our list needs change, but after we delist and move on from the majority of the (scarily large) group of players who don’t appear to be part of the future (Fullarton, Billings, Laurie, Brown, Woewodin, Henderson, Culley, Hore and IMO Spargo), a handful of names up for trade is all we need to achieve significant list turnover in one off-season.

1 hour ago, SthSea22 said:

If reports are true than Jakey boy is delusional

His knees are shot

goes to show how little attention you pay

knees are fine; ankles less so

21 hours ago, adonski said:

Hopefully this is just OPTIX management and we've already cleared out Jake's metaphorical locker internally

I watched the full interview and I've noticed in the last 3 media interviews/pressers, Goody has mentioned "building towards our next premiership team/list". It seems like a change of narrative where he's preaching patience while acknowledging supporter frustration. Reminds me a bit like Clarkson...

Man there is some dribble in this thread.

Jake Lever is the kind of leader our club needs and lacks. Blind Freddy can see that he has been carrying an injury all season as even he seems frustrated with his lack of speed.

Turner is a success story this season but he is no where near Lever at his best. Let's get serious here without Lever and May 2021 would likely not have happened.

Likewise Fritta has so much upside why trade him now out of form?

How about instead we let Windsor play wing and Rivers play midfield and move Viney into attack? Gees ain't rocket science.

Edited Thursday at 13:233 days by Norm Smith's Curse

Wouldn’t have anyone off the table this trade period outside Gawn, Pickett and the rookies in Windsor, Langford and Xavier. I’d be considering any serious offers on the rest, if for example gc offered us pick 8 for lever we would be silly not to take it

Edited Thursday at 13:333 days by Garbo

15 minutes ago, Norm Smith's Curse said:

Man there is some dribble in this thread.

Jake Lever is the kind of leader our club needs and lacks. Blind Freddy can see that he has been carrying an injury all season as even he seems frustrated with his lack of speed.

Turner is a success story this season but he is no where near Lever at his best. Let's get serious here without Lever and May 2021 would likely not have happened.

Likewise Fritta has so much upside why trade him now out of form?

How about instead we let Windsor play wing and Rivers play midfield and move Viney into attack? Gees ain't rocket science.

2021 is 5 years ago start of next year, we are in a different phase now, lever is also not the player he was then and hasn’t been for serval years, same with fritsch. We can’t continue to hang onto players who were the hero’s of yesteryear it’s time we moved on or we are just going to end up like wc in a few years and be in a long term rebuild with no end in sight, time to take some pain now and maybe we can go again like pies the last few years. They moved all Australian players in Grundy trelour and Adam’s and have only been the better for it

If any of the Lever reports were true do we really think other clubs would seriously be interested? Setting aside his form, his physical condition alone would most clubs say no thanks.

From a trade bait perspective i personally think it’s Petracca and Fritsch who have currency

Refresh my memory. Who were two of our best players apart from Max, May and Kossie against the two best sides for the year.

15 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Refresh my memory. Who were two of our best players apart from Max, May and Kossie against the two best sides for the year.

Dunno, was so long ago I need my memory refreshed as well.

16 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Refresh my memory. Who were two of our best players apart from Max, May and Kossie against the two best sides for the year.

Well, I can guarantee you that Lever wasn't one of the two given he was injured (yet again) for one of those games and had 9 touches in the other.

18 hours ago, Norm Smith's Curse said:

Man there is some dribble in this thread.

Jake Lever is the kind of leader our club needs and lacks. Blind Freddy can see that he has been carrying an injury all season as even he seems frustrated with his lack of speed.

Turner is a success story this season but he is no where near Lever at his best. Let's get serious here without Lever and May 2021 would likely not have happened.

Likewise Fritta has so much upside why trade him now out of form?

How about instead we let Windsor play wing and Rivers play midfield and move Viney into attack? Gees ain't rocket science.

Essentially what you say is pretty fair. But the times are moving, players aging .. profound I know.

A danger , possibly, is hanging on to history's coat tails too long.

I wouldn't necessarily be shopping anyone overtly but I would be paying close attention to opportunity as it appears. The circus coming to town, aka trade week can be anything and everything once (if) it gets rolling.

I worry about Jake's ankles.

Edited Friday at 07:282 days by beelzebub