TRADES 2004

Presti_is_god · Post by **Presti_is_god** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:08 pm

Of course we can delist more we just have to back it up with draft picks and 2 for 1 trades etc.

bokka · Post by **bokka** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:52 am

Presti_is_god wrote:
Johnson#26 wrote:So we need to delist 5 players this trade period. Corrrect?
Yes. If we are to promote Maxwell and use 4 picks.

IMO the should be:

Kinnear
Williams
McKee
Shackleton
Swan/Mullins/Lokan

Definitely I would say #5 should be Lokan. Dispensable in our squad, and has some trade value. A handy versatile backup with pace, but you can't have everything in a tight situation. Will probly never be a world-beater. WE have to aim for a premiership squad - ie ask, would Brisbane or Port or StK keep Lokan?
Wouldn't like to see Swan or Mullins go just yet. IF either it would be Mullins I would say due to Swan's pretty impressive devt this year, and he may turn out to be the classier player even though Swan is going to be a solid contributor off the backline.
I would also prefer promo Max and Crow and 3 picks.

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:05 am

I'd say Lokan as #5. I think he has some trade value, and must be offered as a trade. Port or the Crows may be interested.

3rd degree · Post by **3rd degree** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:38 am

Who else I think we could offer as trade bait and let go if the right deal came along or keep if not:

Lonie
Presti

I'd definitely promote Maxwell and Leonard and expect we will.[/quote]

Maybe Presti, BUT Lonie you got to be kidding! He's one our best kicks in the side. He is one bloke has truckloads of class, he does need to get a bit harder at the ball though. But really his role is a finisher.

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:38 pm

Lonie may be offered but shouldn't go. He is a rare talent, with skill and good hands. He should make the move to the wing next season. He has been good value as a forward.

Presti_is_god · Post by **Presti_is_god** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:50 pm

Personally i dont think we are ready to part with Presti yet. This is not because hes my fav player but because Tex isnt ready to step up in teh permanent CHB/FB role that Presti does. He wont be anywhere near as consistent. I do see him as the future after Presti/Wakes go but hes not erady yet.

Anyone agree?

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:10 pm

Tex will be our next CHB. Maxy our next backline general (Clement). We just need a replacemnt for Wakes and we are safe for the future.

piedys · Post by **piedys** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:03 pm

If Lonie goes - I go with him! If we get Nathan to keep him company, then i'll be twice as happy! The tandem damage they could cause in one qtr to the opposition would be enough to turn a close game in our favour.

dyso

sq3 · Post by **sq3** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:11 pm

Piedys you are right - behind the scenes I think there are moves for Lonie and Smith from the Hawks - but it just depends on what we have to give up to get them.

They desperately need a tall forward and we have a few.

I think they will ask for Taz + late drat pick for Smith and Lonie.

C2 can go straight to FF and is a better shot for goal - but would we want to give up Taz ??

grims · Post by **grims** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:05 am

Joel Smith isn't the type of player we need, Nathan Lonie would be handy though but not for Tarrant.

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:11 am

Nathan Lonie would be handy, but definitly not for Tarrant. We don't need Smith. The two Lonies would work well together, but who gets them will be the problem. I remember Kevin Sheehan saying about N.Lonie that he was a natural forward when drafted yet the Hawks play him out of defence.

sq3 · Post by **sq3** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:34 am

Correct J26 - Hawks got Nathan prior to us getting Ryan. I don't think it would be too difficult to get Nathan it is just the Hawks need tall forwards desperately - maybe we can get away with a draft pick.

Smith would be great as we would have another 'general' down there besides Jimmy - Max will be one in about 3 years but if we could land another one now we will be very stable in defense.

Maybe OB in the midfield if they are going to lose Crawford to another club.

roar · Post by **roar** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:32 pm

They can have Ryan for a draft pick. I know there are many that don't agree but his softness has cost us many a goal. I have no problem trading him.

Taz on the other hand, I wouldn't trade for anyone.

stik35 · Post by **stik35** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:36 pm

roar wrote:Taz on the other hand, I wouldn't trade for anyone.

Geez I would.

I'd trade him for my husband - no worries at all. LOL

Di Di Didak · Post by **Di Di Didak** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:01 pm

[quote="sq3"]Correct J26 - Hawks got Nathan prior to us getting Ryan.

We picked up Ryan at Pick 34 & the Hawks Nathan at 58

U wouldnt trade tarrant. Ud have to be stupid, and definetely not for smith. Judd yes.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

TRADES 2004