A grade midfielder

[kimberly saint]

Every one is saying dont get a 27 year old but in two years hayes , monty and dal all will most likely retired gone. My point or question is wats the problem spending money on a mature mid , wont affect us still drafting young players with our picks and building for future we have the money sitting there.
If we could secure a A mid to help these young blokes come on wats the problem. The recruit would need very strong leadership qualitys , i cringe looking at melbourne all these high picks running around with no leadership and dirrection.
But like been said will be hard to convince sum one to come to a building club, but money talks

[Teflon]

I get a feeling it could be Thomas they are looking at - Waters would have worked with him at Collingwood and out of contract at years end?

That would be a disaster for us - over the odds for a front runner,would rathet they kept Goddard if so.

Goes against Watters recent comments that 26/27 isnt the age profile we are after when asked about Buddy...

[saintsRrising]

Can't 27 yo players play the game?? Obviously we thought Lovett could??

We just lost an a grader of that age (most a graders are that age)

.

While I understand that Lovett and BJ are hobbyhorses they are not comparable. Whether they can play or not or rather how well they can play, has to be tempered with where you see your overall list, at that point in time. Are you going for a flag, building etc...

Lovett: Chased as we were in full tilt to win a flag mode. Indeed IF he had shaped up he may have made the difference.
Wether you like him asa pick or not one can understand the logic of getting a fast running player that could break lines.

BJ: Let go, and not LOST, as Pelchen new our window had closed and letting him go woul gain salary cap to chase a very good YOUNG player, plus gain a lowish pick in the draft.

BJ may well have made us win a few more games this year if he had stayed, but he know longer is the difference for StKilda in winning a flag or not. That time has past.

If you want Pelchen to rebuild the Saints quicker and shorten the time before our next possible flag tilt, then you need to provide him with some currency. BJ is that currency.

[Vazelos]

Tom Lee, picked up for draft pick #12, a very high pick & at 21 hasnt played yet. I wander how many games he will play this year? I am stating the obvious that he needs to play if he is going to be part of our next side to have a crack at the premiership. Decisions have to be made where a players thats at the end & wont be around has to make way for the players that will. They need games. Milera & Saad have to play over Milne. Tom Lee has to play for Kosi ( I know they are not exact types but you know what I mean.)
I think we have done well with Saad & Milera, the jury is still out on last year's draft as its still too early but Lee must play atleast 10 to 15 games this year.
He is 21, not 18!!!

We will have a lot of room in the cap to go head hunting next draft & we hope this Academy has some substance & we can develop the players we have within.

I think Stanley could be our answer down back, thats a huge & vital position to fill.
Rucks seem ok with Mc Evoy & Hickey for the next decade.
Small forwards are covered.
We need to go for an A grader in the middle, I think thats obvious with Hayes at the end & Dal Santo & Montagna in the last 3rd of their careers.
Jack Steven & Armitage are very good but we need a top liner to make it elite again along with the negaters that will compliment them.

[gringo]

Tom Lee, picked up for draft pick #12, a very high pick & at 21 hasnt played yet. I wander how many games he will play this year? I am stating the obvious that he needs to play if he is going to be part of our next side to have a crack at the premiership. Decisions have to be made where a players thats at the end & wont be around has to make way for the players that will. They need games. Milera & Saad have to play over Milne. Tom Lee has to play for Kosi ( I know they are not exact types but you know what I mean.)
I think we have done well with Saad & Milera, the jury is still out on last year's draft as its still too early but Lee must play atleast 10 to 15 games this year.
He is 21, not 18!!!

We will have a lot of room in the cap to go head hunting next draft & we hope this Academy has some substance & we can develop the players we have within.

I think Stanley could be our answer down back, thats a huge & vital position to fill.
Rucks seem ok with Mc Evoy & Hickey for the next decade.
Small forwards are covered.
We need to go for an A grader in the middle, I think thats obvious with Hayes at the end & Dal Santo & Montagna in the last 3rd of their careers.
Jack Steven & Armitage are very good but we need a top liner to make it elite again along with the negaters that will compliment them.

I can't remember the machinations but Lee was a deal like Saad and Milera- a prelisted pick swap. We got possibly Spencer White and Brodie Murdoch with Lee for pick 12. If one comes good =good trade, two come good =great trade -three come good and it's genius.

[Vazelos]

Is that how it worked?

[Old Mate]

Yup kinda sick of hearing this Lee for pick 12 BS...Its not accurate. We also received pick 24 (Wright) and 43 (Saunders) as part of the deal.

[Richter]

I agree MC G. We're better off using our $$ to sign some of our established talent coming through, like Armo and Steven to front ended 5 year deals, and keeping the $$ for a free agent in 3-4 years time.

[SaintWodonga]

We are 14th at the moment, on track for a top 5 pick.

[Vazelos]

it may be that we got higher picks in #24 & # 43 but pick # 12 is still in its own right a very high pick & Tom Lee will be assessed on this opportunity cost.

[FQF]

It is all very well to say that we should not draft any player over the age of 27 because they won't be there for our next flag tilt, but there are three major problems with that approach.

1. It simply might not be true. A 27 year old could play for another 5 years. History shows that that's plenty of time to rise back to the top.

2. The team needs a well balanced list with older and younger players even if those older players are not going to see the end result. Senior players are mentors, they can protect the younger bodies on the field, and they give the club its character. GWS traded for a heap of senior players even though they were no chance to play in a flag for this very reason.

3. Even if we are down the bottom of the ladder, we must remain competitive. This is because we need to preserve a winning "culture" and not a Melbourne like feeling of sheer hopelessness. And also because a team cannot survive financially if they continually lose. Members leave, sponsors leave, and then they relocate.

[Teflon]

it may be that we got higher picks in #24 & # 43 but pick # 12 is still in its own right a very high pick & Tom Lee will be assessed on this opportunity cost.

correct.

few will give a shyte about the also ran picks.

[rexy]

Anyone who believes clubs need 5 years to turn around their form is accepting mediocrity! If you are a loser for 5 years you will never be a winner, 3 yrs max should see any list capable of becoming contenders, desire, drive and work ethic can be demanded instantly, with this will come competitiveness. All of these kids can play footy!

[dragit]

Anyone who believes clubs need 5 years to turn around their form is accepting mediocrity! If you are a loser for 5 years you will never be a winner, 3 yrs max should see any list capable of becoming contenders, desire, drive and work ethic can be demanded instantly, with this will come competitiveness. All of these kids can play footy!

Well BigMart keeps telling us all that we are basically a s*** club and do just accept mediocrity… unlike those fabulous successful clubs who never let any good players leave and demand success…

I don't think we are talking about being on the bottom for 5 years, maybe 2, then rising to the top over 2-3 years…

The way our list is currently, I do think it will take the best part of 5 years to re-challenge, that's not accepting mediocrity, but rationally assessing the age and experience range of our list… & I would rather be playing GF's in 5-6 years than middling for the next ten like North and Richmond have been.

The best sides all have stars & the stars come in the early draft picks… exactly what Watters was referring to today…

[rexy]

Anyone who believes clubs need 5 years to turn around their form is accepting mediocrity! If you are a loser for 5 years you will never be a winner, 3 yrs max should see any list capable of becoming contenders, desire, drive and work ethic can be demanded instantly, with this will come competitiveness. All of these kids can play footy!

Well BigMart keeps telling us all that we are basically a s*** club and do just accept mediocrity… unlike those fabulous successful clubs who never let any good players leave and demand success…

I don't think we are talking about being on the bottom for 5 years, maybe 2, then rising to the top over 2-3 years…

The way our list is currently, I do think it will take the best part of 5 years to re-challenge, that's not accepting mediocrity, but rationally assessing the age and experience range of our list… & I would rather be playing GF's in 5-6 years than middling for the next ten like North and Richmond have been.

The best sides all have stars & the stars come in the early draft picks… exactly what Watters was referring to today…

That may be the case but if you tell your players that it is a 5 year process then they will expect that, this doesn't breed a winning culture IMO! I don't believe Carlton have a side to challenge but Malthouse won't admit that! Imagine if Matthews got to Brisbane in 2000 and said this will take 3 years.

[dragit]

That may be the case but if you tell your players that it is a 5 year process then they will expect that, this doesn't breed a winning culture IMO! I don't believe Carlton have a side to challenge but Malthouse won't admit that! Imagine if Matthews got to Brisbane in 2000 and said this will take 3 years.

Sure, I understand what you are saying… not to put a ceiling on what young guys can achieve. Just think there also needs to be some acceptance that 10 teams will miss the finals every year now, it's not the end of the world if we miss the finals, as long as we are working towards something.

[plugger66]

It is all very well to say that we should not draft any player over the age of 27 because they won't be there for our next flag tilt, but there are three major problems with that approach.

1. It simply might not be true. A 27 year old could play for another 5 years. History shows that that's plenty of time to rise back to the top.

2. The team needs a well balanced list with older and younger players even if those older players are not going to see the end result. Senior players are mentors, they can protect the younger bodies on the field, and they give the club its character. GWS traded for a heap of senior players even though they were no chance to play in a flag for this very reason.

3. Even if we are down the bottom of the ladder, we must remain competitive. This is because we need to preserve a winning "culture" and not a Melbourne like feeling of sheer hopelessness. And also because a team cannot survive financially if they continually lose. Members leave, sponsors leave, and then they relocate.

We have plenty of older players unlike GC who would have had none had they not traded for them. They will gradually retire over the next 3 years and by then Ben, Gibert, Armo, Jack and a couple of others will be the older players. We dont need to get good 27 year olds in now. If we could get 2 or 3 champions of that age it would be different but that isnt happening. Getting rid of BJ< or not matching the offer, suggests we arent interested in players that age.

[BigMart]

So we aren't interested in 31/32 year olds when we have a tilt

Why were/are Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong.

This obsession with windows, age and rebuilding is absolute stupidity!!

Sydney, geelong, hawthorn and collingwood are the clubs who have put together an awesome core (as we did)
Continued to blood some kids yearly, traded for gaps on their list to improve them... And looked at their team to remain competitive....

Why did Sydney buy Tippett?
1/ because they could
2/ more notably they realise to stay at the top they need to continue to improve

Our big problem in 2010/11 was we tried to win with a team that had not improved in its personnel, game plan or leadership from 2009 and other teams did.

I think once you have that core it's just a matter of refreshing it every year with one or two an continually evolviving. And if their is a trade into a position (ie. full back) that you lack... Do it. But pick the right person?!

[plugger66]

So we aren't interested in 31/32 year olds when we have a tilt

Why were/are Collingwood, Hawthorn, Geelong.

This obsession with windows, age and rebuilding is absolute stupidity!!

Sydney, geelong, hawthorn and collingwood are the clubs who have put together an awesome core (as we did)
Continued to blood some kids yearly, traded for gaps on their list to improve them... And looked at their team to remain competitive....

Why did Sydney buy Tippett?
1/ because they could
2/ more notably they realise to stay at the top they need to continue to improve

Our big problem in 2010/11 was we tried to win with a team that had not improved in its personnel, game plan or leadership from 2009 and other teams did.

I think once you have that core it's just a matter of refreshing it every year with one or two an continually evolviving. And if their is a trade into a position (ie. full back) that you lack... Do it. But pick the right person?!

Yes we were intested in 31 year olds when we had a tilt but they were champions and i have said there is no point in getting a good 27 year old because they wont be around when we challenge next. Hayes and Milne were better than good at 27 years of age. We should not be interested in 27 years old unless they are stars and then we will be paying over the odds so why do that if we wouldnt do it with BJ. BM surely you can see the club isnt interested in paying over the odds if they wouldnt with one of ours.

Have no idea what Tippett has to do with our current situation. Please use relevant examples so I can get what you are on about.

[joffaboy]

So we aren't interested in 31/32 year olds when we have a tilt

If you are referring to Cousins, it is because he was and still is a fkn JUNKIE!!!

Also he was past it.

Nobody except Richmond who were forced by their supporters to select Cousins was interested.

Not Collingwood
Not Geelong
Not Hawthorn
Not the Bulldogs

Nobody, except you.

[Teflon]

I'm actually with plugs here

It's obvious why we arent interested in 27 year olds and Sydney are - they have a list capable of going again.... we have more holes than Swiss cheese

Not a good example

Lets just firstly pray we have an A grader or 4 lurking in this group of kids.... haven't seen it yet but still who really knows

What I do know is for attracting future talent we need to quickly move from being seen as "old, in demise and missed our chance" to "young, up and coming with talent" real quick. Need to also do this for members - remember when we launched in 2003..... we were the young guns the Lions and co were worried about.
How to do this? Play kids before a Blake, Kosi (within balance) and don't trade first round picks for anything.

Structurally we have Forwards for the future - with White/Lee and army of smalls
Rucks we have a really talented duo emerging IMO
Backs - if Stanley stays here a future bug hole could be filled .... if he goes forward we need one. I actually reckon Stanley gas the capability to play a Dustin Fletcher role with more zip
Midfield - load up time.... we want 8-10 who can go through there with at least 3-4 guns

Don't want much do we??

[gringo]

I'm actually with plugs here

It's obvious why we arent interested in 27 year olds and Sydney are - they have a list capable of going again.... we have more holes than Swiss cheese

Not a good example

Lets just firstly pray we have an A grader or 4 lurking in this group of kids.... haven't seen it yet but still who really knows

What I do know is for attracting future talent we need to quickly move from being seen as "old, in demise and missed our chance" to "young, up and coming with talent" real quick. Need to also do this for members - remember when we launched in 2003..... we were the young guns the Lions and co were worried about.
How to do this? Play kids before a Blake, Kosi (within balance) and don't trade first round picks for anything.

Structurally we have Forwards for the future - with White/Lee and army of smalls
Rucks we have a really talented duo emerging IMO
Backs - if Stanley stays here a future bug hole could be filled .... if he goes forward we need one. I actually reckon Stanley gas the capability to play a Dustin Fletcher role with more zip
Midfield - load up time.... we want 8-10 who can go through there with at least 3-4 guns

Don't want much do we??

It isn't unachievable. Sydney were looking pretty gappy too but went out and cherry picked what they needed. Pretty much what we are up to now. A lot comes down to luck as the difference between Fiora and Tambling compared to Dangerfield and Nat Fife aren't always obvious when you are selecting them.

[MCG-Unit]

it may be that we got higher picks in #24 & # 43 but pick # 12 is still in its own right a very high pick & Tom Lee will be assessed on this opportunity cost.

correct.

few will give a shyte about the also ran picks.

Yes don't really buy the 'getting back 2nd & 3rd Rnd picks' makes it ok. Sure it sweetened the deal quite a bit, esp if DP 24 & 43 turn out ok -
but IMO a downgrade of 12 picks in Rnd 1 is still a hefty price to pay.

Why not wait and see if Lee is still available in the ND at pick 40-60+ if not forget it? Take an 18 y o. Surely if someone pre-listed by GWS is not traded, he can enter the ND.

And what crapola that is - GWS has rights to just about everyone not on an AFL list or an U18. How many can they pre-list 40, 100? Is it published?

[BigMart]

So

If a gun 27 yo comes onto the market... Who will improve the team in the short term and

JOFFA
was it good to recruit Gardy then? No one wanted him, he was injury riddled, taking drugs with Ben, was disciplined numerous times and had missed a season of footy.

Some risks are worth it, some are not... Does it depend on whether the club made that choice?
Does it bother you that Ben didn't fail at Richmond... Either on field or a drug test? He played 35 games averaged 20 touches... Taught some of their key mids (Cotchin, Delidio) how to work.
Other clubs did not need him.... We had a chance for zero cost to get 75% of a champion whose experience a lone could have been the difference
Would he have missed from 15m out in the big one.... Unlikely

Are you questioning the fact that Ben is a giant of the game.... He was not your average player.... Guy was a superstar (with issues) but reportedly a infectious funny guy who was manic about footy, getting the best out of himself and elite performance.... His training efforts were legendary

Anyway..... That boat has sailed... Like our premierships.

[bergholt]

was it good to recruit Gardy then? No one wanted him, he was injury riddled, taking drugs with Ben, was disciplined numerous times and had missed a season of footy.

What? Doesn't most of that logic also apply to Lovett? You've very vocally said that he was a mistake, but he would have made a bigger difference than Gardy did (Round 14 2009 aside).