the claw said:
im officially placing you in the deluded category. for a bloke who supposedly closely watches players i think you allow your models which are good guides override the obvious.
one thing this club has been chronically guilty of is hanging onto chronically deficient players for too long. as i said your models dont do a thing to help in this area. actual improvement performance strenghts weakness are judged by looking you may have players in the right categories but working out if they can play or not can only be judged by observance.
all of imho schulz hughes pattison polak silvestor mcguane graham putt gourdis are not going to make it or in mcguanes case can be improved upon easily. idont need graphs to tell me this. basic things like kicking agility pace size smarts strength all things that are seen rather than models tells me this.
Look Claw,
I've been a great supporter of yours over the years, even when everyone was after you, but there are some times that you go over the top.
You're probably right that Polak & Sylvester weren't the best offerings, but for me they seem to be two talls on our list that we need the least. I'm sorry for Polak, but his future does look limited. And Sylvester doesn't look to have an AFL future.
But onto List changes.
Clearing a mass of players all in the one season only leaves you with a mass of vacancies that you have to fill from that year's available draftees.
At the best drafts, very good juniors may run up to pick #40; most drafts, very good juniors run up to pick #30; then you get some drafts, like 2005, where very good juniors ran to about #20.
There's the odd surprise that is picked up after.
There are 16 teams in the draft, giving each around 3 picks to take very good players.
3 x 16 = 48, so by pick the 3rd round, there are the higher finishing clubs that know their 3rd round pick may not bring them much.
After that, juniors become more speculative.
To counter this, some clubs offer mature or specialist players for trade.
In 2004, Richmond offered B.Ottens for Geelong's picks #12 & #16.
Geelong had pick #16 anyway.
Pick #12, I think started with WC, who traded it & another to Adelaide for Stenglein, Adelaide ontraded it to Melbourne for S.Thompson, Melbourne ontraded it to Geelong for B.Moloney, and Geelong ontraded it, with #16 for Ottens.
On the draft lists since 2004, the best trade I ever saw was Westcoast trading off D.McConnell to North for picks #13 & #29. These picks were used by Westcoast to draft S.Hurn & B.McKinlay.
As you know, I am very much in favour of trading players for draft picks.
The last 3 years, I've advocated trading anyone over 23/24yo, except for Simmonds, for (reasonable) draft picks.
The truth is that the Tiges have not successfully traded off a player since 2004 when it traded off Ottens & Fiora.
We know the Ottens deal.
For Fiora, we got T.Simmonds from StKilda. StKilda had picked him up from Freo for H.Black.
The fact that we haven't successfully traded a player since 2004 is a continual source of frustration for me.
Personally, of the players on our list, I could easily trade any player over 24yo, still bar Simmonds. I'd trade Simmonds, if we could get a competitive ruckman in his place, and it wouldn't have to be a direct trade.
Richmond, since 2004, has been far more successful at trading off draft picks for players.
2005 - Either pick#56 (that found its way to Brissie for J.Patful) for P.Bowden. Patful has played 60 games for Brissie, P.Bowden played 25 games for us.
2006 - Pick #8 (Ben Reid) for G.Polak & pick #13 (J.Riewoldt). A good one.
2007 - Pick #19 (Callan Ward) for J.McMahon. McMahon has played 23 games for us so far, Ward has played 8 games so far for the Doggies.
2007 - Pick #35 (that found its wat to the Doggies for S.Reid) for Mitch Morton. Sam Reid has played 1 game for the Doggies, Morton has played 19 games for us.
2008 - Pick #42 (M.Banner, yet to begin) for Adam Thomson, also yet to begin with us, in terms of AFL games.
Getting back to players we can offer,
Well, I've made my comments re those over 24yo.
For those <=24, you'd choose those who are unlikely to get a game, ever.
From the oldest:
The 24s.
King - possibly, if another club wanted him, but we lack for small defenders, would consder an offer.
Moore - clicked late, an exception, but now a worthwhile medium defender.
Polak - unfortunate injury but not a damaging player even before accident, likely to be retired.
Sylvester - couldn't understand the logic in the first place.
The 23s.
Foley - key midfielder.
Raines - improving medium defender but a big turnover merchant, would consider an offer.
Schulz - improving tall defender, currently playing up forward, would consider an offer.
Pattison - already 53 games but yet to be tried in a key forward position and not a ruckman, would consider an offer.
The 22s.
Tambling - already 76 games, improving outside midfielder, will continue to improve. (But had a shocker today.)
Thomson - hasn't been tried yet.
Jackson - already 49 games, in the Top30 of U23yo players in AFL.
Morton - instant success.
Polo - 32 games so far, should've clicked last year, likely to click this year.
Thursfield - first bad form patch since recruited. Very hard to find a good FB.
McGuane - has improved but still lacks judgement, would consider an offer.
Hughes - unlikely to be given fair opportunity at Tigerland, would consider an offer.
The 21s.
White - improving each year.
Nahas - yet to be given a fair chance.
Deledio - central figure in team.
Oakley-Nicholls - is a worry, would consider an offer.
Graham - is a worry, but is 200cm tall, would consider an offer.
For the 20yos, too early to tell, considering none are small.
For those younger, wouldn't consider.
So, in conclusion Claw, would consider a few.
But to immediately throw more than 10 players off the list, without receiving reasonable draft picks or players in return, would be folly.
You'd get probably 3, possibly 4 very good juniors, then you'd get 7 or more questionable juniors that you'd have to hold onto for 2 or 3 years to see how they'd turn out.
Odds would be that possibly 1 of those 7 would make it.
But if we got a reasonable offer for those players that i've put up for consideration above, within the scope of a total of 6 or 7 turnovers in a year, that's fine.
