Author Topic: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?  (Read 3874 times)

Offline wayne

  • Fame of Hall
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8400
  • In Absentia
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2013, 02:29:21 PM »
West is one of the biggest crabs i've ever seen play football.
And you may not think I care for you
When you know down inside that I really do

Offline blaisee

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1349
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2013, 02:37:02 PM »
this poll should hve the salaries of the ruckman as well

Offline yellowandback

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2013, 03:11:28 PM »
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.
It's that simple Spud
"I discussed (it) with my three daughters, my wife and my 82-year-old mum, because it has really affected me … If those comments … were made about one of my daughters, it would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I would not have liked it at all.”

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2013, 03:16:32 PM »
Hampson makes West look like Dean Cox

gerkin greg

  • Guest
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2013, 03:41:49 PM »
The ruck guru speaks  :bow

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8719
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2013, 03:48:09 PM »
Yeah well I did go 3rd man up several times back in my day.

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2013, 04:23:50 PM »
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.

gerkin greg

  • Guest
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2013, 04:47:06 PM »
West is one of the biggest crabs i've ever seen play football.

Yep, absolute ass crab

Offline Dice

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2013, 04:49:45 PM »
Yeah well I did go 3rd man up several times back in my day.
:lol
Tanking has put the club where it's at - Paul Roos

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2013, 06:35:53 PM »
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?

Offline bojangles17

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5618
  • Platinum member 33 years
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2013, 06:37:16 PM »
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
RFC 1885, Often Imitated, Never Equalled

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2013, 08:06:14 PM »
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.

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2013, 08:11:58 PM »
so, for example, we have no idea what heath shaw salary is?

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2013, 08:18:55 PM »
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.

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2013, 08:22:59 PM »
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?