Garlett gone

[plugger66]

Read your post?

Interesting how the club would be blamed for giving a kid a chance

I think the empathy here is for Hawthorn.... Nearly everyone I spoke to, said good on them? And worth a shot.

He is a risk like any other kid.... There is statistics available on draftee success rate, surprising how many never eek out a career beyond a few years, and how many fail?

Although his issues were not ability like most, but attitudinal.... Late picks are still a bit of a lottery?

Personally I would not have selected him with OUR picks because pick 41 was far better utilised securing Longer... But a late draft pick, yeah, why not.... Few would have begrudged our effort in trying to find elite talent?! Even at a risk.

Hawthorn took a positive risk, and got caught out?

Why wasnt he taken the year before then if it wasnt a risk? Lets face it clubs were worried about him and also the publicity he may attract to the club. Only the Premiership club thought he was worth the risk. Says a bit to me but lets face it you will never change your mind once you have told us another thing 50 times on here.

[BigMart]

Using a top 20 pick for a 27yo with a known football and of field history for a 3 year 1M commitment
Vs
Using a pick after 40 for a 20yo with an unknown potential but known of field history for a two year 160k commitment

Giving a kid a chance, a bit different to giving a 27yo a chance.... Kids can mature

again... Don't like men that touch women!... And Again his footy didn't impress me! Not for 1M

To me there are significant differences
1/ what you gave up
2/ the potential of the player to be elite
3/ what the off field issues were

One a positive risk

One a silly risk

BTW I would have missed drafting Gartlett in 2013 as I too would have used pick 25 & 41 on Longer .... And NO way would have used a pick lower than 50 anyway

[plugger66]

Using a top 20 pick for a 27yo with a known football and of field history for a 3 year 1M commitment
Vs
Using a pick after 40 for a 20yo with an unknown potential but known of field history for a two year 160k commitment

Giving a kid a chance, a bit different to giving a 27yo a chance.... Kids can mature

again... Don't like men that touch women!... And Again his footy didn't impress me! Not for 1M

To me there are significant differences
1/ what you gave up
2/ the potential of the player to be elite
3/ what the off field issues were

One a positive risk

One a silly risk

BTW I would have missed drafting Gartlett in 2013 as I too would have used pick 25 & 41 on Longer .... And NO way would have used a pick lower than 50 anyway

But you made it clear you would have taken him the year before. many times and said the club stuffed up so who stuffed out now do you think?

[matrix]

idiots
he was always going to either go off the rails or quit

wasted pick
any pick is wasted no matter where it is and when it happens
they are now 1 short on the list

[White Winmar]

Why can't they replace him on the list with an upgrade. Anyone know what the rule is?

[bergholt]

again... Don't like men that touch women!... And Again his footy didn't impress me! Not for 1M

Fair enough, you only like men that touch men. It's not for me but there's nothing wrong with that.

But his footy was pretty good. He averaged 20+ possessions and a goal a game in 2009. A bit better than Jason Gram's figures for the same year. More Brownlow votes too.

And $1m isn't a huge sum - that's $333k a year which is a bit above the average of about $220k (in 2009). He was a bit above the average player.

[Old Mate]

Why can't they replace him on the list with an upgrade. Anyone know what the rule is?

I think they'll have to get special approval from the AFL to upgrade a rookie for him. A bit like the Mitch Clark situation where he's taken indefinite leave. Correct me if I'm wrong but if a player retires during the playing year the club cannot upgrade a rookie? Similar situation to Garlett quitting.

[Spinner]

Using a top 20 pick for a 27yo with a known football and of field history for a 3 year 1M commitment
Vs
Using a pick after 40 for a 20yo with an unknown potential but known of field history for a two year 160k commitment

Giving a kid a chance, a bit different to giving a 27yo a chance.... Kids can mature

again... Don't like men that touch women!... And Again his footy didn't impress me! Not for 1M

To me there are significant differences
1/ what you gave up
2/ the potential of the player to be elite
3/ what the off field issues were

One a positive risk

One a silly risk

BTW I would have missed drafting Gartlett in 2013 as I too would have used pick 25 & 41 on Longer .... And NO way would have used a pick lower than 50 anyway

How could AL ever have impressed you if you don't watch players from other teams play?

[Old Mate]

They could've picked Templeton

[dragit]

Why can't they replace him on the list with an upgrade. Anyone know what the rule is?

I think they'll have to get special approval from the AFL to upgrade a rookie for him. A bit like the Mitch Clark situation where he's taken indefinite leave. Correct me if I'm wrong but if a player retires during the playing year the club cannot upgrade a rookie? Similar situation to Garlett quitting.

I read that they won't be allowed to elevate a player as he is not injured... If Garrett went on the LTI list then he wouldn't be allowed to ply in the WAFL.

BTW, this Lovett conversation isn't getting tiring at all is it?

[Teflon]

Shame for Garlet but an unproven kid hardly a Cousins comparison

I'd still have taken Cousin IF Lyon wanted him given the state of our list and the increased depth our midfield needed (i would've preferred a Cousins 3rd drop in there to Mcqaulter or Eddy)

What brainless gits seriously listen to Terry Tan for football opinion..... Id take Dermutt over him and that's saying something (no ones worse than "wanna be media bad boy D King" though....

[BigMart]

As a rookie in 2013 yeah, no worries?.... Surely as a rookie, someone like him is worth a shot?

There is absolutely nothing to lose... Given success rate there

Gaertner, Tungulungatum, Pfitzner, Murray, Stone, Barham, Hutchins, Andreoli, McGarry, Van Reenan, Archer, Corr, Dunnell, Shenton, Mullins, Ed McDonald, James Wall, G. chiver, L.Miles, K. Haretuku, J, Berry, B.Schwarze, Chris Jones, Oliver, Wittison, Olly Trand.

Who are they?

26 Rookie selections

[bergholt]

You missed Milne, Clint Jones, Jarryn Geary, Zac Dawson, Brett Moyle, Tom Simpkin, Chad Davis, Jayden Attard and Tom Curren.

[BigMart]

Bergholt

I named 26

You named 9... But missed R.EDDY.... 40 games

Among them
Jones 100 games
Milne 250
Geary 100

Zac Dawson 50 games, Moyle 40 games, Davis 30 games, Attard 20 games, Simpkin 20 games, Curran 10 games

We have about 630 games out of 36 rookies there
That's about 17 games average

Take away the bivouac outlier... Milne
It's about 11 games per selection

[White Winmar]

But what an outlier!!!!

[Devilhead]

One a positive risk

A positive risk?

WTF??

A risk is a risk

How the hell can a risk be labeled positive when the outcome is unfavourable

Can a negative risk become positive??

Or is it only when you put two negative risks together that you can get an affirmative outcome??

[plugger66]

As a rookie in 2013 yeah, no worries?.... Surely as a rookie, someone like him is worth a shot?

There is absolutely nothing to lose... Given success rate there

Gaertner, Tungulungatum, Pfitzner, Murray, Stone, Barham, Hutchins, Andreoli, McGarry, Van Reenan, Archer, Corr, Dunnell, Shenton, Mullins, Ed McDonald, James Wall, G. chiver, L.Miles, K. Haretuku, J, Berry, B.Schwarze, Chris Jones, Oliver, Wittison, Olly Trand.

Who are they?

26 Rookie selections

Even when he failed to play you stick by your thoughts. At least you have plenty of confidence in your thoughts. Funny that Terry Wallace now suggests it may have been a mistake taking cousins because of the influence over some of the playing group. He was only coaching them so he may not know as much as some on here. garlett was always a mistake for us and it is one thing I can confidently say the club got 100% right in hindsight or forsight. people who now argue any other way after him failing at Hawthorn just cant say the words maybe they were right and I was maybe wrong. You can even say rong if that makes you feel better. i like all those names you mentioned but did any of them get bad publicity as Im just about certain we would have got after Garlett left?

[bergholt]

garlett was always a mistake for us and it is one thing I can confidently say the club got 100% right in hindsight or forsight. people who now argue any other way after him failing at Hawthorn just cant say the words maybe they were right and I was maybe wrong.

That's crap, same as it is for Lovett.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of risk. If you're playing poker and you go all-in with the second-best hand then there's a tiny chance you get beaten - but your pot odds are good. Sometimes you lose and it's called a bad beat, but it's ALWAYS the correct play to go all-in.

On the other hand, if you go all-in before the flop with suited 2-6 it might turn into a straight flush, sure. But there's only a very, very small chance of that. So if you get it, that doesn't make you a great player, it just makes you briefly really lucky.

Same with these signings. Lovett had a tiny chance of doing something bad and getting delisted before playing a game. But that was only a tiny chance - how many other players has that happened to in AFL/VFL history? On the other hand, he had a pretty good chance of adding substantially to our team.

Garlett's different but similar. He had a reasonable chance of failing to settle and going home. He also had a reasonable chance of adding a bit to the team. This was known in advance. The fact that he failed to work out means nothing about whether the risk was correctly assessed or not.

[plugger66]

garlett was always a mistake for us and it is one thing I can confidently say the club got 100% right in hindsight or forsight. people who now argue any other way after him failing at Hawthorn just cant say the words maybe they were right and I was maybe wrong.

That's crap, same as it is for Lovett.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of risk. If you're playing poker and you go all-in with the second-best hand then there's a tiny chance you get beaten - but your pot odds are good. Sometimes you lose and it's called a bad beat, but it's ALWAYS the correct play to go all-in.

On the other hand, if you go all-in before the flop with suited 2-6 it might turn into a straight flush, sure. But there's only a very, very small chance of that. So if you get it, that doesn't make you a great player, it just makes you briefly really lucky.

Same with these signings. Lovett had a tiny chance of doing something bad and getting delisted before playing a game. But that was only a tiny chance - how many other players has that happened to in AFL/VFL history? On the other hand, he had a pretty good chance of adding substantially to our team.

Garlett's different but similar. He had a reasonable chance of failing to settle and going home. He also had a reasonable chance of adding a bit to the team. This was known in advance. The fact that he failed to work out means nothing about whether the risk was correctly assessed or not.

After what everyone said about garlett it was exactly like playing poker and hoping to get the straight and i play a bit and you never play for the straight or the flush. Lovett was a proven player and we were in the premiership window, our recruiting had been poor and one extra player may have got us over the line. garlett had a bad reputation and hadnt proven a thing. Our club had also had that much bad publicity in the last few years that the media would have jumped all over us had the same thing happened as it did to Hawthorn. They dont cop it because they won the flag.

Some people seem to just look at the small picture and that is a failed draft pick which of course is no big deal as 50% of them fail. Could even be more. Garlett would have got us bad press again. Something our club just couldnt take the risk on. it seems every club including Hawthorn thought similar last year otherwise why wasnt he drafted? This year the premiership side thought they had nothing to lose because lets face it premiership sides get bonus points in the media.

[joffaboy]

They could've picked Templeton

Exactly - wasted pick by Hawthorn.

But they aren't ever alone on that front.

All dps are risks, some more than others. Franklin went to Hawthorn @ #5 because he was supposedly a big risk. Seemed to work out OK.

Garlett was worth the risk for a premier team, not worth it for a team in Saints position.

A shame for Hawthorn, and a shame for the kid. Emma Quale's article in todsays Age is a beauty regarding what it takes to be an AFL footballer.

[stinger]

[


Same with these signings. Lovett had a tiny chance of doing something bad and getting delisted before playing a game. But that was only a tiny chance - how many other players has that happened to in AFL/VFL history? On the other hand, he had a pretty good chance of adding substantially to our team.

don't agree...lovett was a crap bloke with a crap record for doing crap things....guys like that never change......

[bergholt]

Same with these signings. Lovett had a tiny chance of doing something bad and getting delisted before playing a game. But that was only a tiny chance - how many other players has that happened to in AFL/VFL history? On the other hand, he had a pretty good chance of adding substantially to our team.

don't agree...lovett was a crap bloke with a crap record for doing crap things....guys like that never change......

Maybe, but my point remains. Plenty of AFL champions have been crap blokes: Ablett Sr, Carey, BBB Hall, etc. The overwhelming majority of them managed to play heaps of good footy before their club finally lost patience with them, if that ever happened. Lovett might have been a bad guy but there was no reason for the club to expect that he'd do something bad within two months of signing for us. I think it was reasonable to expect that he'd play a couple of seasons and do pretty well.

[magnifisaint]

Again we have a battle of the egos.

"I'm right, no I'm right, no you're wrong, yes I'm right"........yada yada yada.

[BigMart]

Then why weigh into it... Just to be heard? Add something to it?

Positive risk, with a negative outcome, lord yes?

Remembering the risk is the decision before the action..... And subsequent outcome

Ie/ playing a attacking cricket shot to a ball in

[BigMart]

a situation... And getting caught?

Risk vs reward

Positive, if the risk is worth it even if there is a chance it ends up unsuccessful