Bulldogs Trade Analysis

[jazzadogs]

So now it's all over, how did we fare?

Gained: Koby Stevens, Tom Young, Pick 21 (now 22)

Lose: Brian Lake, Pick 27, Pick 71

Pick 41 (now 44) was part of the Lake trade, then used for Stevens.

This leaves us with Picks 5, 6, 22, 51, 89 etc in the draft, plus Lachlan Hunter with pick 50.


Overall, I am fairly neutral about this trade period. We have made no incredible gains, and suffered no insurmountable losses.

As has been robustly discussed on the forum, the outcome of trading Lake will largely be determined by the player we draft at pick 22. I have no issue with the timing of the trade, and have faith in the people involved that adequate discussion and negotiation took place over the week leading up to the Trade Period. I am completely supportive of the decision to seek a trade, given his age, injuries and contract/free agent status. As with almost all supporters, I would have loved for us to hold on to pick 27 but it wasn't to be.

I like the pick-up of Stevens, and for pick 44 I hope that we come out as winners. He seems to fit the mantra, and I look forward to seeing him work with our current midfield.

Tom Young is unlikely to be a superstar, but when you're only giving up #71 I have no issue with it. Back in our development academy to get the best out of him.

The most important thing for me is we still have picks 5, 6 and 22. Surely we can't stuff up 5 and 6. 22 is the important one, it needs to be a win.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Given today's washup with the Hawks using our pick 27 from the Lake deal to secure Jed Anderson I think its been a less than ideal trade period. That's where my real disappointment has come from.

Add to that I think our accommodating West Coasts demands for pick 44 for Koby Stevens which allowed them to trade for Cripps was poor. Stevens will play a role, but I would've preferred we showed some spine and let him go through to the draft if West Coast weren't going to accept pick 51.

Tom Young.....meh didn't give up much, but then again I don't think we have secured a future 150 game player either. Collingwood don't let those types go for pick 71.

[choconmientay]

Consider we were sticking with our philosophy to build up a young list, I think we did OK. Happy with high picks in hand. Also Stevens and Young will add a bit to the young list we have.

btw, just heard on SEN that Sherman is moved on and will enter the PSD. It's a shame that we do not get anything for him.

[G-Mo77]

I pretty much agree with you word for word but I'll edit this paragraph to suit my thoughts.

As has been robustly discussed on the forum, the outcome of trading Lake will largely be determined by the player we draft at pick 22. I have issues with the timing of the trade, and have no faith in the people involved that adequate discussion and negotiation took place over the week leading up to the Trade Period. I am completely supportive of the decision to seek a trade, given his age, injuries and contract/free agent status. As with almost all supporters, I would have loved for us to hold on to pick 27 but it wasn't to be because we didn't even attempt to keep it. :)

Not having a go Jazza but I'm pretty much the complete opposite.

Really disappointed we couldn't unload a Sherman or Veszpremi it means Panos, Skinner or both are in serious trouble of keeping their spots. 8 off the list, 2 in and a father son selection so we've got 5 live picks. It doesn't leave much room for rookie upgrades. I'm guessing it will only be 2 of the 4 which I'm really gutted about as any of the 4 deserve to be on the main list over the likes of Sherman. :mad:

At a guess Panos and Greenwood to be delisted, Campbell and JJ elevated, Jong, Austin and Redpath retained.

Leaves us with #5, #6, #22, #51 and 1 rookie selection.

Edit: Maybe Panos is safe?

[G-Mo77]

btw, just heard on SEN that Sherman is moved on and will enter the PSD. It's a shame that we do not anything for him.

http://www.aroundphilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchormangif.gif

[choconmientay]

http://www.aroundphilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchormangif.gif

Yeah, I know what you mean. Part of me said the same thing. He did more harm than good to our club since he joined but I still think we should have got something for him through the trade period.

[Remi Moses]

Okay for mine. Hard to get a read on Stevens ( could be a bargain)
Young will be a squad player at best( steak knife deal)
Kept the three big picks ( thank Christ)
Not upset in losing Lake, he was clearly wanting to go.

[G-Mo77]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Part of me said the same thing. He did more harm than good to our club since he joined but I still think we should have got something for him through the trade period.

It would have been a throw away pick anyway that wouldn't have been used. The empty spot on our list is value enough. Call it addition by subtraction.

[Sedat]

On the surface it is not a horrible trade period but it should have been a whole lot better. And I disagree 100% about the timing of the Lake trade. Hawthorn were obviously keen to shed Gilham off the list (injury prone and similar type to Shoey, Stratton) and bring in a bigger bodied defender - nobody else in the competition was better credentialled and equipped than Lake who could possibly have been available so there was a strong need to get him to the club. We reacted in fear because of the threat of Lake becoming a FA in 12 months' time - what the hell might happen in 1 weeks' time let alone a year? And anyway Lake would have commanded some compenation next year if he walked - probasbly around a pick in the 40's, which is sort of the net effect that we got for him this year (and then gave to WC for Stevens). Hawthorn should have been made to sweat big time for Lake, and we should not have budged from a position of pick 21 or nothing. That would have meant we kept pick 27 and either save it for the ND or use it in a trade for an Anderson or someone else we had our eye on.

Stevens for pick 44 is not a big deal in isolation, but it is just another example of us blinking first in a stalemate scenario. Again there was a rush to get the deal finalised quicker than needed - it could have waited until this morning to get finalised.

Young for pick 71 has meh written all over it. Provided Dalrymple had a hand in this decision and is comfortable that there wasn't a smoky he had his eye on around this pick that was a better prospect than Young, I'm fine with it.

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those. And just to show that I call poor decisions during the Eade era, hurriedly throwing away the Harbrow compensation pick on Sherman was one of the dumbest decisions our footy dept has made in the last couple of years. We should have held onto that pick until this year, which would have been a low 20's selection, to further strengthen our trade and draft position this year.

Nothing will convince me that we aren't piss-poor negotiators when it comes to dealing with other clubs, and this trade period has been no exception.

[Bulldog Joe]

At a guess Panos and Greenwood to be delisted, Campbell and JJ elevated, Jong, Austin and Redpath retained.

Leaves us with #5, #6, #22, #51 and 1 rookie selection.

Edit: Maybe Panos is safe?

I will be really surprised if Greenwood goes. I thought he made a lot of progress to be a good contributor at Williamstown.

More chance of Vez being shown the door in my view.

[bulldogsfight]

Brian Lake was pick 71 ...................I'm scared too

[bornadog]

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those.

.

maybe no one was interested

[G-Mo77]

I will be really surprised if Greenwood goes. I thougt he made a lot of progress to be a good contributor at Williamstown.

More chance of Vez being shown the door in my view.

I didn't realise Sherman had gone when I typed that so there is still a chance 3 of the 4 or even all 4 of the rookies get elevated. In that case Greenwood stays.

[Bulldog Joe]

As I type, just heard that Sherman has left the club. Surely we should have packaged him in any trade, even a pissy pick upgrade, rather than let him walk to the PSD for nothing. GWS and GC have a plethora of later picks that they won't be using so we could have snagged one of those.

Nothing will convince me that we aren't piss-poor negotiators when it comes to dealing with other clubs, and this trade period has been no exception.

The problem of course is that every club knew he would go and he was so devalued by his time with us, that he had no appeal.

May not get picked up at all, but then he has been paid for 2013 anyway so might get a gig in a State League.

[bornadog]

I didn't realise Sherman had gone when I typed that so there is still a chance 3 of the 4 or even all 4 of the rookies get elevated. In that case Greenwood stays.

Does that make it 9 off the list now?

By guess is we go to the draft with the first 5, upgrade Campbell, Austin, Johannisen and Jong, keep Greenwood and Redpath on the rookie list and pick up two more rookies.

[Remi Moses]

Clearly they would have tried to package up Sherman.
My guess "not wanted".
Lake disgruntled player on a big wage.
When we got a third rounder the screams of "we should have traded him" will be heard loud on here.
With Stevens you have crazy Neeld picking up any footballer with a pulse( if he got through pre season draft) Tend to listen to MJP on him
Young ( meh)

[G-Mo77]

Does that make it 9 off the list now?

By guess is we go to the draft with the first 5, upgrade Campbell, Austin, Johannisen and Jong, keep Greenwood and Redpath on the rookie list and pick up two more rookies.

Yep it's 9. Don't forget Stevens and Young are now listed players so that's 7 picks in the draft and 1 of those is Hunter.

[Bulldog4life]

http://www.aroundphilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchormangif.gif

Is that you on the left G-Mo? :)

[bornadog]

Yep it's 9. Don't forget Stevens and Young are now listed players so that's 7 picks in the draft and 1 of those is Hunter.

yes forgot about that.

[bornadog]

Is that you on the left G-Mo? :)

No, they are all G-Mo:D

[G-Mo77]

Is that you on the left G-Mo? :)

I didn't do a Toyota jump but the news brought a smile to my face.

[Bulldog4life]

No, they are all G-Mo:D

That's funny.

[bulldogsman]

Surely were not going to upgrade all of Campbell, JJ, Jong and Austin if the list stays as it is. Jong is still quite raw anyway, not sure I would upgrade him yet. Stevens looks a similar sort of player, although slower.

[G-Mo77]

No, they are all G-Mo:D

You might still get your chance to join in. Players can still be delisted and I know who you've got in your sites. :D

[bornadog]

You might still get your chance to join in. Players can still be delisted and I know who you've got in your sites. :D

If we keep Vez, I want him to train his arse off and get super fit. He is the best long kick in our side and can offer something, but all I have seen for two seasons is a lazy type of player.

[LostDoggy]

Do people really believe that the club didn't try and trade Sherman?!

[jazzadogs]

There's no way we wouldn't have tried to find a trade for Sherman, was obviously just a lack of interest.

Someone commented on their disappointment that we 'caved in' to West Coast in offering #44 rather than #51, but I just don't see the concern...maybe we rated Stevens at #44, tried to drive the hard bargain with #51 and when that wasn't working we were happy to give #44? A 7 spot difference is going to make a minimal change to our draft strategy.

As for Lake, I maintain that we would have been involved in negotiations prior to trade week. Lake had nominated Hawthorn, we dealt with them and reached a deal which, whilst not perfect, was not as terrible as has been suggested. It gave us the opportunity to pursue other trades, and allowed us to offload his contract. In my view, we swapped Lake and 27 for Stevens and 21. It's not the end of the world, and fits the strategy the club has identified.

[chef]

As for Lake, I maintain that we would have been involved in negotiations prior to trade week. Lake had nominated Hawthorn, we dealt with them and reached a deal which, whilst not perfect, was not as terrible as has been suggested. It gave us the opportunity to pursue other trades, and allowed us to offload his contract. In my view, we swapped Lake and 27 for Stevens and 21. It's not the end of the world, and fits the strategy the club has identified.

I'm sure people would have been complaining that we wasted all of trade week holding out on this deal when we could have been after other deals if we had of done it.

[Bulldog Joe]

Surely were not going to upgrade all of Campbell, JJ, Jong and Austin if the list stays as it is. Jong is still quite raw anyway, not sure I would upgrade him yet. Stevens looks a similar sort of player, although slower.

I would agree. Surely we will now go to the draft to use 5,6,22 and 51.

With 6 free spots that only leaves 2 rookie upgrades, unless we cut further.

Rookie list is also reducing to 4.

This means in total only 4 spots.

I would cut Panos and Vez and won't be upset if Skinner goes as well.

If they feel that any are worth keeping they can still be cut from the main list and then rookied.

I would upgrade Campbell and JJ.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I would cut Panos and Vez and won't be upset if Skinner goes as well.

Agreed, especially given that McCartney is on record as saying that this is the last year to enforce dramatic list changes because we can't keep turning the list over like we have over the last 24 months.

Reality is that Panos, Vez and Skinner are slim chances to make an impression at AFL level. Is there much point in hanging onto them for another 12 months? Especially when you consider we have 3 or 4 rookies worthy of promotion (JJ, Austin, Campbell and Jong). From that list, JJ would be a certainty and I think Austin should be too. Campbell/Jong can have cases made either way, but I'd probably prefer either of them to Vez/Panos/Skinner.

[Sedat]

In my view, we swapped Lake and 27 for Stevens and 21. It's not the end of the world, and fits the strategy the club has identified.
See that's where I differ completely. I don't want "it's not the end of the world" at the end of trade week. I want "we nailed this trade period, got everyone we wanted and gained some significant picks in the process so that we can go to the draft and secure the players we've identified as long-term prospects".

We expect ruthlessness and 100% intensity from our playing group - I would expect the same attributes from out footy dept at this time of year.

[Cyberdoggie]

I will be really surprised if Greenwood goes. I thought he made a lot of progress to be a good contributor at Williamstown.

More chance of Vez being shown the door in my view.

Greenwood is a rookie and you would think would be retained as one.
He was pretty raw physically at the start of the season, has progressed well in one season to being a regular and one of the better bulldogs listed players at Williamstown in the finals.

Has shown more in 1 year than JJ did in his first, also has good skills of both feet and a nice left foot natural.

Like JJ, I think Greenwood might surprise a few next year.

[EasternWest]

If we keep Vez, I want him to train his arse off and get super fit. He is the best long kick in our side and can offer something, but all I have seen for two seasons is a lazy type of player.

Aren't those the same things that have been said about him for his whole career? The penny obviously isn't going to drop. I'd like to see him and Skinner gone.

[LongWait]

See that's where I differ completely. I don't want "it's not the end of the world" at the end of trade week. I want "we nailed this trade period, got everyone we wanted and gained some significant picks in the process so that we can go to the draft and secure the players we've identified as long-term prospects".

We expect ruthlessness and 100% intensity from our playing group - I would expect the same attributes from out footy dept at this time of year.

Maybe the club feels they did a whole lot better than you think they did. Hard to believe I know, but there you go....

[Sedat]

Maybe the club feels they did a whole lot better than you think they did. Hard to believe I know, but there you go....
I'm sure they do LW

[Mantis]

Maybe the club feels they did a whole lot better than you think they did. Hard to believe I know, but there you go....

We traded/ delisted out 2 shit blokes and traded in 2 quality blokes.

That equals a win.

[jazzadogs]

See that's where I differ completely. I don't want "it's not the end of the world" at the end of trade week. I want "we nailed this trade period, got everyone we wanted and gained some significant picks in the process so that we can go to the draft and secure the players we've identified as long-term prospects".

We expect ruthlessness and 100% intensity from our playing group - I would expect the same attributes from out footy dept at this time of year.
Fair enough. I don't think the ability to nail a trade period is completely at the feet of the negotiator.

Pelchen, who is regarded as a fairly ruthless negotiator, was unable to complete a deal on Mitch Brown and caved (how dare he) to West Coast in the Cripps deal. Even the best, or most ruthless, negotiators don't always get their optimal results.

I think the trade period was a win. The only negative for me is the loss of pick 27, but we don't and probably won't know the story behind the loss of it.

[F'scary]

http://www.aroundphilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchormangif.gif

the human on the left. I think I have seen him somewhere before.

[Dancin' Douggy]

If we keep Vez, I want him to train his arse off and get super fit. He is the best long kick in our side and can offer something, but all I have seen for two seasons is a lazy type of player.

I wrote this on another thread.
Vez needs to do a 'Jobe Watson'.

He has all the raw material, he could do it.

But I guess he probably won't.........

[Hotdog60]

the human on the left. I think I have seen him somewhere before.

Yes I think it was a film about a farmer and a chicken that was released in the 70's.

I still feel sorry for the chicken.:eek:

[EasternWest]

the human on the left. I think I have seen him somewhere before.

You've gone full James Cuming since you changed your avatar.

[GVGjr]

I don't think we have done great but I don't mind the fact that we had a consistent approach and didn't waiver from it.

3 early draft picks is a tick for me.
Getting Koby Stevens is another in the positive column
Moving on Sherman is a good move but probably a very costly one.
Freeing up cap space for the Lake trade is a positive.
Lachlan Hunter for a pick in the 50's is a solid outcome.

Getting Tom Young is neutral.

Losing Brian Lake is a real problem for our back line.

Overall I'm OK with the way things panned out but much hinges now on Dalrymple to get these 3 early picks right.

[chef]

I don't think we have done great but I don't mind the fact that we had a consistent approach and didn't waiver from it.

3 early draft picks is a tick for me.
Getting Koby Stevens is another in the positive column
Moving on Sherman is a good move but probably a very costly one.
Freeing up cap space for the Lake trade is a positive.
Lachlan Hunter for a pick in the 50's is a solid outcome.

Getting Tom Young is neutral.

Losing Brian Lake is a real problem for our back line.

Overall I'm OK with the way things panned out but much hinges now on Dalrymple to get these 3 early picks right.

Considering North would have given up pick 35 for him, this is a real bonus(as long as he turns into a player for us). Essentially given for 4 picks in the top 35.

[LostDoggy]

While I predicted the Lake trade (and the price) can't say I am excited about it. I get the sense Brian initiated the trade which tends to take the credit away from our people for being proactive in moving him on. If the Hawks were the only ones interested then we were over a barrel, and to expect a first round straight up for a bloke with maybe two years left with recent (chronic) injury concerns is too big an ask. Yes he was contracted but he could have walked for nix next year.

Stevens trade could be okay, I like the way JMac apparently watched him for a lot of the year. I don't like that he isn't necessarily a top notch kick, our list is looking a little sameish with our mids. I understand the big body mid concept, hell the best teams of the last decade or so Brisbane and Geelong were heavy mids. But they could all kick, not sure ours can.

Young trade - not fussed doubt he will achieve much but good luck to him

Sherman - gone, this is a great move, he was a list clogger, all speed no heart, no brain. Never wanted him, not sad to see the back of him. What it does though is tell the list, get with the program or you are gone, contracted or not. Not surprised Sherman was friendless when we tried to trade him - in our multicultural but hard at it footy world who wants a front running possible racist...?

Hunter at 50 was a good pick up by all accounts.

I'd like to give kudos to our footy department for the deals that weren't done...

Our chasing of Dawes was a concern. Our walking away (if that is true and not that Dawes did not pick us) if the price was too high was good.

Our not over bidding for Jack Martin was terrific.

Our not squandering picks 5,6 and 22 (maybe 21 post Adelaide), was terrific.

So all in all while not brilliant, certainly not terrible, and I must say I have been caught tearing my hair out after we picked up Sherman, Djerkurra...and don't mention 2003.

We just now need to not stuff up the draft (And we do have the cursed Pick 6)

[Sockeye Salmon]

Fair enough. I don't think the ability to nail a trade period is completely at the feet of the negotiator.

Pelchen, who is regarded as a fairly ruthless negotiator, was unable to complete a deal on Mitch Brown and caved (how dare he) to West Coast in the Cripps deal. Even the best, or most ruthless, negotiators don't always get their optimal results.

I think the trade period was a win. The only negative for me is the loss of pick 27, but we don't and probably won't know the story behind the loss of it.

Did anyone else hear Pelchen having a whinge on SEN because WC wouldn't trade Brown? The irony of Pelchen claiming someone else was acting unreasonably!

[Remi Moses]

Did anyone else hear Pelchen having a whinge on SEN because WC wouldn't trade Brown? The irony of Pelchen claiming someone else was acting unreasonably!

Glad to see Stkilda getting Stuffed on this deal.
Glass in his 30's and coming to the end, and you only have to remember Ryan O'keefe that players sometimes have a change of heart.

[Mantis]

Glad to see Stkilda getting Stuffed on this deal.
Glass in his 30's and coming to the end, and you only have to remember Ryan O'keefe that players sometimes have a change of heart.

So if Glass, Schofield & MacKenzie all stay healthy and Brown plays bugger all games do you think he will re-sign at the end of 2013?

[Remi Moses]

So if Glass, Schofield & MacKenzie all stay healthy and Brown plays bugger all games do you think he will re-sign at the end of 2013?

Probably not. But with Glass coming to the end they'll sell the future to him.

[jazzadogs]

Probably not. But with Glass coming to the end they'll sell the future to him.
Like Geelong did to Gillies at the end of last year before delisting him today! Tough decision coming up for Brown next year!

[jeemak]

I'm satisfied with the outcome of the trade period. We seemed to have a plan to follow, the results indicate we didn't deviate too far from that.

Having the Lake deal done early allowed us to at least position ourselves to trade for players like Gumbleton, Dawes and Stevens while keeping our ears pricked for any opportunities that may have come along. I've said my piece about the compensation provided sufficiently. Not really anything to add there other than without knowing the preparation that went in to the deal, the overall circumstances behind Brian's departure and our overall strategy for the three week period I find it hard to pillory the club for accepting the compensation it did, when it did.

I like the idea of Stevens selecting our club to join. I also like the idea of him developing under what seems to be a good system prior to coming to us, where competition for spots in a top eight team was tight and only good performance was rewarded. From what I've read and the limited footage I've seen of him over the last couple of years I think pick 40-50 is comfortably within the scope of reasonable compensation for him. If you want a player badly then sometimes it's not worth piss farting around over 7 picks in the third round, and risk losing him to another suitor. I think with Cross and Boyd finishing up sooner rather than later, having Wallis, Liberatore, Smith and Stevens as our grunt midfielders is a good place to be in. If we add polish on top of that I'll be happy.

I don't know anything of Young, though for pick 71 I'm happy to wait and see how he goes. Hopefully he does well.

We really need to nail 5, 6 and 22 when our time comes. If we have a player in mind that we desperately need pick 22 for then the compensation for the Lake deal is looking fine, providing we can develop that player into a league footballer.

Time for Dalrymple to earn his money and solidify a reputation.

[bornadog]

There are some good players in the top 10 draft this year, so pick 5 and 6 should give us some top players.

22 will be the challenge for Dalrymple.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

There are some good players in the top 10 draft this year, so pick 5 and 6 should give us some top players.

22 will be the challenge for Dalrymple.

I'm guessing that Dalrymple and recruiting team must have a specific player in mind that they think they can nab at 22, otherwise I'm not sure why we didn't try to offer that pick to GWS for Jed Anderson. From reports I've read he was rated anywhere from about a 15-25 pick.

[hujsh]

Losing Brian Lake is a real problem for our back line.

Assuming the plan was to play him forward next year and develop Roberts and Talia is it that big a loss to out on field performance?

In some ways we may be better off without Lake and he is is better off at the Hawks if we were just going to let him rot in the forward line, assuming of course this was what McCartney was planning to do.

[Ghost Dog]

While I predicted the Lake trade (and the price) can't say I am excited about it. I get the sense Brian initiated the trade which tends to take the credit away from our people for being proactive in moving him on. If the Hawks were the only ones interested then we were over a barrel, and to expect a first round straight up for a bloke with maybe two years left with recent (chronic) injury concerns is too big an ask. Yes he was contracted but he could have walked for nix next year.

Stevens trade could be okay, I like the way JMac apparently watched him for a lot of the year. I don't like that he isn't necessarily a top notch kick, our list is looking a little sameish with our mids. I understand the big body mid concept, hell the best teams of the last decade or so Brisbane and Geelong were heavy mids. But they could all kick, not sure ours can.

Young trade - not fussed doubt he will achieve much but good luck to him

Sherman - gone, this is a great move, he was a list clogger, all speed no heart, no brain. Never wanted him, not sad to see the back of him. What it does though is tell the list, get with the program or you are gone, contracted or not. Not surprised Sherman was friendless when we tried to trade him - in our multicultural but hard at it footy world who wants a front running possible racist...?

Hunter at 50 was a good pick up by all accounts.

I'd like to give kudos to our footy department for the deals that weren't done...

Our chasing of Dawes was a concern. Our walking away (if that is true and not that Dawes did not pick us) if the price was too high was good.

Our not over bidding for Jack Martin was terrific.

Our not squandering picks 5,6 and 22 (maybe 21 post Adelaide), was terrific.

So all in all while not brilliant, certainly not terrible, and I must say I have been caught tearing my hair out after we picked up Sherman, Djerkurra...and don't mention 2003.

We just now need to not stuff up the draft (And we do have the cursed Pick 6)

Well written. Enjoyed reading that.
Was not looking forward to the prospect of burning our cash on a clunking clumsy Dawes.
It's not what we did during trade week that I like, but what we didn't do.

[Bulldog4life]

The Young selection is an interesting one. Winning Collingwood's VFL Best & Fairest when only 17 years old is very impressive and shows that he can certainly play the game and maybe he didn't have the chances at Collingwood to progress. I'll be watching his season with interest.

[Twodogs]

the human on the left. I think I have seen him somewhere before.


I'm pretty sure he played the police seargent's role in the US version of Life On Mars.

[ledge]

I love this young player idea the club has gone on, let's make this team grow together and getting great kids in on and off the field could make this club huge membership wise in the future.
Peter Gordon no doubt had lots of discussions with David Smorgon the club and the AFL before taking over, there is a massively huge plan and out come coming just be patient it's going to happen!

[KT31]

http://www.aroundphilly.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/anchormangif.gif


I'm pretty sure he played the police seargent's role in the US version of Life On Mars.


the human on the left. I think I have seen him somewhere before.



Its Paul Rudd, he had a role in the last season of Friends as Pheobe's husband and was also in "I Love You Man".
Normally pops up in Jason Segal movies - was the surf instructor in Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

TD, I think you may be thinking of Michael Imperioli who was also in The Sopranos.

From left to right - Paul Rudd, Will Farrell, David Koechnerand Steve Carell.

[stefoid]

Given today's washup with the Hawks using our pick 27 from the Lake deal to secure Jed Anderson I think its been a less than ideal trade period. That's where my real disappointment has come from.

Add to that I think our accommodating West Coasts demands for pick 44 for Koby Stevens which allowed them to trade for Cripps was poor. Stevens will play a role, but I would've preferred we showed some spine and let him go through to the draft if West Coast weren't going to accept pick 51.

Tom Young.....meh didn't give up much, but then again I don't think we have secured a future 150 game player either. Collingwood don't let those types go for pick 71.

We may be targeting Toy in the PSD, so maybe Stevens to the PSD wasnt an option.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

We traded/ delisted out 2 shit blokes and traded in 2 quality blokes.

That equals a win.

Great to read you think so.

[ledge]

Toy still might get a contract where he is , apparently no one was interested in him in trade week, he has fallen away dramatically in 2 years, is it homesick or
One of those kids who just doesn't have it once he is up against the men, to me it seems something is wrong with him whether it's the heart condition or just his heart isn't in it I have no idea.

[Raw Toast]

I'm waiting to see how the 'young player' thing pans out, but according to the Age we went from having the 5th oldest list to the 3rd youngest list (only ahead of the two expansion teams) during the period of free-agency and trading.

[Twodogs]

TD, I think you may be thinking of Michael Imperioli who was also in The Sopranos.



That's him;

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2008/10/31/2008335930.jpg


He looks very similiar to Paul Rudd in that gif.

[Ghost Dog]

What's Ringo Starr doing holding that shotgun??
Must have been the 'action' version of Thomas the Tank engine.