It's even more ridiculous to be writing kids off in their first season.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Welcome to Tigerland - Tim Taranto
- Thread starter mad_tiggy911
- Start date
I just think it’s better if we focus on our own players. There’s enough *smile* floating around in the media about us, we as fans don’t need to be turning on guys who have been at the club 5 minutes. And we’ve got a recruiting department that delivered us 3 flags with some shrewd decisions at the end 2016, then the work to get Lynch over at the end of 2018 for free as a FA. So we can’t really complain about the decisions they’ve made! We all just need to let it play out. Regardless of this years draft pick, there won’t be “winners or losers” out of these trades for a few years at least
100%. But ruing our decision based on extremely limited output thus far is just as ridiculous. And that’s what we continue to hear.
Let’s all be realistic about all these players.
Children. Years in the wilderness. And you're making your old mistake of failing to account for the butterfly effect. Who says if we took Johnson Freo wouldn't have taken Sonsie? Someone would have.
On Mitchell. You claim Collingwood got him for a third-rounder. They got him and pick 25 (ended up 28 - Jakob Ryan, a half-back-flanker) for picks 41, 50 and young gun Ollie Henry, who looks like being a very good player. They didn't want to lose Henry, I know, but that was the cost of the deal. On that basis, Mitchell would likely have cost us one of the picks we traded for Taranto, probably the later one. So now you don't have Sonsie or Cowan. But you do have two young Western Australians you'd hope would reject offers from their home state to stay at a young team looking at several years in the bottom six.
Last edited:
I am being realistic, just letting you know there is opportunity cost here because the picks we traded were not junk picks. The merits of these players will be judged in 3 years time of course, along with the value of Taranto & Hopper.
Let's be realistic here, they traded Henry for a second rounder, Mitchell was worth two third rounders. He was a slalary cap dump, he was going cheap as chips.
And bollocks to the butterfly effect, Sonsie was on the nose because of perceived attitude issues, Hawthorn overlooked him and he was right under their gaze. Hard to imagine Freo being all giddy. In any case, I would have taken Zac Taylor as a back-up, plenty of depth around the Sonsie pick.
I thought you said be realistic.
The Henry and Mitchell deals were tied up together. Collingwood lost a young gun forward and two third-rounders, and gained a 30-year-old and an 18-year-old half-back-flanker.
'Bollocks to the butterfly effect' proves you're in the realm of fantasy. If we take Johnson at 17, Freo has to take someone else at 21. Maybe they take Goater, or Motlop, and North or Carlton take Sonsie. Someone would have taken Sonsie before we got the chance, I'm sure of it.
Zac Taylor? Reminds me of when Weaver said he'd be happy to miss Cotchin if he got Rockliff later in the draft.
Seriously Spook? Collingwood received a second round pick for Henry, that was his value. If you think Mitchell was the meat in that trade you are deluded. Sorry, but that's revisionism at its worst.
And I get your love for Sonsie but chances are he was there at our pick, he was ignored by Hawthorn despite playing for Box Hill and also bypassed by Geelong twice. If you have evidence he might have headed interstate then please enlighten us. Freo generally go homegrown, I reckon your hypothesising is well off the mark.
Personally I would prefer to give it more that 5 rounds to make that judgement
It's not delusion or revisionism. It's facts. It was a three-way deal. Look it up.
You're the hypothesiser hear, mate. Sonsie was gone if we took Johnson.
Either way, you're leaving us with a senior core of Short, Rioli, Baker and Bolton in three years time. Years in the wilderness. I'm not the deluded one.
[
And for every time it’s mentioned, the progress of the players you would have picked should be highlighted.
If we want to judge in three years then so be it. But you are the one that continues to raise it now.
Agree with the opportunity cost.
And for every time it’s mentioned, the progress of the players you would have picked should be highlighted.
If we want to judge in three years then so be it. But you are the one that continues to raise it now.
The deal was effectively pick 25 & Tom Mitchell for Ollie Henry, fair trade on the surface. Mitchell was a salary cap dump, he was fair game and he was cheap in draft terms. Henry worth a pick around the 20-30 range, he was a former pick 17 so fill in the gaps as you please.
'Sonsie was gone', to where exactly? Do you have some inside word that he was headed to Freo or Carlton? Passing this off as fact is nonsense, but I get it, your favourite player wasn't worth the risk if we take Johnson, no drama, you would have taken him at pick 19 I assume?
I raise it because the vibe here is that the draft is too hit & miss, let's not worry about a few picks here and there, we'll probably get a dud, so on & so on.
I don’t think that’s the sentiment at all.
But you obviously get that view from somewhere.
I’m saying that, there’s a view from some on here that severely over rate the draft.
Guys like Bytel and Bailey Williams who have been in the system for a few years and shown little more than Samson Ryan and Jack Ross are testament to this.
I also read a claim that young Hewett would get to Tarantos current level by year three.
Opinion is one thing, but we can’t go out expressing them as facts. All we can do is track their current performances and evaluate against their supposed trajectory.
So far I haven’t seen anything in Hewett to suggest this will be the case. Nor do I see a player like Bailey Williams being a missing cog in our side. Or Johnson showing that he’s overcome any concerns for him being able to win contested ball.
All these things may change, but we can only evaluate on what we see them do on the field, not what they could be.
We had more inexperienced players than Sydney. In that game we had 9 players that had played 104 games between them. We fielded the most inexperienced team in the league and were with Sydney until the last quarter.
The deal was effectively pick 25 and Tom Mitchell for picks 41, 50 and Ollie Henry, because that's exactly what it was. Henry was a pick 17 who had already shown himself to be worth more than that - re-do the 2020 draft and he's top-10. Regardless, Mitchell would have cost us either the pick 21 we used in the Taranto trade or the 31 we used in the Hopper trade, and would have left us with the same chasm in the 25-26-year-old big-bodied range that you continue to refuse to address.
I say Sonsie would have been gone because he was too good not to be. I was pretty clear it was my opinion, not passing off as fact, so please keep your petty snipes to yourself. Don't you understand that if we take Johnson that affects every pick after? Freo had to take someone who wasn't Johnson - if not Sonsie, Goater or Motlop, then maybe Butler or MacDonald. Then Hawthorn maybe does take Sonsie, or they take Motlop, and Carlton takes Sonsie. A lot of midfielders went in the 20s. Who would have been picked if not Sonsie? Clarke? Banks? Your boy Taylor?
And yes, I would have taken Sonsie with our pick 17, and people would still wonder how he lasted that long.
Even with your usual magic pudding cake-and-eat it suppositions that everything would turn out just the way you wanted it, even if nothing you changed miraculously had no effect on subsequent events despite all being causally-linked, even if you got all of Johnson, Hewett, Sonsie and Cowan, you would still be condemning us to years in the wilderness with no senior big bodied ball-winners once Mitchell finished in 2-3 years. You would waste Shai Bolton's and Noah Balta's primes. You would be telling any player currently 27 or older (Short, Vlastuin, Broad, Nank, KMac, Marlion, Lynch, Prestia, Grimes, Soldo) that there'll be no more success at Richmond during their playing days. Not to mention the coach - you'd be telling a 50-year-old to start from scratch like he did 14 years ago, and hopefully if we unearth several generational players again (we had four on the books before he'd coached a game), we might have a chance at success by the time he's 60. So now you're looking for a new coach, and Fly's taken. You'd give the media the ammo to drive the narrative that Bad Old Richmond's back where they belong. You'd give the league the justification it salivates for to schedule us off-off-Broadway, costing us sponsors and members. But you would collect a few top-5 draft picks and maybe by the 2030s we'd be ready to challenge again.
This is a great debate on this thread! Both sides are raising some great points and I think we all agree that we're not where we wanted to be from a results point of view, and that a top 6 ish pick is too much in the Hopper deal. Personally, I think we'd be much happier if we hadn't had to give away the future first as well as last year's first rounder to snag Taranto and Hopper.
One thing that bullus_hit keeps raising though is getting Mitchell and Grundy - who's to say that either of them actually wouldv'e come to Richmond? We would've had to shaft Taranto who we'd been wooing for 12 to 18 months or so, and throw more dollars/draft capital to beat out other suitors. Yes you can certainly say we could've pursued a more conservative trading strategy, but I don't think you could guarantee you'd get Mitchell and/or Grundy. They could've simply said no to us and chosen the clubs they've ended up at anyway. We could've been left with no additional help at all and having burnt a player (and his manager).
One thing that bullus_hit keeps raising though is getting Mitchell and Grundy - who's to say that either of them actually wouldv'e come to Richmond? We would've had to shaft Taranto who we'd been wooing for 12 to 18 months or so, and throw more dollars/draft capital to beat out other suitors. Yes you can certainly say we could've pursued a more conservative trading strategy, but I don't think you could guarantee you'd get Mitchell and/or Grundy. They could've simply said no to us and chosen the clubs they've ended up at anyway. We could've been left with no additional help at all and having burnt a player (and his manager).
