carntheblues wrote:
It is only worth investing in the draft if there are players worth drafting. No point drafting for the sake of drafting. I am not sure how anyone can assess ROK given his lack of game time. He is worthy persisting with as he is similar to Bell, strong bodied and can run all day. As Thomas is a restricted free agent we will be able to secure him but it will cost, if Collingwood matches the offer he stays with them.
We picked up ROK in November 2007; he's in his 6th season at the club. He's played 3 games. Time's up.
He is nothing like Bell, which tells me a bit about how much you've seen of him.
Which brings me to why I am in favour of cutting said names, see 4 pages back:
jimmae wrote:
FWIW, here's my take.
Senior List
Out: Joseph, Ellard, Davies, Duigan, Collins, Scotland (ret.)
Further assessment: Mitchell, McCarthy
Elevate: Cachia, Curnow
Rookie List
Out: Rhys O'Keeffe
Further assessment*: Frazer Dale, Tom Bell
Trade Table (in order of likely value):
Hampson, Robinson, Casboult, Warnock, Laidler, White
* - (only one can be retained as a third year rookie if that rule is still in play, though I believe Bell has a contract for 2014 at the minimum, so elevation is likely)
Further assessment implies that we look over those names, run the rule through the draft pool, and consider whether we stand to gain from dumping the listed players in favour of starting anew.
So bare minimum that's 3 off the senior list, which is the minimum requirement, and up to 5 incoming on the rookie list. Senior losses could easily double or (much less likely) triple. 7-11 players out and 8-12 coming in? Around 25% of the list; that's 'pretty radical'.
Which brings me to:
AK43 wrote:
Collins isn't on the senior list btw, he's a rookie.
Cheers for that, so one more to get rid of, with plenty of contentious names. Mitchell or McCarthy or Laidler or White? Hmm.
Casboult should be scrutinised as well IMO.
Login
Register
FAQ
