Do we trade or draft? A walk through the current team

[TigerForce]

we lost big time with the johnson deal. especially when you consider we should of been in a full on rebuilding mode.

We can't have all kids though.  Think how much easier it is for Lids and co to have Johnno in there doing the dirty work.  It will benefit the kids in the long run having someone taking the physical pressure off them.

when in rebuilding mode you dont trade away 1st round picks you do the opposite and trade for them.did the last draft not excite you.

Claw we disagree a lot during the season on selection policy but at this time of the year your sentiments cannot be faulted. Last year for the first time in 20 years we get an early draft pick, kept it and used it wisely. Now, dare I say it, the ferals want to give away pick 8 to get Fev.

And Rosy of course we can have all kids, because if we draft them every year some will be 30 some will be 29........ you get the pattern. The reason we keep trading for has beens is to fill the holes left by our drafting.

if GM and other recruiters know that this year's draftees aren't worth much, then don't waste your pick and buy something better.

 

[Djevv]

Look I loved the youth policy of the last few years, but what's done is done, RFC has to fill the holes. We have plenty of youth to work with at present, and if you believe the pundits plenty of quality youth in the 2006 draft. We don't need this years draft particularly. But a quality (star) player like Fevola (only 24!) on our list for a early draft pick and a Tivendale is a good farsighted decision. It can only help the club. Like the decisions re Brown and Johnson. Neither trade was in any sense a loss for the club - these guys are now captain & vice captain!! But we paid for them and rightly so, they are proven quality players.

We can't trade for draft picks, this only happens to clubs (like Adelaide) who have recruited well and developed their own talent for years and have an EXCESS of quality players. RFC are not yet in this happy position.

Where RFC have gone wrong in the past is NOT in getting quality players, but paying in heavy coin for 'bargains'. Bargains like:
Craig Biddiscombe
Paul Hudson
Justin Blumfield
Billy Nichols
etc.
:'(

This other issue is actually selecting the right players from the draft. I suspect that it is not as easy as hindsight makes look. DOH!! why Fiora when we could have had Pavlich? The answer I suspect is that it 'seemed like a good idea at the time'. Drafting, even in this scientific era is still a bit of a lottery. There is no guarantees no. 8 will ever be a star of Fevola's calibre, or that he will actually develop into this star within the next 3 to 5 years.

So GM I say GO GET YOUR MAN!!!

 

[Tigers of Old]

Good post DJ. Not certain I agree entirely but it's a well made argument.

 

[Rosy]

The johnson deal was a big mistake - I remember yelling, screaming and fuming on these same boards, but not many people listened.

Haha Hazza were you surprised? :rofl

 

[Rosy]

[And Rosy of course we can have all kids, because if we draft them every year some will be 30 some will be 29........ you get the pattern. The reason we keep trading for has beens is to fill the holes left by our drafting.

I'm not the ignoramus some seem to think BJ.  I quite understand the need/priority to be for kids but it requires a mixture of youth and experience.  We can't have a team of under 20's who aren't ready for the bigtime yet.

There's a trend on here for a couple of people to think over 20 is over the hill.  It's crap.  We got an abnormal number of speculative, as in not ready to play, kids in the past couple of drafts.  We have a lot of kids waiting to step up.

I asked santa if he's heard that Greg has offered our #8 pick that he's ranting and raving about and he didn't reply.  (Actually he may have.  I haven't read all the posts yet)

Instead of going off the handle it might be an idea to see what wheeling and dealing eventuates.  I don't want to trade our #8 draft pick but if we did we could possibly still get another first round pick.

The rules aren't set in concrete.  Who's better for us out of Kane Johnson and our #9 pick in Kayne Pettifer?

I wonder how Wells would have gone if we got him instead of Johnno.  We have plenty of that type, even if not as good,  but we didn't exactly have a plethora of hard bodied mid-fielders to get the ball anywhere near the forward line.

I'd also rather a 24 yo who's proven they are above average ability than a kid who never takes the next step.

The recruiters have a lot of decisions to weigh up and I'm kinda glad they're in the driving seat instead of some of the blinkered or ignorant posters on here when it comes to the need for the team to be competitive while the kids come through.

It's no use only planning for a future that may never eventuate, we have to think about now too.  At least Terry realises that.

 

[the claw]

The johnson deal was a big mistake - I remember yelling, screaming and fuming on these same boards, but not many people listened.

their still not listening harry blind ferals cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[bigwow]

The johnson deal was a big mistake - I remember yelling, screaming and fuming on these same boards, but not many people listened.

Three years on, would Richmond be a better TEAM, with Daniels Wells in it, but no Kane Johnson or Jay Schulz on the list?