Final Trades 2006
The Eagles have made two trades in the 2006 trade period, exchanging Andrew McDougall to the Bulldogs and Michael Gardiner to the Saints for draft picks.
- McDougall and picks 34, 66 to Bulldogs in exchange for picks 29 and 59.
- Gardiner and pick 59 to the Saints in exchange for pick 43.
There is nothing earth shattering about any of that. It’s a nice upgrade on the draft, which we obvious rate highly, and we now have selections 16, 29, 43 (and 50) in the 2006 draft.
It’s disappointing to miss out on Tarrant, but time will tell if that was a good thing or not. Clearly the price for him (Polak, Medhurst AND pick 13) was waaay over the odds and I’m happy we kept our heads in the realms of reality.
Overall the draft period was very quiet with a number of clubs not opting to make any moves. It seems that clubs are increasingly reluctant to exchange draft selections for players. Which is a shame for the fans. On top of that, it means the pre season draft for the likes of Thornton, Russell, Makepeace and number of other out of contract players.
Not sure how to remedy it, but I think changes need to be made to get the most out of the system as it stands.
Oct 15th 2006
Do the Eagles REALLY need Tarrant?
Who would you drop from the lineup to make way for him?
Oct 16th 2006
I’m quite glad we didn’t get Tarrant. After laughing at him so many times having a sook at the umpires, it’s much better that he’s a Docker.
Oct 16th 2006
I hated the idea of us getting Tarrant. I’d much rather we persist with Staker as our third tall (with Lynch at full-forward and Hansen at CHF).
But I cannot wait for the battle between Armstrong, Sampi and LeCras. Two of them I can see in the one forward line, so somebody is going to miss out.
Even Fletcher managed to pull a decent game out when it mattered most, so it’ll be interesting to see what Woosha does with him too.
As for the draft, I think we need a ruckman. Our forward line ceases to exist when we’re forced to use Lynch in the ruck. Maybe Hunter could play full-forward if Cox/Seaby are injured, which means Graham needs to bulk up a bit. So does Staker and Rosa.
I wish season 2007 started tomorrow
Oct 16th 2006
I can see Hunter moving forward permanently. How about the back line being Glass, Waters, Wirrapanda, Nicoski, Selwood and Graham?
That way you could chuck Hunter forward with Lynch and Hansen and small forwards.
What about Brad Smith - will they persist with him after 2 knee reconstructions?
Oct 17th 2006
I think the way footy is going you need at least 3 tall defenders, which would mean Hunter, Glass and Graham would all be required down back. We still don’t have a decent replacement for Glass, though Brett Jones can play as a 3rd tall if necessary, freeing up Hunter to play full back. I reckon we should be looking for a ruckman and a fullback, but that won’t help us for next year. I think if Glass gets a long term injury we are very susceptible.
Oct 28th 2006
without glass we would have not had a chance of winning the premiership last year.
Graham is still developing and when he puts on a bit more bulk and is better able to hold his own in the one-on-ones i will be a little more confident in our chances if glass were to get injured.