Are 2 (live) Picks in the Draft Enough?

[The Doctor]

I think if we go into this year's draft with only 2 live picks (31 & 32) we are missing a good opportunity to replenish our list.

As we all know this is the last truly uncompromised draft. Next year's draft will lose a lot of bottom aged players (quite often the guns of the draft). We also face the situation where we have a fair number of senior players in the last year or two of their careers.

Our list has some defficiencies as we all know and I won't regurgitate that now. It is interesting to note however the types of players posters consider we should choose with our 2 current live picks. These include; a power forward, lead up tall forward, ruckman, half back with pace, key defender, ruckman, anyone tall, anyone with pace etc etc.

Our next pick at this stage after 32 would be 64 (or thereabouts depending on delistings at other clubs). Sure it's not a great pick but we have picked up some quality players in the draft late. There are always late gems. How is it that so many rookie list players go on to become guns?

To justify using extra picks someone else has to be delisted.

* Why would we keep Wight if we are not going to use him at the business end? We all know the answer.

* If we delist O'Shea is anyone else going to pick him up? Seriously? Then rookie him if we want to keep him?

* I suppose Eagle is contracted. If so he is lucky after the prelim. Can we reach a settlement?

We made the hard call with Westy I don't think it should end there.

I would actually like us to go into the draft meeting with at least 2 extra picks and this may enable us to help solve some of our list defficiencies. No better way to do that than in a strong draft.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'm not so concerned because we have loaded up over the last two drafts. We do have a lot of players who have only played a few games (or less).

I agree Wight should go. I really don't see the point of keeping someone on the list as a back up and then not using him when he's needed. The only possible explanation is they had no faith in him to do the job (that's OK, neither did I) in which case there is no reason whatsoever to keep him.

I don't think much of pick 64-lotto, though. I'd make the call on either Mulligan or Shaw and elevate one of them.

[bulldogtragic]

I fully agree we need a couple more selections.

I'd much rather pick 64 than Wight. I'd rather give a recycled player a run in the PSD than keep Wight.

O'Shea is still as raw as they get. I can't see Eagle playing 25 games next year. At least one should go.

[GVGjr]

Simply speaking 2 live picks is insufficient, especially given what we are faced with over the next few seasons, but we are probably forced into it because of a combination of planning and list management oversights.

Moved On
Street was overtaken by Skipper by the end of the season and wasn't offered a spot on the list. West was moved on and Ray demanded a trade and Doogs quit so they are the only players missing for the 2008 line-up.

Maintained but questionable value
Wight started the season very much in Eades plans however, an injury then subsequent poor form effectively stamped his card. He still has a year to run so he now becomes just a depth player.
Whilst it's easy to point the finger at Eagleton the fact is that the coach continued to play him with no real threat of being dropped probably means that the coach still saw some value in him. Not sure if he has now changed his mind but the fact that he does have another season to run on his contract and that probably reflects poorly on planning and list management.
O'Shea being maintain on the senior list puzzles me. His form went backwards in the last half of the season and he just isn't making the progress that you would hope for. We knew he was a project player when we drafted him and we admire his spirited play but he is a long way off the mark at present and I'd question if it would serve the club better to have him on the rookie instead of the senior list.
Despite Lynch's return to favour, he was carried through the season and didn't display the type of commitment we should hope for but more importantly demand from players. I know it's hard to turn your back on talent, but I think we have rewarded him for a sub-par effort. Lets hope he repays the club.

Elevated?
Mulligan couldn't crack it for a game in the seniors at Williamstown and yet we seem to want to promote him. Thats OK because we lack talls but in all the games I have seen he has rarely displayed the sort of form that would justify a promotion.

I'd would prefer to have another pick in the draft, even a late one, but it seems unlikely.

[LostDoggy]

I see no downside in using Pick 64 in preference to relegating OShea to the Rookie List.
If he does come good, we can still promote him back to the main list.

Whilst I do not want to see either Eagleton or Wight in the jumper again, there is clearly a difficulty in delisting players who have time to run on their contract. I would be more upset paying Eagleton his probable $350,000 a year for sitting at home on his couch.

[Go_Dogs]

I'm not so concerned because we have loaded up over the last two drafts.


Pretty much.

With the amount of turn-over the list has had over the past 2 seasons, anymore wouldn't be wise, especially considering how 'close' we are.

With Ayce locked away, we have 2 more live selections that should get us two more players who'll be looked at to play 200 games.

They'll then join the likes of Ward, Stack, Lynch, Reid, O'Keefe and Wood who'll all be looking at bigger impacts this coming year, as well as Higgins who through injury missed the bulk of the year.

That's approx. 10 blokes who have had no real impact at this stage, and will be players for the future.


I'm all for O'Shea going on the rookie list though, if it means we can secure another player in either the draft or psd.

FWIW, I think someone like Kris Massie could be a worthwhile pick up in the PSD for depth.

[Mofra]

Whilst I do not want to see either Eagleton or Wight in the jumper again, there is clearly a difficulty in delisting players who have time to run on their contract. I would be more upset paying Eagleton his probable $350,000 a year for sitting at home on his couch.
Eagle is on no where near that.

[LostDoggy]

Pretty much.

With the amount of turn-over the list has had over the past 2 seasons, anymore wouldn't be wise, especially considering how 'close' we are.

With Ayce locked away, we have 2 more live selections that should get us two more players who'll be looked at to play 200 games.

They'll then join the likes of Ward, Stack, Lynch, Reid, O'Keefe and Wood who'll all be looking at bigger impacts this coming year, as well as Higgins who through injury missed the bulk of the year.

That's approx. 10 blokes who have had no real impact at this stage, and will be players for the future.


I'm all for O'Shea going on the rookie list though, if it means we can secure another player in either the draft or psd.

FWIW, I think someone like Kris Massie could be a worthwhile pick up in the PSD for depth.
no way not ever...Just another list clogger...would be handy at a bottom level club!!

[LostDoggy]

Eagle is on no where near that.

So what is he on?

[Bulldog Revolution]

In my eyes there have not been enough changes made to the list. I think the committment the club has made to developing players is the right one. I'm really pleased we didn't load up on recycled players during the trade period and hope that it focuses us squarely on what we can do better in terms of player development.

However, I would have thought that we might look to recycle a need player now when we can get them cheap, and be looking to add youngsters and rookies to the list

Having Wight on the list serves no purpose

For my money Lynch is super talented and whilst his 2008 was extremely disappointing he seems keen to atone - sometimes a player needs a Rocket (pun intended), and largely it comes down to the fact that he is highly talented

I guess the issue with OShea is - Do we believe he can still make it? If we were to attempt to rookie list him could another club beat us to the punch? Is that likely? Is it a risk we are prepared to take

Players like OKeefe, Stack, Reid, Wood, Lynch must improve their running abilities a lot if they are to put Eagle out of the side in 2009

[Mofra]

So what is he on?
Don't want to breach the privacy act ;)

[Topdog]

Personally I think it is. Even though only 2 are live we still 3 picks all up and will look to rookie probably 3 players. Next year we will be having a big change in our list.

Aker has already confirmed it will be his last year. Eagleton won't be renewed (very early call but Im confident I'll be right.) If Wight doesn't improve he will definitely be gone. Welsh is a good chance to retire next year. I imagine Johnno will play 2 more years but there is a chance that he will hang up the boots. I'm sure I have missed 1 or 2 more potential retirees and this doesn't even look at people like O'Shea and other young guys who have had some time on the list without making any inroads.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Next year we will be having a big change in our list.

Aker has already confirmed it will be his last year. Eagleton won't be renewed (very early call but Im confident I'll be right.) If Wight doesn't improve he will definitely be gone. Welsh is a good chance to retire next year. I imagine Johnno will play 2 more years but there is a chance that he will hang up the boots. I'm sure I have missed 1 or 2 more potential retirees and this doesn't even look at people like O'Shea and other young guys who have had some time on the list without making any inroads.

That's probably the point/question though. Next year as you said, Aker, Eagleton, Welsh & one of or both Skipper/Wight will be gone. That's all fair enough, but that's quite a big 'list change' in a year where the draft is compromised. I think we really need to delist either Wight or O'Shea so that not everything is left to next years draft. It makes much more sense to use Pick 64, delist Wight/O'Shea and get a year into another young player. If EVER there was a period to use three picks, surely it's the compromised draft, where our picks would be much later.

Pick 64 couldn't be worse/more ineffective than Wight/O'Shea to date, and it's probably a 10-20 pick 'upgrade' on what we'll have next year - if that makes sense.

[bulldogtragic]

Could Fantasias comments regarding just giving our third rounder to them be a ruse?

I.e. We got bent over but didn't want to tell the world, and also make the supporters feel a little bit better about the deal. Keep a bit of pride??

But come to he crunch, we may just decide to use pick 64 after all?

[GetDimmaBack]

The fact is we have 3 picks. Not sure how we can see ourselves having only 2 "live" picks.

Can't help wondering how we'd feel if the Father/son deal with Ayce hadn't happened.
I think we'd be happy if pick 14 was "live" and we picked up Cordy.

Hypothetically, then - if we had 3 picks, drafted Cordy, another KP type tall and a strong bodied midfielder, would we feel better after the draft than we do now?

On top of that, if this is a very strong draft, maybe Scotty Clayton has his eyes on a smoky, ala Lake (#71). We'd also be happy with that, IMO.

[Sedat]

On top of that, if this is a very strong draft, maybe Scotty Clayton has his eyes on a smoky, ala Lake (#71). We'd also be happy with that, IMO.
Strong doesn't necessarily mean it's a deep draft. Maybe the first 30-40 picks are quality but there is not much left thereafter to enthuse? Can anyone clarify if this draft goes deep because Fantasia was clearly very happy to have nabbed another 2nd rounder and didn't seem to be enthused about the depth at the lower reaches. This talk could be spin as was alluded to earlier.

[Scraggers]

Personally I think it is. Even though only 2 are live we still 3 picks all up and will look to rookie probably 3 players. Next year we will be having a big change in our list.

Aker has already confirmed it will be his last year. Eagleton won't be renewed (very early call but Im confident I'll be right.) If Wight doesn't improve he will definitely be gone. Welsh is a good chance to retire next year. I imagine Johnno will play 2 more years but there is a chance that he will hang up the boots. I'm sure I have missed 1 or 2 more potential retirees and this doesn't even look at people like O'Shea and other young guys who have had some time on the list without making any inroads.

You make a valid point ... but my fears come next year; as the majority of these players retire is the same year GC17 get the first 94 picks in the draft, leaving us with pick no. 137 and 2,348 ... we want to build a list that will combat this loss of talent / experience etc. Therefore i think this PSD and draft is the one to be active ... there is a reason that every club wanted to keep their no. 1 pick

[LostDoggy]

Judging by what Ace said the Bulldogs had already told him in November they wanted to pick him up this year - don't we have another two father son's next year as well?

[Scraggers]

Judging by what Ace said the Bulldogs had already told him in November they wanted to pick him up this year - don't we have another two father son's next year as well?

Yep ... a young Wallis and a young LIbba ... plus there is also the prospects of Braedon Jones through the NSW/ACT rookies list

[GVGjr]

The fact is we have 3 picks. Not sure how we can see ourselves having only 2 "live" picks.



One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

[Sockeye Salmon]

One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

We're still getting three 17yo's onto our list.

I suspect this thread has more to do with the entertainment value of speculating who we will take and then finding out who we end up with!

[Bulldog Revolution]

One of the picks is already committed to so that leaves just two live picks for draft day.
Drafting just 3 players this year seems a bit short of the mark.

Its bizarre given its a supposedly strong draft and we have used 5 picks the last two years

Are you wanting a recycled needs backup with the last pick GVG or another kid?

[GVGjr]

Its bizarre given its a supposedly strong draft and we have used 5 picks the last two years

Are you wanting a recycled needs backup with the last pick GVG or another kid?

Ideally another youngster.

[bornadog]

Why are we saying we only have two live picks left? Is it a statement from the club?

According to the AFL Website:

Western Bulldogs
Offloaded Ray, but could not secure the tall forward they wanted, despite showing some interest in Hawthorn's Tim Boyle. Have already committed their first draft pick to ruckman Ayce Cordy under the father-son rule.

Draft picks: 14 (Ayce Cordy), 31, 32, 64, 80, 96

[GVGjr]

Why are we saying we only have two live picks left? Is it a statement from the club?
According to the AFL Website:

Western Bulldogs
Offloaded Ray, but could not secure the tall forward they wanted, despite showing some interest in Hawthorn's Tim Boyle. Have already committed their first draft pick to ruckman Ayce Cordy under the father-son rule.

Draft picks: 14 (Ayce Cordy), 31, 32, 64, 80, 96

Two reasons:
1) What Fantasia said
2) Based on how many players have been moved on so far. Unless there is more to go we can't select more.

If they move some more on then yes we can draft more players.

[The Underdog]

Two reasons:
1) What Fantasia said
2) Based on how many players have been moved on so far. Unless there is more to go we can't select more.

If they move some more on then yes we can draft more players.

Although we've moved on 4, are we only able to pick up 3 replacements due to West being a full veteran?

[bulldogtragic]

Although we've moved on 4, are we only able to pick up 3 replacements due to West being a full veteran?
Correct. West is replaced by a rookie.

[Sedat]

I'm happy to have only 3 picks in the ND, seeing as they are all in the first 2 rounds. Our recruiting dept has studied the form intimately, and they are on record as saying they are only interested in 3 selections - I'll bow to their better judgement.

Happy also to have 5 rookie positions available on our list, which is where we can take a punt or two on some speculative talent. If Shaw and Mulligan are retained as rookies, that leaves us 3 selections in the rookie draft (assuming we choose not to retain 'Handbrake' Henry White).

Alternately, I'd also be perfectly happy to delist Cam Wight, possibly promote Mulligan and still have 3 selections in the rookie draft. The value of pick 64 compared to the rookie draft is marginal at best, as whoever Clayton invariably selects late is someone that only Clayton is interested in and would be available to rookie (assuming they are not bottom age and therefore ineligable to nominate for the rookie draft). Sadly the Eagle is under contract, so there is little or no benefit in delisting him and paying him out.

With regard to 2009, correct me if I'm wrong but the only compromise to next year's crop is the loss of 3 months at the bottom age end? If that's the case, there are no Gold Coast concession picks per se, so the wooden spooners will still get pick 1 and so on. It gets all rather murky in 2010, but by that stage we might possibly have a couple of quality father-sons coming through the system, which would be perfect timing in a draft year that Gold Coast virtually owns in the first 25 picks.

We've drafted some quality youth in the last 3 years that are developing nicely on our list, so I'm happy with the composition of our list with regard to future seasons. We aren't age top-heavy, and our better performing players are all still on the right side of 27 - only Aker finished top 10 in our B&F outside this age bracket. List-wise, we are well placed for the next 3 years at least.

[The Underdog]

Alternately, I'd also be perfectly happy to delist Cam Wight, possibly promote Mulligan and still have 3 selections in the rookie draft.



While no fan of Cam I'm not sure I understand the point of this move. Most who've seen Mulligan play (rather than those of us who've just fallen in love watching him train) agree that he's more than a year away from senior footy. Why not just leave him as a rookie for another year when we'll still be able to promote him if he's come on as we'd hoped. If we were to delist Wight, I would imagine it'd only be to add a 4th pick in the national draft or because someone came up in the PSD, not to promote a rookie.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I don't understand how the philosophy works.

Westy gets a tap on the shoulder but Eagle, Skipper and Wight, who aren't even worth licking the feet of Westy, clog the list like fatty deposits in the circulatory system of a heart attack victim.
I much prefer this scenario.
Skipper and Wight are delisted. Eagleton get's talked into retiring.

Westy gets a years grace for his selfless and noble efforts for the dogs over 300+ games.
EVEN IF HE DOESN'T PLAY A SINGLE GAME.

A legendary warrior gets the respect he deserves and the system gets flushed out for new picks.

[bulldogtragic]

I don't understand how the philosophy works.

Westy gets a tap on the shoulder but Eagle, Skipper and Wight, who aren't even worth licking the feet of Westy, clog the list like fatty deposits in the circulatory system of a heart attack victim.
I much prefer this scenario.
Skipper and Wight are delisted. Eagleton get's talked into retiring.

Westy gets a years grace for his selfless and noble efforts for the dogs over 300+ games.
EVEN IF HE DOESN'T PLAY A SINGLE GAME.

A legendary warrior gets the respect he deserves and the system gets flushed out for new picks.
Well,

Skipper is tall.
Wight and Eagle have contracts.
West has a degenerative knee and was out of contract.

Having said that, I agree somewhat with the general sentiment that some on the list don't really deserve to be.

[Sedat]

I don't understand how the philosophy works.

Westy gets a tap on the shoulder but Eagle, Skipper and Wight, who aren't even worth licking the feet of Westy, clog the list like fatty deposits in the circulatory system of a heart attack victim.
I much prefer this scenario.
Skipper and Wight are delisted. Eagleton get's talked into retiring.

Westy gets a years grace for his selfless and noble efforts for the dogs over 300+ games.
EVEN IF HE DOESN'T PLAY A SINGLE GAME.

A legendary warrior gets the respect he deserves and the system gets flushed out for new picks.
Westy gets a tap because his knee is shot to buggery and we have ample midfield cover coming through - we did improve from 13th to 3rd with Westy out of the side most of the season, no small thanks to the likes of Cross, Boyd, Cooney, Griffen and co. Skipper is the 3rd string ruckman and is kept over Street. Wight is kept as insurance in case Williams gets hit by a bus in the off season. Eagle stays because he is under contract (I'm not happy about this either).

If Skipper and Street are delisted, who comes into calculations for the rucks if either one of Minson and Hudson get injured? Neither Mulligan or Shaw are anywhere near it at this stage. One of Skip or Street simply has to stay.

Who plays key defence if Lake is injured long-term? Wight is not much chop at all but the cupboard is bare outside of Lake, Williams and Everitt - Tiller is not tall enough to take anyone outside the 3rd string talls. Didn't realise Wight was also contracted next season. Granted Eagle is replacable several times over by young midfielders coming through - we could pay him out and delist him now but the recruiting team does not rate the lower reaches of the draft so what is the point (can't believe I'm sticking up for the Eagle).

Nobody deserves an honorary position on our list for symbolic purposes only - if Westy is not physically up to the task any more then we would have been derelict in our duty had we kept him on the list.

Do Eagle, Wight and Skipper deserve another season on an AFL list? That's another question altogether.

[azabob]

I don't understand how the philosophy works.

Westy gets a tap on the shoulder but Eagle, Skipper and Wight, who aren't even worth licking the feet of Westy, clog the list like fatty deposits in the circulatory system of a heart attack victim.
I much prefer this scenario.
Skipper and Wight are delisted. Eagleton get's talked into retiring.

Westy gets a years grace for his selfless and noble efforts for the dogs over 300+ games.
EVEN IF HE DOESN'T PLAY A SINGLE GAME.

A legendary warrior gets the respect he deserves and the system gets flushed out for new picks.

We cannot delist both Skipper and Street, if we do we wont have a back up ruckman.
The West decision had to be made and was made. We still need Cam Wight on the list as a back up when one of our very few tall players get injured.
Just remember people dont get confused with Quantity over Quality.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I'd Rather Use Libba As A Back Up Ruckman Than Wight Or Skipper.

[Dancin' Douggy]

We cannot delist both Skipper and Street, if we do we wont have a back up ruckman.
The West decision had to be made and was made. We still need Cam Wight on the list as a back up when one of our very few tall players get injured.
Just remember people dont get confused with Quantity over Quality.

But we don't use Wight when our talls are injured anyway..........

[Dancin' Douggy]

Westy gets a tap because his knee is shot to buggery and we have ample midfield cover coming through - we did improve from 13th to 3rd with Westy out of the side most of the season, no small thanks to the likes of Cross, Boyd, Cooney, Griffen and co. Skipper is the 3rd string ruckman and is kept over Street. Wight is kept as insurance in case Williams gets hit by a bus in the off season. Eagle stays because he is under contract (I'm not happy about this either).

If Skipper and Street are delisted, who comes into calculations for the rucks if either one of Minson and Hudson get injured? Neither Mulligan or Shaw are anywhere near it at this stage. One of Skip or Street simply has to stay.

Who plays key defence if Lake is injured long-term? Wight is not much chop at all but the cupboard is bare outside of Lake, Williams and Everitt - Tiller is not tall enough to take anyone outside the 3rd string talls. Didn't realise Wight was also contracted next season. Granted Eagle is replacable several times over by young midfielders coming through - we could pay him out and delist him now but the recruiting team does not rate the lower reaches of the draft so what is the point (can't believe I'm sticking up for the Eagle).

Nobody deserves an honorary position on our list for symbolic purposes only - if Westy is not physically up to the task any more then we would have been derelict in our duty had we kept him on the list.

Do Eagle, Wight and Skipper deserve another season on an AFL list? That's another question altogether.

Mullighan and Shaw are nowhere near it? I guess that put's them right alongside Skipper.
I'd rather have a young rookie who was nowhere near it than an 8 year veteran who was never anywhere near it.

[Scorlibo]

But we don't use Wight when our talls are injured anyway..........

Indeed, delist Wight and use pick 64 to get a good kid in a strong, untampered and deep draft (to whoever asked about the depth, I would say the first 40 picks are very valuable and another 30 or so outside them also have serious talent to be developed).

[Dancin' Douggy]

Westy gets a tap because his knee is shot to buggery and we have ample midfield cover coming through - we did improve from 13th to 3rd with Westy out of the side most of the season, no small thanks to the likes of Cross, Boyd, Cooney, Griffen and co. Skipper is the 3rd string ruckman and is kept over Street. Wight is kept as insurance in case Williams gets hit by a bus in the off season. Eagle stays because he is under contract (I'm not happy about this either).

If Skipper and Street are delisted, who comes into calculations for the rucks if either one of Minson and Hudson get injured? Neither Mulligan or Shaw are anywhere near it at this stage. One of Skip or Street simply has to stay.

Who plays key defence if Lake is injured long-term? Wight is not much chop at all but the cupboard is bare outside of Lake, Williams and Everitt - Tiller is not tall enough to take anyone outside the 3rd string talls. Didn't realise Wight was also contracted next season. Granted Eagle is replacable several times over by young midfielders coming through - we could pay him out and delist him now but the recruiting team does not rate the lower reaches of the draft so what is the point (can't believe I'm sticking up for the Eagle).

Nobody deserves an honorary position on our list for symbolic purposes only - if Westy is not physically up to the task any more then we would have been derelict in our duty had we kept him on the list.

Do Eagle, Wight and Skipper deserve another season on an AFL list? That's another question altogether.

I'd like to disagree with you in regards the honorary and symbolic position on our list.

A) Westy is on the veterans list and is not stopping a young player getting a spot.
B) There is such a thing as sentimentality and symbolism in sport. Otherwise we'd all lose interest pretty quickly. What would someone like Westy command as a wage just as a mentor and a marketing figure. As an advisor and motivator. Probably more than he would have been prepared to play for.
C) Westy might have played again with proper rest and rehab but he was pushing himself as hard as he could to play finals this year.
D) I think the positive flow on effect of giving Westy another year would have been spiritual, motivational and financial.

[Topdog]

If it didn't cost us about $600,000 we probably would have done what you said dancing dougie.

[Scraggers]

If it didn't cost us about $600,000 we probably would have done what you said dancing dougie.

So are saying our delistings and forced retirements are more a financial decision rather than a strategic one?

And if so, how can we compete against The Hawthorns and The Geelongs of the world if our coaching team can't choose their preferred team make-up ... knowing both Hawthorn and Geelong were in our fiscal position not all that long ago yet made hard decisions to get their preferred team

[FrediKanoute]

So are saying our delistings and forced retirements are more a financial decision rather than a strategic one?

And if so, how can we compete against The Hawthorns and The Geelongs of the world if our coaching team can't choose their preferred team make-up ... knowing both Hawthorn and Geelong were in our fiscal position not all that long ago yet made hard decisions to get their preferred team

I think its naive to think that decisions that the club makes are totally without regard to financial issues. $600k is a sizeable amount of cash to pay someone to sit on their butt and not contribute.

I think the decision to go with 3 players was twofold:


1. We delisted and traded heavily in the last two years and brought in a number of young players all of whom are still on the list (last 2 drafts) and all of whom look like being capable of playing senior football (O'shea aside);

2. Team Balance suggests that to delist Eagle or Wight could cause us serious problems if we have injuries.

I have no doubt that the club would have preferred Ray to stay and take Eagles position in 2009, but he chose an alternative path. Wight may or may not play next year, but having him as a back up if we have a terrible run with injuries to our talls is prudent management.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Westy was on a year by year agreement. I'm certain he would have gone on for substantially less than $600,000. If he was demanding that amount then the club made the right decision but I find that very hard to believe.

[bornadog]

Westy was on a year by year agreement. I'm certain he would have gone on for substantially less than $600,000. If he was demanding that amount then the club made the right decision but I find that very hard to believe.

DD, West will be 34 years old in a few months, has a bung knee and it was time to let a young player have a go. Its now done and dusted and time to give Okeefe, Reid, Wood, Lynch etc a go.

[Throughandthrough]

Just heard that young gun forward from Sturt Paul Cahill may have some "off field" issues that would need to be managed carefully or may cause some clubs to go cold.


No idea what (if anything at all)

[Throughandthrough]

Just heard that young gun forward from Sturt Paul Cahill may have some "off field" issues that would need to be managed carefully or may cause some clubs to go cold.


No idea what (if anything at all)


Huge correction to that


Not off field issues at all

The concern is whether he would be mentally tough enough for the AFL system

ALso can be selfish as well; apparently. Would get on very well in the forward line with Johnno