I don't think we paid overs for lee

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

User avatar
magnifisaint
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8146
Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 617 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317083Post magnifisaint »

plugger66 wrote:As of round 2 we have paid overs for both players but there is at least 2 or 3 years to find out if we really paid overs.
so what you're really saying is that you don't know.


Posting 20 years of holey crap!
User avatar
Verdun66
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:46am
Location: Dubai, UAE
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317087Post Verdun66 »

Exactly BM. It might well be (and I certainly hope so) that Wright ends up being seen as a steal at his pick. It is very inexact. Look at this poor bloke at Freo. Top 20 pick, and he's found to have a heart defect. Things like this, injuries, desire (or lack of it) all conspire to make it paramount that you are consistent over the years with draft picks. We haven't been, but the last couple of years might be a start.

As an example I played in the Australian U19 cricket team many moons ago. Only 1 of us played Test cricket. A few played Shield, and the best player in the team gave up and went bush aged 21. It's a lottery really. Stacked in the favour of the Top 10, but even then, it doesn't always work out.


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317088Post gringo »

The only good thing about being in a development cycle is that guys will be given a go if they deserve it. There are still plenty of players who come and go from the system never getting to show what they could do.

One of the funny things about recruits is that some how people think if you get in and work hard the good players will make it. heaps don't get a chance in their spot or are injured too often etc. It is really a case of having talent, application, mental strength, resilience etc in equal measures and then an opportunity to show it.

Lee looked magic in the Foxtel series and as much as people say it's only WAFL versus VFL or SANFL etc he still took control when he needed to. His confidence got up and he looked a gun. I think if he gets his confidence up in the VFL he might just surprise a few.


User avatar
Verdun66
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:46am
Location: Dubai, UAE
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317091Post Verdun66 »

Opportunity, and confidence. Goes a long way.


User avatar
andrewg
Club Player
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sat 03 Sep 2011 6:38pm

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317094Post andrewg »

Lee will be great for us please re watch

if you alreay havn't. His marks at 1:06, 1:20, 1:31, 1:48 are outstanding.

Good leap, great timing, good hands, nice kicking action. All he needs is confidence at AFL level. He will be an excellent addition to our team.


User avatar
andrewg
Club Player
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sat 03 Sep 2011 6:38pm

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317095Post andrewg »

on the confidence thing you only have to look at Gilberts 2009 season to realise that with the right support, some confidence and a little luck players that work hard and give effort can be very very good.


gringo
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12421
Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317100Post gringo »

andrewg wrote:Lee will be great for us please re watch

if you alreay havn't. His marks at 1:06, 1:20, 1:31, 1:48 are outstanding.

Good leap, great timing, good hands, nice kicking action. All he needs is confidence at AFL level. He will be an excellent addition to our team.

I kind of thought of him as a 6'4" Milney and have mentioned that but he obviously can take a contested grab as well. He looks a beauty from that.


User avatar
Siposstar#2
Club Player
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2011 4:15pm

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317101Post Siposstar#2 »

Verdun66 wrote:Exactly BM. It might well be (and I certainly hope so) that Wright ends up being seen as a steal at his pick. It is very inexact. Look at this poor bloke at Freo. Top 20 pick, and he's found to have a heart defect. Things like this, injuries, desire (or lack of it) all conspire to make it paramount that you are consistent over the years with draft picks. We haven't been, but the last couple of years might be a start.

As an example I played in the Australian U19 cricket team many moons ago. Only 1 of us played Test cricket. A few played Shield, and the best player in the team gave up and went bush aged 21. It's a lottery really. Stacked in the favour of the Top 10, but even then, it doesn't always work out.
Could it be. Are you warney?? 8-)


Formerly posted as magnifisaint 35
User avatar
Verdun66
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:46am
Location: Dubai, UAE
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317104Post Verdun66 »

He's way younger.....and didn't play for Aust U19! Good example of someone developing later. Was in the Academy, but got kicked out. Doubt Warney would have survived in an AFL type environment. Too much of a maverick character. But boy, what we would have missed!! Imagine him saying the things he said to John Buchanan to an AFL coach. Different sports, and he clearly thought Buchanan knew nothing. But....

And a Sainter! Never met him though....


User avatar
Cairnsman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7377
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
Location: Everywhere
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 276 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317111Post Cairnsman »

why all the negativity for Hickey after one game. I saw him do some things in that GC game that would vindicate the clubs reason for picking him up. History says premiership teams have decent ruckmen so hopefully he comes good.


Teflon
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 23243
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
Has thanked: 741 times
Been thanked: 1798 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317117Post Teflon »

Verdun66 wrote:We seem to be going over old ground. We got packages of players for those picks. They weren't singular. At the time I read quite a few of the phantom drafts, and a theme emerged that the top 10 picks were really that, but picks 10-30 you could pretty much throw a blanket over. So instead of 2 players in that bracket we actually got 4 in the top 25. Then some bonuses in the 40's. Wright apparently could have gone anywhere from about 15-18 onwards.

Hickey we badly needed, as exemplified by our dire circumstance when McEvoy was injured last year. Other clubs were after him. Because we badly needed a 2nd ruckman nothing was 'overs'. Other clubs were after Lee apparently. We tried very hard to do the key back deal, but clearly would have had to pay overs, so we didn't. Nearly got done.

We are trying to catch up on years of poor recruiting, and are making a pretty fair effort. Getting 4 picks instead of 2 in the top 25 seems like a good deal to me.
IF those additional picks work out

Getting Wright at 24 and Lee with 12 plus another pick needs to be balanced up with what went at 12/13 in the draft we could have taken

Didn't we also already have a mid 20's and 40's pick regardless of Lee deal? If so we didn't get those picks in addition - we just upgraded spots...??


“Yeah….nah””
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317119Post plugger66 »

Teflon wrote:
Verdun66 wrote:We seem to be going over old ground. We got packages of players for those picks. They weren't singular. At the time I read quite a few of the phantom drafts, and a theme emerged that the top 10 picks were really that, but picks 10-30 you could pretty much throw a blanket over. So instead of 2 players in that bracket we actually got 4 in the top 25. Then some bonuses in the 40's. Wright apparently could have gone anywhere from about 15-18 onwards.

Hickey we badly needed, as exemplified by our dire circumstance when McEvoy was injured last year. Other clubs were after him. Because we badly needed a 2nd ruckman nothing was 'overs'. Other clubs were after Lee apparently. We tried very hard to do the key back deal, but clearly would have had to pay overs, so we didn't. Nearly got done.

We are trying to catch up on years of poor recruiting, and are making a pretty fair effort. Getting 4 picks instead of 2 in the top 25 seems like a good deal to me.
IF those additional picks work out

Getting Wright at 24 and Lee with 12 plus another pick needs to be balanced up with what went at 12/13 in the draft we could have taken

Didn't we also already have a mid 20's and 40's pick regardless of Lee deal? If so we didn't get those picks in addition - we just upgraded spots...??

I have a feeling that was for Hickey. I think we did get 3 picks for Lee. Its way to early to call good or bad but just because you get 3 picks doesnt make it good unless we get at least one very good player out of it.


bergholt
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7356
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004 9:25am

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317122Post bergholt »

Verdun66 wrote:It is very inexact. Look at this poor bloke at Freo. Top 20 pick, and he's found to have a heart defect.
Jayden Pitt? Yeah. Or Anthony Morabito, who they got at number 4 the year before that - he's had three knee recos so far. Who's to say that either of those picks were wrong, it's just that there were factors that no-one could have predicted about them which will mean they were wasted.


bigcarl
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 18636
Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
Has thanked: 1980 times
Been thanked: 865 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317146Post bigcarl »

Verdun66 wrote: As an example I played in the Australian U19 cricket team many moons ago. Only 1 of us played Test cricket. A few played Shield, and the best player in the team gave up and went bush aged 21. It's a lottery really. Stacked in the favour of the Top 10, but even then, it doesn't always work out.
Who was the one that played Tests, Verdun, out of interest? Which era? Give us a clue.


CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317162Post CURLY »

Really cant see what the issue is. If Lee was 18 and kicked 60 goals in the WAFL and had Lee's skill set he'd be touted as number one in the draft. Cant understand what the issue is.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
User avatar
Verdun66
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:46am
Location: Dubai, UAE
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317164Post Verdun66 »

Murray Bennett. Didn't play many, but bowled the Windies out with Bob Holland to win us a rare Test against them. Bowled Viv with a Jaffa.
Last edited by Verdun66 on Thu 11 Apr 2013 11:08am, edited 1 time in total.


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317165Post plugger66 »

CURLY wrote:Really cant see what the issue is. If Lee was 18 and kicked 60 goals in the WAFL and had Lee's skill set he'd be touted as number one in the draft. Cant understand what the issue is.

He is 22 though.


CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317167Post CURLY »

plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:Really cant see what the issue is. If Lee was 18 and kicked 60 goals in the WAFL and had Lee's skill set he'd be touted as number one in the draft. Cant understand what the issue is.

He is 22 though.
Big deal whats that mean?


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317172Post plugger66 »

CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:Really cant see what the issue is. If Lee was 18 and kicked 60 goals in the WAFL and had Lee's skill set he'd be touted as number one in the draft. Cant understand what the issue is.

He is 22 though.
Big deal whats that mean?

It means he has played senior footy for 4 years and even had one in the AFL. He should be very close in being ready to go. Nick Sauntner kicked 60 every year in the VFL. No club took him.


CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317178Post CURLY »

plugger66 wrote:

It means he has played senior footy for 4 years and even had one in the AFL. He should be very close in being ready to go. Nick Sauntner kicked 60 every year in the VFL. No club took him.
Sautner obviously had flaws that a AFL club wouldnt take a risk with then. Lee by all accounts has grown late and wasnt prepared for AFL footy when first drafted. A lot of 18 year olds arent.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
bigcarl
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 18636
Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
Has thanked: 1980 times
Been thanked: 865 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317180Post bigcarl »

Verdun66 wrote:Murray Bennett. Didn't play many, but bowled the Windies out with Bob Holland to win us a rare Test against them. Bowled Viv with a Jaffa.
Ah yeah, I remember him. Tall left arm orthodox and wore glasses.


bigcarl
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 18636
Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
Has thanked: 1980 times
Been thanked: 865 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317182Post bigcarl »

plugger66 wrote: Nick Sauntner kicked 60 every year in the VFL. No club took him.
True, but maybe someone should have. Used to know where the goals were.


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317184Post plugger66 »

CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:

It means he has played senior footy for 4 years and even had one in the AFL. He should be very close in being ready to go. Nick Sauntner kicked 60 every year in the VFL. No club took him.
Sautner obviously had flaws that a AFL club wouldnt take a risk with then. Lee by all accounts has grown late and wasnt prepared for AFL footy when first drafted. A lot of 18 year olds arent.

I know that but you would hope Lee with 4 years senior experience will come on by the end of the year. I dont think it would be a good sign if he only played one or 2 games this year.


CURLY
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
Location: WARBURTON
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 1329 times

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317185Post CURLY »

bigcarl wrote:
Verdun66 wrote:Murray Bennett. Didn't play many, but bowled the Windies out with Bob Holland to win us a rare Test against them. Bowled Viv with a Jaffa.
Ah yeah, I remember him. Tall left arm orthodox and wore glasses.

Best arm ball ever.


NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
BigMart
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 13622
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2008 6:06pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: I don't think we paid overs for lee

Post: # 1317188Post BigMart »

Saunter should definitely have played AFL many players worse than him did.... Preoccupation with 18yo athletes. Today's mindset... He would have been a certainty in 2001/2.

He was better at 32 than 5 stk fwds he played with in 2009....


Post Reply