Summary of our Trade week

SaintSimmo · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:17pm

GAINED: Terry Milera, Ahmed Saad, Pick 25, Pick 35, Pick 37, Pick 68
LOST: Tom Lynch, Tommy Walsh, Pick 20

THE TRADES:

TRADE: Terry Milera (Port Magpies), Ahmed Saad (North Bullants) and pick (25) from GWS to St Kilda for pick 20

TRADE: Adelaide trade Ivan Maric to Richmond for pick No.37; the Crows then exchange pick No.37 to St Kilda for Tom Lynch

TRADE: Tommy Walsh goes to Sydney. The Swans give St Kilda picks 35 and 68.

hmmmmmmmm.....

fugazi · Post: # 1164765Post **fugazi** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:19pm

Happy with the two new guys....could've been alot worse, got compensation for Walsh who was set on leaving by the sound of it.

Teflon · Post: # 1164768Post **Teflon** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:19pm

ripper!!

so we got a bunch of picks in a weak draft that GWS own anyway, free up no real capo space and lose a KPP prospect that had been in the bests for rserves numerous times this year but previous knob coach decided he shoudnt be played?

right on!!

saintlee · Post: # 1164772Post **saintlee** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:20pm

Good trade week if you exclude the Walsh trade, not happy about that, but life goes on...

westy · Post: # 1164780Post **westy** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:22pm

The club could still stuff-up the paperwork yet!

Saints94 · Post: # 1164781Post **Saints94** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:22pm

We did pretty good, Saad im really excited about

Little Dozer · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:23pm

It's disappointing we lost Walsh but apart from that I'm happy. With all these draft picks gained get ready for a few shock but neccessary and inevitable delistings.

SaintSimmo · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:25pm

Hype....this is the word to describe Tommy Walsh.

He is unproven, untried, and may well turn out a dud!

InkerSaint · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:29pm

Lost a couple of prospects, added a couple of prospects, added some draft picks.

At a guess I'd say the team went in looking for interest in mid-tier players for picks and didn't get it. Both players that were traded out were reported as requesting the move. That's probably not a bad thing.

Where's the salary cap relief going to come from? More interesting times ahead.

saintlee · Post: # 1164838Post **saintlee** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:35pm

InkerSaint wrote:Lost a couple of prospects, added a couple of prospects, added some draft picks.

At a guess I'd say the team went in looking for interest in mid-tier players for picks and didn't get it. Both players that were traded out were reported as requesting the move. That's probably not a bad thing.

Where's the salary cap relief going to come from? More interesting times ahead.

Delistings presumably....or maybe the salary cap issue isn't that bad?

meher baba · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:38pm

saintlee wrote:
InkerSaint wrote:Lost a couple of prospects, added a couple of prospects, added some draft picks.

At a guess I'd say the team went in looking for interest in mid-tier players for picks and didn't get it. Both players that were traded out were reported as requesting the move. That's probably not a bad thing.

Where's the salary cap relief going to come from? More interesting times ahead.
Delistings presumably....or maybe the salary cap issue isn't that bad?

A couple of regulars at Sandringham could be shunted back onto the rookie list. I guess Clarke and Blake are still contenders for delisting, although I assume that Gardi, McQualter and Baker going would have freed up some space.

HitTheBoundary · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:41pm

When is the deadline for delistings?

I imagine Gamble & Polo might be nervous.

bergholt · Post: # 1164870Post **bergholt** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:43pm

Little Dozer wrote:With all these draft picks gained get ready for a few shock but neccessary and inevitable delistings.

yeah. we now have:

25
35
37
42
60
68
78

probably four picks there which are worth using, but we still only have two free spots on the list, so we'd have to cut the two worst players on the list. i can't see us cutting the third worst to use 60 in this draft.

most likely we move heyne down to the rookie list to free up one spot, which leaves us with one rookie spot free (i think), then we only have to delist one.

one other rookie question is archer. he's been a rookie for two years so his initial contract will be up. we'd either have to re-rookie him, promote him or cut him. i can't see him being promote in place of a player currently on the list, so probably re-rookie, as i wouldn't think pick 120 in this draft (second rookie pick) would be any better than him.

so using this plan we cut one player, take four national draft picks and three rookie draft picks (the last two of which are archer and heyne).

possible players for the cut: gamble, johnson, smith, cahill.

in context, with lynch and walsh gone, johnson and cahill have to be safe. that leaves gamble and smith. i'd give smith another year and assume that gamble's place is taken by some combination of them, stanley, siposs, saad and milera.

but all this assumes that we're fine with the salary cap. summary:

IN: Milera, Saad, pick 25, pick 35, pick 37, pick 42, rookie pick
OUT: Baker, Eddy, Gamble, Gardiner, Lynch, McQualter, Walsh, Heyne (to rookie)

six new players on the list doesn't sound too bad to me.

luckysaint · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:48pm

bergholt wrote:so using this plan we cut one player, take four national draft picks and three rookie draft picks (the last two of which are archer and heyne).

Since we received 68 in a trade, don't we have to use it? It would mean we would be using 6 picks in the ND.

bergholt · Post: # 1164951Post **bergholt** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 3:10pm

luckysaint wrote:
bergholt wrote:so using this plan we cut one player, take four national draft picks and three rookie draft picks (the last two of which are archer and heyne).
Since we received 68 in a trade, don't we have to use it? It would mean we would be using 6 picks in the ND.

i think that rule doesn't hold any more. richmond picked up 79, i don't think they'll use that.

stinger · Post: # 1164963Post **stinger** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 3:15pm

Teflon wrote:ripper!!

so we got a bunch of picks in a weak draft that GWS own anyway, free up no real capo space and lose a KPP prospect that had been in the bests for rserves numerous times this year but previous knob coach decided he shoudnt be played?

right on!!

yep....that.s ball, lynch and tommy lost as a direct result of our late departed coach.....