Regrets, I've had a few, but then again there's three cups to mention... - Former Tiger Trade Debates

[tigerman]

There would be other factors as well, such as who’s contracted and who isn’t, eg Markov was and Butler wasn’t.
If Bolton was contracted and Markov wasn’t, we may well have kept Butts and traded Markov, or someone else who wasn’t contracted.
Glad I’m not in charge of list management, Mansell gets the nod, who do we take out of Egg and Green? Or should we have not selected Mansell and picked Egg and Green? Pretty sure we’ll be debating that in the coming months.

 

[Number8]

Here's a challenge for ya No. 8 - find me an example of an uncontracted player who played seven games in a season who got traded for a second rounder. This will tell the story of how realistic all this is.

No two trade situations are ever the same Ant so no doubt you'll do your best to punch a hole in any example I offer.

But try this one on for size: Jason Gram got Brisbane pick 23 on the back of two senior games.

I'll get back to you when more come to mind.

 

[AngryAnt]

No two trade situations are ever the same Ant so no doubt you'll do your best to punch a hole in any example I offer.

But try this one on for size: Jason Gram got Brisbane pick 23 on the back of two senior games.

I'll get back to you when more come to mind.

A good start - yes Jason Gram I'll have to look him up. EDIT done that, comparison time.

Jason Gram - pick 19 in ND. Butts... 4th round.

Butts established senior player, Gram didn't play much in his first two seasons.

Although I think once you play, you should be judged on performance, not draft pick order, so I'm undermining my own argument. I guess the difference is that the Saints still judged Gram on potential due to being a highly rated junior. I suppose it was worthwhile for them given he played about 150 games.

Nevertheless, I concede the point, well played No. 8.

 

[Number8]

I thought Fantasia would fit the description but he was contracted when traded, which surprised me a bit because he'd already tried to leave Essendon the previous season. Nonetheless, a second rounder for Fantasia has got to be overs, hasn't it? Another discussion for another time but that is the sort of deal that riles me when it comes to thinking about Butler.

Jack Steele
Matt Kennedy
Tom Hickey
Hayden Crozier ...

... all for second rounders (or equivalent combinations of picks) and I think (but not certain) that all were out of contract and had played limited games the previous season.

 

[tigerfan1961]

Nowhere and at no time have I said or even implied this should be the goal. I don't give a fig about most trades because, in the main, they tend to be reasonable. That this one wasn't, and has proven to be so, means it can and should be called out. Nothing wrong with holding the club to account when it makes an error. Not everything we do as an organisation will be perfect.

In any event, how would a future second round pick, for instance, as a trade for Butler be screwing anyone?

Imagine if we'd kept him, he regained form and was set to play round one this year?

No mate, from the moment the Butler trade was announced I called out the minimum chips compensation and have repeated that ad nauseam in this thread. It's getting boring.

It's OK to say you were happy with pick 56 at the time if that's how you truly felt. I wasn't. It was a junk pick for a proven player who was always going to make a decent opponent better ... and has. Bad business.

If anything good comes of it, we won't be so profligate in the future.

As I've previously said, it was a mistake to not offer Butler a contract in the first instance and then, in the face of a junk pick as compensation, not to have at least explored other options. Whether that was seeking a future pick from the Saints or finding a way to retain Butler on the list it seems we just wanted him gone ... so much so that St Kilda got him for a steal.

That is all I'm arguing.

Castagna is a jet. Rioli is maybe in front of Butler but it's arguable—was then and is now. The question for me is more around Aarts, Stack, Higgins, Naish and others who were preferred for opportunities over Butler at the time. I had and still have Butler in front of all that lot for varying reasons.

I agree except for Stack. Man, if he gets in the right head space, and he will imo, he’ll be an absolute star, better than Dan Butler would have given us. But it’s an “if” at this stage

 

[AngryAnt]

You conceded that way too easy for mine Antman.

Gram was pick 19 in the 2001 superdraft and went to a side who won premierships in each of his two years. He played in two games but barely played a quarter.

There would have been a line of clubs desperate to get him, I just read he was the first trade done that year.

I'd say he was a better comparison to Higgins in most ways.

Lucky I have you to pick up the cudgels TBR.

No. 8 wore me out with persistence

 

[Number8]

Gram was pick 19 in the 2001 superdraft and went to a side who won premierships in each of his two years.

The Gram example met Ant's brief, TBR. Original draft position really isn't relevant to the point he was making. You could also say, as Ant partly covered in his reply, that Butler was a proven AFL player at the time of trading and Gram was not. Swings and roundabouts.

There would have been a line of clubs desperate to get him

Cannot find anything online to corroborate that POV. Gram did state he wanted to come back to Victoria but there are no reports of a bidding war or alternative suitors.

No. 8 wore me out with persistence

I've been a one-man army these past few days ... my support crew has lost interest in the cause!

The Butler trade sent a shiver up my spine at the time. No word of a lie: I thought it was a sign of a club on good terms with itself. I wasn't exactly thrilled with what we got for Lloyd or Miles either but this one has stuck in my craw.

I'm sorry if I bore everyone but I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that we are not in the business of making other teams better without getting fairly compensated. Equalisation makes it hard enough to stay at the top of the pile.

 

[AngryAnt]

The Gram example met Ant's brief, TBR. Original draft position really isn't relevant to the point he was making. You could also say, as Ant partly covered in his reply, that Butler was a proven AFL player at the time of trading and Gram was not. Swings and roundabouts.

Cannot find anything online to corroborate that POV. Gram did state he wanted to come back to Victoria but there are no reports of a bidding war or alternative suitors.

I've been a one-man army these past few days ... my support crew has lost interest in the cause!

The Butler trade sent a shiver up my spine at the time. No word of a lie: I thought it was a sign of a club on good terms with itself. I wasn't exactly thrilled with what we got for Lloyd or Miles either but this one has stuck in my craw.

I'm sorry if I bore everyone but I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that we are not in the business of making other teams better without getting fairly compensated. Equalisation makes it hard enough to stay at the top of the pile.

My point on Butler/Gram playing experience - I was kind of more saying yes Buts was proven as a handy small forward as part of our unique, but in bad form and injured so a risk. Gram a highly rated, but as yet unproven player. But yeah, you win this round.

you are fighting the good fight mate, keep it up, if you believe in it.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The undervaluing of our fringe players is a developing trend.

Therein lies the lynch pin of the discussion. FRINGE player.
We had Shai coming through in a small forward role, we had Aarts coming through in a small forward role, we had Higlet coming through in a small forward role, and now we've got Moju coming through in a small forward role. Geezer had struggled over 2018 and 2019 n was out of contract. Not much you can do with a fringe player except get what you can for him and hope it doesn't haunt you.
You might be unhappy but the club probably accepts that sometimes it's better to keep the player, and the two negotiating clubs reasonably happy so that more honest business can be done in future if necessary.

 

[Number8]

Therein lies the lynch pin of the discussion. FRINGE player.

Ah, but a fringe player at Richmond is typically a walk-up start elsewhere.

This goes back as far as Vickery, Stengle, Lloyd, Miles and Cory Ellis.

Remember, part of Butler's issue was finding a role with us. St Kilda had no-one like him. Fringe at Richmond = critical component of St Kilda's success in 2020.

It's no fluke that each of Higgins, Butler, Brandon Ellis and Markov have had good games this weekend. They are quality players.

Our much-vaunted recruiting is substantially weakened as a competitive advantage if we continually give these sorts of guys away for late picks.

While we're in this golden window, we need to cash in.

 

[mrposhman]

Ah, but a fringe player at Richmond is typically a walk-up start elsewhere.

This goes back as far as Vickery, Stengle, Lloyd, Miles and Cory Ellis.

Those aren't backing up your case.

We did well to get a 2nd rounder for Vickery, remember he played 6 games for Hawthorn after leaving us. He had been getting progressively worse as he aged from his best season in 2013.
Stengle was (and still is) a very limited footballer. That we got anything in a trade for him rather than him leaving as a DFA was good trading.
Lloyd (I love Llody btw) was 28 when he was traded and was a fringe player. You don't get much for those players. Probably as best as we could get.
Miles / Ellis went together and were hardly first teamers. Miles had played 6 games in 2 years and Ellis had played 10 across the same period. We probably did well to get what we did again bearing in mind they hardly went on to have long careers with the Suns.

 

[The_General]

How much better did Townsend make Essendon compared with how much better Butler has made St Kilda? There's your answer.

You're still not clued in to reality.

You cannot tell what form another player is going to have at another club, before you trade them. You can only go on the exposed form, and recent form, at your club. There was one other club in the hunt for Butler. Carlton sniffed around, but wanted Papley as they saw he had more potential.
Let's not forget in 2016, Butler had cleaned out his locker. Was the permanent class something he had before or after then?
It takes more than class to perform at the top level. Butler - for whatever reason - couldn't do it consistently over the course of his stay. It's what made him an enticing but risky trade. Exposed form showed he may never hit his straps again. Sometimes a trade stirs someone into action.
Either way, he was a late pick, with a chequered but at times very good past. However not one THE MARKET thought was worth anything remotely like a 2nd rd pick.

 

[Number8]

Those aren't backing up your case.

The only case I make here, posh, is that those players were considered surplus to needs at Richmond but played top level footy elsewhere. In the case of Lloyd and Miles, plenty of it and some of it pretty damn good. It says we are home to good development and systems.

The point remains that a fringe player at Richmond is not likely to be a fringe player at any other club. So, to suggest they should be undervalued at the trade table for being on the fringe is bad thinking. Good negotiation leverages the needs of the recipient. And, in Butler's case, we either lost it (when Balme publicly declared Butler could assess his options elsewhere) or simply chose not to use it to push for a better deal. That behaviour undermines the work we put into recruitment and the development we put into our players. We are not, and should never be considered, a finishing school for the advantage of other clubs.

You're still not clued in to reality.

Some deep irony in that, General, given the reality is Butler has more than proven to be worth much better than pick #56.

Let's not forget in 2016, Butler had cleaned out his locker. Was the permanent class something he had before or after then?

Look, I haven't seen his draft reel but I'd say he must have been a pretty bloody good junior to have made it onto an AFL list. Notwithstanding that, what I saw with my own eyes (and backed up by the data) was that Butler's 2017 and 2018, until injured, were elite. He played a significant role in us winning a premiership and I'm not sure there is a greater accolade than that.

His 2020 franked that assessment but here's the thing. It was no better than his 2017. Look at the data here. Similar goals, disposals and tackles. But in 2017, his contested numbers and goal assists were much better. While you're there, check out his 2018. Some revisionism going on among some posters who seem to think Butler fell away in 2018. Not the case.

So, if you thought his 2020 was out of the box, you're wrong. It was not unprecedented.

To be have suddenly found yourself surprised to discover Butler is a really good player is plain weird.

Class is permanent.

Either way, he was a late pick, with a chequered but at times very good past. However not one THE MARKET thought was worth anything remotely like a 2nd rd pick.

Is that the same market that thinks we have four stars and a list full of role players?

As has been proved in Butler's case, the market doesn't always get it right. Like the homeowner who passes in at an auction, we should have taken Butler off the table in light of the substandard offer.

Unfortunately, we flagged a desire to get Butler off the books so we ended up with a junk pick for a player who was always going to make an opponent stronger.

 

[zippadeee]

I thought Markov was good for Gc and good to see Ellis playing good footy too.

 

[tigerman]

The only case I make here, posh, is that those players were considered surplus to needs at Richmond but played top level footy elsewhere. In the case of Lloyd and Miles, plenty of it and some of it pretty damn good. It says we are home to good development and systems.

The point remains that a fringe player at Richmond is not likely to be a fringe player at any other club. So, to suggest they should be undervalued at the trade table for being on the fringe is bad thinking. Good negotiation leverages the needs of the recipient. And, in Butler's case, we either lost it (when Balme publicly declared Butler could assess his options elsewhere) or simply chose not to use it to push for a better deal. That behaviour undermines the work we put into recruitment and the development we put into our players. We are not, and should never be considered, a finishing school for the advantage of other clubs.

Some deep irony in that, General, given the reality is Butler has more than proven to be worth much better than pick #56.

Look, I haven't seen his draft reel but I'd say he must have been a pretty bloody good junior to have made it onto an AFL list. Notwithstanding that, what I saw with my own eyes (and backed up by the data) was that Butler's 2017 and 2018, until injured, were elite. He played a significant role in us winning a premiership and I'm not sure there is a greater accolade than that.

His 2020 franked that assessment but here's the thing. It was no better than his 2017. Look at the data here. Similar goals, disposals and tackles. But in 2017, his contested numbers and goal assists were much better. While you're there, check out his 2018. Some revisionism going on among some posters who seem to think Butler fell away in 2018. Not the case.

So, if you thought his 2020 was out of the box, you're wrong. It was not unprecedented.

To be have suddenly found yourself surprised to discover Butler is a really good player is plain weird.

Class is permanent.

Is that the same market that thinks we have four stars and a list full of role players?

As has been proved in Butler's case, the market doesn't always get it right. Like the homeowner who passes in at an auction, we should have taken Butler off the table in light of the substandard offer.

Unfortunately, we flagged a desire to get Butler off the books so we ended up with a junk pick for a player who was always going to make an opponent stronger.

I'm enjoying the debate.

Another consideration would be TPP, a good chance that may have been a factor in trading Butts.
Baker and Soldo as Rookies needed to be put on to the main list which would add to TPP constraints.
Could it be that we would've liked a better deal, but we needed to move him on?

 

[DeathNinthandTaxes]

i think i'll just reference my mum on this debate "you get what you get and you don't get upset!"
I like to believe that everything happens for a reason, the 2020 flag is the result of that decision.
hold out for a better pick? don't do the trade? you've just created a parallel universe where we possibly don't win the flag in 2020 and that's upsetting.

 

[Dont Argue]

The Gram example met Ant's brief, TBR. Original draft position really isn't relevant to the point he was making. You could also say, as Ant partly covered in his reply, that Butler was a proven AFL player at the time of trading and Gram was not. Swings and roundabouts.

Cannot find anything online to corroborate that POV. Gram did state he wanted to come back to Victoria but there are no reports of a bidding war or alternative suitors.

I've been a one-man army these past few days ... my support crew has lost interest in the cause!

The only case I make here, posh, is that those players were considered surplus to needs at Richmond but played top level footy elsewhere. In the case of Lloyd and Miles, plenty of it and some of it pretty damn good. It says we are home to good development and systems.

The point remains that a fringe player at Richmond is not likely to be a fringe player at any other club. So, to suggest they should be undervalued at the trade table for being on the fringe is bad thinking. Good negotiation leverages the needs of the recipient. And, in Butler's case, we either lost it (when Balme publicly declared Butler could assess his options elsewhere) or simply chose not to use it to push for a better deal. That behaviour undermines the work we put into recruitment and the development we put into our players. We are not, and should never be considered, a finishing school for the advantage of other clubs.

Some deep irony in that, General, given the reality is Butler has more than proven to be worth much better than pick #56.

Look, I haven't seen his draft reel but I'd say he must have been a pretty bloody good junior to have made it onto an AFL list. Notwithstanding that, what I saw with my own eyes (and backed up by the data) was that Butler's 2017 and 2018, until injured, were elite. He played a significant role in us winning a premiership and I'm not sure there is a greater accolade than that.

His 2020 franked that assessment but here's the thing. It was no better than his 2017. Look at the data here. Similar goals, disposals and tackles. But in 2017, his contested numbers and goal assists were much better. While you're there, check out his 2018. Some revisionism going on among some posters who seem to think Butler fell away in 2018. Not the case.

So, if you thought his 2020 was out of the box, you're wrong. It was not unprecedented.

To be have suddenly found yourself surprised to discover Butler is a really good player is plain weird.

Class is permanent.

Is that the same market that thinks we have four stars and a list full of role players?

As has been proved in Butler's case, the market doesn't always get it right. Like the homeowner who passes in at an auction, we should have taken Butler off the table in light of the substandard offer.

Unfortunately, we flagged a desire to get Butler off the books so we ended up with a junk pick for a player who was always going to make an opponent stronger.

Straight from Mathew Clarke our head recruiter tonight at Club 80: we think we did fairly well with our trade for Butler. Wrapt he’s doing well and genuinely love the kid.
Thought the Higgins trade was one where the player wanted to go and forced our hand. The others went with our blessings and belief in good karma.

 

[Number8]

Straight from Mathew Clarke our head recruiter tonight at Club 80: we think we did fairly well with our trade for Butler.

Hmm. A stab in the dark: any chance the bloke we took with pick 56 was also there?

 

[Dont Argue]

Hmm. A stab in the dark: any chance the bloke we took with pick 56 was also there?

Clarke was mainly talking about trading away players and the club philosophy behind it.
Stated very clearly that they’re very pleased for both parties with the outcome. Nothing to do with what they did with the pick.
Appreciate your personal thought on the matter, but they definitely don’t align with the clubs.

 

[Number8]

Appreciate your personal thought on the matter, but they definitely don’t align with the clubs.

Yeah, that's my entire point and has been since the trade. I'm not surprised the club stands by its choice; they'd hardly want to publicly admit it was a mistake.

So, out of interest, was Biggie in the room when Clarke made the comments?