Toast Jarrod Witts

Remove this Banner Ad

Scodog10 said:
I really don't think the offers are going to come thick and fast for an out of contract 24yo ruckman thats played 12 of the past 32 matches and bested 30 hitouts just 4 times in his career.

I think the best we'll do is Fremantle's second rounder depending on the outcome of McCarthy. That looks like it'll be circa 20 and with the almost decade long investment we've had in Witts that's low end.

It goes against earlier comments, but I'd almost be more interested in shifting Grundy who'll get us a top 10 pick and change if we don't think Witts' ceiling is that far off Grundy's long term...
Click to expand...

Tom Hickey cost pick 13, Ben McEvoy was pick 17 plus Shane Savage, Rhys Stanley was worth pick 21, Billy Longer was pick 25 (with exchanges). If there is a team out there in need of a ruck (there are a few), I reckon we will get something between that middle to late first round mark.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Quicky said:
Tom Hickey cost pick 13, Ben McEvoy was pick 17 plus Shane Savage, Rhys Stanley was worth pick 21, Billy Longer was pick 25 (with exchanges). If there is a team out there in need of a ruck (there are a few), I reckon we will get something between that middle to late first round mark.
Click to expand...

I've covered these exact statements before.

Hickey's trade involved a pick swap at 24. McEvoy had the runs on the board and was in line for a shot at the St Kilda captaincy. As you pointed out Longer was a pick exchange deal. Ryder was a late first with runs on the board.

For mine it's like our finals prospects by all means hope for that outcome, but the reality is likely to fall outside that range unless Witts breaks into the line up and puts together some strong form. In which case why would we trade him?
 
I don't want to trade him also.....he has been with us since 15 years old.

His cut hand was really bad timing as he was the better Ruckman during pre-season.

Plenty of footy to play out this year.

We are in a good place when it comes to Ruck stocks :)

Sit back and enjoy people.
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Grundys long term ceiling is far higher. Hes more athletic and capable around the ground. If it was a choice between (say) pick 20 for Witts and 10 for Grundy, I'll take 20 thanks.

Or in other words, Grundy aint going nowhere.
Click to expand...

My interests most lie with the greatest benefit to Collingwood. If the club think the difference between the two is negligible long term (by negligible I mean Grundy becomes a Cox type whilst Witts develops into a lesser Gawn) it just depends on the offers we got for Grundy.

For instance if Richmond came to us with their first rounder for him plus said that they'd deal with GWS to get Wilson across or Sydney to get Lloyd across then I get interested.

Out: Grundy
In: pick 8 and Wilson/ Lloyd

It doesn't overly weaken our ruck stocks while strengthening our HBF stocks significantly and getting us back into the first round. Your earlier post would be my preference, but no one is untouchable on our list (bar Treloar) for the right deal.
 
Scodog10 said:
I've covered these exact statements before.

Hickey's trade involved a pick swap at 24. McEvoy had the runs on the board and was in line for a shot at the St Kilda captaincy. As you pointed out Longer was a pick exchange deal. Ryder was a late first with runs on the board.

For mine it's like our finals prospects by all means hope for that outcome, but the reality is likely to fall outside that range unless Witts breaks into the line up and puts together some strong form. In which case why would we trade him?
Click to expand...

Something like Witts for the Dogs 1st rounder with a 2nd/3rd/4th rounder going back their way is consistent with past trade case studies. Freo's early second rounder also fits into that discussion. Which is still a result of a draft pick in that 12-22 pick range mark.
 
I don't think the dogs will go for Witts, Campell and Roughead's athleticism seem to suit their style.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scodog10 said:
I'm not all that interested in past history because the difference in our hands v the rest of the competition is very sound which is all that matters.
Click to expand...
15 versus 20. Half the time you'd get the same player. A significant amount of time that you didn't get the same guy, you'd end up getting a better player with the one you fancied less.
 
I can't really see us trading Witts (or Grundy) unless he wants to leave and we got something appealing in return. (Witts - mid-1st rounder, Grundy - will take a top 5 pick IMO)

If you want to get a flag, which is our ultimate goal, you need insurance policies for injury. Mason Cox (for how much we love him) is not good enough to be a full-time ruckman for a contending team. (I would love him to prove me wrong... as he has already done this year as the 2nd ruck/forward).

If Witts wants to stay then we keep him as long as we can. Keep the pressure on Grundy to perform (or replace him if he's performing better) and have an insurance policy. Either of these guys could end up being our number 1 ruck (Grundy the favourite) and there is still a chance that we play them in combo (dwindling now that Cox is performing). But it also gives us a very good insurance policy if one, or the other, goes down.
Given how long it has been since we have had one good young ruckman (let alone 2) I am very loathe to let him walk.

However if another team comes out and offers him a 4-500k salary, which would be wise not to match, and he demands a trade. In which case sure trade him, but without a 1st rounder in return I would play hardball. (given he's a long way off being an unrestricted free agent).
Also, given that we don't have our 1st round pick, if we have a particular recruit that we are very much into, and think will fall to our pick, then we might be more willing. (or if we need points for our F/S picks)
 
i love jarrod witts. I wish him well. I hope he has a good career...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top