Troy Simmonds Agrees to new one year deal

[big tone]

............
Also going off the list of people maybe looking to be traded, the pick we could get for him could snar us a very good young player. IE Gamble or McKinley.
I know we must use the draft for young kids but with the extra draft picks we get for trading some of our own players/duds we should try to at least get 1 maybe 2 players from other clubs that cannot quite crack it at their club. A GREAT example of one this year would be Prismal.
Gamble is the one for us imo!
Thoughts?

Like Hislop or Thomson?


Although I do agree 100% with Gamble and maybe 90% with McKinley - either of these would be a good fit in our current position and certainly worth the risk that 'recycleds' always are.  Just as I think Hislop and Thomson were worth the risk.  No club is ever going to get all these 'gambles' (sorry, no pun intended) correct, probably not even half of them - so do we take the risk now or just go with draft kids?

And on the subject of Rodan (Stripe's post above) - I don't believe the club made a mistake in getting rid of him:
- He had an attitude problem at Richmond (by his own admission) and was never going to flourish there in the foreseeable future.
- He was always going to be a risk coming back from a knee reco, especially when his only real asset was his pace and ground agility.
- He is still only a fringe mid and rarely performs well over 4 quarters so the possibility then of us of replacing him with something better was quite good.
Talking of the 'gambles' above - he was one we got right.  Rodan prolonged and advanced his career and we got rid of a probable list clogger - win win.

Not every trade HAS to be bad. We as a club just don't seem to be able to get it right! I think if you ask Essendon if they got it right with Prismal they would say yes with a big smile on their face! And yet we took Thompson with the same sort of pick.
And i think there is a fair bit of difference between Hislop (was delisted by the Bombers) and Thompson ( who also would have been delisted) than Gamble and maybe Mckinley. Don't get me wrong, both Hislop and Thompson will not make it but lets not turn our backs on players from other clubs just because we have got a lot wrong in the past. I think this year with all the trading that is suppose to take place, we could pick up a gem for a bargin.
I also agree with you on Rodan, if they offered him back i would say no thanks!

[Smokey]

Not every trade HAS to be bad. We as a club just don't seem to be able to get it right! I think if you ask Essendon if they got it right with Prismal they would say yes with a big smile on their face! And yet we took Thompson with the same sort of pick.

Yes, but that's exactly what we are both saying - you can't always get it right (or wrong).  We took a risk with Thomson and (potentially) lost, they took a risk with Prismall and got it right.  Those that bemoan our perceived lack of success in trading for 'recycleds' don't always bring all the facts to the table.  Essendon took Prismall yet took Zantuck too and that is just one example - every single club is the same and I'm very very confident that if you spend the time going through every club's trade history you will find that we are no better or worse than most other clubs.  The number of players that go to a 2nd/3rd club and make a real difference are actually very few and far between - many become more serviceable than they were but most fail for the same reason they failed initially - just not good enough.

And i think there is a fair bit of difference between Hislop (was delisted by the Bombers) and Thompson ( who also would have been delisted) than Gamble and maybe Mckinley. Don't get me wrong, both Hislop and Thompson will not make it but lets not turn our backs on players from other clubs just because we have got a lot wrong in the past. I think this year with all the trading that is suppose to take place, we could pick up a gem for a bargin.

Yep, I agree.  Both Gamble and McKinley have more (and better) exposed form than Hislop and Thomson and in any other 'normal' year we would be expecting to pay more than we did for either of our two but with this year who knows.  Personally I'm not sold on the 'kids only' top up this year - I would be happy to take one or 2 risks with 'recycleds' but only with high picks, not low/mid picks.  I'm with you in that this year it may very well be possible to pick up a genuine bargain as some clubs make the mistake of over-reacting (panicking) because of the Gold Coast concessions.  One thing to keep in mind is that the Gold Coast are going to need/want to trade a number of picks in the first couple of years if they want to be in any way competitive so there will be more opportunities than many think for quality picks in 2010/11.

[mightytiges]

I know we must use the draft for young kids but with the extra draft picks we get for trading some of our own players/duds we should try to at least get 1 maybe 2 players from other clubs that cannot quite crack it at their club. A GREAT example of one this year would be Prismal.
Gamble is the one for us imo!
Thoughts?

Prismal was in Geelong's best 22 before he did his knee. That trade was meant to be a swap of Prismal for Lovett but the Lovett one fell over with Knights giving Lovett a second chance. The Cats grabbed what they could (pick 39) as Prismal said he wanted to go to Windy Hill.

Gamble doesn't fit a need for us. He's not a big key forward and that's why he can't get into the Geelong side. No more trading for fringe/VFL standard players from other clubs while we are rebuilding. If we pick up footballers who can't crack games with the top sides then how will we eventually challenge these top sides with these substandard players in our side.

As for Simmo - if the Saints want to do a trade then we should be open all ears to it. A package of Simmo and Jordie might gain us a decent pick in return if they are that desperate.

[WilliamPowell]

regarding Prismal you have to also remember he WANTED to go to the Bombers. No point in tryign to trade for someone who doesn't want to be at your club.

Isn't that one of the things we really need to address how do we convince "gun" type players that should come to Tigerland. 

[Smokey]

Gamble doesn't fit a need for us. He's not a big key forward and that's why he can't get into the Geelong side. No more trading for fringe/VFL standard players from other clubs while we are rebuilding. If we pick up footballers who can't crack games with the top sides then how will we eventually challenge these top sides with these substandard players in our side.

As for Simmo - if the Saints want to do a trade then we should be open all ears to it. A package of Simmo and Jordie might gain us a decent pick in return if they are that desperate.

It's not always a case of purely "not being good enough" as the reason for not getting a regular game - Morton is our own case in point - sometimes the chemistry just isn't right.  I see Gamble very much in the Morton mould and while he is trying to crack into a forward line with Mooney, Chapman, Johnson, Ottens, Stokes/Varcoe, Hawkins (favourite son syndrome) then he is going to struggle, especially while this group has premiership winning form.  He is not tall but he plays tall - I think he has a lot of potential and would complement our forward line very well.  With significant development still to come in all these kids - Riewoldt, Morton, Gamble, Nahas, Vickery and Butcher would be a decent platform to build on.

And as for Simmonds - like you MT, I would look at any offer.  On his recent form I don't think we will miss that much if he was traded.  I have a lot of faith in Browne - much more than Graham - and Vickery will improve.

[mightytiges]

It's not always a case of purely "not being good enough" as the reason for not getting a regular game - Morton is our own case in point - sometimes the chemistry just isn't right.  I see Gamble very much in the Morton mould and while he is trying to crack into a forward line with Mooney, Chapman, Johnson, Ottens, Stokes/Varcoe, Hawkins (favourite son syndrome) then he is going to struggle, especially while this group has premiership winning form.  He is not tall but he plays tall - I think he has a lot of potential and would complement our forward line very well.  With significant development still to come in all these kids - Riewoldt, Morton, Gamble, Nahas, Vickery and Butcher would be a decent platform to build on.

At 22 y.o. and 184cm tall, Gamble really should have come on more by now even at Geelong. He seems a jack of all trades but a master of none. Not tall enough to be a genuine tall marking forward yet doesn't play as a midsized forward either crumbing goals. More just a mark and kick forward. That's why I would avoid him. Morton when we traded for him was still only 20 (I agree in Mitch's case about a lack of chemistry - being a F/S didn't seem to sit well with him and the Eagles thought he was a selfish player).

And as for Simmonds - like you MT, I would look at any offer.  On his recent form I don't think we will miss that much if he was traded.  I have a lot of faith in Browne - much more than Graham - and Vickery will improve.

Agree. Simmo isn't part of our future and at 197cm tall he's going to be leaping early again at ruck contests to compete with 200cm+ modern size ruckmen and jumping beans like Ryder and NickNat. It seems we are just going to be in a holding pattern with our ruck stocks in 2010  .

[torch]

i would like to see the proof if Simmonds has accepted an offer!

i would also like to see proof whether other clubs were interested in Simmonds.

i can see why we would keep Simmonds, however i agree with others who have said that i would give him up for anything.

i would perfer to develop our young ruckman like Graham (who i saw today at VU Footscray) Browne (promote), Vickery and would keep Pattison.

draft another 17/18 ruckman.

Dean Putt - i am not sure about. you would think we would delist him after 3 years of nothing.

i would perfer Richmond to draft 17/18 year olds and develop them as our own!

 

[big tone]

regarding Prismal you have to also remember he WANTED to go to the Bombers. No point in tryign to trade for someone who doesn't want to be at your club.

Isn't that one of the things we really need to address how do we convince "gun" type players that should come to Tigerland. 

Prismal would have gone anywhere he was going to get a game and get paid well with a decent contract. Try not to be to naive WP!
We just have to be more aggressive when it came down to it. No wonder our players are weak, everything about our club is weak!

[Smokey]

At 22 y.o. and 184cm tall, Gamble really should have come on more by now even at Geelong. He seems a jack of all trades but a master of none. Not tall enough to be a genuine tall marking forward yet doesn't play as a midsized forward either crumbing goals. More just a mark and kick forward.

To be fair, this was only his 3rd 'real' season in a team that has made the past 3 grand finals - he missed out entirely in 2007 after missing the pre-season due to an ankle injury and then couldn't force his way into a premiership winning side at 19 years old with 1 game experience.  And he only turned 22 last Wednesday - he will be 22 for all next season!

[Francois Jackson]

i would like to see the proof if Simmonds has accepted an offer!

i would also like to see proof whether other clubs were interested in Simmonds.

i can see why we would keep Simmonds, however i agree with others who have said that i would give him up for anything.

i would perfer to develop our young ruckman like Graham (who i saw today at VU Footscray) Browne (promote), Vickery and would keep Pattison.

draft another 17/18 ruckman.

Dean Putt - i am not sure about. you would think we would delist him after 3 years of nothing.

i would perfer Richmond to draft 17/18 year olds and develop them as our own!

 

smart post 

[the_boy_jake]

i would like to see the proof if Simmonds has accepted an offer!

i would also like to see proof whether other clubs were interested in Simmonds.

i can see why we would keep Simmonds, however i agree with others who have said that i would give him up for anything.

i would perfer to develop our young ruckman like Graham (who i saw today at VU Footscray) Browne (promote), Vickery and would keep Pattison.

draft another 17/18 ruckman.

Dean Putt - i am not sure about. you would think we would delist him after 3 years of nothing.

i would perfer Richmond to draft 17/18 year olds and develop them as our own!

 

I'd rather see Pattison go before Simmo. One is getting on a bit and won't feature in our next premiership side, but the other just has no idea how to play footy at this level and is not mobile enough to make up for it.

[mightytiges]

At 22 y.o. and 184cm tall, Gamble really should have come on more by now even at Geelong. He seems a jack of all trades but a master of none. Not tall enough to be a genuine tall marking forward yet doesn't play as a midsized forward either crumbing goals. More just a mark and kick forward.

To be fair, this was only his 3rd 'real' season in a team that has made the past 3 grand finals - he missed out entirely in 2007 after missing the pre-season due to an ankle injury and then couldn't force his way into a premiership winning side at 19 years old with 1 game experience.  And he only turned 22 last Wednesday - he will be 22 for all next season!

Hawkins, Varcoe, Stokes are Gamble's age group and they have stepped into the Cats' forward line this year. Just on age Taylor is another but in the backline and Selwood of course but he's a freak. Stokes was unlucky he was too honest about being injured and not wanting to put the team at jeopardy. He couldn't get back into the GF side with Byrnes and Wojcinski having good games in the PF.

Geelong gave Gamble the opportunity to be their 3rd 'tall' forward option earlier this year when they were still testing he and Hawkins out in the side and he didn't take the opportunity. I'm just concerned smokey about us trading and settling for second best again and we end up going nowhere as usual. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[yellowandback]

It seems a bit fanciful that Brisbane (leunberger, clarke and Charman) and Saints (McEvoy, King and Gardiner) would want another ruckman - particularly one who is over 30 yo and performed at an embarrassingly low level for an elite athlete.
If he was injured, I really would like to challenge why he ended up playing at all in the back half of the season when it was obvious we were going to finish bottom 3.

Given that being in the bottom 3 will be our next 3-4 years, what exactly will Troy Simmonds bring to the table next year to help?

[Jacosh]

draft another 17/18 ruckman.

Out of 22 players, wouldnt you think thats to many on the feild at once  lol

[Chuck17]

draft another 17/18 ruckman.

Out of 22 players, wouldnt you think thats to many on the feild at once  lol

Although we might have half a chance of getting a least one decent one out of that many.