Walsh Gone

[savatage]

Not sure if its already been mentioned but im sure watters said this morning walsh was "absolutely" off the trade table. I know walsh was only a rookie but I would really appreciate stkilda making an effort to explain why this has occured given our new coach said he was "absoultely" not going to be traded.

He WAS NOT on the trade table, we didn't float him...

We did float Gram, Dawson, Ray etc....

HOWEVER - Sydney offered him a shitload of cash, we couldn't come to the party...it was get pick 35 or get NOTHING. If the player leaves for the draft then we get nothing. I'd rather pick 35.

I hope the step from VFL to AFL is a huge one & Walsh is a massive failure...harsh but who gives a fk - I'm a Saints supporter.

Fine, I would hope we didnt float him. But in all honesty I would think the statement that he is "absolutely off the trade table" is a fair suggestion to imply that he was not going to be traded. And if the statement was ment to be as cryptic as your saying, implying we are not trying to trade him, then I am still disappointed and would like an explanation. Im a saints supporter as well and as a saints supporter I was excited about the future of one of our saints players so as a saints supporter I am slightly disappointed. Just because you barack for a team doesnt mean you have to agree with everything they do and in this instance I am feeling like we have made a mistake. Tommy might not make it but we dont know, and I wanted to find out.

Yeah look I feel you misread my post a lot. Questions will be answered...however the bottom line & main relevant point...pick 35 or nothing??

[hayes66]

Some of you people really give me the sh1ts...

Here is a guy who has played our game for less than three years who played a handful of resonable games with a bottom 4 VFL side who lost twice as many games as they won.

You people act as though he were the messiah...

Well let me tell you... HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH...

yeah but this is why people are upset, he didnt play an afl game when it can be argued he deserved to and now his gone. He may not have been the messiah but we didnt give him a chance to find out. He may have been a star we dont know the real value of him as a trade. Invested in his ability to get him, he has not disappointed, but we didnt invest in him when he was at the club. Why was he originally targeted if we didnt believe in his ability? People argue his done nothing but for those who have seen him play he has certainly shown a bit and nobody could argue that he hasnt been improving. Never played the game before yet in my opnion he certainly looked comfortable in the preseason comp and was definitely capable at vfl level. Never gave him the chance to see if he was upto AFL and this is wrong in my opinion.

[SydneySainter]

It frustrates me to no end how clubs develop players and Sydney snatch them right when they're right to go.

They did it to the Cats with Mumford and now us with Walsh.

Two crap picks in a crap draft and they get a future gun forward.

The club will have a lot to answer for when he's kicking bags for the Swans.

[markp]

I would have gone too if I was TW. Sydney have proved they can make an Irish guy succeed. That tadghghggh kenellllly guy would have got on the phone and talked up potatoes stew Guiness in Sydney. If TW doesn't want to be a saint then see ya later. FFS we put development into all players not just the Irish ones. Club is bigger than one player who hasn't done anything yet.

Me too... and Coogee is crawling with Irish. The temptation for him to be living on the beach up there on very decent coin must've been overwhelming.... I'm sure his gf approves too.

[Thinline]

No biggie. Not good enough to get a chance let alone a regular game and he doesn't want to stay. He's cost us f*** all for two years and now we have what we need: a pick and some relief financially...

The guy is feted for nought. I don't get the stress.

[plugger66]

Cant possibly see how Lynch and Walsh leaving is RL; fault. Makes no sense at all. Somwe people say if Walsh got a game or two near the end he would have stayed. Lynch got games and didnt stay. Others who claim some sort of inside knowledge posted as soon as RL left the 2 happiest people were Walsh and Lynch. Again that looks like it makes no sense. Anyway pick 38 for a rookie is a great result. Makes up for the Lynch pick going backwards.

We paid Walsh overthe odds as a rookie and our lack of SC room came back to bite us on the bum. We lost a no game player.

[hayes66]

I blame John Peake!

Our first round picks from the two years under his watch are now torched in the space of a week.

Although 2009's pick 16 was already burnt, Walsh was the justification for gambling with it.

Saints must be looking for draft picks after missing other deals - delistings to come.

Dont want to be falling victim to sarcasm here, like so many do, but you are not serious are you? He isnt here anymore and he didnt trade these players away. It wouldnt have been his decision to trade for Lovett and as a recruiter im sure he wouldve preferred a pick and im sure he would have preferred to keep walsh and is probably shattered his gone.

Not completely serious ... Peake's time just happens to coincide with two of our worst recruiting years in the last decade. That those two drafts were immediately followed by premiership challenges helmed by a conservative coach adds to a rotten combination.

Pelchen will no doubt carry the credit (or the can) for this week's outcome. Let's see what the draft brings.

Still cant agree with you, 2006 was worse than any year. Armitage at pick 9, brad howard 27, jarryd allen 59, mathew ferguson 74 and thats it. and in 2004 our first 3 picks got us mcqualter, ackland and mcgough. Peakes first year in 07 got us McEvoy and your avatar image jack steven the other years we still have to wait on in time. Definitely not the worst years weve had in the last decade.

[supersaints]

I am sick of Sydney parasites they are. Go grow your own players you buttholes

[Thinline]

Cant possibly see how Lynch and Walsh leaving is RL; fault. Makes no sense at all. Somwe people say if Walsh got a game or two near the end he would have stayed. Lynch got games and didnt stay. Others who claim some sort of inside knowledge posted as soon as RL left the 2 happiest people were Walsh and Lynch. Again that looks like it makes no sense. Anyway pick 38 for a rookie is a great result. Makes up for the Lynch pick going backwards.

We paid Walsh overthe odds as a rookie and our lack of SC room came back to bite us on the bum. We lost a no game player.

Exactly Plugger.

The Swans lost Schneider and Dempster for the same reason - they are premiership players.

We lose a big clumsy bloke who hasn't even debuted.

[micthomas1]

As someone posted earlier "Richmond will be spewing they only got pick 79 for Morton" who is 24 and has played 50+ games of ALF and kicked 88 goals. Yes it is a shame we did not get to see Tommy play a senior game for the saints, but pick 35 and 68 for a rookie is not bad compensation for someone who is untried at the elite level.

[bigcarl]

Of course it's Lyin's fault.

Walsh has gone back to Ireland with his tail between his legs wondering if it is all worth it and is he ever going even to crack a game.

Then Sydney comes in offering big money ... and even more importantly ... a regular senior game!!!!!

We should have rolled the dice on him late in the season as many said repeatedly at the time.

[Thinline]

I am sick of Sydney parasites they are. Go grow your own players you buttholes

Dawson, Peake, Schneider, Demspter, Gram, Ray, Polo, Gardiner, Gamble ...Ummmmm...

[plugger66]

Of course it's Lyin's fault.

Walsh has gone back to Ireland with his tail between his legs wondering if it is all worth it and is he ever going even to crack a game.

Then Sydney comes in offering big money ... and even more importantly ... a regular senior game!!!!!

We should have rolled the dice on him late in the season as many said repeatedly at the time.

What a lot of rubbish. why didnt games to Lynch near the end of the year make him stay. Dont worry this had nothing to do with a person not at our club and everything to do with our tight SC but if it helps you blaming others for this then good on you.

[desertsaint]

if ross really didn't rate walsh, why would sydney offer so much.
there was a lot of information being shared between ross and roos, and no doubt much of this then got passed on to the swans.
obviously they got inside info that suggested to them that walsh was worth the amount of money they're paying him.
that info i would suggest came from lyon. there is no way they wouldn't have sounded him out via roos about walsh.
so yet again we have to question lyon's motives in how he handled walsh, privately and publicly.
thank god this self serving cancer is out of our club.

[St. Luke]

I don't know why we'd trade out a potentially brilliant player in order to bring in other untried players. Are we hoping that one out of the two are as good? Walsh might have been dark himself over the fact he was never given an opportunity. I'd move on also. Who can seriously blame him?

[bigcarl]

thank god this self serving cancer is out of our club.

agree.

[hayes66]

Not sure if its already been mentioned but im sure watters said this morning walsh was "absolutely" off the trade table. I know walsh was only a rookie but I would really appreciate stkilda making an effort to explain why this has occured given our new coach said he was "absoultely" not going to be traded.

He WAS NOT on the trade table, we didn't float him...

We did float Gram, Dawson, Ray etc....

HOWEVER - Sydney offered him a shitload of cash, we couldn't come to the party...it was get pick 35 or get NOTHING. If the player leaves for the draft then we get nothing. I'd rather pick 35.

I hope the step from VFL to AFL is a huge one & Walsh is a massive failure...harsh but who gives a fk - I'm a Saints supporter.

Fine, I would hope we didnt float him. But in all honesty I would think the statement that he is "absolutely off the trade table" is a fair suggestion to imply that he was not going to be traded. And if the statement was ment to be as cryptic as your saying, implying we are not trying to trade him, then I am still disappointed and would like an explanation. Im a saints supporter as well and as a saints supporter I was excited about the future of one of our saints players so as a saints supporter I am slightly disappointed. Just because you barack for a team doesnt mean you have to agree with everything they do and in this instance I am feeling like we have made a mistake. Tommy might not make it but we dont know, and I wanted to find out.

Yeah look I feel you misread my post a lot. Questions will be answered...however the bottom line & main relevant point...pick 35 or nothing??

Yeah i concede the pick 35 or nothing argument which is what I was implying in my first post. If the coach has said his off the table I want to know why he is now playing for sydney which may very well be because he has said "well ill walk out" i was just worried that because he is only a rookie nothing would be said and we wouldnt know why his gone.

[HitTheBoundary]

Time will tell if this is good or bad, if we get two good kids in the draft for the selections we got for Walsh then it may be "Tommy who?"

There may also be an AFL rule we are unaware of, we may have been over our allocations of Toms - hence we had to cut two (Walsh & Lynch).

[St. Luke]

Just to add, I think Tommy will really make us regret not giving him an opportunity. He'll most certainly shine.

[savatage]

Not sure if its already been mentioned but im sure watters said this morning walsh was "absolutely" off the trade table. I know walsh was only a rookie but I would really appreciate stkilda making an effort to explain why this has occured given our new coach said he was "absoultely" not going to be traded.

He WAS NOT on the trade table, we didn't float him...

We did float Gram, Dawson, Ray etc....

HOWEVER - Sydney offered him a shitload of cash, we couldn't come to the party...it was get pick 35 or get NOTHING. If the player leaves for the draft then we get nothing. I'd rather pick 35.

I hope the step from VFL to AFL is a huge one & Walsh is a massive failure...harsh but who gives a fk - I'm a Saints supporter.

Fine, I would hope we didnt float him. But in all honesty I would think the statement that he is "absolutely off the trade table" is a fair suggestion to imply that he was not going to be traded. And if the statement was ment to be as cryptic as your saying, implying we are not trying to trade him, then I am still disappointed and would like an explanation. Im a saints supporter as well and as a saints supporter I was excited about the future of one of our saints players so as a saints supporter I am slightly disappointed. Just because you barack for a team doesnt mean you have to agree with everything they do and in this instance I am feeling like we have made a mistake. Tommy might not make it but we dont know, and I wanted to find out.

Yeah look I feel you misread my post a lot. Questions will be answered...however the bottom line & main relevant point...pick 35 or nothing??

Yeah i concede the pick 35 or nothing argument which is what I was implying in my first post. If the coach has said his off the table I want to know why he is now playing for sydney which may very well be because he has said "well ill walk out" i was just worried that because he is only a rookie nothing would be said and we wouldnt know why his gone.

That is exactly why we agreed to the trade.

[fingers]

Cant possibly see how Lynch and Walsh leaving is RL; fault. Makes no sense at all. Somwe people say if Walsh got a game or two near the end he would have stayed. Lynch got games and didnt stay. Others who claim some sort of inside knowledge posted as soon as RL left the 2 happiest people were Walsh and Lynch. Again that looks like it makes no sense. Anyway pick 38 for a rookie is a great result. Makes up for the Lynch pick going backwards.

We paid Walsh overthe odds as a rookie and our lack of SC room came back to bite us on the bum. We lost a no game player.

Exactly Plugger.

The Swans lost Schneider and Dempster for the same reason - they are premiership players.

We lose a big clumsy bloke who hasn't even debuted.

Correct - Watters just said Walsh wanted to leave so the club respected that and traded. Fair enoough.

[bigcarl]

Just to add, I think Tommy will really make us regret not giving him an opportunity. He'll most certainly shine.

Yep, I'm afraid you are right. F****** Lyin'

[plugger66]

Just to add, I think Tommy will really make us regret not giving him an opportunity. He'll most certainly shine.

Yep, I'm afraid you are right. F****** Lyin'

How many times have you seen him play BC? By the way its about maoney and not 2 games at the end of the year.

[bigcarl]

Just to add, I think Tommy will really make us regret not giving him an opportunity. He'll most certainly shine.

Yep, I'm afraid you are right. F****** Lyin'

How many times have you seen him play BC? By the way its about maoney and not 2 games at the end of the year.

I've seen him play enough to know that he'll make it. Even worse, he's exactly what we need ... a strong-bodied forward (who can KICK) to help Riewoldt out.

[hayes66]

Dont see how people are arguing that the fact he hasnt debuted means he was of no value so it wasnt ross' fault. People that are in pro tommy walsh group are arguing that he should have been played, its not tommys fault he wasnt played. Those who think a mistake was made saw tommy play and believed he should have debuted. That argument contradicts itself.