How's that great deal looking now?

[GregPackhamsHeadband]

"The sky is falling attitude from some St Kilda supporters this off season is mind boggling."

"This off season"? Beno88...in the 20 or so off seasons I have been on this site...my memory is that the sky has tumbled down in every single one of them...that is our way!

I hope you see the irony of your post, santazzi. A rather hyperbolic response to what I thought was a reasonable question. Never said it was a s*** deal that would end in disaster. My fear is that we might blow it. It may still work out brilliantly. What my concern is, that it doesn't look anywhere near as good as it did when it was made, or when the Hawks looked like finishing right near the bottom. Throw in the fact that JOM's stocks were raised late in the year and the deal starts to look a lot more even.

[MC Gusto]

For picks inside top 20 which ones has trout stuffed up?

Genuine question - am interested in opinions

Paddy?

Billings?

Gresh

Acres?

Dunstan?


Goddard?

[parkeysainter]

For picks inside top 20 which ones has trout stuffed up?

Genuine question - am interested in opinions

Paddy?

Billings?

Gresh

Acres?

Dunstan?


Goddard?

Paddy - Unlucky and injured (potential is clearly there)
Billings - Becoming A grade
Fresh - Will be A grade
Acres - Will be A to B grade
Dunstan - Will be A to B grade
Goddard - Unlucky and injured (potential is clearly there)

None have been stuffed up. Each players is exactly what we needed in each draft at the time based on our list and all are tracking well except Paddy and Goddard but that is through no fault of their own or the recruitment team. They have had rotten luck those two and the recruiters or anyone aren't to blame for that. The other players are probably where they should be given their age and time in the game. Only Gresham is ahead of the curve so to speak. He's a better player than anyone else in that list at the same point in their career which shows how talented he is.

If you look at some of the top 20 picks from the past 4-5 years, some aren't even on an AFL list anymore. All of our top 20 players remain and don't look like they're going anywhere. Thats a major win when you analyse each player. If Goddard and Paddy come good its a massive win.

[MC Gusto]

I tend to agree parkey and i think a few of those were actually outside of top 20, more like top 25.

Therefore my query stands with the OP and his damnation of Trouts recruiting with top 20 picks....

[GregPackhamsHeadband]

Top 20 or 25. Not much difference. I've broken down Elshaug's record for the six years he's been in charge. I've broken it into the various categories, including the most controversial one, which is the jury is out section. I included players in this category, who for one reason or another have not established themselves as senior players, or haven't been able to break in and show us their tricks. These players have also been plagued by injury, and inconsistent form. Some are whipping boys, others get criticised heavily.

I find it interesting that some of them suddenly become potential stars when some posters try to mount an argument in their own favour. Truth is, we are where we are because those guys are too inconsistent, or not good enough. The majority of them will be gone within three years, if history is anything to go by. For example, McCartin, Goddard and Freeman are going to be stars, aren't they? The evidence shows they've played 31, mostly ordinary senior games between them in a combined 8 seasons at the club. Talk about getting your hopes up in the face of the available evidence. Some call McCartin a spud, others condemn Goddard as too slow, Acres as inconsistent and lacking focus and Freeman as an injury bust, with others describing him as a star who'll magically storm into the senior side and become the next Dangerfield. Others think that everyone on the list will make it. I, for one, hope they all make it and fulfill their potential. Of course, not all of them will. We need a dose of reality. We finished 11th and I think I've made a cogent argument as to why that is so.

Didn't or won't make it: Milera, Saad, Walsh, Minchington, Dunnell, Staley, Maister, Lee, Hickey, White, Wright, Saunders, Murdoch, Delaney, Curren, Lonie, O'Kearney, Pierce, Holmes and Coughlan.

Wins in trade. Roberton, Steele, Membrey, Bruce, Carlisle.

Jury out (not enough evidence one way or another) : McCartin, Goddard, White, Rice, Long, Battle, Phillips, McKenzie, Webster, Freeman, Longer, Marshall, Weller, Savage and Dunstan. I think we'll be lucky if five of these end up making it in the long term. I would add Brown and Stevens as I doubt they'll be in our best 22 in 2019.

Wins in draft: Newnes, Ross, Billings, Acres, Gresham. All on the way to being very good, regular senior players.

Rookie wins : Sinclair. Connellan and Joyce are unknown quantities, but show promise.

So out of 48 picks and trades over 6 years, we are left with 5 from the draft, who are decent players who are consistently performing to a good standard and are showing signs of taking the next step. We have far too many in the jury out category. Most of them have been on our list, or someone else's for a considerable amount of time. The rookie draft has delivered one and trades another 5. Whichever you way you want to argue the case, that is not a good record and an accurate reflection of our ladder position, especially when you consider the strength of our draft position over the past 6 years. No wonder I fear the position we're in now. Our trading for talent has been far better than our drafting, which, quite frankly, has been poor.

[takeaway]

If its too early to tell, why raise it? On face value, it is one of the most one sided deals ever achieved. End of story.

Not yet it's not. What if we blow the two picks? Get a Kane Tenace and a Barry Brooks for example? The whole outcome depends on what we do with the pick 7 we acquired. Jury out on Long and Battle. The point I made was not that the deal was a mistake, but that we won't know it's real value until much later. If we end up missing out on a traded in gun, then our plan has backfired, or won't be fulfilled as intended. That's a partial fail already. I thought the idea was to get the extra first rounder to throw at a Kelly, Whitfield, Hopper type. Now it looks as though even the less preferred options of Stringer and Rockliff are off the table. Is all that so really so hard to understand?

I think the idea was to get 3 draft picks, a 1st round & 2 seconds, for 10 & 60 odd. The deal was too good to refuse, and IMO was really to improve our position, not necessarily to draft a Kelly type. Gave us a lot more options/bargaining power whether at the draft or trading.
If we had used pick 10 last year the jury would still be out on who we drafted. Relating the value of the deal to failing to trade in Kelly or the like is illogical in my view. All draft picks/trades are very important - we got extra through the one sided deal.

[fugazi]

I'm happy to call Webster a win, and also when you consider what we gave up Longer, Savage, Stevens and Dunstan are wins...
They can't all be champions, but if they are good enough ti consistently get a game and contribute then you have to say the recruiter has at least a pass mark.

[takeaway]

Top 20 or 25. Not much difference. I've broken down Elshaug's record for the six years he's been in charge. I've broken it into the various categories, including the most controversial one, which is the jury is out section. I included players in this category, who for one reason or another have not established themselves as senior players, or haven't been able to break in and show us their tricks. These players have also been plagued by injury, and inconsistent form. Some are whipping boys, others get criticised heavily.

I find it interesting that some of them suddenly become potential stars when some posters try to mount an argument in their own favour. Truth is, we are where we are because those guys are too inconsistent, or not good enough. The majority of them will be gone within three years, if history is anything to go by. For example, McCartin, Goddard and Freeman are going to be stars, aren't they? The evidence shows they've played 31, mostly ordinary senior games between them in a combined 8 seasons at the club. Talk about getting your hopes up in the face of the available evidence. Some call McCartin a spud, others condemn Goddard as too slow, Acres as inconsistent and lacking focus and Freeman as an injury bust, with others describing him as a star who'll magically storm into the senior side and become the next Dangerfield. Others think that everyone on the list will make it. I, for one, hope they all make it and fulfill their potential. Of course, not all of them will. We need a dose of reality. We finished 11th and I think I've made a cogent argument as to why that is so.

Didn't or won't make it: Milera, Saad, Walsh, Minchington, Dunnell, Staley, Maister, Lee, Hickey, White, Wright, Saunders, Murdoch, Delaney, Curren, Lonie, O'Kearney, Pierce, Holmes and Coughlan.

Wins in trade. Roberton, Steele, Membrey, Bruce, Carlisle.

Jury out (not enough evidence one way or another) : McCartin, Goddard, White, Rice, Long, Battle, Phillips, McKenzie, Webster, Freeman, Longer, Marshall, Weller, Savage and Dunstan. I think we'll be lucky if five of these end up making it in the long term. I would add Brown and Stevens as I doubt they'll be in our best 22 in 2019.

Wins in draft: Newnes, Ross, Billings, Acres, Gresham. All on the way to being very good, regular senior players.

Rookie wins : Sinclair. Connellan and Joyce are unknown quantities, but show promise.

So out of 48 picks and trades over 6 years, we are left with 5 from the draft, who are decent players who are consistently performing to a good standard and are showing signs of taking the next step. We have far too many in the jury out category. Most of them have been on our list, or someone else's for a considerable amount of time. The rookie draft has delivered one and trades another 5. Whichever you way you want to argue the case, that is not a good record and an accurate reflection of our ladder position, especially when you consider the strength of our draft position over the past 6 years. No wonder I fear the position we're in now. Our trading for talent has been far better than our drafting, which, quite frankly, has been poor.

Not sure I agree with some of the grading there. Fior a start I would have Longer, Webster, Savage & Dunstan as wins & others very likely with more experience McCartin, White, McKenzie. Anyway, you would need to do a similar analysis of the other 17 teams, and I reckon we would be quite well placed in drafting/trading.

[GregPackhamsHeadband]

I wish I was wrong about this and you were right, but we are about where we should be, given how we've done over the past six years. We're nowhere near the better clubs in terms of strike rate, especially when you factor in our very advantageous drafting position in that time. Our rookie picks, traditionally a poor area has been pathetic compared to some others. In fact, when you factor in pick position, we've been poor. Well below average.

As for the players, Longer is still establishing himself and may yet be traded. Savage had a good last month, nothing more. Spent a lot of time at Sandy. Dunstan was dropped three times during the year and Webster is no certainty to be a regular next year. McCartin yes, pending injury, White, yes, pending an attitude adjustment. McKenzie is a no from me. Lacks composure and disposal is not good enough. I didn't write off the "jury's out" players, just preparing people for the reality that the majority won't make it, as it should be. We are several players short of being a premiership contender, so it makes sense we are carrying too many passengers. Don't speculate. Look at the facts as they are. I didn't say anyone of those wouldn't make it. It's just the evidence for them succeeding in the long term is not there yet. I wish it was.

[Devilhead]

It seems GregPackhamsHeadband is starting to fray at the edges

[thejiggingsaint]

I'm happy to call Webster a win, and also when you consider what we gave up Longer, Savage, Stevens and Dunstan are wins...
They can't all be champions, but if they are good enough ti consistently get a game and contribute then you have to say the recruiter has at least a pass mark.

Agree with you mate.

[Waltzing St Kilda]

Seems like there are a lot of true believers here. Bristle at the very suggestion that all is not rosy.
Everything is going to plan. All will work out well. Those who question the faith are infidels.

Fact is we've got the blandest list (and coaching staff) in a lifetime. Membership and attendance numbers
are bound to be pitiful in 2018 (not least because we'll have, I'd suggest, very few marquee games).

There's a possibility that Richo will pull a rabbit out of a hat and we'll soar up the ladder Richmond-like ...
but at the moment, applying cold-hearted logic, it's not looking likely. Another 9-13 finish in the offing,
if not worse. And after 4-5 years of rebuilding, that's an appalling state of affairs.

[jimmy_slats]

just remember a few things.. dogs sold there contracted captain and picked up the number one pick after his first year in football, gibbs almost went to adelade, josh schlacking just signed a 2-year deal and is on the verge of a trade! anything can happen just because we missed some doesn't mean there isn't some left field surprise around the corner and with what we have cash and picks wise then if any club can do it it will be us.

[GregPackhamsHeadband]

It seems GregPackhamsHeadband is starting to fray at the edges

Fraying? More like torn. I'm just trying to explore the reasons for our poor performances in big games and the last third of the season. A long time sainter whose opinion I respect told me we're just not good enough yet. Looking at the list I compiled, I think he might be right. Not that it can't be fixed, but at the moment some are basing their optimism on hope rather than reality. If Elshaug's record doesn't give you pause for thought, then you might need to reassess your standards.

[SaintPav]

The jury will definitely be in on Trout after this draft, if it's not already. Problem is that it might take a few years to play out and we don't have that long.

[Impatient Sainter]

The OP has it correct. Last years selection 10 Florent would be in the top 5 this year. Him plus SPP, Bolton and others would be top 10. So the Saints have to turn the 1st 2 x rounders into something special to win on the Hawthorn trade.

[Goose is king]

Long and Battle both debuted in their first season. Tell me how they are failed picks. I think both will play 100+ games. Long needs Gresham and Billings to spend more time in the midfield and he needs to be a fierce tackling small forward, no Lonie will help too. This deal was a massive win and has given us a real chance to load up on talent

[Goose is king]

Long and Battle both debuted in their first season. Tell me how they are failed picks. I think both will play 100+ games. Long needs Gresham and Billings to spend more time in the midfield and he needs to be a fierce tackling small forward, no Lonie will help too. This deal was a massive win and has given us a real chance to load up on talent

[Devilhead]

The jury will definitely be in on Trout after this draft, if it's not already. Problem is that it might take a few years to play out and we don't have that long.

What do you mean we don't have that long?

Are we folding as a club?

Have a look at the age of our core youngsters - even in 4 years time they will be only 27 or younger

Our window was always going to be from 2018 onwards - probably up to 2024 - making the finals this year would have been a surprise bonus and with a bit of luck we would have made it

An easier draw next year and with natural improvement from our youngsters should see us playing finals

Supporters pulling their hair out about this year really have no understanding regarding the age profile of our list

[SaintPav]

The jury will definitely be in on Trout after this draft, if it's not already. Problem is that it might take a few years to play out and we don't have that long.

What do you mean we don't have that long?

Are we folding as a club?

Have a look at the age of our core youngsters - even in 4 years time they will be only 27 or younger

Our window was always going to be from 2018 onwards - probably up to 2024 - making the finals this year would have been a surprise bonus and with a bit of luck we would have made it

An easier draw next year and with natural improvement from our youngsters should see us playing finals

Supporters pulling their hair out about this year really have no understanding regarding the age profile of our list

I understand the age profile and that we are not folding as a club, yet.

What I mean was that if Trout is no good and it takes a while to play out, he will be in charge for a few more drafts yet and he could do more damage before club wakes up and gets someone good.

[Dave McNamara]

It seems GregPackhamsHeadband is starting to fray at the edges

So, should he be afraid?

[MickThomas]

I'm happy to call Webster a win, and also when you consider what we gave up Longer, Savage, Stevens and Dunstan are wins...
They can't all be champions, but if they are good enough ti consistently get a game and contribute then you have to say the recruiter has at least a pass mark.

Longer- see Hickey...one decent year may not be enough to assess true potential.
Same for Sav, Stevens, Dunny, who have shown glimpses but we have to see
how consistent they can be.
So...jury still out.
Maybe, maybe not- just don't know yet.

[Devilhead]

It seems GregPackhamsHeadband is starting to fray at the edges

So, should he be afraid?

Have you ever had sweat in your eye?

It stings!!

[skeptic]

I just don't get the logic of a deal only being a success if recruit the right players...

In 2000, Carlton trade Aaron Hamil for pick 4 (+ Sam Cranage I believe). That was a reasonable trade for them.
How does the fact that they went on to recruit Luke Livingston ahead of Shaun Burgoyne and Scott Thompson make the deal bad.

It's like saying that if a forward takes a big speccy and sprays the shot on goal, that the mark is then not as good

[GregPackhamsHeadband]

If I buy a car for an absolute bargain price, but after a few kilometres it breaks down and needs repairs costing more than I paid for it, does that mean the original deal was still a bargain, or is it now a terrible deal because of the ultimate outcome ? The end result determines the value of the deal and whether or not it was worth doing.