One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: yellowandback on October 25, 2013, 05:57:10 AM
-
Given this quote by Dan Richardson:-
“You identify a need. The need was a ruckman and then it was assessing who was around and who was available."
We had 4 traded (or to be traded) Ruckman on offer:-
Shane Mumford
27 yo, 100 games, premiership Ruckman
Last 3 years has played 58 games, avg 11 pos, 28 hit outs
Traded for pick 35
Ben McEvoy
24 yo, 91 games
Last 3 years has played 60 games, avg 13 pos, 23 hit outs
Traded for pick 17 and Shane Savage
Shaun Hampson
25 yo, 63 games
Last 3 years has played 25 games, avg 9 pos, 16 hit outs
Traded for pick 32
Billy Longer (unconfirmed)
20 yo, 9 ga,es
Last 2 years, avg 7 pos, 20 hit outs
Traded (looks like) pick 25 and possibly a lower pick in the draft
So, based on the Tigers being aware of all the above players available in the draft, who should we have gone after?
Pick 12 probably would've landed McEvoy, I reckon pick 32 and one of our young 2nd tier KPPs Astbury, McGuane or even Griffiths may have landed Longer and obviously pick 32 landed Hampson but would also have landed Mumford unless it went to "Dutch auction".
There are also player payments to consider with Mumford and McEvoy being the most expensive and Hampson and Longer at a similar start point in salary with Longer possibly have a higher incentive component.
Who would you have gone after?
Did we throw the cards in too early on Hampson?
-
Its a really good question - if at the very least it highlights our trade strategy in so far as targeting players and looking to trade early (e.g. the Chris Knight deal in free agency last year).
I think Mumford was never an option. Would cost too much, and you get the feeling he was either going to go to Hawthorn or GWS anyway.
McAvoy is an interesting one - I think again the coin he would demand would be too much for the RFC to handle. Would pick 12 have got it done? Probably not without a player - and we would have done it with a swap of picks too.
Longer has demanded the Hawks and then the Saints. Pick 12 would have done it no doubt, but the demand to be traded seemed to have occurred prior to the trade period starting. In all honesty I think that Longer isn't what we need for where we are at (would be perfect for us in 2-3 years).
But the point is a well made one. Over the course of 3 weeks, players have come out of the woodwork looking to move - and whilst it solidifies our position early in the period and doesn't drag us out and allows us to move on to potential new deals, there is always that risk of moving to fast and not being able to make a play for a player that unexpectedly demands a trade later on in the trade period.
-
To short answer your subject question Y&B, no we didn't go too early.
To respond to each player individually:
Mumford - only came about after the Franklin trade which left the Swans unable to match his contract offer. The fact he went to GWS tells me he never intended or wanted to move from the Sydney area so we were never in the hunt for him.
McEvoy - again, only came about after a number of other moves and he was far too expensive in terms of picks/swaps for what we would have been prepared to pay so again, we were never in the hunt for him.
Hampson - ticked most of the boxes the club was after - age, trade price, contract terms, ability (or potential) and the decision by both parties had obviously been made long before the trade period.
Longer - Still hasn't found a new home and at 20 still has question marks as well as the potential for big improvement but isn't going to come cheaply and again, we were never in the hunt for him.
If the club had decided to wait until the cards started to topple then there is the very real likelihood that we could have ended up without a ruckman or paying way over the odds for one so I think that going early was the smartest thing to do by a long way. Life is far easier and risk-averse when you deal in knowns and Hampson at the price was a known right from day one. The decision was a no-brainer of the highest order for a club that is now very much following a planned, methodical approach to list growth and management. If Hampson is a success or not is for another debate but the decision to take him when they did was certainly the correct one.
-
the issue isnt that we took hampson the issue is what we paid to get him. If Mumford a premiership ruckman of high quality goes for pick 35 then there is no way in the world that hampson is worth a pick earlier than that number so the issue not the player its the deal. It was a bad deal. we were taken to the cleaners by the blues. Hampson wasnt worth any pick under pick 50.
-
No, GWS took Sydney to the cleaners with the threat of PSD pick 1 the Swans took unders so they got some compensation. GWS then paid well overs to Mumford in $$$. What we paid for Hampson is irrelevant.
McEvoy ended up costing TWO first round picks and a player, RFC didn't have two first rounders to play with, he's also on over double the $$$ of Hampson.
Suppose we could have got in to a bidding war with St Kilda for Longer, depends how much you rate him and if you want an immediate impact or a developing talent. Personally think Longer is too soft to play ruck long term at AFL level. Time wil tell.
Reckon we paid somewhere between overs and fair for Hampson, I guess time will tell on that too. In the very least we have another debate-generating spud ;D
-
Hampson is a dud
-
Is this a new thread or was it split from one of the other 50? :sleep
-
If some of the names mentioned ate on twice the wage of hampson, its seems an odd comparison without taking into account salary cap impact
-
Let me see
Jolly 1 year deal option on 2
And
Longer for mid 20's(top 10 pick)
Vrs
Angus Hampson who has produced puke for 6 yrs
-
Trent West another ruckman traded this year.
-
Trent West another ruckman traded this year.
West is a better ruck than Hampson as well and much cheaper by the looks of it as well.
-
the issue isnt that we took hampson the issue is what we paid to get him. If Mumford a premiership ruckman of high quality goes for pick 35 then there is no way in the world that hampson is worth a pick earlier than that number so the issue not the player its the deal. It was a bad deal. we were taken to the cleaners by the blues. Hampson wasnt worth any pick under pick 50.
are you ever going to provide us with your evidence that;
Carlton would have accepted a later draft pick,
or that there is any real difference in the likelihood of getting a long term player between later second round picks and later third round picks,
or just keep sprouting the same whiny crap ?
-
the issue isnt that we took hampson the issue is what we paid to get him. If Mumford a premiership ruckman of high quality goes for pick 35 then there is no way in the world that hampson is worth a pick earlier than that number so the issue not the player its the deal. It was a bad deal. we were taken to the cleaners by the blues. Hampson wasnt worth any pick under pick 50.
are you ever going to provide us with your evidence that;
Carlton would have accepted a later draft pick,
or that there is any real difference in the likelihood of getting a long term player between later second round picks and later third round picks,
or just keep sprouting the same whiny crap ?
;D
-
the issue isnt that we took hampson the issue is what we paid to get him. If Mumford a premiership ruckman of high quality goes for pick 35 then there is no way in the world that hampson is worth a pick earlier than that number so the issue not the player its the deal. It was a bad deal. we were taken to the cleaners by the blues. Hampson wasnt worth any pick under pick 50.
are you ever going to provide us with your evidence that;
Carlton would have accepted a later draft pick,
or that there is any real difference in the likelihood of getting a long term player between later second round picks and later third round picks,
or just keep sprouting the same whiny crap ?
Trent West
Longer (2nd round)
Its about negotiation Alistair and clearly you dont understand what it means but had we negotiated a little better we perhaps could've upgraded our second and landed Longer. Upgrade our third and we have West
Bang
I know which option i would choose and before you start asking for proof how about you show me the proof where the hawks had an offer on the table for Hampson. Putting that aside even if the blues wouldnt accept our second WGAF we should've held out and waited. stuff the scum
Its fair to say you and bojangles have been smoking too much pot on this one.
-
perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
none of which really addresses what i asked.
-
West is one of the biggest crabs i've ever seen play football.
-
this poll should hve the salaries of the ruckman as well
-
Bents, the criteria was the need for a Ruckman. What I was curious to understand is that list is the total pool of available Ruckman - given Hampson was the first deal done, whether we think he is still the best option to meet that simple criteria.
Apparently Trent West is now on the table, he might be another consideration for the thread.
I think the comparison is absolutely relevant - while I'm not necessarily advocating a Ben McEvoy, there are some clubs that clearly want 2 quality Ruckman in their starting 22. Hawks have now picked up McEvoy to partner Hale, Eagles have cox and Nic Nat, Carlton have Warnock and Kruezer. Some posters might value 2 quality Ruckman over 1 quality (Maric) and 1 support Hampson.
-
Hampson makes West look like Dean Cox
-
The ruck guru speaks :bow
-
Yeah well I did go 3rd man up several times back in my day.
-
Yeah well I did go 3rd man up several times back in my day.
Well you're in good company then Coach. I've seen Shane Edwards do this once or twice also.
-
West is one of the biggest crabs i've ever seen play football.
Yep, absolute ass crab
-
Yeah well I did go 3rd man up several times back in my day.
:lol
-
To short answer your subject question Y&B, no we didn't go too early.
To respond to each player individually:
Mumford - only came about after the Franklin trade which left the Swans unable to match his contract offer. The fact he went to GWS tells me he never intended or wanted to move from the Sydney area so we were never in the hunt for him.
McEvoy - again, only came about after a number of other moves and he was far too expensive in terms of picks/swaps for what we would have been prepared to pay so again, we were never in the hunt for him.
Hampson - ticked most of the boxes the club was after - age, trade price, contract terms, ability (or potential) and the decision by both parties had obviously been made long before the trade period.
Longer - Still hasn't found a new home and at 20 still has question marks as well as the potential for big improvement but isn't going to come cheaply and again, we were never in the hunt for him.
If the club had decided to wait until the cards started to topple then there is the very real likelihood that we could have ended up without a ruckman or paying way over the odds for one so I think that going early was the smartest thing to do by a long way. Life is far easier and risk-averse when you deal in knowns and Hampson at the price was a known right from day one. The decision was a no-brainer of the highest order for a club that is now very much following a planned, methodical approach to list growth and management. If Hampson is a success or not is for another debate but the decision to take him when they did was certainly the correct one.
How do you know any of this poo? Do you work at the club?
Where does it say Mumford wouldn't have left Sydney?
How do you know our pick 11 (at the time) wouldn't 't have been enough to get McEvoy from St. Kilda?
Why couldn't we have been in the hunt for Longer? We have pick 12 FFS.
You talk about "you deal in the knowns" well you don't know anything you wrote is that.
It's your opinion what you wrote, but don't claim it to be anything else but that because you don't know.
But since you seem to no so much about our "planned, methodical approach to list growth and management" please tell us all what this approach is??
And lastly you saying taking Hampson is curtainly the correct decision is again just your opinion, the club made that decision but it doesn't mean it's the correct one. The club took Jordie McMahon and how did that end up for us?
-
Mcevoy would be on too much coin , read same for Mumford. Only other genuine choice was longer. His upside remains speculative meaning he could hardly be relied on to be a backup for Maric. We chose well, perhaps paid 5-6 spits more than desirable, that's how the cards fell :cheers
-
Mcevoy would be on too much coin , read same for Mumford. Only other genuine choice was longer. His upside remains speculative meaning he could hardly be relied on to be a backup for Maric. We chose well, perhaps paid 5-6 spits more than desirable, that's how the cards fell :cheers
The truth is none of us know how much "coin" anybody is on, how much salary cap space we have or what our plans are.
I personally don't give a stuff how much we pay our players, it's not my job or concern, my only concern is us winning games of footy. We all fork out good money to this club of ours and put a lot of faith in people in positions at our club but we really don't know if any of them know what they are doing.
IMO not taking the best player available for the hole we intend to fill is an opportunity lost. And again IMO we were far from that.
-
so, for example, we have no idea what heath shaw salary is?
-
should add trent west to that list silly thing is it was always likely that one of geelongs ruckmen would be up for grabs. but hey we got our man probably the most underperforming to date of any mentioned.
its the same every yr there are those who stick by what the club say and do no matter what.
what exactly did mcevoy cost.
what exactly has longer cost bloody hell hes the steal of the trade period.
what did trent west cost.
mumford came at what cost
the simple answer is cheap for the lot of em.go compare what they have done as ruckmen to hampson i know which ones id be looking at.
surely people are not suggesting we should not have been trying to get the best possible ruckman we could into our club. yet it seems we settled for a 7yr under performer and ignored the rest.
we could have looked at a kid like sinclair a wce rookie who looks promising looks more promising to date than hampson as a ruckman. and if we needed proven help for maric for one yr we could have given jolly one season and got him for nothing and got a good kid like longer into our club.
i would have been happy to trade out of the first two rounds for both adams and longer and thrown a decent player into the bargain. i would have been happy to take a step backwards now to get them into our club so we can takes strides forward in 2 or 3 yrs.
seems to me we are rarely interested in any player who can play a bit. we are happy with our development record and continue to draft glass half fulls that in itself is laughable. our development record is shizen.
what annoys me is if hampson and its a big if, he finally reaches his so called potential we still need to get into our system a genuine highly promising young ruckman like longer.
-
so, for example, we have no idea what heath shaw salary is?
Not really, it's all just media speculation. Unless of course you know Heath yourself?
-
do we know what lance franklin is on?
or just media speculation >?
-
To short answer your subject question Y&B, no we didn't go too early.
To respond to each player individually:
Mumford - only came about after the Franklin trade which left the Swans unable to match his contract offer. The fact he went to GWS tells me he never intended or wanted to move from the Sydney area so we were never in the hunt for him.
McEvoy - again, only came about after a number of other moves and he was far too expensive in terms of picks/swaps for what we would have been prepared to pay so again, we were never in the hunt for him.
Hampson - ticked most of the boxes the club was after - age, trade price, contract terms, ability (or potential) and the decision by both parties had obviously been made long before the trade period.
Longer - Still hasn't found a new home and at 20 still has question marks as well as the potential for big improvement but isn't going to come cheaply and again, we were never in the hunt for him.
If the club had decided to wait until the cards started to topple then there is the very real likelihood that we could have ended up without a ruckman or paying way over the odds for one so I think that going early was the smartest thing to do by a long way. Life is far easier and risk-averse when you deal in knowns and Hampson at the price was a known right from day one. The decision was a no-brainer of the highest order for a club that is now very much following a planned, methodical approach to list growth and management. If Hampson is a success or not is for another debate but the decision to take him when they did was certainly the correct one.
How do you know any of this poo? Do you work at the club?
Where does it say Mumford wouldn't have left Sydney?
How do you know our pick 11 (at the time) wouldn't 't have been enough to get McEvoy from St. Kilda?
Why couldn't we have been in the hunt for Longer? We have pick 12 FFS.
You talk about "you deal in the knowns" well you don't know anything you wrote is that.
It's your opinion what you wrote, but don't claim it to be anything else but that because you don't know.
But since you seem to no so much about our "planned, methodical approach to list growth and management" please tell us all what this approach is??
And lastly you saying taking Hampson is curtainly the correct decision is again just your opinion, the club made that decision but it doesn't mean it's the correct one. The club took Jordie McMahon and how did that end up for us?
Where the hell is spell check when you need him? I boof 1 goat and he's all over me like a cheap suit on a jolly Santa and this bloke makes group goat porn and we don't hear a peep?
-
Mcevoy would be on too much coin , read same for Mumford. Only other genuine choice was longer. His upside remains speculative meaning he could hardly be relied on to be a backup for Maric. We chose well, perhaps paid 5-6 spits more than desirable, that's how the cards fell :cheers
The truth is none of us know how much "coin" anybody is on, how much salary cap space we have or what our plans are.
I personally don't give a stuff how much we pay our players, it's not my job or concern, my only concern is us winning games of footy. We all fork out good money to this club of ours and put a lot of faith in people in positions at our club but we really don't know if any of them know what they are doing.
IMO not taking the best player available for the hole we intend to fill is an opportunity lost. And again IMO we were far from that.
When I say too much coin I mean that by being a top 5 player at saints would suggest he s in order of 500k ...umm that won't fit ::)....read same for Mumford, we have a salary cap , we signed our super stars and it limits our options, period :shh
-
all i am saying is people should complain
a) we don't know our salary cap situation in detail
b) we are maxed our salary cap
not both. how can you argue both lines , ?
-
Playing the devils advocate for one moment:-
Premiers and ourselves had the same need, both operate on the same salary cap but they can somehow fit a more expensive, better credentialed ruck with inferior draft picks.
I know they lost buddy but I don't see how they are left with less stars than our list to accommodate.
-
Should have gone after Nic Nat! ;D
Nahas to WC in a direct swap! ;D
Then the natives would think we got a good deal! :whistle
-
Playing the devils advocate for one moment:-
Premiers and ourselves had the same need, both operate on the same salary cap but they can somehow fit a more expensive, better credentialed ruck with inferior draft picks.
I know they lost buddy but I don't see how they are left with less stars than our list to accommodate.
its bc 95% of the cap needs to be paid regardless, so you have a situation that only 450k separates TPP between hawks and dees.
hawks lose buddy and have 1.1 mill to spend.
same with pies when they lost daisy, didak, shaw etc, this year it was their time, next year they wont be in such a position and itll b someone elses turn
-
To short answer your subject question Y&B, no we didn't go too early.
To respond to each player individually:
Mumford - only came about after the Franklin trade which left the Swans unable to match his contract offer. The fact he went to GWS tells me he never intended or wanted to move from the Sydney area so we were never in the hunt for him.
McEvoy - again, only came about after a number of other moves and he was far too expensive in terms of picks/swaps for what we would have been prepared to pay so again, we were never in the hunt for him.
Hampson - ticked most of the boxes the club was after - age, trade price, contract terms, ability (or potential) and the decision by both parties had obviously been made long before the trade period.
Longer - Still hasn't found a new home and at 20 still has question marks as well as the potential for big improvement but isn't going to come cheaply and again, we were never in the hunt for him.
If the club had decided to wait until the cards started to topple then there is the very real likelihood that we could have ended up without a ruckman or paying way over the odds for one so I think that going early was the smartest thing to do by a long way. Life is far easier and risk-averse when you deal in knowns and Hampson at the price was a known right from day one. The decision was a no-brainer of the highest order for a club that is now very much following a planned, methodical approach to list growth and management. If Hampson is a success or not is for another debate but the decision to take him when they did was certainly the correct one.
How do you know any of this poo? Do you work at the club?
Where does it say Mumford wouldn't have left Sydney?
How do you know our pick 11 (at the time) wouldn't 't have been enough to get McEvoy from St. Kilda?
Why couldn't we have been in the hunt for Longer? We have pick 12 FFS.
You talk about "you deal in the knowns" well you don't know anything you wrote is that.
It's your opinion what you wrote, but don't claim it to be anything else but that because you don't know.
But since you seem to no so much about our "planned, methodical approach to list growth and management" please tell us all what this approach is??
And lastly you saying taking Hampson is curtainly the correct decision is again just your opinion, the club made that decision but it doesn't mean it's the correct one. The club took Jordie McMahon and how did that end up for us?
Righto, seeing I have upset you so much with providing my opinion on an opinion-based forum in response to a hypothetical question asking for people's opinions I had best apologise for my opinion and go with your facts of which their are none. But to everyone else who has had their say on here regarding their opinion on whether we went too early on Hampson then I implore you to be very careful lest the fact-police jump on your opinion also.
And just so we are clear:
"The fact he went to GWS tells me", "he was far too expensive in terms of picks/swaps for what we would have been prepared to pay", "decision by both parties had obviously been made long before the trade period", "at 20 still has question marks as well as the potential for big improvement but isn't going to come cheaply"
all sound very much like opinions and not declarations of facts but you read it how you want I guess.
And thank you very much for bit-piecing the comment about dealing in knowns completely out of context and using it to shore up your little rant but again, whatever floats your boat. Can't wait for your next opinion on anything. ::)
-
The fact that Angus Hampson is the clear winner on this poll shows the RFC is right on the money in this case
-
Playing the devils advocate for one moment:-
Premiers and ourselves had the same need, both operate on the same salary cap but they can somehow fit a more expensive, better credentialed ruck with inferior draft picks.
I know they lost buddy but I don't see how they are left with less stars than our list to accommodate.
its bc 95% of the cap needs to be paid regardless, so you have a situation that only 450k separates TPP between hawks and dees.
hawks lose buddy and have 1.1 mill to spend.
same with pies when they lost daisy, didak, shaw etc, this year it was their time, next year they wont be in such a position and itll b someone elses turn
So potentially had we lost Dusty to GWS, we may have gone after a McEvoy and possibly Adams.
Given a fully paid up, signed up player list - we are backing their continued development.
-
Playing the devils advocate for one moment:-
Premiers and ourselves had the same need, both operate on the same salary cap but they can somehow fit a more expensive, better credentialed ruck with inferior draft picks.
I know they lost buddy but I don't see how they are left with less stars than our list to accommodate.
its bc 95% of the cap needs to be paid regardless, so you have a situation that only 450k separates TPP between hawks and dees.
hawks lose buddy and have 1.1 mill to spend.
same with pies when they lost daisy, didak, shaw etc, this year it was their time, next year they wont be in such a position and itll b someone elses turn
So potentially had we lost Dusty to GWS, we may have gone after a McEvoy and possibly Adams.
Given a fully paid up, signed up player list - we are backing their continued development.
spot on. Had Dusty gone, we would have been in a position to be able to go for big wage players like big boy. mummy, Adams etc.
Hopefully now we are doing what Hawks are doing and looking well ahead & front ending as many contracts as we can so that in a few years our Sammy mitchells will be on 350k a season.
-
Agreed :cheers
-
Playing the devils advocate for one moment:-
Premiers and ourselves had the same need, both operate on the same salary cap but they can somehow fit a more expensive, better credentialed ruck with inferior draft picks.
I know they lost buddy but I don't see how they are left with less stars than our list to accommodate.
its bc 95% of the cap needs to be paid regardless, so you have a situation that only 450k separates TPP between hawks and dees.
hawks lose buddy and have 1.1 mill to spend.
same with pies when they lost daisy, didak, shaw etc, this year it was their time, next year they wont be in such a position and itll b someone elses turn
So potentially had we lost Dusty to GWS, we may have gone after a McEvoy and possibly Adams.
Given a fully paid up, signed up player list - we are backing their continued development.
spot on. Had Dusty gone, we would have been in a position to be able to go for big wage players like big boy. mummy, Adams etc.
Hopefully now we are doing what Hawks are doing and looking well ahead & front ending as many contracts as we can so that in a few years our Sammy mitchells will be on 350k a season.
Thank god we didn't have the money for Big Boy. He's terrible in the ruck. Good around the ground though.
Longer would have been my preferred option but it seems we aren't after a young back-up and are going to play Hampson straight away.
-
Interesting question, and hindsight is a wonderful teacher.
RFC thru Blair identified the type of ruckmen that is was seeking in an athletic mobile 2nd ruck that can pinch hit as part of the forward rotations.
Overlaying that the player needed to be in the right age & salary bracket.
Obviously they had a few names under consideration, I am wondering whether they targeted a 2nd ruck purely to back up Ivan or whether they thought they could get an undervalued ruck option that can mature into a 1st ruck by 27/28 years old.
The logic for a 2nd round ruck trade appears solid, the question is whether Hampson was the best value choice given his skill set and injury history.
TV and McBean as future #1 & #2 ruck stocks appears to be the preferred set-up into the future, so RFC need both a veteran back-up and a development ruck to keep the ruck stocks balanced at 4 on the list proper and 1 rookie in the VFL squad.
RFC may no longer have Strawbs and Steinforts and Nobles disasters as part of the considered development programme for ruck stocks because Richmond has the chance to genuinely develop its own ruck stocks (TV & McBean) for the first time since Mark Lee.
-
Interesting question, and hindsight is a wonderful teacher.
RFC thru Blair identified the type of ruckmen that is was seeking in an athletic mobile 2nd ruck that can pinch hit as part of the forward rotations.
Overlaying that the player needed to be in the right age & salary bracket.
Obviously they had a few names under consideration, I am wondering whether they targeted a 2nd ruck purely to back up Ivan or whether they thought they could get an undervalued ruck option that can mature into a 1st ruck by 27/28 years old.
The logic for a 2nd round ruck trade appears solid, the question is whether Hampson was the best value choice given his skill set and injury history.
TV and McBean as future #1 & #2 ruck stocks appears to be the preferred set-up into the future, so RFC need both a veteran back-up and a development ruck to keep the ruck stocks balanced at 4 on the list proper and 1 rookie in the VFL squad.
RFC may no longer have Strawbs and Steinforts and Nobles disasters as part of the considered development programme for ruck stocks because Richmond has the chance to genuinely develop its own ruck stocks (TV & McBean) for the first time since Mark Lee.
what a positive and optimistic post.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/ban.gif)
-
Maric at this stage is our number 1 ruckman. We were looking for a backup ruckman not a number 1 ruckman. McEvoy and Mumford are good players but both would have expected to be number one at the club. Hampson is the right age and hopefully will fulfil the role he was drafted to do- back up Maric. It would have been foolish to give up our first draft pick. That pick should be used to obtain the best possible young player at the time. If the right resources are put in the investment can pay off big time eg Vlas.
-
Way too early trading for Hampson!
Recruiting Hampson isn't a problem, gave too much for him.