Re: Travis burns : Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:46 am  

Offside Monkey wrote:

No one in there right mind would have kept smith over Eastmond.
However, we should have kept him over Scott Moore, who was a real waste of space. Smith would have been a good interchange hooker/squad half back.

I got the chance to see McManus in Caernarfon 2 years back he was still "miffed" that his 5 year plan of having the Eastmond/Wheeler partnership failed and was also a bit dissapointed in how Moore unfolded, he didn,t say all that much about Smith though.
The club wanted to promote within whilst the the new stadium project was ongoing, it ended up as a recruitment distraction.

Re: Travis burns : Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:38 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I got the chance to see McManus in Caernarfon 2 years back he was still "miffed" that his 5 year plan of having the Eastmond/Wheeler partnership failed and was also a bit dissapointed in how Moore unfolded, he didn,t say all that much about Smith though.
The club wanted to promote within whilst the the new stadium project was ongoing, it ended up as a recruitment distraction.

I liked Eastmonds spark but never really saw him as an organiser. More a maverick that could take on the line. Having said that I would not have kept Smith either. But I was a big fan of Gaskell. On the field he would try stuff and his kicking game was decent. But it seemed off the field issues got in the way. What I will never understand is the decisons taken around getting rid of our youth products.

We let Smith (and Long) go before getting Eastmond to sign a very long deal?
We brought a utility fullback to replace Eastmond?
We let Gaskell go mid-season with no replacement brought in, instead we brought in an average hooker?
Can't argue with Lomax or Wheeler. We tried them and adjusted for them with Lomax we found a place for him, but Wheeler is just crocked. He probably had the talent, but being out so long has made him rusty and average halves are ahead of him because he's not developed due to his injuries.

Same as anyone with talent, if they don't or can't use it, it does not stay uneffected.

To me the contract mistake with Eastmond was key, his replacement error and letting Gaskell go without replacing.

If any one of those had not happened the half back issues would not have been half as bad.

Re: Travis burns : Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:08 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I liked Eastmonds spark but never really saw him as an organiser. More a maverick that could take on the line. Having said that I would not have kept Smith either. But I was a big fan of Gaskell. On the field he would try stuff and his kicking game was decent. But it seemed off the field issues got in the way. What I will never understand is the decisons taken around getting rid of our youth products.

We let Smith (and Long) go before getting Eastmond to sign a very long deal?
We brought a utility fullback to replace Eastmond?
We let Gaskell go mid-season with no replacement brought in, instead we brought in an average hooker?
Can't argue with Lomax or Wheeler. We tried them and adjusted for them with Lomax we found a place for him, but Wheeler is just crocked. He probably had the talent, but being out so long has made him rusty and average halves are ahead of him because he's not developed due to his injuries.

Same as anyone with talent, if they don't or can't use it, it does not stay uneffected.

To me the contract mistake with Eastmond was key, his replacement error and letting Gaskell go without replacing.

If any one of those had not happened the half back issues would not have been half as bad.

I don't think it was a mistake. He wanted away for a bigger and brighter stage and there wasn't much we could do about it. That's probably why McManus was miffed.

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:15 am  

exileinpietown wrote:

I don't think it was a mistake. He wanted away for a bigger and brighter stage and there wasn't much we could do about it. That's probably why McManus was miffed.

I'm talking about the first 1st team contract not the 2nd one. The first one if I remember correctly we only got him to sign after telling Smith to go to Salford and Long to go to Hull. If we had not told them both to go, either Eastmond signs a 3 or 4 year deal, or we keep Smith on the books as Eastmond was obviously not interested at that point for any more than 2 more years in RL.

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:49 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

I'm talking about the first 1st team contract not the 2nd one. The first one if I remember correctly we only got him to sign after telling Smith to go to Salford and Long to go to Hull. If we had not told them both to go, either Eastmond signs a 3 or 4 year deal, or we keep Smith on the books as Eastmond was obviously not interested at that point for any more than 2 more years in RL.

I agree with this. If we thought Eastmond really was the future, we should have got him on a 5yr deal. Yes theres some risk involved, but it does seem everyone at the club had our future pinned on him

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:31 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

I agree with this. If we thought Eastmond really was the future, we should have got him on a 5yr deal. Yes theres some risk involved, but it does seem everyone at the club had our future pinned on him

Could have been on a 5 year until his agent got inside his head.

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:04 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Could have been on a 5 year until his agent got inside his head.

Who was his agent again

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:31 pm  

Two Wheeled Saint wrote:

Who was his agent again

Hopefully he stays in Chiswick where he can,t do any more damage.

Re: Travis burns : Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:37 pm  

Agreed

Re: Travis burns : Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:32 pm  

His agent got him the best deal possible which Agents are supposed to do. Given the abuse Eastmond got from the St Helens fans (which at times was down right disgusting) purely for looking after himself and his family, I wouldn't blame him for never stepping foot in rugby league again

Regards

King james