Haha
Let's take bets on how long the bump takes!
Trading Witts
Moderator: bbmods
-
think positive
- Posts: 40237
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 339 times
- Been liked: 103 times
-
AN_Inkling
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
-
Magpietothemax
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
- Has liked: 26 times
- Been liked: 31 times
Don't believe that we should be be considering giving Witts away. Two ruckmen I believe are essential: like we are seeing now...if one is injured, you need another to step in. And if both are elite...they can definitely play together! I think one of our major goals must be to train one of them to play forward and become a roaming target on our forward line, to add that extra lethal dimension to our forward line. I am not sure which of Grundy and Witts this should be. Our coaches need to establish that. We need to acquire the likes of Treloar through other means!
-
AN_Inkling
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
No one's considering "giving him away" and I'm not saying we should trade him. All I'm saying is, if there was someone we desperately wanted (eg. Treloar) and we needed to give up a quality player to get him, Witts is probably our most tradeable. Because, while you do need two first rucks, you do not need them to play in your best 22. So far we haven't even fully established that Witts and Grundy can play their best footy in the same team, for some players such a relationship can take years to work out and playing two first rucks has become increasingly rare across the league.
My view is that it's very unlikely that we do trade him considering the work we've put into development and how excellent are his prospects, but it's far from outside the realms of possibility.
My view is that it's very unlikely that we do trade him considering the work we've put into development and how excellent are his prospects, but it's far from outside the realms of possibility.
Well done boys!
We aren't the ones making the trade/draft decisions so not sure why people get themselves in a tizz over an interesting discussion.jackcass wrote:I think the discussion is valid but way too premature. Give it a couple of seasons so we can at least see how they develop and who knows 1 of Witts or Grundy may even request a trade if they aren't getting senior opportunity.John Wren wrote:it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying.AN_Inkling wrote: Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion.
It's in the clubs hands and the thought of trading Witts could be completely foreign to them and that would be perfectly fine and reasonable.
Witts is an an excellent first ruck prospect.
However if they did entertain trading Witts for someone of the calibre of young Treloar (and only someone of that calibre) then Witts performance today wouldn't have done it's chances any harm.
My question is how do you believe the club will be able to meet the demands of GWS if our supposed high interest in Treloar is true if not for giving up someone like Witts?
Outside of the unfortunate loss of Scharenberg to Adelaide and having another first round pick to offer not sure what other obvious options we have.
Then again that's another scenario that raises the ire.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!