Did we throw the cards in too early in trading for a Ruckman?

[yellowandback]

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?

[Jobba]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Rampstar]

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.

[gerkin greg]

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 

[Dice]

Hampson is a dud

[dwaino]

Is this a new thread or was it split from one of the other 50? 

[Judge Roughneck]

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

[Francois Jackson]

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

[one-eyed]

Trent West another ruckman traded this year.

[Rampstar]

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.

[Penelope]

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 ?

[Rampstar]

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 ?

 

[Francois Jackson]

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.

[Penelope]

perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

none of which really addresses what i asked.