Pick 29: Shai Bolton

[tiger76]

More talking about the Dawks trade strategy since Mitchell took over 76er, in particular end of 2022 when they got rid of a heap of experienced players.

This article from that well-known masthead The Margaret River Mail explains it.

When do Hawks soar once more?

Hawthorn's AFL list strategy prompted plenty of discussion last trade and draft period, and it's a hot topic...

www.margaretrivermail.com.au

Point is rebuild the list, don't smash the shyte out of it.

Ok, got it

I'm still wobbly on how trading one player would be 'smashing a list' though...

EDIT:

Maximum Player Points for reaching for the 'Margaret River Mail' to try and make a point though.

That's quality googling.

 

[TT33]

No the point is they got excellent value from the trade, culminating in a flag featuring a player acquired through it. The longevity of his career is simply testament to the quality of the trade.

As to the second part of your observation, Judd was done at WC and everyone knew it. Trade was more beneficial for WC in the end, despite Judd winning a Charlie at the blues.

Shai isn't done at Richmond, he's just coming into his prime, dumb time to trade him, just when we really need him.

 

[AngryAnt]

What is being proposed isn’t a “clean out” of experienced players though.

We’d still have Balta, Rioli and co. to represent an even age spread.

FA once Lynch and Martin are gone can also help maintain a healthy age profile.

You raised Hawthorn's trade strategy, just pointing out that it's not going that great three seasons in.

 

[AngryAnt]

Ok, got it

I'm still wobbly on how trading one player would be 'smashing a list' though...

EDIT:

Maximum Player Points for reaching for the 'Margaret River Mail' to try and make a point though.

That's quality googling.

Turns out it was written by RoCo so not that obscure.

Trading out Lewis is not such a big deal, good player but rarely fit so not sure they'll get much anyway. Point is they did smash their list, calculated gamble of course but one that hasn't paid off so far.

North is the other example of course.

We'll never agree on this - Carts reckons the list is shizen (particularly the mids) so we can't challenge without trading Shai for young mids.

That's a gamble that could pay off or it might not.

I remember 2016 when our midfield was a rabble and yet we won three flags with the addition of Prestia to that midfield plus some spare parts players like Caddy.

This can turn super quick in this game - I wouldn't be trading out our best assets just yet.

tldr don't be like Hawthorn.

 

[mrposhman]

It’s the mindset Aces. Know where the list is at, be bold enough to offload for mutual gain.

Can you show us some examples where trading out your best players has resulted in a rebound to be a challenger within a reasonable time frame?

 

[Brodders17]

No the point is they got excellent value from the trade, culminating in a flag featuring a player acquired through it. The longevity of his career is simply testament to the quality of the trade.

As to the second part of your observation, Judd was done at WC and everyone knew it. Trade was more beneficial for WC in the end, despite Judd winning a Charlie at the blues.

Yes, they did get decent value for losing a player that was 100% out the door. If Bolton is also 100% out the door then the club will need to do what they can to get the best return. That is different than what you are saying.

It is impossible to know whether the WEagles would have had more success if they kept Judd, but one flag in year 11 of the 15 Kennedy spent there, for a club that had won 3 flags in the previous 15, doesnt really suggest the trade made a huge difference.

 

[mrposhman]

Turns out it was written by RoCo so not that obscure.

Trading out Lewis is not such a big deal, good player but rarely fit so not sure they'll get much anyway. Point is they did smash their list, calculated gamble of course but one that hasn't paid off so far.

North is the other example of course.

We'll never agree on this - Carts reckons the list is shizen (particularly the mids) so we can't challenge without trading Shai for young mids.

That's a gamble that could pay off or it might not.

I remember 2016 when our midfield was a rabble and yet we won three flags with the addition of Prestia to that midfield plus some spare parts players like Caddy.

This can turn super quick in this game - I wouldn't be trading out our best assets just yet.

tldr don't be like Hawthorn.

Hawthorn is kind of like what not to do. They traded out or pushed out their older players that still had some life in their legs still and exposed their young side completely to footy at the top level. There is a reason why their young players look weaker than others that were drafted at the same level and I don't think its ability, its because they didn't have the quality players still in the side to work with.

I'm not even sure the old mantra or needing everyone at a similar age together is even right with current footy. Take a look at the Pies, older list supplemented with a few young guns. Those older players have allowed the young ones to flourish.

Our list isn't even at the age profile of what the Hawks were or even West Coast. We have a bunch of the older guys that will be gone over the next few years, but we have a strong core group of 25-30 year olds that will still take us forward. My view of supplementing them with high end talent makes sense, but trading out that core group (unless they want to leave like potentially Baker and Graham may do) makes no sense to me.

 

[Carter]

You raised Hawthorn's trade strategy, just pointing out that it's not going that great three seasons in.

No I referenced David King’s proposal to trade a player

 

[Carter]

Yes, they did get decent value for losing a player that was 100% out the door. If Bolton is also 100% out the door then the club will need to do what they can to get the best return. That is different than what you are saying.

It is impossible to know whether the WEagles would have had more success if they kept Judd, but one flag in year 11 of the 15 Kennedy spent there, for a club that had won 3 flags in the previous 15, doesnt really suggest the trade made a huge difference.

The point still remains that trade was excellent value. 3, 20 and Kennedy.

Subsequent success comes down to other factors in addition, as you know.

Others have already espoused the quality of some youngsters in our list. Perhaps WC didn’t have these building blocks initially.

 

[Carter]

Hawthorn is kind of like what not to do. They traded out or pushed out their older players that still had some life in their legs still and exposed their young side completely to footy at the top level. There is a reason why their young players look weaker than others that were drafted at the same level and I don't think its ability, its because they didn't have the quality players still in the side to work with.

I'm not even sure the old mantra or needing everyone at a similar age together is even right with current footy. Take a look at the Pies, older list supplemented with a few young guns. Those older players have allowed the young ones to flourish.

Our list isn't even at the age profile of what the Hawks were or even West Coast. We have a bunch of the older guys that will be gone over the next few years, but we have a strong core group of 25-30 year olds that will still take us forward. My view of supplementing them with high end talent makes sense, but trading out that core group (unless they want to leave like potentially Baker and Graham may do) makes no sense to me.

And yet no one is proposing to copy what hawthorn have done over recent years.

What I’m proposing runs counter to what they did as they never had a golden ticket in Bolton.

Hawthorn simply cleaned out a multitude of low value experienced players.

 

[tigersnake]

Folks want to keep Bolton because he’s a scintillating talent, our best player.

But they don’t take into account, or refuse to see the perilous state of the list. And how Bolton no longer aligns with our next premiership challenge.

Sometimes you just gotta trade out to set up the future. Judd to Carlton for Kennedy is a good example.

Didn’t happen straight away, but Kennedy eventually spearheaded a flag. The eagles also got picks 3 and 20, used on 200-gamer Chris Masten and the superstar Tony Notte.

What we need to do make hay with our best asset. Build a reliable, big-bodied, contested midfield.

I am taking the factors you mention into account. You're a stuck record, I'm a stuck record back.

a) The list isn't in as bad a shape as you seem to be implying. Yes we need to rebuild, but we have a few good and promising young players on the list. If we didn't, you'd have a point.
b) We have a good draft hand this year, and probably next. If we didn't, you'd have a point.
c) There are other players with currency we can trade, they might not have as much currency as Shai sure, but good currency nonetheless, which is critical when combined with b). If we didn't, you'd have a point.
d) He's got 10 years left. Look at a player like Michael Walters, he's been in top 4 side, bottom 4 side, back to looking like contenders. The players love him, the fans love him. We could be vastly improved in 2,3, 5,6 years Shai will still be a champ.
e) The fans need reasons to buy tickets. The hope and entertainment Richo provided got me through 15 years of cellar dwelling.


In short, we do not NEED to trade Shai, (a,b and c) and there are compelling structural and cultural reasons why we shouldn't (d and e).

 

[AngryAnt]

No I referenced David King’s proposal to trade a player

Both King in the article you quoted and you yourself clearly put it in the context of Hawthorn's list and draft strategy.

So Kingy is proposing the trade of a 26yo who is unlikely to taste the ultimate success in the next 3-4 years in order to acquire much needed draft capital.

Resetting the age profile to something more akin to a premiership group coming through together.

Makes sense to me.

Not sure why you are defensive about this, the reason you want to trade Shai is trade strategy in the context of our list.

 

[AngryAnt]

Hawthorn is kind of like what not to do. They traded out or pushed out their older players that still had some life in their legs still and exposed their young side completely to footy at the top level. There is a reason why their young players look weaker than others that were drafted at the same level and I don't think its ability, its because they didn't have the quality players still in the side to work with.

I'm not even sure the old mantra or needing everyone at a similar age together is even right with current footy. Take a look at the Pies, older list supplemented with a few young guns. Those older players have allowed the young ones to flourish.

Our list isn't even at the age profile of what the Hawks were or even West Coast. We have a bunch of the older guys that will be gone over the next few years, but we have a strong core group of 25-30 year olds that will still take us forward. My view of supplementing them with high end talent makes sense, but trading out that core group (unless they want to leave like potentially Baker and Graham may do) makes no sense to me.

Absolutely you don't want all players of the same age, you want a relatively distributed age profile which is what we had in our premiership years.

 

[tigersnake]

This can turn super quick in this game - I wouldn't be trading out our best assets just yet.

This is a great point. Broadly, as you and Posh say, Hawthorn provide the evidence for arguing that slash and burn is not the way to go. I'll blow my own horn here, I said it at the time, they went way too hard sacking and trading premiership stars and sustained big cultural damage, and it didn't net any real sustainable benefits. To be clear her, the emphasis is on the phrase 'too hard'. You have to regenerate the list, thats a self evident fact, but there are alternatives to slash and burn.

Also your word "yet" is critical. Building a list that contends is not a linear, colour-by-numbers process where you just follow the step-by-step guide. We may have some misfires and circumstances in the future may dictate it would be best to trade Shai, but in the short term, we don't need to.

I disagree somewhat with your use of the plural "assets". I think we do need to trade at least ONE OF our best assets, but not our best asset. there a big difference.

 

[RoarEmotion]

What are we going to do with this?

 

[zgod]

When Dimma came he had the bones of a team
Dusty, cotch, jack, Rance...
Let Yze have Bolton, Balta and hopefully kids like Campbell and Kane Mc can develop into frontline players.
I would be hanging onto Bolton.
What is he? 25?

 

[TigerMasochist]

I remember 2016 when our midfield was a rabble and yet we won three flags with the addition of Prestia to that midfield plus some spare parts players like Caddy.

Think ya mighta left out the most important import of the lot in captain Nankster there Antsy. Also reckon that's pretty dismissive of Cadds input to our first two flags relegating him to just some spare parts player.

 

[AngryAnt]

Think ya mighta left out the most important import of the lot in captain Nankster there Antsy. Also reckon that's pretty dismissive of Cadds input to our first two flags relegating him to just some spare parts player.

Wake up old man, we are talking about the midfield since that it was Cart's contention that's where our greatest need is.

Caddy did some of that and also kicked a few goals playing as a tall small up forward as I recall. Great contribution but he was a moneyball player, just like Nankervis was.

 

[AngryAnt]

This is a great point. Broadly, as you and Posh say, Hawthorn provide the evidence for arguing that slash and burn is not the way to go. I'll blow my own horn here, I said it at the time, they went way too hard sacking and trading premiership stars and sustained big cultural damage, and it didn't net any real sustainable benefits. To be clear her, the emphasis is on the phrase 'too hard'. You have to regenerate the list, thats a self evident fact, but there are alternatives to slash and burn.

Also your word "yet" is critical. Building a list that contends is not a linear, colour-by-numbers process where you just follow the step-by-step guide. We may have some misfires and circumstances in the future may dictate it would be best to trade Shai, but in the short term, we don't need to.

I disagree somewhat with your use of the plural "assets". I think we do need to trade at least ONE OF our best assets, but not our best asset. there a big difference.

Great post snake, can't disagree. And things will shift depending on who comes on and who doesn't, who we get through FA or not, who retires when etc.

Shai might want out at end of season, who knows. Of the rest I'd trade out Short, Baker as players with currency if it was worth it.

Wouldn't trade Balta though.

 

[Carter]

Both King in the article you quoted and you yourself clearly put it in the context of Hawthorn's list and draft strategy.



Not sure why you are defensive about this, the reason you want to trade Shai is trade strategy in the context of our list.

I am just referencing the proposal to trade one player in his prime for draft capital, nothing more. The rest of Hawthorn’s strategies and plans I am largely unfamiliar with.

Edit - I didn’t even read the article, just picked up on the basic concept of Kingy’s proposal re: Mitch Lewis.

Defensive? Aside from engaging in debate about the benefits of a Bolton trade even I think is unlikely to happen, I don’t know what you’re referring to. All good here.