Welcome to Tigerland - Tim Taranto

[No 4]

Almost impossible to carry 9 inexperienced players.

and don't forget 4 changes each week, unsettles the side. JUst need to play consistent football

 

[TigerFurious]

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).

Well said. This also extends to other trade deals such as pick swaps etc. I suspect very few clubs wanted to deal with us while we were winning silverware for fear of making us stronger.

 

[Tigertool]

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.

I agree with Bully RE Mitchell’s value. If he wanted to come to us he’d have come as a salary dump and cost us something around a 3rd rounder.

 

[spook]

I agree with Bully RE Mitchell’s value. If he wanted to come to us he’d have come as a salary dump and cost us something around a 3rd rounder.

It's peripheral to the main point and contains the big 'if' that he'd rather go to us than a side that missed the grand final by less than a kick.

 

[Jason King]

Hmm, that seems to be problems over the whole ground.

But, hard to disagree.

We lose clearances and, critically, the opposition not only get clearances, but clearances which are not pressured.

This leads to problems in the backline, it is close to impossible to defend quality entries inside 50 especially when the opposition have a forward line willing to separate and move around to make contests harder. How many kicks to forwards with a bit of space do we see every week?

Then you get our forward 50 entries. Not only are they limited as we lose clearances, we tend not to have enough movement of our forwards to create space and separation, and we tend to bomb it in.

I just cannot see how we are trying to address these issues at the moment. There would be plans in place and strategies, but they are not being implemented well enough or there are flaws in the strategies. Really hope they are getting somewhere in trying to work out the issues.

DS

I think the worst aspect is that its the simple elements of footy we seem so poor at. Positioning, disposal and decision making.

I too cant see how we are addressing these issues. Makes you want to scream when its the same issues rearing their ugly heads each time we play.

 

[bullus_hit]

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.

There's a normal world and there's PRE, in a normal world Mitchell is worth two 3rd rounders which is exactly what Hawthorn received, in pick 41 & 50, out Tom Mitchell. That is his final value because that is the compensation Hawthorn received. All the sophistry in the world doesn't change that fact.

"Collingwood essentially handed over two third-round picks – No. 41 and 50 – for one of the greatest ball winners the game has seen, a player who has averaged 29.5 disposals per game across 171 appearances at the highest level."

AFL website

I get your angle though, you want to frame it as Collingwood imploding and selling the farm. No probs but I think you will fiind Ryan a decent bet and a good chance to have a career. This is actually a good example of effective trading, we could do with some of that if the truth be known.

Secondly, we've been down this path before, a couple of times actually but here goes again, I threw up a future second as trade bait. Work with it if you can't find a couple of thirds, then there's Soldo, if we're taking Grundy this could have been a brilliant trade, opportunity missed.

After months of PRE telling the world how crap Mitchell was & how great Taranto would become we now find ourselves making excuses as to why Mitchell wouldn't come to Punt Road? This @Scoop is what I meant by Teflon revisionism.

As for Sonsie, I'll just leave it there, the hero worshipping a bit too over the top. And to infer I'm some sort of traitor is pretty poor form, even for PRE, you're pretty close to being blocked @spook.

 

[forward press]

I wonder where Taranto and Hopper would be sitting in our best and fairest count at this stage of the year.

 

[spook]

There's a normal world and there's PRE, in a normal world Mitchell is worth two 3rd rounders which is exactly what Hawthorn received, in pick 41 & 50, out Tom Mitchell. That is his final value because that is the compensation Hawthorn received. All the sophistry in the world doesn't change that fact.

"Collingwood essentially handed over two third-round picks – No. 41 and 50 – for one of the greatest ball winners the game has seen, a player who has averaged 29.5 disposals per game across 171 appearances at the highest level."

AFL website

I get your angle though, you want to frame it as Collingwood imploding and selling the farm. No probs but I think you will fiind Ryan a decent bet and a good chance to have a career. This is actually a good example of effective trading, we could do with some of that if the truth be known.

Secondly, we've been down this path before, a couple of times actually but here goes again, I threw up a future second as trade bait. Work with it if you can't find a couple of thirds, then there's Soldo, if we're taking Grundy this could have been a brilliant trade, opportunity missed.

After months of PRE telling the world how crap Mitchell was & how great Taranto would become we now find ourselves making excuses as to why Mitchell wouldn't come to Punt Road? This @Scoop is what I meant by Teflon revisionism.

As for Sonsie, I'll just leave it there, the hero worshipping a bit too over the top. And to infer I'm some sort of traitor is pretty poor form, even for PRE, you're pretty close to being blocked @spook.

I made it clear that what Collingwood paid for Mitchell was peripheral to the matter. I only mentioned it as a reference to what we would have had to pay. Again, even if we go with your scenario, he would have cost us at least pick 31. And that's if he chose us over Collingwood - and seriously, why would he? But in your Magic Pudding world of course he does because it's your fantasy and everything works out exactly the way you want it to.

Again, you make stuff up. No one is hero-worshipping Sonsie. You're the one claiming you could get him and Johnson without offering a player that would have been taken instead so he could slip to us. You're the one continually not addressing the gaping chasm your strategy would leave us in mid-20s big bodies.

As for implying that you're a traitor, wtf are you talking about, man? I'm doing nothing other than arguing my point of view and pointing out the flaws in yours.

Go ahead and block me if you can't handle it. I'll cope.

 

[bullus_hit]

I made it clear that what Collingwood paid for Mitchell was peripheral to the matter. I only mentioned it as a reference to what we would have had to pay. Again, even if we go with your scenario, he would have cost us at least pick 31. And that's if he chose us over Collingwood - and seriously, why would he? But in your Magic Pudding world of course he does because it's your fantasy and everything works out exactly the way you want it to.

Again, you make stuff up. No one is hero-worshipping Sonsie. You're the one claiming you could get him and Johnson without offering a player that would have been taken instead so he could slip to us. You're the one continually not addressing the gaping chasm your strategy would leave us in mid-20s big bodies.

As for implying that you're a traitor, wtf are you talking about, man? I'm doing nothing other than arguing my point of view and pointing out the flaws in yours.

Go ahead and block me if you can't handle it. I'll cope.

"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."

This is lame, can't have an alternative view without vitriol, one thing I've learnt about you is that hypocrisy is no impediment. You spend months talking premierships but now we're no longer a destination club and unable secure a guy like Mitchell. I reckon your Sonsie call is also ridiculous, he was passed by all the clubs concerned yet he's somehow everyone's second preference. Making this out to be fact is fanboy behaviour. And to make me out to be some trojan horse for the media? Wow, talk about shooting the messenger, but nevermind, time to move on, I haven't got the time nor patience for this kind of garbage.

 

[spook]

Garbage alright. Absolute made-up crap to fit your persecution complex. There was zero vitriol in what I said. The same can't be said for the p!ssy horsesh!t above. Misrepresenting what others say to claim some moral high ground where you're the injured party and those who point out the huge flaws in your fantasies are big meanies. I was talking premierships, yes - after we got Taranto and Hopper. Your alternative was trying to talk Mitchell into coming to a club without them. See, getting those two addresses the problem I'm talking about, that Mitchell wouldn't, and that you still haven't addressed. Either you're being disingenuous or your head is so far up your own arse you can't see your own falsehoods.

You made it personal, then try to make out like I did. 'Media Trojan horse'. What utter rot. And blocked me. Weak. Good riddance.

 

[forward press]

You spend months talking premierships but now we're no longer a destination club and unable secure a guy like Mitchell.

Woah. Once again we are confusing opinion with facts.

To make the claim we are not a destination club is ridiculous. Let’s look at the the facts.

Taranto was at GWS and coming out of contract. He was heavily courted by Collingwood and Richmond. He chose Richmond. Fact.

Hopper was in contract at GWS. Despite this he was heavily courted by both Geelong and Richmond. He chose Richmond. Fact.

Mitchell was rumoured to be on the market for two years. Collingwood courted him and got him. Fact.

Grundy signed a seven year contract with Collingwood and late last year was told by the coach it would be better for all if he played at another club. He was heavily courted by Melbourne and decided to play for them. Fact.

How do these facts not make Richmond a destination club?

 

[Tigertool]

Woah. Once again we are confusing opinion with facts.

To make the claim we are not a destination club is ridiculous. Let’s look at the the facts.

That's not what Bully is saying. Nor is it what spook is saying either though.

 

[Tig3]

.

 

[bullus_hit]

Woah. Once again we are confusing opinion with facts.

To make the claim we are not a destination club is ridiculous. Let’s look at the the facts.

Taranto was at GWS and coming out of contract. He was heavily courted by Collingwood and Richmond. He chose Richmond. Fact.

Hopper was in contract at GWS. Despite this he was heavily courted by both Geelong and Richmond. He chose Richmond. Fact.

Mitchell was rumoured to be on the market for two years. Collingwood courted him and got him. Fact.

Grundy signed a seven year contract with Collingwood and late last year was told by the coach it would be better for all if he played at another club. He was heavily courted by Melbourne and decided to play for them. Fact.

How do these facts not make Richmond a destination club?

Ask Spook, he was the one who claimed Mitchell wouldn't be interested in joining Richmond, think you have misread my post, probably due to poor punctuation on my part, but whatever, I'm over the constant shifting of the goal posts, it's time to take a break from this site.

And if you really want to know how PRE felt about Grundy & Mitchell go trawl through the off-season posts, some pretty poor appraisals based on his form to date. Did Richmond even make one enquiry about these players? I doubt it and that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

 

[Merveille]

Ask Spook, he was the one who claimed Mitchell wouldn't be interested in joining Richmond, think you have misread my post, probably due to poor punctuation on my part, but whatever, I'm over the constant shifting of the goal posts, it's time to take a break from this site.

And if you really want to know how PRE felt about Grundy & Mitchell go trawl through the off-season posts, some pretty poor appraisals based on his form to date. Did Richmond even make one enquiry about these players? I doubt it and that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

I suggested Mitchell a while back and got howled down with 'noooo' can definitely back you there..!

 

[forward press]

Ask Spook, he was the one who claimed Mitchell wouldn't be interested in joining Richmond, think you have misread my post, probably due to poor punctuation on my part, but whatever, I'm over the constant shifting of the goal posts, it's time to take a break from this site.

And if you really want to know how PRE felt about Grundy & Mitchell go trawl through the off-season posts, some pretty poor appraisals based on his form to date. Did Richmond even make one enquiry about these players? I doubt it and that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

No intention from myself to exhaust you mentally from this conversation- please don’t think that was my motive.

I think your assumption on Richmond’s thoughts on Mitchell and Grundy is ground we both agree on.

From that I don’t see it as a missed opportunity. It was quite the deliberate ploy to attract other players.

There was no scenario at play here. They had a set plan and they achieved it. Whether it pays off is another question.

Was Mitchell Collingwoods first target? Who knows for sure but evidence says it’s unlikely. McStay was pinned by the media months back, followed by Taranto, then Mitchell later. Suggest this would have been the order of their targets. Sometimes luck plays a part in list management too.

Adelaide getting Rachelle, Rankine and Dawson for the picks they offered up to North for pick one a few years ago is testament to this.

 

[BillyJean17]

I suggested Mitchell a while back and got howled down with 'noooo' can definitely back you there..!

He’s 31 and will soon be retired along with prestia and cotch meaning our young mids will have no senior leaders to shoulder the load , that’s why we focused on mid 20s options

 

[Tig3]

No intention from myself to exhaust you mentally from this conversation- please don’t think that was my motive.

I think your assumption on Richmond’s thoughts on Mitchell and Grundy is ground we both agree on.

From that I don’t see it as a missed opportunity. It was quite the deliberate ploy to attract other players.

There was no scenario at play here. They had a set plan and they achieved it. Whether it pays off is another question.

Was Mitchell Collingwoods first target? Who knows for sure but evidence says it’s unlikely. McStay was pinned by the media months back, followed by Taranto, then Mitchell later. Suggest this would have been the order of their targets. Sometimes luck plays a part in list management too.

Adelaide getting Rachelle, Rankine and Dawson for the picks they offered up to North for pick one a few years ago is testament to this.

Collingwood went after Taranto and he chose us. Hence the Mitchell deal only materializing late

 

[Merveille]

He’s 31 and will soon be retired along with prestia and cotch meaning our young mids will have no senior leaders to shoulder the load , that’s why we focused on mid 20s options

Yeah no problems with that. It was end of 2021 i reckon. so looking at getting a few years only out of him only as we had no mids - I personally have no issues with the taranto hopper deal.

 

[Nico]

He’s 31 and will soon be retired along with prestia and cotch meaning our young mids will have no senior leaders to shoulder the load , that’s why we focused on mid 20s options

Yep, and once you're the wrong side of 30, the cliff can come pretty quickly. Look at Shed...I honestly thought he could get to 350 games before last year with that wiry rig of his.