Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?

We have Minson and Campbell is no one rucks and Roughead and Cordy as second rucks? Unless you are saying Cordy or Roughead should never ruck, so we don't have four?

what I am saying is leave Campbell on the rookie list for 2013 as a backup.

Campbell would appear to be the heir apparent to Minson as our back up ruckman, with Cordy failing to impress. Roughead has emerged as a future key defender to eventually replace Lake. Lake maybe better placed next year by playing a role similar to Dustin Fletcher or Scarlett insofar that he doesn't take the opposition's number one forward.

[mjp]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Why would you delist a ruckman who appears to have ability and then rookie another ruckman? Why not just rookie Campbell......although I gather you are saying we should look at getting a different type of ruckman.

I never said delist Campbell. I said trade Roughead...or if Minson is leaving anyway figure out a way to trade Minson.

Campbell is cheap - no point in moving him on (yet).

[Mofra]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?

I thought you were taking the piss because you asked the exact question I was answering in my post that you quoted

[mighty_west]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

With Minson still yet to re-sign, I wouldn't be suprised one bit if he wanted to explore all options given the way he was treated by the club with the Port/Pearce debarkle.

With that in mind, if Minson does go, I've seen enough in Campbell to see he can turn into a very decent ruck option given another full pre season or 2.

[LongWait]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I'm not sure that there is any point in leaving Campbell on the rookie list for a further year if we keep Minson. Campbell should be promoted in my view.

At least by promoting Campbell we have the opportunity to groom him to either replace Will (via later trading Will) or we trade Campbell in the next year or so. If we leave Campbell on the rookie list he will leave for greener pastures and we will get nothing in return. Campbell already has a value to some other teams and this will only increase. I also think that Campbell will become a fine No. 1 ruckman and a better player than Minson.

[stefoid]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

There is a bit more too it than 'do we need 4 ruckman' though.

I like Campbell fine - but I cannot see what we gain by putting him on the senior list. Basically, if Minson plays then Campbell shouldn't...and if Minson is injured (long-term) then we will need Campbell - which sounds like the perfect player for the rookie list.

We should be thinking seriously about what we need in a second ruck. To me, the best couple in this role right now are Natanui and Ryder - for different reasons. Natanui does 'something different' whilst Ryder is a legit 1st choice defender / kpf who demands the ball. Our rucks are too much the same...

I still believe Roughead is a number 1 ruckman AND if Cordy could show any capability of providing a forward target (rather than being a forward line sign-post) then those two would work the best...but who knows what happens with Cordy. I don't know any of the answers to be honest but if we are keeping Minson then I think we should be seriously trying to turn Roughead into an asset through a trade. If we are not keeping Minson then we need to try and trade him before free agency bidding opens and he leaves for nothing. Maybe this means we have to sign him first (sorry, I haven't read all of the rules) but I just cannot see the point of having Minson, Roughead and Campbell all on the list and needing to play games...One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

Whoah there! Trade Roughie? He could be the best of the lot in another season or so. I am with sheeds on this one , you dont get rid of talented big men! If we are fattening up anyone with an eye for trade value it should be Cambell, but we cant do that if he is on the rookie list next year. I reckon he would be worth poaching with a late draft pick by anyone who is short for rucks, much the same way we poached Tom Hill from GWS. Definately dont want that to happen as his value to us and anyone else can only increase with time.

For mine, we upgrade Jong, JJ and Cambell and leave the rest on the rookie list or delist as appropriate.

We allready know we have 5 spots free from delisting and retirement. Im sure we can find another 3 to trade/delist to get the required 8.

Personally I would stamp DJs papers straight away and try to make up the other two spots by trading any/all of Vez, Addison and Sherman for pick upgrades, and failing that delist Skinner, Panos or Hill as requried.

one last edit: I lean towards delisting rookies that havent shown strong improvement rather than retaining. We have got a few likely players from the rookie list over the last couple of years and they have shown something in their first year on the list. we cant continue to do that if we clog the rookie list with project players. Would like at least 4 rookie spots free for this draft.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I'm not sure that there is any point in leaving Campbell on the rookie list for a further year if we keep Minson. Campbell should be promoted in my view.

At least by promoting Campbell we have the opportunity to groom him to either replace Will (via later trading Will) or we trade Campbell in the next year or so. If we leave Campbell on the rookie list he will leave for greener pastures and we will get nothing in return. Campbell already has a value to some other teams and this will only increase. I also think that Campbell will become a fine No. 1 ruckman and a better player than Minson.

I totally agree with you LW.

While I believe Campbell probably needs another year to grow into the role, I think he can probably give us something forward in 2013.

He has the size and strength to take on the number 1 role when he builds enough endurance.

Campbell can also take a pack mark, which is the area that Minson fails.

[mjp]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Whoah there! Trade Roughie? He could be the best of the lot in another season or so.

If you want something good you have got to give up something good. I agree Roughead could be the best of him...but see, I am in the minority in that I would happily allow Minson to leave/be traded and use the $ he will be chasing on a runner - and Roughead takes over in the ruck.

I don't see the point in continuing to play Roughead at CHB next year - it has been a worthwhile exercise in football education but he is a tap ruckman.

Campbell is worth nothing - what would be the point of trading him?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

Trading Roughead would be a ridiculous move.

W.O would be burned to the ground if we swapped him for Cripps.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

I totally agree with you LW.

While I believe Campbell probably needs another year to grow into the role, I think he can probably give us something forward in 2013.

He has the size and strength to take on the number 1 role when he builds enough endurance.

Campbell can also take a pack mark, which is the area that Minson fails.

This pack mark thing is one of myths from a pre-season game.
He has taken 10 in 6 games while Minson has 17 in 20 games. Roughead 19 and Lake 33.
Its great skill to have especially if was up forward but his kicking as poor those he replaced so its not taken advantage of.
To me a no.1 ruck needs to get around the ground to most contests and take taps/help clearances.
He has a long way from doing that atm.

[Maddog37]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

You do not give him enough credit Chops. He took some nice pack marks on the weekend that Minson rarely takes. If you expand the numbers he takes twice as many marks as Minno.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Campbell will pass Will next year. I love Will but he is a blunt instrument. With a pre-season under his belt Campbell will be a 21 year old first ruckman who can go forward - I was one of the lucky few who got into the cattery last week and he did a lot of good but unrewarded work on Taylor and Lonergan. Roughy is a fantastic utility player - I liken him to Paddy Ryder; can ruck at a pich but his real value is as a KP, either back or forward. He is a cool customer under pressure and has done really good work on some big assignments in recent weeks. Could be one of the most valuable players on our list in a year or two. Ayce is the one who worries me. A cracking bloke apparently, but when is he going to play a good game? I want him to get behind the ball, or at least come up at it, with some real authority. He needs to show that he can be an authoritative big man - crash packs, take grabs and barge through and into contests. If he doesn't begin to show something significant early in the new season, I fear he'll be dumped into the VFL then moved on at year's end, father/son or not.

[Bornadog]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Campbell will pass Will next year. I love Will but he is a blunt instrument. .

So the number one AFL ruckman for hitouts, and second in clearances (amongst rucks) will be surpassed by a 21 year old rookie who barely gets a kick. Give me a break.

[mjp]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Trading Roughead would be a ridiculous move.

W.O would be burned to the ground if we swapped him for Cripps.

Why? Because playing him (Roughy) at CHB, Minson in the ruck, Campbell in the ruck/ff and Cordy up forward has proven to be such an effective strategy?

In order to win games of football we are eventually going to have to field a football team, not a collection of players with potential who are all 'learning the caper'. Maybe Cripps is a bad example - I don't know enough about him - but he has been playing well, runs straight, takes on the opposition and kicks it pretty reliably so I plucked his name.

We need some run and carry players who can kick coming off half-back and we need them pretty quickly.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

Why? Because playing him (Roughy) at CHB, Minson in the ruck, Campbell in the ruck/ff and Cordy up forward has proven to be such an effective strategy?

In order to win games of football we are eventually going to have to field a football team, not a collection of players with potential who are all 'learning the caper'. Maybe Cripps is a bad example - I don't know enough about him - but he has been playing well, runs straight, takes on the opposition and kicks it pretty reliably so I plucked his name.

We need some run and carry players who can kick coming off half-back and we need them pretty quickly.

I would expect (and hope) that Roughead will revert back to his ruck/forward duties next season. He's performed well down back, but I can't see it being anything other than a development phase. If it isn't -- then it's stupidity, given he's one of few on our list that can a) read the play and b) take a good solid mark. Obviously needs to improve his kicking, but that's the whole point of developing.

We need run and carry players, but at what expense? You don't trade possible genuine KP stars out of your side, simply because you're lacking run. Address those needs at the draft or at the trade table through other avenues. Sydney didn't cough up great young talent for Shaw, Mattner and co.

St. Kilda would take a deal like that and run to the bank. I would trade Minson (probably not possible given he's an unrestricted free agent) before I even contemplated Roughy's name.

I might be on my own, but I see Roughead as being miles ahead of Jones (and Grant, Cordy, Campbell etc.). I wouldn't seek to trade him, but Grant is probably one name that could come up.