I’d have no major issue with this. Salary cap management is a fact of life and whilst Lloyd is a good player I don’t doubt we can replace him adequately.Originally Posted by Aprilbr
Especially if Tasmania get the nod with the raft of tainted drafts to follow I think we could be well advised to go hard again at the draft this year. I assume we’d get something similar to why we got for Hewett ?
My opinion is that we need Lloyd's experience/skill if we're in the premiership window next few years, provided he's not asking overs. We let go Hewett & lost Dawson last season and need to be mindful that we have right balance of experience/youth to ensure development of list continues. Not sure if anyone on our list can fill straight into Lloyd's shoes as it does take time to develop a player to do so (as it did with Lloyd himself). He plays a valuable small defender role.
On the other hand I do see Will Gould as a eventual replacement for Rampe, a attacking defender who can play on both smalls and talls. From all accounts Gould is having a good season in the VFL and even if he doesn't get to debut this season, has hopefully shown enough to re-sign him at season's end with this in mind.
Leaving aside his pair of Skilton's, I wonder whether Ollie's form in the defensive half would have some effect on our list managers perception of Lloyd's replaceability?
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
Didn't someone say that about George Hewwitt about this time last year?
Not a Lloyd tragic at all but, a young buck needs to step and play the role.
I think Lloyd gets unfairly maligned and undervalued as a player delivering the ball, when he’s more of a receiver. He’s won multiple B&Fs, has hardened up significantly and is not on crazy money. Why would we want to let him go?
I would offer him reasonable but not excessive money to stay. George is not on big money at Carlton and is having a career best season. We are good at trading out players who go well elsewhere eg Mitchell - Brownlow next season, Aliir - All Aust last year, Nankervis - triple premiership ruckman at Richmond, Cameron - holding down first ruck for the Pies quite successfully, Membery - forward target for the Saints for a number of seasons now. I won't count Dawson because we desperately tried to retain him but he is a potential All Australian this season.
The point of my post is that we probably could have kept most of these guys if we paid them a bit more and offered them a pathway to regular senior football. None of these players left us for big money elsewhere, even Mitchell was not on a big contract when he left.
If only we didn’t have a salary cap we may have been able to keep them all 😀
I mean we were told at one stage by the Au Pair whisperer that we “ can’t have everyone”:so that decision had a huge impact on us.
Seriously however Mitchell and Aliir were both playing regular senior football for us when they left for more money and / or long term contracts. Nankervis we decided that Naismith would be our preferred option and unfortunately the footy gods transpired to derail Sam’s career in hindsight we got that wrong but hindsight wasn’t available when the list management decision was being made.
Keeping Sam also contributed to Cameron being moved on as well but he had only played one game for us at the time.
Membery also only played one game for us as well , and while we wanted to keep him and Horse said as much at the time we had Lance , Adam and Kurt in front of him so we were pretty well covered for forwards.
We tried to swing a deal but the Saints had us over a barrel and so he was delisted and while has played well enough for them it was a list management decision where we were pretty well hamstrung again by the salary cap.
Juggling a playing list is a challenge no team keeps the same list every year and you need to replenish it through various means including trading out existing players for picks or pick swaps in the draft.
We have also benefited from choosing not to match external contract offers as well ( we certainly got some payback on the Saints with Dan and to a lesser extent Zac)
I think the club probably wouldn’t look back at too many of the players you mentioned and say we stuffed that up.
Last edited by Faunac8; 13th June 2022 at 03:02 AM.
Very few organisation of any sort, ever looks back at past actions and says "we stuffed that up" - and that's doubly so when those who made such decisions are still part of the organisation. And as for those that do in public - we're talking unicorns here.
And as for an organisations loyal adherants, I've actually read RWOers defend Neville Fields FFS - loyalty and rationality aren't natural bedfellows.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
I agree they wouldn’t say so publicly it was of course a hypothetical question.
And I am not sure if the adherents comment referred to me or not but I think there was a fair bit of rational thought behind those decisions and of those examples provided by Aprilbr do you genuinely think we erred in letting any of them go ?
As much as I enjoyed AA playing for us his move helped us in other ways so while I was disappointed at the time his move helped us fill a need in the ruck department, rather ironically given we moved on Cameron the year before. Ruck-men am I right 😀
I think you can safely say that every footballer is a "different player" whenever they go to a new club. They are not going to do the
same things, make the same plays, even play in the same position. Not just because their teammates are different and the on field
playing styles will be different, but everything is different. The coach, the culture, everything. A player can go from club A to club B,
get less of the ball and yet be a better contributor to club B than at club A. And that contribution may evolve over time. All the
parts of the team are moving all the time. With trades there a million factors to consider. Unfortunately it is not as simple as giving
someone a bit more money and a bit longer contract. That money and time and opportunity has to come from somewhere. And that
means it has to come from another player. They mightn't like that, and then they (the other player) might want to leave.
I don't envy the people at the club involved in the decisions that form the playing list. It's ridiculously hard to pull off.
Sorry Faunac8 - didn't get the hyperthetical bit.
As to the "loyal adherants" reference, it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.
The blood of everyone on this forum's is made up of Red and White cells - so we're all prone to parochial subjectivity.
And I honestly can't remember who it was that was defending Tuddy's Daniher disposal, was it you? In any case I do think that was a poor decision, and one that was generated through a flawed decision making process.
As to more recent dealings:
Was selling AA, in order to purchase The Wildman to fill a hole in the ruck partly created by the sale of Nanny silly. In isolation? Maybe it looks silly, but I think we were just responding rationally to repairing earlier self inflicted woes.
In 2021 we simply had to have a plausible ruck, even if the guy we got wasn't going to last - because our growing list of baby midfielders desperately needed an actual ruckman to work and learn their craft with.
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 15th June 2022 at 04:36 AM.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
But who was the luminary who appointed Tuddenham?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks