Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

No love here for Lobe from Port who is apparently on the way out to make room for Dixon ?
Surely a more reliable player than Kruezer as he gets on the paddock.
I hate taking players with such long injury history
Has a bad feel to it already

Are we looking for a forward type relief ruck ? If so then White's days in seniors must be numbered.
I can't see Kruezer being anything other than a back up to Grundy. And at rumoured $600k then it's way over for that type of player.
I would have assumed we would be keeping some powder dry to upgrade the kids we have on our list in the next few years not committing to much to players like this.
I know Swanny will be going onto veterans list (if he isn't already) and we probably had some cap space left after Beams but in 2-3yrd time we would need it for the likes of DeGoey Moore etc.
I wonder if Pendles contract talks are more to do with giving us some breathing room going forward meaning take a load next year and then drop down after that on a longer term and have a good job offer after football with the club to make up any short fall from playing days.
Unless the cap is going up when th new TV rights deal comes through and we are banking on that
Your guess is as good as mine

melliot wrote:Especially, if it means the Witts part of the Treloar trade satisfies GWS. It appears a great coup to me.

So melliot, I take it that you don't rate Witts?

If he's over his injuries, I rate Kruezer as one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. At 26, his best is probably still to come. He is a fantastic mark, is aggressive, and reads the play very well.

RudeBoy wrote:If he's over his injuries, I rate Kruezer as one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. At 26, his best is probably still to come. He is a fantastic mark, is aggressive, and reads the play very well.

Spot on RudeBoy. He comes in Jane White won't get a game.

Lazza wrote:

melliot wrote:Especially, if it means the Witts part of the Treloar trade satisfies GWS. It appears a great coup to me.

So melliot, I take it that you don't rate Witts?

IMO Witts is an adequate AFL level 1st ruckman, but has potential to be much better........ or maybe not. That's the thing with potential it may not be realised.

In 2015 Witts is not as good as Grundy (only just). He certainly is not better than Kruezer. In fact Kruez would be better than both of them (when fit).

My observation of Witts is:
- Solid ruck work
- doesn't get dirty enough in the contested ball and use his bulk enough (ie. Refer to Mumford/Santilands as the best at this).
- no where near strong enough overhead.
- Very good field kick.
- Goal kicking is inconsistent. Can have good days, can be horrible too.

My preference would be to keep him and not get Kruezer. As I think Witts' potential appears attractive. But I have my doubts on Witts and I want Treloar and if Witts must be part of that deal, then Kruezer is an excellent replacement and cost us only cap space (i.e no Trade cost).

We have to give up something for Treloar. We ain't gunna get him for free! They want a ruckman and draft picks for the academy players bid.

So if it isn't Witts, who do you want to give up of similar value?

I think CFCs strategy is good.

Given Kreuzer's injury history, I hope we are not offering him $500-$600K per year.

Hopefully we are smart enough to have performance based clauses in his contract.

Base of around $450K, with potential to earn more depending on games B&F finishes.

RudeBoy wrote:If he's over his injuries, I rate Kruezer as one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. At 26, his best is probably still to come. He is a fantastic mark, is aggressive, and reads the play very well.

Agree, certainly got the talent and should be entering his prime now.

wasnt kruezer a pies supporter offer him 450 to 500

jackcass wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:If he's over his injuries, I rate Kruezer as one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. At 26, his best is probably still to come. He is a fantastic mark, is aggressive, and reads the play very well.

Agree, certainly got the talent and should be entering his prime now.

I don't know very many fantastic mark is aggressive and reads the play well.

qldmagpie67 wrote:No love here for Lobe from Port who is apparently on the way out to make room for Dixon ?
Surely a more reliable player than Kruezer as he gets on the paddock.
I hate taking players with such long injury history
Has a bad feel to it already

Are we looking for a forward type relief ruck ? If so then White's days in seniors must be numbered.
I can't see Kruezer being anything other than a back up to Grundy. And at rumoured $600k then it's way over for that type of player.
I would have assumed we would be keeping some powder dry to upgrade the kids we have on our list in the next few years not committing to much to players like this.
I know Swanny will be going onto veterans list (if he isn't already) and we probably had some cap space left after Beams but in 2-3yrd time we would need it for the likes of DeGoey Moore etc.
I wonder if Pendles contract talks are more to do with giving us some breathing room going forward meaning take a load next year and then drop down after that on a longer term and have a good job offer after football with the club to make up any short fall from playing days.
Unless the cap is going up when th new TV rights deal comes through and we are banking on that
Your guess is as good as mine

Lobbe is a ruckman, that's it. Offers nothing as a forward, even less than Grundy and Witts. You'd imagine there will be sides out there looking for a no1 ruckman (Essendon and Doggies for instance) but that's not our situation with both Witts and Grundy capable of that role.

GreekLunatic wrote:wasnt kruezer a pies supporter offer him 450 to 500

If we want him we have to offer more than the blues are prepared to pay him. It's as simple as that. Ultimately he'll end up earning more than his 'true' value, just as Frawley did when he left the Dees to join the Hawks.

melliot wrote:So if it isn't Witts, who do you want to give up of similar value?

How about a combination from the likes of Sinclair, Seedsman, White and Armstrong?

jackcass wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:If he's over his injuries, I rate Kruezer as one of the best ruckmen in the AFL. At 26, his best is probably still to come. He is a fantastic mark, is aggressive, and reads the play very well.

Agree, certainly got the talent and should be entering his prime now.

The same arguments can be used to keep Witts he will come into his prime in 2017 and his body is far less fragile than Kreuzer

Lazza wrote:

melliot wrote:So if it isn't Witts, who do you want to give up of similar value?

How about a combination from the likes of Sinclair, Seedsman, White and Armstrong?

1) Armstrong has 0 trade value and will be delisted at seasons end.
2) We pick up White 2 years ago for a 20 something pick I think. His value has only decreased. Would be lucky to be worth a 30 or 40 something pick. Considering we lack key forwards, he is a good back up for us anyway.
3) Sinclair maybe a 30-40 something pick
4) Seedsman a 30 something pick.

However, GWS would not want any of them and already have similar types with far better potential sitting in the Reserves.

Packaged together you might have a low 30 pick and a potential for a heap of list cloggers. GWS has young talanet to burn. and spots on the list a premium. They are only going to want singular quality for a particular need. Which is a back up and eventual replacement Ruckman or Picks to bid for the academy kids.

Alternatively we ship your suggested players to other clubs for picks and on-trade picks to GWS. But I think this bait has limited value.

We have to give up quality to get quality. But best to give away our excess quality or easily replaced quality.

melliot wrote:

Lazza wrote:

melliot wrote:So if it isn't Witts, who do you want to give up of similar value?

How about a combination from the likes of Sinclair, Seedsman, White and Armstrong?

1) Armstrong has 0 trade value and will be delisted at seasons end.
2) We pick up White 2 years ago for a 20 something pick I think. His value has only decreased. Would be lucky to be worth a 30 or 40 something pick. Considering we lack key forwards, he is a good back up for us anyway.
3) Sinclair maybe a 30-40 something pick
4) Seedsman a 30 something pick.

However, GWS would not want any of them and already have similar types with far better potential sitting in the Reserves.

Packaged together you might have a low 30 pick and a potential for a heap of list cloggers. GWS has young talanet to burn. and spots on the list a premium. They are only going to want singular quality for a particular need. Which is a back up and eventual replacement Ruckman or Picks to bid for the academy kids.

Alternatively we ship your suggested players to other clubs for picks and on-trade picks to GWS. But I think this bait has limited value.

We have to give up quality to get quality. But best to give away our excess quality or easily replaced quality.

All fair points well made melliot.

A lot to ponder on and for the club to ultimately decide on the best value deals for Collingwood.