Bryce Gibbs & Marc Murphy

[Thryleon]

Does SOS need an assistant?

If so, Thry is the man for the job 

Thanks for the pat on the back DJC, but if we want to see us going the right way about doing things, I definitely am not the man for the job.  I would be far too emotional about the place, and wouldnt be able to be ruthless enough.  I could very well be wrong and trading these guys being the right thing to do, but the odds have to be stacked much more in our favour than bringing in another first round draft pick to replace them.

Every year the crop at the draft get better according to rumour, but have a think about us trading out our second rounder in the coming draft, to pick up 3 draft picks in the 60's and 70's in last seasons draft.

That doesnt speak for us prioritising the upcoming draft pool, particularly when you consider that we speculated (and seem to have won fairly well on them) on some late draftees from last year.

either SOS will be getting us more picks, or we will not be that active on draft day, and have factored in this draft not being a good one.

Murphy is a worry for me, not from an ability perspective, but an ability to play footy the way he currently does for much longer.

[LP]

Kelly could cost us Gibbs, Murphy or even both, yet there is no guarantee he will be any better or even their equal!

We have some half decent player development now, lets make use of it with some quality draftees!

[kruddler]

I've been arguing this for months but the Murphy and Gibbs haters refuse to accept the truth about our list! I'm sure they'd rather keep the spuds and get rid of the leaders, before eventually finding somebody else to blame like SOS or Bolton!

I'm certainly not a hater of either, but that being said, i'm all for trading them.

I understand you need to improve the list, rather than trade like for like and get nowhere. However, my reasoning for doing so is that in a few years, we might not have them around at all, nor will we have any talent to replace them.

Trading an a-grader who is approaching 30, for an a-grader who is in his early 20's entering his prime IS improving the list as it means we have an a-grader on our list for another say 7 years thanks to the trade.

Look at it this way.
We traded Fev away late in his career.
That got us Henderson.
We traded Henderson away
That got us a 1st round pick.
That was part of the GWS trade but basically got us pick 8.
Pick 8, was eventually pick 10 which got us Harry McKay

So traded away an old Fevola got us a 10year+ Harry McKay.

What might we get for Gibbs and/or Murphy? 

[pinot]

Trade them both and lets repair this horrid no depth midfield once and for all.

[ElwoodBlues1]

I like Plowman, and I reckon he's had a better season than Marchbank. Personally, I would not trade him.

Paul...Dont think either will be traded and are a big part of the future....this is the problem you get due to poor list management. The 10-12 players we want to get rid off are
next to worthless and people start looking at trading decent future  core players like Plowman, Marchbank because the others are only delist material.
Sometimes you have to resist the temptation to trade quality, its like the sharemarket, mug traders feel they have to trade stocks all the time to feel like they are doing something but usually trade the wrong ones and keep losing money..
Recruiting/List management is the same, clubs like Hawthorn use the Warren Buffett analogy when they trade.....they want a dollars value for 50 cents, they just concentrated on value trading, getting something better for less..ie offloading players like Croad and Hay for Round 1 picks...ie Croad and McPharlin got them Hodge and Mitchell....
Nathan Lonie and pick 54 for Port Adelaides 1st rounder  Pick 14..yep read and weep that we could do a deal that got us Pick 14 for say Nick Graham and Pick 54.....thats the difference and why Hawthorn dominated an era.. and this is how we have to trade..

[PaulP]

Agree Elwood. I certainly wasn't advocating trading them, but I can see why pew2 would make the suggestion.