 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
2 So we can upgrade Frost
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
 |
themonk
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
|
| Post subject: Re: The Rookie philosophy | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | GoWoodsmen wrote: | | Neil Appleby wrote: | I was talking about our new picks with a friend last night and he asked a couple of questions I couldn't answer. So over to you Nicksters.
1. Why didn't Collingwood pick Michael Manteit with Draft pick 75 rather than as a Rookie? Is it purely a financial decision?
2. What was stopping another club from picking Tony Armstrong ahead of us? |
Neil... despite people pot shotting Tony .. I believe any club could have picked him - it has nothing to do with contract status. However, I believe there is an unwritten rule that clubs who have indicated they will re-draft an existing player as a rookie are left to their own devices. One day someone will do the dirty but let's be honest, you don't delist a player in the first place if you're sure of what they offer to the team/club. |
So then why did Geelong pick up Delaney under the nose of North Melbourne before North were able to redraft him. Let's be realistic here. No one was planning to take Armstrong before us. I'm wondering, did we have an arrangement last year with Sydney that they would only release White on the condition that we took Armstrong as well? |
I doubt that very much, Sydney was desperate to move White on after they landed Franklin, if anything we did them a huge favor.
As for Armstrong, I don't believe he will get any better but his experience may assist our young squad over the next year at least. |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: Re: The Rookie philosophy | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: |
So then why did Geelong pick up Delaney under the nose of North Melbourne before North were able to redraft him. Let's be realistic here. No one was planning to take Armstrong before us. I'm wondering, did we have an arrangement last year with Sydney that they would only release White on the condition that we took Armstrong as well? |
I wouldn't have thought so, no. They were always going to move White and others on once Franklin got there. While the Swans did try to tack Armstrong onto that trade, in the end we got him as a Delisted Free Agent. In fact, it seems we outright baulked at taking Armstrong as part of the White deal.
What beggars belief with me is, why we offered a player who had failed at two clubs over six years a 2 year deal, when there were no other clubs interested in him as a Delisted Free Agent (certainly there were none reported as being interested in him). Players like Armstrong need 1 year, do-or-die, minimum chips deals, not two year ones! When there's no demand for his services in the market, you toss him a 1 year deal, he accepts if he wants to continue plying his trade, then see where things are 12 months later.
Poor list management in that case and we end up wasting a rookie spot as a result... |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Money.  |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Q2 = No One else would want Armstrong. He is just playing out his Contract
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: Re: The Rookie philosophy | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | | BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: |
So then why did Geelong pick up Delaney under the nose of North Melbourne before North were able to redraft him. Let's be realistic here. No one was planning to take Armstrong before us. I'm wondering, did we have an arrangement last year with Sydney that they would only release White on the condition that we took Armstrong as well? |
I wouldn't have thought so, no. They were always going to move White and others on once Franklin got there. While the Swans did try to tack Armstrong onto that trade, in the end we got him as a Delisted Free Agent. In fact, it seems we outright baulked at taking Armstrong as part of the White deal.
What beggars belief with me is, why we offered a player who had failed at two clubs over six years a 2 year deal, when there were no other clubs interested in him as a Delisted Free Agent (certainly there were none reported as being interested in him). Players like Armstrong need 1 year, do-or-die, minimum chips deals, not two year ones! When there's no demand for his services in the market, you toss him a 1 year deal, he accepts if he wants to continue plying his trade, then see where things are 12 months later.
Poor list management in that case and we end up wasting a rookie spot as a result... |
I thought we where trying to get Armstrong be part of the White Trade?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: Re: The Rookie philosophy | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | MagpieBat wrote: | | BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: |
So then why did Geelong pick up Delaney under the nose of North Melbourne before North were able to redraft him. Let's be realistic here. No one was planning to take Armstrong before us. I'm wondering, did we have an arrangement last year with Sydney that they would only release White on the condition that we took Armstrong as well? |
I wouldn't have thought so, no. They were always going to move White and others on once Franklin got there. While the Swans did try to tack Armstrong onto that trade, in the end we got him as a Delisted Free Agent. In fact, it seems we outright baulked at taking Armstrong as part of the White deal.
What beggars belief with me is, why we offered a player who had failed at two clubs over six years a 2 year deal, when there were no other clubs interested in him as a Delisted Free Agent (certainly there were none reported as being interested in him). Players like Armstrong need 1 year, do-or-die, minimum chips deals, not two year ones! When there's no demand for his services in the market, you toss him a 1 year deal, he accepts if he wants to continue plying his trade, then see where things are 12 months later.
Poor list management in that case and we end up wasting a rookie spot as a result... |
I thought we where trying to get Armstrong be part of the White Trade? |
Maybe the club thought that his heroics late last year - playing a full VFL and AFL game in one day - deserved to be rewarded. His lack of physicality means he probably won't play many/any senior games, but he's a handy player to have in reserve if we need a running defender with good disposal skills. All in all, I'm happy we signed him on for another year.  |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: Re: The Rookie philosophy | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | MagpieBat wrote: | | BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: |
So then why did Geelong pick up Delaney under the nose of North Melbourne before North were able to redraft him. Let's be realistic here. No one was planning to take Armstrong before us. I'm wondering, did we have an arrangement last year with Sydney that they would only release White on the condition that we took Armstrong as well? |
I wouldn't have thought so, no. They were always going to move White and others on once Franklin got there. While the Swans did try to tack Armstrong onto that trade, in the end we got him as a Delisted Free Agent. In fact, it seems we outright baulked at taking Armstrong as part of the White deal.
What beggars belief with me is, why we offered a player who had failed at two clubs over six years a 2 year deal, when there were no other clubs interested in him as a Delisted Free Agent (certainly there were none reported as being interested in him). Players like Armstrong need 1 year, do-or-die, minimum chips deals, not two year ones! When there's no demand for his services in the market, you toss him a 1 year deal, he accepts if he wants to continue plying his trade, then see where things are 12 months later.
Poor list management in that case and we end up wasting a rookie spot as a result... |
I thought we where trying to get Armstrong be part of the White Trade? |
Maybe the club thought that his heroics late last year - playing a full VFL and AFL game in one day - deserved to be rewarded. His lack of physicality means he probably won't play many/any senior games, but he's a handy player to have in reserve if we need a running defender with good disposal skills. All in all, I'm happy we signed him on for another year. |
That what Hine has said about Armstrong. We Rookie him because he has some Okay AFL Games when he played and they feel this is his Reward for it
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
