Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

[GVGjr]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I am a fan of Campbell, and think he has lots of potential. BUT, the reality is he is 3rd in line at the Doggies at present, and even then in an almost 49/51 posi with Ayce.
Will is so far ahead at present there is daylight between them.
Will was only behind Hudson last season in Rocket's mind, and absolutely no where else. Big Will is without doubt one of the top 3-4 rucks in the league at present, and the idea of trading him out because Campbell has potential makes about as much sense as Russian Roulette.

[LongWait]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I am a fan of Campbell, and think he has lots of potential. BUT, the reality is he is 3rd in line at the Doggies at present, and even then in an almost 49/51 posi with Ayce.
Will is so far ahead at present there is daylight between them.
Will was only behind Hudson last season in Rocket's mind, and absolutely no where else. Big Will is without doubt one of the top 3-4 rucks in the league at present, and the idea of trading him out because Campbell has potential makes about as much sense as Russian Roulette.

I don't think that too many on here would say that Campbell is close to as good as Minson right now and not many would consider trading Will now (even if we are able to.)

Do you think we should leave Campbell on the rookie list? I'm not sure what you think we should do Paul.

[GVGjr]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Yes, for now. Then see what next season brings. Do not want to lose TC, but he is for the future, not for the now. Needs a couple of years before he is ready for a regular senior berth.

[Sedat]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

To leave Campbell on the rookie list is akin to delisting him - Campbell will gain a lot of interest from other clubs and we will lose him this year or next. He is ours to keep if we want and we should protect and secure what is and will continue to be an appreciating asset. Busines 101 and good football list management as well.

That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.

That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

[LongWait]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.

That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

I don't agree that Campbell is no more attractive to other teams (and to us) than Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles. Campbell has shown enough to attract the attention of other clubs who have a shortage of ruck stocks. I know for a fact that Hawthorn are watching him with interest this season. I don't think Campbell fits in the same bracket as the other former rookie list players you mentioned.

[GVGjr]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.

I guess the difference is that Campbell is a developing ruckman which has some appeal to other clubs as a cheap alternative to back up a ruck division.

Compared to a 3 year to Mulligan who had no clearly defined position was quite baffling and makes Campbell look like a very decent bargain.

At least I can see the logic behind a potential upgrade to Campbell but I never did with Mulligan.

That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

We are going through a transition period and we are paying a heavy price for inactivity in previous seasons and that is why we have so many unproven talls.
It may very well come down to a choice between maintaining Hill or upgrading Campbell but like you I don't see Campbell being upgraded as a real problem for the list.
The list has been unbalanced for a while and another season isn't a show stopper.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I don't agree that Campbell is no more attractive to other teams (and to us) than Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles. Campbell has shown enough to attract the attention of other clubs who have a shortage of ruck stocks. I know for a fact that Hawthorn are watching him with interest this season. I don't think Campbell fits in the same bracket as the other former rookie list players you mentioned.

If Hawthorn need anyone now its a good experienced ruck not a 6 game up and comer.
There are plenty of inexperienced and unproven rucks around.
Same with Collingwood or the Saints. The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

[chef]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

didn't they also trade a ruck they had on their rookie list to adelaide(Jenkins) as they didn't have a spot for him on their main list

[LongWait]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

If Hawthorn need anyone now its a good experienced ruck not a 6 game up and comer.
There are plenty of inexperienced and unproven rucks around.
Same with Collingwood or the Saints. The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

Hawthorn may or may not want a good experienced ruckman - they may not be prepared to pay the price required to get one. I do know, however, that they have some interest in Campbell and I am told that this is fairly common knowledge within the AFL recruiting fraternity.

We all know and they acknowledge that Hawthorn have depth issues in their ruck stocks (as do a number of other teams.) It's all very well to say that Hawthorn need an experienced ruckman but getting one is easier said than done. Their best option for an experienced ruckman may well be Minson. Hawthorn may well be hoping that Hale can hold down the number 1 spot for a year or two until someone else develops. On last night's form that looks a reasonable plan.

I have no idea what you are referring to re Essendon.

How have you outsmarted yourself?

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Whilst I have some doubts over the value Campbell can offer us I don't think having him on a senior list poses us any problems. I tend to think we are better having him than trying to find another back-up ruckman.

The thing is, when he goes for a mark, I'm pretty confident he will take it. And he does. When he goes for goal, I feel the same. He's a decent kick.
In the ruck he has a way to go, but that's not surprising. His opponents in the first have been pretty good so far. But again, I have confidence that he will do the right things.
So I'm not really sure why you feel the way you do. Just a good honest tall player, of the Huddo variety.

[Dry Rot]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

[Bornadog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

I think they will stick with Greenwood for another year on the rookie list, he has shown some signs of improvements in the Willi seniors.

On Redpath, you better start looking for a new Avatar

[Prince Imperial]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

At the last Inside the Kennel function, McCartney said both would improve next year, strongly indicating that they will be retained.

[ledge]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Both have another year to run don't they?

[westdog54]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Both have another year to run don't they?

You can cut a first year rookie without having to pay them out for the second year.