Trade Week (Updated - Mattner to Swans 4:40pm Tues)

[BAM! (shhhh)]

but what is added by dumping even brooks given we're already likely taking at least 1 pick at the tail end of a draft without a strong tail? Save Brooks to be one of the 3 delistees next year.

What would be the point of keeping him on the list for next year's delistings if his attitude and application doesn't change and he continues to stagnate in the magoos?

I would rather use a late draft pick to develop a youngster than just hang onto Brooks for the sake of it.

I won't be at all upset if Brooks is delisted (though I think Gehrig's retirement's bought him 1 more year) I just don't see any point in trying to trade him... I also don't see the point in taking lots of picks just for the sake of it, there are one or two guys each year who get picked round 5 or later who make it - normally by rebuilding teams. I just don't see a lot to be excited about by getting rid of him other than stopping the arguments on Saintsational.

I actually think the most valuable thing we can do with the list spot is have it ready for a draftee from '08.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

by the end of 08 we will have a new batch of usless hacks to discard of without carring them over from 07 !

[saint66au]

Id almost give a 2nd rounder for Hadley.

Potential star before did his knee..was the 1st heir apparent for the fab Four. Many years of great footy ahead of him I reckon..but I think the Brions rate him too highly to let him go cheaply

[BAM! (shhhh)]

by the end of 08 we will have a new batch of usless hacks to discard of without carring them over from 07 !

Harves will probably retire, Brooks, who else are you listing as a useless hack?

Ferguson perhaps - depending on which side of the fence you sit on him - and I'm betting Jones is on a make or break year, but I can't see anyone else on the list who qualifies yet.

[Solar]

but what is added by dumping even brooks given we're already likely taking at least 1 pick at the tail end of a draft without a strong tail? Save Brooks to be one of the 3 delistees next year.

What would be the point of keeping him on the list for next year's delistings if his attitude and application doesn't change and he continues to stagnate in the magoos?

I would rather use a late draft pick to develop a youngster than just hang onto Brooks for the sake of it.

I won't be at all upset if Brooks is delisted (though I think Gehrig's retirement's bought him 1 more year) I just don't see any point in trying to trade him... I also don't see the point in taking lots of picks just for the sake of it, there are one or two guys each year who get picked round 5 or later who make it - normally by rebuilding teams. I just don't see a lot to be excited about by getting rid of him other than stopping the arguments on Saintsational.

I actually think the most valuable thing we can do with the list spot is have it ready for a draftee from '08.

So is everyone who wants brooks either delisted or traded believe that we could get anything better with a draft pick in the 60's or 70's?

[Stephen Theodore]

Ben_fff wrote:
That would be a pretty pointless trade by the Lions considering they need another goal kicker and a decent full back.:

A decent full back !!! Merrett would get a game in 15 other teams as a full back. I reckon he had a terrific year.

[vacuous space]

So is everyone who wants brooks either delisted or traded believe that we could get anything better with a draft pick in the 60's or 70's?

Right now, with two rookie elevations, we're looking at our last pick being pick 75. Brooks' potential replacement would be pick 91. It'd wind up being higher because most teams would have finished drafting by that point, but there isn't going to be a lot there, unless we've found a gem in suburban footy or a mature age recruit somewhere.

Brooks may be a huge disappointment, but he's not useless. He can play. He's not strong enough to play as an around the ground ruckman, but he can take centre bounces and play as a leading forward.

[CURLY]

Brookes while not being a star number one ruckmen I would have him on our list over the following
Bryan
Richards
Cloke
Ackland
McLaren
Patterson
Doyle
McDonald
Seaby
Warnock
Deluca
Meeson
Hudson
Skipper
Minson
Wight
Street
Johnson
Griffen
Moran
Taylor
Laycock
Rix
There the sought of players holding down the back up roles at clubs none are worth jack so I say weve put the time into him hes got good skillls something most of them havent takes a good grab and isnt a plodder. Its better the devil you know in this case.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

by the end of 08 we will have a new batch of usless hacks to discard of without carring them over from 07 !

Harves will probably retire, Brooks, who else are you listing as a useless hack?

Ferguson perhaps - depending on which side of the fence you sit on him - and I'm betting Jones is on a make or break year, but I can't see anyone else on the list who qualifies yet.

next year we will have bangers retire
the writing would be on the wall for Ferg, Watts , CJ , Mini , Gwilt if they dont show any improvement

perhaps the term usless hack was a bit strong maybe not reached potential players

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Brookes while not being a star number one ruckmen I would have him on our list over the following
Bryan
Richards
Cloke
Ackland
McLaren
Patterson
Doyle
McDonald
Seaby
Warnock
Deluca
Meeson
Hudson
Skipper
Minson
Wight
Street
Johnson
Griffen
Moran
Taylor
Laycock
Rix
There the sought of players holding down the back up roles at clubs none are worth jack so I say weve put the time into him hes got good skillls something most of them havent takes a good grab and isnt a plodder. Its better the devil you know in this case.

man you are on some wild juice over there every one of those players are better then Brooks all of them have shown more then he has i would trade brooks for any of those players every single on i would do a straight swap for

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Ben_fff wrote:
That would be a pretty pointless trade by the Lions considering they need another goal kicker and a decent full back.:

A decent full back !!! Merrett would get a game in 15 other teams as a full back. I reckon he had a terrific year.

I reckon he had a terrific year too, but I don't think he'd get a game as anything but a shut down fullback, and I think there are plenty better. He may just have saved his career with his punch first, often and only approach, since he's big and can run, but he remains a poor mark, questionable disposal and questionable decision maker. The Lions willingness to push numbers back frequently covered for Merrett by making his job very simple... get him one out against a FF with a ground game or with a crumber nearby and he's in trouble.

That said, while the Lions have some deficiencies down back, it's not a fullback they'll be hunting. Be interesting to see whether Patful remains the assignee at CHB.

[CURLY]

Which one of those impresses you so much with there dominate ruckwork? Secondly how often have you seen Brookes play? Third thank god your not involved in our trades.

[Ghost Like]

Not bad Curly, a very unimpressive list but I would take Seaby and Griffin ahead of the much maligned one.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

by the end of 08 we will have a new batch of usless hacks to discard of without carring them over from 07 !

Harves will probably retire, Brooks, who else are you listing as a useless hack?

Ferguson perhaps - depending on which side of the fence you sit on him - and I'm betting Jones is on a make or break year, but I can't see anyone else on the list who qualifies yet.

next year we will have bangers retire
the writing would be on the wall for Ferg, Watts , CJ , Mini , Gwilt if they dont show any improvement

perhaps the term usless hack was a bit strong maybe not reached potential players

Okay, let's reframe the dilemma then:

Let's say it's end of '08, Harves calls it a day, and that's one, Ferg still can't get a game and get's delisted, that's 2.

But consider, if Gwilt improves as much next year as this, even without being able to get a game ahead of Max/Goose/Fisher, he'll either be worth retaining with a view to Max retiring by 2010, or actually have some trade value, and someone else 3rd rounder > our 4th. There's one spot to be had right now between CJ/Mini/Armitage, but Harves retirement would make it 2, and if all 3 (hypothetically) did improve, certainly wouldn't hurt to have all 3 around.

Now obviously, I'm painting a pretty rosey picture here, but if we delist Brooks now, we have to delist from the above next year. If we wax phylanthropic and give him one more shot, he's the 3rd man out. If we don't achieve the ideal above, we can delist Brooks and take a 4th rounder again next year... now it'd be fair enough to say we're really arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if we're debating a 4th next year v a 5th this year, but i figure the flexibility with the list spot (with the lotto percentage chance of Brooks coming good at last) is more valuable than the 5th round selection.

[Animal Enclosure]

Warnock will be a gun too.

IMO we should be after him before Blake, King & Wood.

[True Blue Sainter]

Id almost give a 2nd rounder for Hadley.

Potential star before did his knee..was the 1st heir apparent for the fab Four. Many years of great footy ahead of him I reckon..but I think the Brions rate him too highly to let him go cheaply

I definitely would - the thing is though, hasn't he had 2-3 consecutive knee reco's? The new David Schwarz/Lee Walker perhaps? If he gets the all-clear from our medico's - i think the Lions would be more than inclined to accept a second-round pick for him, as his value would have gone down heaps...

[Batnoe]

Can someone tell me who has been on an AFL list the longest and played less than 10 games or not many games

Like Brooks under 10 games but 6 or 7 years in the system

who else has been like this?

[saintsRrising]

Can someone tell me who has been on an AFL list the longest and played less than 10 games or not many games

Like Brooks under 10 games but 6 or 7 years in the system

who else has been like this?

I can't answer that one.


However I think the record for our most unproductive trade would be Jez (not not Jezza as in Alex !!!) who not only never played a game....I don't think he even trained!!! Was injured from day one.

[True Blue Sainter]

Can someone tell me who has been on an AFL list the longest and played less than 10 games or not many games

Like Brooks under 10 games but 6 or 7 years in the system

who else has been like this?

I remember Paul Wynd from North Melbourne was on the list for ages, and was an emergency a ridiculous amount of times, he either only played 1 game, or didn't play any, I'm gonna go look that up actually... There was another player from North around the same time (early to mid 90's) that took a few seasons to crack a debut..

[Mr Magic]

Can someone tell me who has been on an AFL list the longest and played less than 10 games or not many games

Like Brooks under 10 games but 6 or 7 years in the system

who else has been like this?

Tim Elliot?

[SaintBot]

Jared Moore anyone?

Frankston boy, tough in and under mid who can't break into the Swans line up.

Worked closely wityh RL in Sydney.

If we didn't give up too much say a 3rd round pick he might be worth a shot!

im not sure that playing every single game this season for the swans is considered to be a "tough in and under mid who can't break into the Swans line up."

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Bryan - Debut: 2005 28
guy Richards - Debut: 2004 -39 games
Cloke - debut 2004 - 30 games
Ackland -Debut: 2001 -Games: 75
McLaren-Debut: 2001 -Games: 59
Patterson-Debut: 2005 Games: 35
Doyle -Debut: 2000 Games: 47
McDonald -Debut: 2004 -Games: 41
Seaby-Debut: 2004 Games: 81
Warnock-Debut: 2007 -Games: 12
Deluca-Debut: 2006 Games: 6
Meeson- Debut: 2007 -Games: 2
Hudson-Debut: 2004 -Games: 55
Skipper-Debut: 2003 -Games: 44
Minson-Debut: 2004 -Games: 42
Wight-Debut: 2005 -Games: 27
Street-Debut: 2001 -Games: 77
Johnson-Debut: 2003 - Games: 28
Griffen-Debut: 2007 -Games: 16
Moran-Debut: 2006 Games: 5
Taylor-Debut: 2005 Games: 50
Laycock-Debut: 2004, Games: 42
Rix- Debut: 2006 Games: 29

or
big bad Barry Brooks -Debut: 2003, Games: 11

hrmmm i wonder whos better ??

[vacuous space]

im not sure that playing every single game this season for the swans is considered to be a "tough in and under mid who can't break into the Swans line up."

Moore only played two games this year, and he's played nine in total. I don't know too much about him, but I would think that Sydney would hold onto every decent young player they have. They're not getting any younger, and they've traded away a lot of draft picks in recent years.

[SaintBot]

im not sure that playing every single game this season for the swans is considered to be a "tough in and under mid who can't break into the Swans line up."

Moore only played two games this year, and he's played nine in total. I don't know too much about him, but I would think that Sydney would hold onto every decent young player they have. They're not getting any younger, and they've traded away a lot of draft picks in recent years.

i apologise!
i was pre-prepared with the name and assumed it was jarrad mcveigh...

on moore, never really seen him play - i suppose if any Vic team was going to get him it would be St Kilda due to Ross.

[vacuous space]

i apologise!
i was pre-prepared with the name and assumed it was jarrad mcveigh...

Understandable. There are way too many Jarreds, Jarrads, Jareds, Jarads and Jarryds in the AFL anyway.

McVeigh would have to be something of a disappointment though. He might have played every game this year, but he's hardly justified the pick that Sydney used on him. Obviously he's done more than Brooks, but that's not saying a lot. Everyone has done more than Brooks.