Let's get behind Tom Lee today

[Bluthy]

Lee looks very ungainly when running and chasing like Stanley does. It always worries me when I see that for some reason as if it reflects a disconnect between their brain and body. I can't remember to many really good players who look really uncoordinated.

[SaintPav]

Instead of Lee we could have had Kristian Jaksch..taken at pick 12.

He's played 4 games. Turns 20 this year. Hardly setting the world on fire.

If he was at the saints everyone would be saying how we'd wasted the draft pick anyway having hardly played a game!

Can't win on here unless every recruit is a gun....FFS.

What's even weirder is a fair few on here talking about recruiting Jaksch because he's a surplus tall at GWS.
What's Jaksch done to suggest he's any good? Be a first round draft pick?

Assuming we would have taken Jaksch which is a big ASSUMPTION.

Generally I don't disagree with you though.

[gringo]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Post of the year…
I hope the coffee tasted good for ten bucks, what a rip off.
I haven't seen a two dollar note in ages btw.

Using an analogy to try to battle ignorance amuses the like minded folks but it's taken as smarty folks being deliberately aloof by those who knowingly like to peddle misinformation. Nothing gets the good folks riled like the feeling of waste. "We wasted our pick 12" sounds much more alarmist and gets a much stronger reaction than "we traded a raft of picks that ended up in a complex deal that netted us several players, we are still not sure of how good they will be long term". Jack Billings was a waste when all those better players around him were going well. Creating mild anxiety over the list is some kind of release valve for some.

[Con Gorozidis]

Terrific analogy Kosi.
well played

[plugger66]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

[dragit]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

I think you do like this strategy as you've mentioned about Melbourne-Tyson, you just don't rate the player we ended up with. Melbourne didn't just end up with Tyson for pick 2 did they? they also got a pick roughly 10 places later and a good player, much like we did with Lee.

I doubt we'd have traded pick 12 for just Lee… it's a completely different scenario to getting a 24 as well, which can be a Nathan Wright.

I don't agree either that we would keep Lee because of a high draft pick involved. When he arrived, the club said he would take some time from the very beginning as he was physically well off having AFL strength for a key forward.

[plugger66]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

I think you do like this strategy as you've mentioned about Melbourne-Tyson, you just don't rate the player we ended up with. Melbourne didn't just end up with Tyson for pick 2 did they? they also got a pick roughly 10 places later and a good player, much like we did with Lee.

I doubt we'd have traded pick 12 for just Lee… it's a completely different scenario to getting a 24 as well, which can be a Nathan Wright.

I don't agree either that we would keep Lee because of a high draft pick involved. When he arrived, the club said he would take some time from the very beginning as he was physically well off having AFL strength for a key forward.

No I do like it if you get a player very close to the pick you are giving away and you also dont go down the trade list to far. i rated Tyson very highly and they still stayed in the top 10 for their other pick. And agree we wouldnt have traded just pick 12 for Lee but he did cost us that pick. We got other picks in return. If he doesnt work out which is looking more and more likely we traded pick 12 for then 24 and 43. He needs to work or its a terrible deal. Who we take in the deal is just good or bad luck.

[dragit]

No I do like it if you get a player very close to the pick you are giving away and you also dont go down the trade list to far. i rated Tyson very highly and they still stayed in the top 10 for their other pick. And agree we wouldnt have traded just pick 12 for Lee but he did cost us that pick. We got other picks in return. If he doesnt work out which is looking more and more likely we traded pick 12 for then 24 and 43. He needs to work or its a terrible deal. Who we take in the deal is just good or bad luck.

Well if we rated players in the 12 - 25 range from that draft as pretty even, then you could argue that even if Lee fails, we didn't lose much. Maybe we were looking at Wright/White with those earlier picks who knows?

We obviously rated Lee as did a few other clubs, let's face it, they're all gambles (no pun intended).

As we had such a huge hole in our list of 18 - 25 year olds, the club took some risks to bring multiple players in per pick… makes sense to me. I don't think we should expect all of those players to make it, completely unrealistic.

[plugger66]

No I do like it if you get a player very close to the pick you are giving away and you also dont go down the trade list to far. i rated Tyson very highly and they still stayed in the top 10 for their other pick. And agree we wouldnt have traded just pick 12 for Lee but he did cost us that pick. We got other picks in return. If he doesnt work out which is looking more and more likely we traded pick 12 for then 24 and 43. He needs to work or its a terrible deal. Who we take in the deal is just good or bad luck.

Well if we rated players in the 12 - 25 range from that draft as pretty even, then you could argue that even if Lee fails, we didn't lose much. Maybe we were looking at Wright/White with those earlier picks who knows?

We obviously rated Lee as did a few other clubs, let's face it, they're all gambles (no pun intended).

As we had such a huge hole in our list of 18 - 25 year olds, the club took some risks to bring multiple players in per pick… makes sense to me. I don't think we should expect all of those players to make it, completely unrealistic.

I certainly dont think all players should make it but you would hope most pick 12 become good players. That arguement falls in a hole at the moment because the guy taken at that pick is struggling as well not that I ever go along with looking who others took at the pick we gave away. That is fantasyland stuff to think we would always take the same player. We obviously really wanted Lee because we had no idea at the time who those other picks were going to get us and I think that is the main point about the pick. They could have got us Fisher and Steven or Howard and Sweeney.

[dragit]

Largely pointless, but it's still interesting to see the players taken at #12 & #24 over the years…

a ramanauskas - d wojcinski
p koulouriotis - j blake
s burgoyne - luke ablett
b reilly - s johnson
j shultz - p johnson
ryan murphy - chad jones - woops ?
danny meyer - n van berlo
n jones - c hughes
j frawley - b renouf
c rioli - c hinkley
l johnston - n suban
k lucas - j carlisle
l cook - j cripps
s docherty - h schade
k jaksch - n wright - too early
b lennon - b hartung - too early

Not a lot in it really, from this period the better player was taken at #12 - 6 times and # 24 - 7 times… Wright & Hartung looking pretty good from the past couple of years, but too early to call obviously.

Of course you want the earlier pick, but if you can get a decent player with a downgrade from 12 to 24, it looks like a reasonable decision. If Lee is a spud, at least we have a decent looking player in Wright.

[plugger66]

Largely pointless, but it's still interesting to see the players taken at #12 & #24 over the years…

a ramanauskas - d wojcinski
p koulouriotis - j blake
s burgoyne - luke ablett
b reilly - s johnson
j shultz - p johnson
ryan murphy - chad jones - woops ?
danny meyer - n van berlo
n jones - c hughes
j frawley - b renouf
c rioli - c hinkley
l johnston - n suban
k lucas - j carlisle
l cook - j cripps
s docherty - h schade
k jaksch - n wright - too early
b lennon - b hartung - too early

Not a lot in it really, from this period the better player was taken at #12 - 6 times and # 24 - 7 times… Wright & Hartung looking pretty good from the past couple of years, but too early to call obviously.

Of course you want the earlier pick, but if you can get a decent player with a downgrade from 12 to 24, it looks like a reasonable decision. If Lee is a spud, at least we have a decent looking player in Wright.

Yes but we could have got him with the Spencer White pick so itdepends how you look at it.

[BigMart]

Just on quick viewing

I'd have been happy with Wright at 12

I think he looks very promising

[plugger66]

Just on quick viewing

I'd have been happy with Wright at 12

I think he looks very promising

Its funny but when discussing Ben you said its luck of the draw who you get at the picks, its the actual number in the draft you get that decides if its good trade or not. I take it you think Lee and pick 24 and 43 was Ok for pick 12? You do realise we could have got Wright without trading pick 12?

[kosifantutti]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

I've posted here before about the guy on BigFooty who analyses draft picks and their value, and says that the picks we got for pick 12 were worth slightly more than pick 12. And we got Tom Lee as well.

Regardless of whether you buy that theory, we got three players for one pick and you seem obsessed with one of them providing all the value of the trade.

[plugger66]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

I've posted here before about the guy on BigFooty who analyses draft picks and their value, and says that the picks we got for pick 12 were worth slightly more than pick 12. And we got Tom Lee as well.

Regardless of whether you buy that theory, we got three players for one pick and you seem obsessed with one of them providing all the value of the trade.

No i dont but we could probably get 10 picks for pick one if we wanted. Doesnt make it right. We knew what we were getting with Lee. Well the club had a least seen him play. Pick 24 and 43 were unknown. As it turns out we could have got Wright without trading pick 12 for Lee. We then would have missed saunders and White. Who know how any of them will turn out but to just say we got 2 picks plus lee doesnt mean its a good trade. I dont buy multiple picks for a pretty high pick but many others do. Hope fully they will right. We gave up 12 for a known in Lee and then got two other picks. Without getting Lee we would never have traded pick 12. I still wish we didnt. I could handle not having White, Saunders and Lee but the unknown is who would we have got at 12. we will never know.

[dragit]

As it turns out we could have got Wright without trading pick 12 for Lee.

How would we have done this though? By using pick 12 on Wright? I can't see how that's better…

[plugger66]

As it turns out we could have got Wright without trading pick 12 for Lee.

How would we have done this though? By using pick 12 on Wright? I can't see how that's better…

By using pick 25 on him unless of course GWS wanted him.

[dragit]

As it turns out we could have got Wright without trading pick 12 for Lee.

How would we have done this though? By using pick 12 on Wright? I can't see how that's better…

By using pick 25 on him unless of course GWS wanted him.

Yeah but we only got 25 from making another down-grade trade in the Hickey deal.

[plugger66]

As it turns out we could have got Wright without trading pick 12 for Lee.

How would we have done this though? By using pick 12 on Wright? I can't see how that's better…

By using pick 25 on him unless of course GWS wanted him.

Yeah but we only got 25 from making another down-grade trade in the Hickey deal.

Yep but we got a better player IMO. Im using hindsight but still paid far to much for him also.

[samuraisaint]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Dont get that at all. We used pick 12 on lee and then got some other picks as well. The point is pick 12 is a very high pick. That means we have a chance of getting a very good player at that pick. I dont go along with trading a high pick to get 2 lower picks plus a player that maybe isnt anywhere near good enough. Who knows what we would have got at pick 12. Its all guess work but the trade would not have happened had we not taken Lee at pick 12. He cost us that pick. In return we got 2 higher picks and Lee. People like this statergy about getting more picks in the draft for a high pick. I think it is stupid statergy but hoping to be proved wrong.

Anyway my initial comment stands. lee will get an extra year because of the high draft pick it cost us. I dont think the club are saying to themselves well we also got 20 something and 40 something so really Lee didnt cost us much at all. if they are I reckon its stupid statergy.

Once again, in spite of myself, I find myself agreeing with Plugger66 on this one. The very fact that we are paying Lee is a worry. Needs delisting IMO.

[samuraisaint]

Lee looks very ungainly when running and chasing like Stanley does. It always worries me when I see that for some reason as if it reflects a disconnect between their brain and body. I can't remember to many really good players who look really uncoordinated.

That's because neither of them are AFL-level footballers. And Stanley is not a footballer at all. He is an athlete.

[dragit]

Once again, in spite of myself, I find myself agreeing with Plugger66 on this one. The very fact that we are paying Lee is a worry. Needs delisting IMO.

Actually I think pluggs would agree that, until we have 2 better players available to play their roles there is no point de-listing Stanley or Lee. Key Forward and Ruck Forward are pretty tricky roles to fill.

[plugger66]

Once again, in spite of myself, I find myself agreeing with Plugger66 on this one. The very fact that we are paying Lee is a worry. Needs delisting IMO.

Actually I think pluggs would agree that, until we have 2 better players available to play their roles there is no point de-listing Stanley or Lee. Key Forward and Ruck Forward are pretty tricky roles to fill.

100% agree. Hope they both come good but if they dont we need to find someone first. it may even be harder for the forwards nexy year.

[HitTheBoundary]

I bought a coffee yesterday. I handed over a ten dollar note and got a five dollar note and two dollar note in change.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT COFFEE COST ME TEN DOLLARS!

Post of the year…
I hope the coffee tasted good for ten bucks, what a rip off.
I haven't seen a two dollar note in ages btw.

Tom Lee's current worth if traded.

[PurpleHayes]

Once again, in spite of myself, I find myself agreeing with Plugger66 on this one. The very fact that we are paying Lee is a worry. Needs delisting IMO.

Actually I think pluggs would agree that, until we have 2 better players available to play their roles there is no point de-listing Stanley or Lee. Key Forward and Ruck Forward are pretty tricky roles to fill.

100% agree. Hope they both come good but if they dont we need to find someone first. it may even be harder for the forwards nexy year.

Plugger I think the best way to judge the Lee draft/trade is:

Lee & Wright & Saunders vs Jaksch.

Surely looking at it this way in absolute terms shows that it was a worthwhile trade?

And if you think the saints would have taken a potentially different/better player at pick #12 then you are drawing a very long bow without knowing what the 'inner sanctum' would have actually done if GWS said no to the trade.

You know the experts said picks 12-25 in that draft were pretty even don't you?
Phantom drafts had Lee potentially going first round regardless, being the best young key fwd in the state leagues at that point in time.

I just find it weird when people say we wasted the pick by trading it, but there hasn't been any standouts taken after pick 12 in that draft thus far...(maybe brodie grundy at 18) so how was it a 'stupid strategy' in hindsight?

Who on here wants to actually tell me who we should have taken at that pick and how they ARE going to be a better player long term than Lee/Saunders/Wright. People simply looking at the trade/pick in isolation and not at the actual wider draft which was pretty weak in hindsight.