Tweet
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Stevens and Roughead. If Hrovat comes in and plays well it may lift his profile. Go...
Stevens and Roughead. If Hrovat comes in and plays well it may lift his profile. Go...
-
But then again, I'm an Internet poster and Bevo is a premiership coach so draw your own conclusions. -
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I didn't frame that properly, as I think it's more likely we'll part with draft picks (including future picks) over players, which I know will annoy you.
But I wouldn't discount a Wallis, Picken or Stevens being offered up to get us something good.TF is this?.........Obviously you're not a golfer.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I've heard that an even bigger name than that has been discussed. Pure hearsay though.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Haven't posted here for a long while but I've got to say these comments intrigued me.
The advent of free agency means there are KP players available for no trade cost every year, so I'm not sure your premise that we have to trade for players holds up.
Furthermore, it surprises me to see anyone suggesting Wallis, Picken or Stevens being traded. Three of our best character players. Three of our better players. Its rare for these types of players to be traded at all IMO. And I'd consider it highly unlikely any of the players you've mentioned go anywhere - even if we did trade for a KP.
Just my opinion.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
In order to secure decent KPP via the free agent mechanism there has to be decent free agents in that category available. Which ones do you have in mind?
I'm not suggesting we trade those three, I'm suggesting I'm prepared for the advent of it happening.TF is this?.........Obviously you're not a golfer.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I didn't have anyone in mind specifically but Hurley (effectively), Watts, Mitch and Nathan Brown, and Vickery are all FAs this year. Any of them would make our list better IMO (some more than others
).
Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I'd be happy with any of the five you've mentioned.TF is this?.........Obviously you're not a golfer.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Only Hurley and...god, I can't believe I'm saying this...Watts interest me from that group.
I think Bevo would utilise Watts correctly, and he's a ripping kick for goal.Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Vickery!?
A big HELL NO!!!Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
If we trade Wallis we are absolutely and truly insane. INSANE!!!!Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
No to Vikery and the Browns. They won't improve us at all. Vikery is Jack Redpath in terms of output and the Browns are Michael Talia's.But then again, I'm an Internet poster and Bevo is a premiership coach so draw your own conclusions.Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Definite no to Vickery . He's a nearly type, as is Griffiths at Richmond .
Mitch Brown is to injury prone, and Nathan Brown is now on the outer at Collingwood.
Watts will get re-signed at Melbourne I'd think .Comment
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Someone with undoubted gifts on-field, but allegedly a history and an off-field problem that the club hasn't been able to address to their satisfaction. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the player.
I don't know how reliable this source is, so approach with caution.Comment
Comment