Irrespective of whether Taranto becomes a premiership player at RFC, I do believe in will be regarded as an excellent addition to the team. Reckon he might be skipper one day.
-
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
Mitchell has always been on the nose with PRE, clearly also on the nose with the Richmond hierarchy. I also think it's a bit rich to be calling me out for daring to question the merits of trading a future first in the middle of a rebuild. The timing all wrong, this type of trading needed to be done during the dynasty years.
Tom Lynch says hello. Actually edit that he was a free agent but it did tie up $.
So even now, with a top 5 pick on the line you reckon it's a win? And yes, I'm feeling very pessimistic about the future given we don't have a decent draft hand this year, not much in the way of trading capital and a lessened profile when it comes to attracting any free agents.
What's Lynch got to do with the price of fish? I would be over the moon if we nabbed another high quality FA but that seems a long bow & even Himmelberg might be a stretch for a club stuck in the bottom half of the ladder.
If you're trading out top draft pics then it's obviously for quality players who put pressure on the cap.
We had Cotchin, Riewoldt etc. on top dollar at that point you're talking about. Those lads have now taken significant salary cuts to fit Hopper & Taranto in.
But the question is bully. Are we in a rebuild? Or are we simply trying to build continuously?
If we're rebuilding then the general tactic is to rip the guts out of whatever we already have and virtually start from scratch again.
If we're in a continuous build, then we're keeping the bulk and best of what we already have and simply adding to it in the expectation that we can improve on what we already have.
Reckon the club are of the belief that we're preferably going the second option of constantly tinkering, adjusting and adding to what we already have rather than going the boom n bust cycle of a strip back n rebuild.
Geelong is the worst model to follow given they have benefitted from a host of F&S recruits, and have cut numerous dodgy deals which push the boundaries of salary cap integrity. The same rules don't apply and besides, the Richmond method of drafting for talent has been more successful over the past decade, topping up like this more in line with Greg Miller and the spate of mid table finishes which ensued.
The players north of 30 are all on a downward trajectory, the replacements not comparable, so yes, we are absolutely in a rebuild phase.
We haven’t played round 8 yet so we don’t know where that pick may fall. And yes, regardless, I’m ok with 7 years of Hopper (known quantity) versus first round draft pick (unknown quantity) and the fact that he, along with Taranto will bring stability to the next cache of Draft picks over the next few years to leverage off, and not just have them all swimming in the ocean on their own after the departures of Cotchin, Martin, Lambert, Edwards, Prestia and co. Can’t replace all of those with just kids and not expect to get belted to smithereens and make it immensely difficult for those kids to come on. That’d be poor management in my book.
We still have, what is it, roughly 31, 50, 68 this year before going back to a full card next year. And that’s before any potential player trade receipt. Broad and one or two others a possibility.
Free agents. I still see us as being a super attractive destination for any FA.
Last edited:
Following the list management strategy of the most successful era isn’t the worst model. Strange statement.
And calling them cheats? You raved at the Bowes deal and pasted us for not doing it.
No way you get 7 years of prime Hopper, 4-5 years tops, 100 games around the mark. I personally can't see finals action either, way too many holes to plug.
How can you say they are the benchmark when Richmond has won more flags? That is the strangest comment of them all. The Bowes deal was also one which would have benefitted the club given a player like Phillipou was up for grabs. The fact Wells went for Clark just confirms my belief he's overrated to the hilt and shouldn't be lauded as some Svengali.
And that might be enough. 4-5 years primo, then 2 years of solid body protection and not a lot more.
I had us 7th last year. 7th this year. I almost had us out of the 8. But still happy for the club to have a throw at the stumps. They know more about the list and it’s potential than any of us on here.
Next year I’m sure I’ll have us 9-10 or thereabouts. But, unless you’re Geelong that’s just part of the cycle. Maybe something the same the next year before a re-rise. But I certainly don’t see us falling through the floor like North which would be a real risk without the likes of Taranto and Hopper to shore things up.
Bare handful of late first round picks that are still on the list.
Traded and free agented in some premium players.
Beat the absolute suitcase out of our late and rookie picks.
You've got to go back to before 2012 for us to have had much in the way of premium early picks.
Yet you're constantly bitching and moaning that we did it completely wrong last year by doing pretty much the same as we've been doing for the past decade.
Immensely enjoy all your thoughts and information regarding the potential youngsters who might get drafted each year bully, but there comes a time when you simply gotta accept the choices and the direction the club is working in to stay as best they can rather than constantly insisting you were right n they wuz wrong.
Lol. They’ve been more successful at staying competitive then anyone else. By modern era I’m talking this century. They’ve won four to our 3. Lost another one to us. Still might get another one this year. How you already think Clark will be a bust is beyond me. Good to see him out there tomorrow night. Far too early to draw any conclusions.
A lot of people were saying the same thing about Prestia when we got him.
The Hopper and Tarranto deal cannot be viewed over a 1 year period. The true success of it can only be judged in time.
No point throwing the toys out of the cot just yet.
Why focus on an era which contained 3 AA father & son prospects which cost them bugger all? That's not down to genius, that's starting with a loaded hand. Wells has also fallen back to the pack the last decade, poor record with high picks, better down the order but certainly no maestro. I also think Clark has a limited ceiling, not a bust, good for 100 games, safe but highly unlikely to be a bona fide matchwinner. Kicking also B grade so he'll need to be an elite ball winner to bring home the bacon when comparing those two.
Remember Mitchell wasn't free to Collingwood. They basically swapped him for Ollie Henry (a former Pick 17 that had shown plenty).
The trade for the Pies was essentially.
In - Mitchell and Pick 25
Out - Henry and Picks 41 and 50 (which in points calcs is close to the same as 25)
A better pick than the 2 they gave up so a bit of a positive there but it doesn't take away that they basically swapped him for 1 of their best prospects.
As we'd traded Picks 14 and 23 for TT (and wouldn't have done anything different there, the difference here is really Hopper or Mitchell - assuming Mitchell wanted to come to us). How do we match or beat that trade???
Pick 31 by itself wouldn't have cut it. I imagine we'd have had to still give up our 1st anyway, but likely got something back rather than giving up 31 as well for Hopper, so largely the argument around a future 1st is moot if we include Mitchell, as its likely gone either way.
The trade for the Pies was essentially.
In - Mitchell and Pick 25
Out - Henry and Picks 41 and 50 (which in points calcs is close to the same as 25)
A better pick than the 2 they gave up so a bit of a positive there but it doesn't take away that they basically swapped him for 1 of their best prospects.
As we'd traded Picks 14 and 23 for TT (and wouldn't have done anything different there, the difference here is really Hopper or Mitchell - assuming Mitchell wanted to come to us). How do we match or beat that trade???
Pick 31 by itself wouldn't have cut it. I imagine we'd have had to still give up our 1st anyway, but likely got something back rather than giving up 31 as well for Hopper, so largely the argument around a future 1st is moot if we include Mitchell, as its likely gone either way.
