plugger66 wrote:
If we lose 2 how do you come up with 15? Im confused. And i also said 100 games means jack really. Its the age of players that is important. We will still have one or two to many but there is no way we should get rid of lenny unless he wants to go. Milney will probably go IMO which makes 3 older guys and I think Schneider may retire if he cant get back next year. So Con who should go aprt from those mentioned? Obviously Kosi and Blake are a given. And Con you can only have so many picks. And also there is no rule that says older players have to play ones. Blake and Kosi are proof of that.
I forgot Blakey! OK so currently we have 15 (equal 2nd number of eps with the Cats) - the Swans and the Hawks have 14.
remember my numbers are taken NOW (mid-season)
2014
2 retirements we go down to 13 (15-2) BUT macca gears and armo will become eps in 2014. So in 12 months from now - we will have 16 eps if we only have the 2 retirements.
So in the extreme case of 3 retirements + 2 traded eps - we still end up with 13 eps in 12 months from now (Melbourne have 9 eps now)
So all im saying is the following:
If people want to keep all our eps in 2014 (bar 2) and think having 15-16 eps and still being 3rd bottom is ok (because we are loyal and are still loving/rewarding all these guys for 2009/10) - Then that is totally cool and just come out and say it openly.
But please dont BS me and use the 'look at Melbourne' defence for wanting to keep them all. It is clearly a myth and simply cant happen.
I have shown clearly and comprehensively that it is nigh on impossible for us to drop to Melbourne's level of 9 eps.
Ill say it again clearly - There is no chance we will 'do a Melbourne' via trading 2 eps.