I don’t think it generates much extra content besides a couple of opinion pieces every year saying it’s stupid. If there was a national draft and then the SSP from the day after the draft until the week before the season starts or whatever, there would still be plenty of off-season pap for the people toiling away in the content mines.
Edit: sorry, that was a reply to @frosty
A lot of Pies supporters see him as the answer to their key forward woes, but as my Collingwood mate who speaks sense reminded me, he is 188 tall.
I think if the issue is clubs manipulating the rookie list rules because they don’t have enough main list spots, then clearly there’s not enough value in rookie spots themselves so I agree with what you’re saying
Like Gunston being on a rookie list is a massive joke, if the Hawks needed another main list spot they should be forced to make hard decisions
The rookie list has morphed into something far from what it was originally meant to be. The only positve is that you can add players who do not earn much ( not a positive fro the players) and it is another draft after the main draft and the clubs have a day to go through the dreggs. I am am happy to have as many drafts as possible, it gives my boring life meaning in off season.
He’s always been described as slow though. That implies he’ll struggle both for separation and pressure. I’ve not seen him though.
Again, not against giving him a one year deal as a Hail Mary but I don’t think he fits. Prefer to give him a VFL lifeline.
I still think the rookie draft has value as giving one year contracts. But agree they should merge the two lists.
Yeah, it’s a minor thing. Using the SSP for one year contracts would be fine to me, and there aren’t that many real rookies taken in the rookie draft any more anyway. Either way wouldn’t be a huge deal I think.
Harry Schoenberg delisted by Adelaide is very interesting. They want to rookie him as he was contracted till 2025.
I prefer clubs have the chance by draft order to take players on one year deals. SSP feels too much like clubs and players deciding where they go. If they pass, fine. But I wouldn’t want a club not to have the option.
What they really want is another suitor snapping him up so they don’t have to relist him
It appears Prior did not nominate for the draft. Essendon bound?
They still have another week to put their nominations in
They do say black has a slimming effect…
He does look in good nick though. The real challenge will be maintaining that till the start of the season (and beyond). Fingers crossed for him
He’s got those Christmas pies to bring him unstuck yet
If you trade him away I reckon you have to be prepared for Jake to have a ripper 2025. It’s 3 years down the track and (hopefully) the opportunity one of our young forwards grabbed next year that matters.
Anybody wistfully riding the performances of Stringer next year for GWS still doesn’t understand why we decided to move him on.
What is your take on the why mate?
Heard plenty of things but I must say I’m still pretty disappointed.
I think we are better off reforming our forward line with an eye on the future. I’m not interested in Stringer kicking 30 goals against North Melbourne, West Coast and Richmond next year as we stumble over the line by 9 points once again inflating our ladder position, limit our access to desperately needed top tier draft talent and continue to drift aimlessly in mid-table mediocrity.
But sure, he’s great fun to watch.
Thanks.
I guess I remain one of the few who just don’t think we had to trade Jake to improve. I don’t think improving and trading Jake were mutually exclusive.
