Welcome everyone to One-Eyed Richmond's Tiger Forum Cheers from mightytiges and WilliamPowell.
payed a fair price, not overly stupid price.it would be fair to say that these are not the only trades they showed interest in, just the ones that they could get at the right price.
lol nice wind up,
Quote from: Penelope on October 10, 2015, 01:35:32 PMQuote from: tony_montana on October 10, 2015, 10:27:41 AMQuote from: Penelope on October 08, 2015, 11:32:11 PMQuote from: tony_montana on October 08, 2015, 06:01:15 PMI know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.so if you were to list all the occasions where clubs have paid overs for a big name player in recent times and listed their subsequent success (or lack thereof) how does it stack up?So if you run the stats like you have with buddy and Tippett does that mean, we should not chase top end talent?Not so much dont chase it, just dont crazy overboard to get it. This, naturally, means that it aint going to happen very often, thoughA couple of things that stick in mind that I have heard mentioned from within the club.That looking at overseas sporting comps, bringing in high profile players under free agency ultimately leads to loosing a number of lesser players. I don't think this is limited to free agency though. The salary cap makes this just about a monty to happen.That their recruiting policy was to draft for the top liners and trade for need. considering the first statement, this makes sense to me, but it pretty much means that most of your trades are not going to be at the top end of talent.If you can get a top liner at the right price, then fine, but I'm not convinced chasing one at any cost just for the sake of it is the way to go.If you look at whorethornes recruiting over the last few years, they certainly have not gone down this path. they paid quite a bit for Frawley (who i reckon has been largely underwhelming) but this of course was faciltaed by the loss of Franklin.Astute, is the word i would use for their recruitingYet the hawks have been prepared to pay for their traded players. Id say both astute and prepared to pay at the same time. At the end of the day they have addressed a need or added some depth.Anderson nd 27, nd 63, S GilhamBurgoyne nd9 nd16.Gibson nd 25, nd 41.Gunston nd24 their first rnd pick, nd46, nd64.Hale nd 27, nd 71lake nd 21, nd 43McEvoy nd 18, Shane Savage.O'Rourke nd 19 first rnd pick, nd 40Sphanger nd 64Frawley UF/A no cost involved. Is a very good player . Imo that has always been the case.The rest i totally agree with.
Quote from: tony_montana on October 10, 2015, 10:27:41 AMQuote from: Penelope on October 08, 2015, 11:32:11 PMQuote from: tony_montana on October 08, 2015, 06:01:15 PMI know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.so if you were to list all the occasions where clubs have paid overs for a big name player in recent times and listed their subsequent success (or lack thereof) how does it stack up?So if you run the stats like you have with buddy and Tippett does that mean, we should not chase top end talent?Not so much dont chase it, just dont crazy overboard to get it. This, naturally, means that it aint going to happen very often, thoughA couple of things that stick in mind that I have heard mentioned from within the club.That looking at overseas sporting comps, bringing in high profile players under free agency ultimately leads to loosing a number of lesser players. I don't think this is limited to free agency though. The salary cap makes this just about a monty to happen.That their recruiting policy was to draft for the top liners and trade for need. considering the first statement, this makes sense to me, but it pretty much means that most of your trades are not going to be at the top end of talent.If you can get a top liner at the right price, then fine, but I'm not convinced chasing one at any cost just for the sake of it is the way to go.If you look at whorethornes recruiting over the last few years, they certainly have not gone down this path. they paid quite a bit for Frawley (who i reckon has been largely underwhelming) but this of course was faciltaed by the loss of Franklin.Astute, is the word i would use for their recruiting
Quote from: Penelope on October 08, 2015, 11:32:11 PMQuote from: tony_montana on October 08, 2015, 06:01:15 PMI know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.so if you were to list all the occasions where clubs have paid overs for a big name player in recent times and listed their subsequent success (or lack thereof) how does it stack up?So if you run the stats like you have with buddy and Tippett does that mean, we should not chase top end talent?
Quote from: tony_montana on October 08, 2015, 06:01:15 PMI know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.so if you were to list all the occasions where clubs have paid overs for a big name player in recent times and listed their subsequent success (or lack thereof) how does it stack up?
I know we haven't offered Treloar and last year Greenwood as much as Collingwood has for both. We are really strong on our pay structure and don't deviate from it, problem is to bring in big talent you have to pay overs and we simply are unwilling to do that. People may argue that carlisle at 700k a year is overs, but that's what it takes to prize away one of the best young KP talents in the country just entering their prime.
I think Collingwood have a better list and a younger list (than Richmond). They’re interested in winning premierships and that’s my goal.
FJ is the only one that makes sense.
QuoteI think Collingwood have a better list and a younger list (than Richmond). They’re interested in winning premierships and that’s my goal.Pretty damning comment .....even he could see that we're happy to just make the finals....lofty goals are for other clubs it seems...
Quote from: Diocletian on November 18, 2015, 05:10:24 PMQuoteI think Collingwood have a better list and a younger list (than Richmond). They’re interested in winning premierships and that’s my goal.Pretty damning comment .....even he could see that we're happy to just make the finals....lofty goals are for other clubs it seems...Please.......if he wants to play in a premiership side he would be playing for the Hawks for minimum wage. Its all about the $ for him and his girlfriend being set up in Eddie media. Doesn't help that Gabby Allen will be employed but the Pies next year either Hope we remind him of his decision next year when we smash the Pies
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2013-05-29/how-bucks-went-from-a-bear-to-a-magpielets hope history repeats for this little fgt
