Hickey

[bobmurray]

I can't wait for next friday afternoon...All this trade speculation will be done and then we can just deal with the facts.....We paid overs....

[SaintTom]

After saying they wanted two first rounders for Caddy then just took the Geelong compp pick... there's no way that they'll end up with pick 13. Maybe 24? They kind of shot themselves in the foot by showing everyone that they really aren't going to follow through with their claims of what they demand for their players...

[samoht]

We have Stanley and McEvoy... two young ruckmen and a few pinchhitters.

I'd rather we concentrate on midfileders/clearance players or half forward flankers/goalkickers.
I hope we don't waste 25 on a ruckman !

I'd even use pick 37 on a good/clever half forward flanker/goalkicking prospect (if there's one still out there at that stage)... ahead of Hickey.

[class of 2010]

we have heaps of developing half forwards on our list though? With Markworth, Dunell, Siposs, milera and shenton on the list surely thats the last spot (along with hb flankers) we need to fill

[samoht]

we have heaps of developing half forwards on our list though? With Markworth, Dunell, Siposs, milera and shenton on the list surely thats the last spot (along with hb flankers) we need to fill

If one of them comes through for us and develops into a reliable goal kicker - that would be nice.
Two good half forward flankers would be better.
I'm taking a machine gun approach to it - just in case and besides a few like Siposs, Milera may end up in the midfield and wing or half back flank ?

We definitely have enough ruck stocks and after looking at WCE tap outs to clearance ratio - I'm not that concerned with the ruckmen as far as hitoouts go.
Can Hickey get 20 possessions regularly around the ground?- that's much more important.

[Rosco]

Do you want Stanley rucking 70% game time if McEvoy goes down?

[samoht]

There's also Blake, Kosi ?
If Hickey comes cheap - I have no problem with that.

[Spud]

West Coast's draft picks just became 41, 61, 62, 81, 99, 117, 135
St Kilda has picks 13, 25, 37, 46, 57 , 77, 95, 113, 131
That's after the free agent compensation picks are added in.

Thanks fotr the update. Should give us considerable room for negotiation you would think.

[saintspremiers]

There's also Blake, Kosi ?
If Hickey comes cheap - I have no problem with that.

They are pretty much done.

We have Macca and Stanley. We NEED another ruckman. End of story!

[kos]

Hickey is a must just reading a tweet from Emma Quayle saying that hickey if available in this draft would almost be the fist big man drafted, ahead of Grundy.

[sunsaint]

There's also Blake, Kosi ?
If Hickey comes cheap - I have no problem with that.

seriously did you see kosi ruck in the last few years, gravity has defeated him
blake at best was as surprise attack a few years ago, would not want him pinch hitting at this stage in his career
stanley will be groomed as the Roo replacement so dont want him ruined in the ruck, he is a runner not a battering ram
Mcevoy is fine, he just needs help
I called that pick 13 was going to come into play a few posts back, the problem is, and this is often the case with the saints, it is a sellers market.
and yes I would have taken macintosh at 36, lock stock and lars

[Rosco]

Yep, need a second ruck. Its just a matter of how good a ruck you get since we probably won't play two specialists.

[St Ick]

Hickey is a must just reading a tweet from Emma Quayle saying that hickey if available in this draft would almost be the fist big man drafted, ahead of Grundy.

Wha? Grundy is expected to be taken in the top 5... gee thanks Emma what a way to do a club a favour...

[Kick-it-lace-out]

Pick 13, No, Pick 24 maybe. This kid better be bloody good if we're going to give up a second rounder in a strong draft.
Also, what's the latest with Cripps? Now that Stevens has nominated the Dogs, the Eagles don't have much in the way of picks to give us. Maybe, just maybe, the Saints are quietly happy that Stevens nominated the Dogs...now Brown is the only currency they have if they want to secure Cripps. Otherwise they have to wait for the draft, and hope like buggery no one else selects him. Let the games begin!

[borderbarry]

Maybe we should forget Hickey. Trade with GWS for draft picks.

[samuraisaint]

So people want to give Pick 25 for a player who won't be in our best 22?

Bold statement. Especially since the ruck is our achilles heel.

[SuperDuper]

25 for Hickey? Yes.. young Ruck who could be a star.. more chance of being good than an 18 year.. pick 25 on youngsters is always a bit of a lottery

[Dis Believer]

25 for Hickey? Yes.. young Ruck who could be a star.. more chance of being good than an 18 year.. pick 25 on youngsters is always a bit of a lottery

I can see it evolving into a 3-way deal with Hawthorn. We give Hawthorn pick 25 & 37, they give Gilham and 28 to GC, GC give us Hickey and 26.

[The Jeff]

25 for Hickey? Yes.. young Ruck who could be a star.. more chance of being good than an 18 year.. pick 25 on youngsters is always a bit of a lottery

I can see it evolving into a 3-way deal with Hawthorn. We give Hawthorn pick 25 & 37, they give Gilham and 28 to GC, GC give us Hickey and 26.

I would be delighted with that deal.

[fugazi]

Pick 13 for a bloke who can't kick the footy.........tell em they're dreaming!

[Spud]

25 for Hickey? Yes.. young Ruck who could be a star.. more chance of being good than an 18 year.. pick 25 on youngsters is always a bit of a lottery

I can see it evolving into a 3-way deal with Hawthorn. We give Hawthorn pick 25 & 37, they give Gilham and 28 to GC, GC give us Hickey and 26.

That's generous of you

[Con Gorozidis]

25 for Hickey? Yes.. young Ruck who could be a star.. more chance of being good than an 18 year.. pick 25 on youngsters is always a bit of a lottery

I can see it evolving into a 3-way deal with Hawthorn. We give Hawthorn pick 25 & 37, they give Gilham and 28 to GC, GC give us Hickey and 26.

I would be delighted with that deal.

i would take that.
we get a young ruckman plus can still use 13 and 26 on kids.

[#1GILL]

Of course we would take it, we're getting Hickey for pick 37!
However, why would GC trade Hickey for Gilham? Let alone lower their draft pick as well?

I'm certain the Saints and Hawks would be dead keen, but GC are getting screwed. Gilham is worth almost nothing.

[wally]

I too thought of MacIntosh for 36,not bad, Gardner & King worked well for us,in the past, but the fact is here we are again needing ruck stocks
I think we need to recruit another long term prospect and play them,and develop them,ahead of playing older types.The older types become back up.

[samoht]

There's also Blake, Kosi ?
If Hickey comes cheap - I have no problem with that.

seriously did you see kosi ruck in the last few years, gravity has defeated him

It's true that Nat jumps higher than the opposition ruckmen (the opposite of our gravity defeated Kosi) and wins many more hitouts - yet the other part that's true is that most of his hitouts go to 50/50's or to the opposition. - so it doesn't give his team any advantage.
Again I repeat - WCE has 15 more hitouts than average per game - but this still results in an average amount of clearances. Their "superior" tap ruckmen with their extra 15 hitouts per game don't make a difference.

If Hickey has the potential to develop into a 20 possession a game player (to become as good as Cox around the ground) and comes cheap - that's fine.
The clearance players get the clearances - so that's why I'd be recruiting a good clearance player ahead of a tap ruckman (especially one that does little around the ground) every day of the week