We seem to be talking about three issues: List Additons, Player Retention, and Selection
List Additions: I took the time and went through our list a couple of days ago paying particular attention to how we got players. For the most part I was very comfortable. For example players that I have been critical of this year:
Morris, we got him by giving pick 14 to GWS in exchange for pick 15, that's a great deal.
Grigg, we traded him for Andy Collins, great deal.
Houli, picked him up in the PSD, exactly what that's for
Newman, got him at pick 55 exactly where flankers should be taken fourth round where it all becomes a lottery.
Thomas, pick 42 in the Rookie Draft, that's a good deal if we get 20 games out of him and we would have if Miles hadn't come on so well.
Lloyd, pick 66 in the draft, again where speculative flankers should be picked up
Gordon, pick 50 in the draft, starting to get into the reliable return zone where picks on average can be expected to yield 50 games. For a 24yo this was only just fair value in my book.
The only player that looked like a bad deal at the time (as distinct from bad player)
Hampson, traded for pick 28, late second round picks on average return 80-100 game players. I don't think Hampson ever looked like he would give us 80-100 games so we paid too much.
List Retention
Do we keep players too long or do we turn them out too early. Its not hard to do the maths and work out how many players need to be turned over every year to ensure we have a good spread of positions and ages to maintain the list (its about 7). The specific keeps and cuts are little more complex and go to $, length of contract, insurance and subtle stuff like club morale.
Recent examples include
Rodan, good trade in my view, had a knee hadn't got his pace back and we had Krak and Tambling who looked better at the time.
Schulz, also a good trade, he had done little for us over many years, turns out it was a good trade for him and Port as well but doesn't mean it was a bad trade for us.
White, neutral trade, a three year deal would have been a stretch on his form, a two year deal would have been pretty easy. Never played this well for us, think he fits the Port game plan better than ours.
Newman, better than plenty on our list but may not be better than 22, its one year and whether or not its a good decision will depend on selection policy. Probably a low cost morale call.
McGuane, yep we forget the good cuts
Nahas, ditto
Thurston, ditto
Moore, probably kept him too long but was a team morale thing a bit like Coghlan
Selection
Personally I like a philosophy where its harder to get into the team than to get out. I think we perhaps err a little in rotating the journeymen into injury vacancies rather than trying the youngsters, eg not giving Miles a run but continually giving Thomas a go. But for the most part I like the concept that your first yellow sash has to be hard earned. If its hard earned it will be highly valued.
All in all I think the Vision men have done a pretty good job in the last 5 years.
