Roast Cripps - time to go

[Marmozet]

You know it’s especially bad when you have to put out an explanation to try and justify it.

 

[FishingRick04]

Absolutely bizarre

Melbourne had Clayton Oliver who is a complete mess and Christian Petreca who had more legitimate claims over Houston to get traded to a BIG melbourne club

Guess what Melbourne did

THey held them to their contract.

The VFL clubs work to a different system.

 

[FishingRick04]

I told you over a month ago I didn't think he'd be traded for two 1sts the moment Melbourne dropped out.

Would you rather have kept the future 1 and not gotten Lukosius? Certainly wasn't going to be traded for Port's pick 39.

I don’t mind the future first for Luko.

29 for Atkins I guess if we have salary cap space we bought pick 29.

The Houston deal hurt because St Kilda and teams near them didn’t want to play

 

[TeeKray]

Absolutely bizarre

Melbourne had Clayton Oliver who is a complete mess and Christian Petreca who had more legitimate claims over Houston to get traded to a BIG melbourne club

Guess what Melbourne did

THey held them to their contract.

Lol, Melbourne are a disaster, I wouldn't be worrying about not following their lead.

We can talk all we like about whether this deal is fair or not on paper but ultimately it will be determined by the long term value we get out of Lukosius and the players we pick in this year's draft. That's what actually matters in the end.

 

[Malibu#27]

You’re missing the point. The club is presenting a false depiction of a previous trade in order to justify the trade they just did. It’s bullshit.

If you want to use the results of the Wingard trade to sell the Houston deal then tell it how it is. Don’t give me the Rozee and Butters bollocks. It was Wingard for Burton, Duursma and Mayes (now Burton, BZT and a bunch of 4th rounders).

Doesn’t sound as good, does it? But at least it’s the truth.

Your post is no more the truth than what Cripps said (but its expected as 2018 was a complex set of trades which cant easily be distilled) as you omit the key element of the trade that Mayes was thrown in on .. upgrading pick 6 to pick 5 to get ahead of Gold Coast.

Its impossible to look at what happened in a single trade in 2018 in isolation as every trade had links to other trades we did as well as some 2017 trades with futures involved.

It was a combination of the picks we got back for these 2 (pick 11 from Polec, and pick 15 and 35 from Wingard) along with some future picks we had got in 2017 that were the basis of several pick upgrades along with our own picks to get us to a spot we could get Rozee.

Personally I think its clear that without the capital we got from these players going out we didnt have the picks we needed to get up the order into a spot where Rozee was. Theres probaby arguments to say things could have been done by only trading Polec or only trading Wingard, but it would have been bloody hard to impossible to do anything without trading one of them or some of the future pick trading we did in 2017.

 

[Zakk Wylde]

Rebuilding on the run is fine.... If you can get it done in the coaches box, and have history of doing so. We do not.

Cripps work over the years has been fine, and for the most part I have no issue with what we've done. Especially with Parker consistently doing good work.

Bringing in Ratugolea again I have no issue with. I have an issue with what we paid.

Same as Dan... No issue with him actually going but this was our time to capitalise on a valuable commodity. We did not.

The fact we overpaid for Esava and didn't get what we should've for Dan sucks... And this now reflects badly on Cripps.

He better have a good offseason next year.

 

[Chewy316]

I don’t mind the future first for Luko.

29 for Atkins I guess if we have salary cap space we bought pick 29.

The Houston deal hurt because St Kilda and teams near them didn’t want to play

Pretty much this.

I don't think they would have traded him if it was a weak draft though.

I'm only speculating, but I suspect they see it as one of the last opportunities in the coming years to get some really good young talent into the team - based on next year's draft being pretty poor (that's putting it nicely), and then after that you're going to have Tassie coming into the league and getting millions of draft concessions just as GWS and Gold Coast were entitled to, which will severely compromise those drafts.

 

[FishingRick04]

Pretty much this.

I don't think they would have traded him if it was a weak draft though.

I'm only speculating, but I suspect they see it as one of the last opportunities in the coming years to get some really good young talent into the team - based on next year's draft being pretty poor (that's putting it nicely), and then after that you're going to have Tassie coming into the league and getting millions of draft concessions just as GWS and Gold Coast were entitled to, which will severely compromise those drafts.

I suspect these teams called our bluff and we got caught!

 

[Malibu#27]

I suspect these teams called our bluff and we got caught!

I think if we had our time again our best move would have been to get the Luko part of the trade done as soon as it was agreed so that it wasnt at risk. Then we just leave it with Collingwood to make the Houston stuff happen or we hold him. By doing that, we were no longer a club that had anything significant to lose in the remaining trade .... but maybe Gold Coast were too smart for that.

That being said, the longer the trade period went on the more it seemed we had got to the point where we were going to trade him out regardless (whether this was really because we valued the draft, were getting pressured by Connors, or Dan was putting the hard word on us etc) so maybe my strategy wouldnt have worked.

 

[Pappagallo]

Your post is no more the truth than what Cripps said (but its expected as 2018 was a complex set of trades which cant easily be distilled) as you omit the key element of the trade that Mayes was thrown in on .. upgrading pick 6 to pick 5 to get ahead of Gold Coast.

Its impossible to look at what happened in a single trade in 2018 in isolation as every trade had links to other trades we did as well as some 2017 trades with futures involved.

It was a combination of the picks we got back for these 2 (pick 11 from Polec, and pick 15 and 35 from Wingard) along with some future picks we had got in 2017 that were the basis of several pick upgrades along with our own picks to get us to a spot we could get Rozee.

Personally I think its clear that without the capital we got from these players going out we didnt have the picks we needed to get up the order into a spot where Rozee was. Theres probaby arguments to say things could have been done by only trading Polec or only trading Wingard, but it would have been bloody hard to impossible to do anything without trading one of them or some of the future pick trading we did in 2017.

I mentioned this in my previous post. The swap from 6 to 5 is the last 1% of the Wingard trade and could’ve been achieved another way. It’s not the 99% Cripps is presenting it as because the vast majority of the draft capital came from Polec, Pittard and the bag of picks we threw at Freo.

I’m sorry but saying Wingard = Rozee (and Butters!) is just utter garbage and the fact that it’s self serving garbage in this case is what irks me most.

 

[Schulzenfest]

How would you have done it differently?

How would I have done it differently? By learning to walk away.

Offer a future second for Ratugolea. Tell Geelong they can take it or go **** themselves. This is a negotiating tactic that works for clubs that aren't cucks. Geelong have just brought in a young star in Bailey Smith for an 8 pick downgrade on what they received for a 25 year old depth player in Ratugolea, because they had the balls to tell the Bulldogs to take it or leave it. In the unlikely event they choose to go **** themselves rather than take the future second, PSD him. If somebody else out there wanted to pay Rat what we were offering him, their funeral.

BZT for Duursma, I didn't like at the time without us getting something extra thrown in. I'd have left that to the last minute. If Geelong bite on Ratugolea, send BZT to the PSD and keep Duursma. If Geelong don't bite, I acknowledge we can't really risk missing out on both Rat and BZT, so I reluctantly accept the deal we were offered because I'd rather give up Duursma than that first round pick.

Sweet for third rounder, excellent trade, liked it at the time and like it even more now, would do again.

Give Soldo a miss unless Richmond were willing to take something like a future third for him, which I accept they wouldn't have been. Keep Hayes or Teakle instead (and I ****ing hated Teakle, but I'd still rather have Teakle and a first rounder than Soldo and no first rounder).

Deal with GC separately for Luko. Future first next year and the Ratkins salary dump for Luko and whatever the best pick we can get back is. If they don't offer a second round pick coming back, take the Ratkins salary dump out.

Third rounder for Richards. PSD if it's not accepted. Genuinely good AFL players like Jack Macrae, Luke Parker and Jake Stringer were all traded for third rounders this year, if Collingwood won't accept that for an uncontracted Joe Richards they can go **** themselves too.

And most importantly, stick to our ****ing guns on Houston. Two picks in the teens at a minimum or we hold him to his three year contract.

Our club seems to think that once they've identified a player who wants in or out, a bad deal is better than no deal. The problem with that is once other clubs get wind of it, they'll only offer you bad deals. That's why we've suffered such a massive loss trading those first rounders in and out. A club like Geelong will stick to their guns and be prepared to walk away, and that's why they keep winning all their deals. And it certainly hasn't affected their ability to attract players.

None of this would have been unachievable for a club with some balls. We do all of this, we still have the exact same amount of first round picks as we do now, but we have Dan Houston on our list instead of Ivan Soldo. That's how bad we are at negotiating. We basically negotiated Houston down to Soldo for the privilege of a 5 pick upgrade in the teens.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

 

[Chewy316]

I suspect these teams called our bluff and we got caught!

Definitely an element to that. I also am not quite sure how much more they could have gotten out of Collingwood in the deal. This again brings up the whole trading players to any team without their permission. I certainly think in the future that a compromise will be had whereby any players wanting to play in a specific city can only nominate the city, and then their current team can trade that player to any team in that city, and then their contract simply rolls over from one team to the next with the same existing terms (and perhaps a clause saying that contracts can't be restructured until at least 12 months after the trade or a variation thereof).

The moment we get players being able to be traded to teams without their permission per se will be a massive moment for equalisation across the league and will likely result in even more player movement which the AFLPA seems to love.

I think if we had our time again our best move would have been to get the Luko part of the trade done as soon as it was agreed so that it wasnt at risk. Then we just leave it with Collingwood to make the Houston stuff happen or we hold him. By doing that, we were no longer a club that had anything significant to lose in the remaining trade .... but maybe Gold Coast were too smart for that.

That being said, the longer the trade period went on the more it seemed we had got to the point where we were going to trade him out regardless (whether this was really because we valued the draft, were getting pressured by Connors, or Dan was putting the hard word on us etc) so maybe my strategy wouldnt have worked.

The Lukosius deal was essentially done in the first few days of the trade period - along the lines of Luko and a late pick (such as 50) for a future 1st and pick 58. But given the Houston deal was connected to Gold Coast because of pick 13, they amalgamated the trades into one big mega trade so to speak.

They looked at multiple variations of splitting first round picks to get a better deal, even considered shutting Gold Coast out of the deal and instead turn to Freo who had 3 first rounders which could have been split a few ways, but they were headstrong on using them solely for Bolton and/or Baker given their current list profile and current pressure on their footy department to get immediate results in 2025.

It was only the last 18 hours or so before the Houston trade got done that things really accelerated to a point that they decided to do the deal. They wanted more on the Monday night and revisited things with all of Gold Coast, Collingwood, Carlton and North on Tuesday morning, but there was nothing left to extract from any party in any potential deal, and so they took it

How would I have done it differently? By learning to walk away.

Offer a future second for Ratugolea. Tell Geelong they can take it or go ** themselves. This is a negotiating tactic that works for clubs that aren't cucks. Geelong have just brought in a young star in Bailey Smith for an 8 pick downgrade on what they received for a 25 year old depth player in Ratugolea, because they had the balls to tell the Bulldogs to take it or leave it. In the unlikely event they choose to go ** themselves rather than take the future second, PSD him. If somebody else out there wanted to pay Rat what we were offering him, their funeral.

BZT for Duursma, I didn't like at the time without us getting something extra thrown in. I'd have left that to the last minute. If Geelong bite on Ratugolea, send BZT to the PSD and keep Duursma. If Geelong don't bite, I acknowledge we can't really risk missing out on both Rat and BZT, so I reluctantly accept the deal we were offered because I'd rather give up Duursma than that first round pick.

Sweet for third rounder, excellent trade, liked it at the time and like it even more now, would do again.

Give Soldo a miss unless Richmond were willing to take something like a future third for him, which I accept they wouldn't have been. Keep Hayes or Teakle instead (and I ****ing hated Teakle, but I'd still rather have Teakle and a first rounder than Soldo and no first rounder).

Deal with GC separately for Luko. Future first next year and the Ratkins salary dump for Luko and whatever the best pick we can get back is. If they don't offer a second round pick coming back, take the Ratkins salary dump out.

Third rounder for Richards. PSD if it's not accepted. Genuinely good AFL players like Jack Macrae, Luke Parker and Jake Stringer were all traded for third rounders this year, if Collingwood won't accept that for an uncontracted Joe Richards they can go **** themselves too.

And most importantly, stick to our ****ing guns on Houston. Two picks in the teens at a minimum or we hold him to his three year contract.

Our club seems to think that once they've identified a player who wants in or out, a bad deal is better than no deal. The problem with that is once other clubs get wind of it, they'll only offer you bad deals. That's why we've suffered such a massive loss trading those first rounders in and out. A club like Geelong will stick to their guns and be prepared to walk away, and that's why they keep winning all their deals. And it certainly hasn't affected their ability to attract players.

None of this would have been unachievable for a club with some balls. We do all of this, we still have the exact same amount of first round picks as we do now, but we have Dan Houston on our list instead of Ivan Soldo. That's how bad we are at negotiating. We basically negotiated Houston down to Soldo for the privilege of a 5 pick upgrade in the teens.

Bailey Smith is an absolute head case with mental health and substance abuse issues in conjunction with coming off an ACL injury and not having played footy in over 12 months. So I'm not surprised Geelong didn't have to pay a lot for him.

You mention the idea of taking both Ratugolea and Richards to the PSD in consecutive seasons. "Walking" a player to the PSD has got to be the biggest load of veiled threatened BS any list manager presents. In the last 2 years how many deals didn't get done which resulted in a player being "walked" ?? Can't think of any of consequence that's for sure.

As for BZT - they didn't think he could play on the bruisers like Hawkins etc. No one could have foreseen that BZT was going to play to the level he did this year. That's why they went after Ratugolea. If they don't get Ratugolea they're essentially entering season 2024 in the same defensive position they were the year prior (with a massive hole not having a KPD to take on the Hawkins bodies of the league).

Going into a season with Sweet (a massively unproven ruck), Sam Hayes (an absolute spud) and/or Teakle (another spud) and Visentini (a promising young player but a few years away at least from playing consistent AFL footy) would have been beyond a joke given how they were affected by having such a poor ruck situation. At least Soldo was someone who had shown they could be a lead ruck if given the opportunity, though I agree that trading out a first to get the Ratugolea and Soldo moves done was egregious, though I'm not sure what the alternatives could have been outside of not getting those deals done and having gaping holes on the list entering season 2024.

The Lukosius deal was essentially independent of the Houston deal anyway - they were just executed in the same trade.

As for the Houston deal, it got done because of draft position in combination with the current personnel Port have in that position is pretty strong already, and so moving him on gives them an opportunity to re-balance the list a bit. I know that you and I will never agree to the rationale behind the trade, and that's ok. I'm never going to say I'm happy with the deal - like you, I still think it was unders, but I'm not going to bring up the Soldo and Ratugolea deals in conjunction with the Houston trade given the circumstances of 12 months prior as to where the list was at.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we all knew that Sweet and BZT would play to the level they did in 2024, there's no way the Ratugolea and Soldo deals get done.

 

[Jonts]

Don't our list managers always say to look at the trade period as a whole rather than individual trades? Well I'm looking at the past two years as a whole.

Out - 2024 first round pick. In, Ratugolea and Soldo.
Out - Houston. In, 2024 first round pick.

There are some inconsequential small pick upgrades and late picks in and out on top, but that's the crux of our two 2024 first round pick trades, and it's ****ing awful. I don't know why you're trying to pretend either of those points are incorrect.

Yes agreed that individually both deals were shit. But they're still two separate deals. You can't just say it was a five pick upgrade because we didn't have the pick 18 anymore. It's separate .

But the losing of pick 18 this year doesn't actually result in losing Houston at all that's my point

Even El_Scorcho split them by year.

I'm not arguing that we got good results for either trade. Not at all. Just went didn't lose Houston for Esava and Soldo. That's my point.

We lost the ability to have an Xavier Lindsay type come pick 18 this year.


It's two separate trades. We still do a shitty Houston trade even if we don't have Soldo and Esava and have pick 18 in this year's draft.

Judge it as a whole is what shit lost managers say cause they know they are losing a few individual trades and need to hide that.

 

[tribey]

Your post is no more the truth than what Cripps said (but its expected as 2018 was a complex set of trades which cant easily be distilled) as you omit the key element of the trade that Mayes was thrown in on .. upgrading pick 6 to pick 5 to get ahead of Gold Coast.

Its impossible to look at what happened in a single trade in 2018 in isolation as every trade had links to other trades we did as well as some 2017 trades with futures involved.

It was a combination of the picks we got back for these 2 (pick 11 from Polec, and pick 15 and 35 from Wingard) along with some future picks we had got in 2017 that were the basis of several pick upgrades along with our own picks to get us to a spot we could get Rozee.

Personally I think its clear that without the capital we got from these players going out we didnt have the picks we needed to get up the order into a spot where Rozee was. Theres probaby arguments to say things could have been done by only trading Polec or only trading Wingard, but it would have been bloody hard to impossible to do anything without trading one of them or some of the future pick trading we did in 2017.

Is this a bit?

This is the direct quote:



He makes it sound as if Wingard became Rozee and Butters.

Forget the mental gymnastics surrounding what Rozee may or may not have been told, and whether Sam Mayes or a twelfth rounder involved in Wingard trade and wider series of pick flips from getting North’s pick 11 for Polec/Pittard was pivotal to ultimately getting up to 5.

Zak Butters was our natural pick (9) for finishing 10th in season 2018 — which then fell 3 places due to free agency compo and academy bids for Tom Lynch, Tarryn Thomas and Nick Blakey.

Zilch to do with Wingard any more than one could claim trading Shaun Burgoyne allowed us to get John Butcher.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Definitely an element to that. I also am not quite sure how much more they could have gotten out of Collingwood in the deal. This again brings up the whole trading players to any team without their permission. I certainly think in the future that a compromise will be had whereby any players wanting to play in a specific city can only nominate the city, and then their current team can trade that player to any team in that city, and then their contract simply rolls over from one team to the next with the same existing terms (and perhaps a clause saying that contracts can't be restructured until at least 12 months after the trade or a variation thereof).

The moment we get players being able to be traded to teams without their permission per se will be a massive moment for equalisation across the league and will likely result in even more player movement which the AFLPA seems to love.



The Lukosius deal was essentially done in the first few days of the trade period - along the lines of Luko and a late pick (such as 50) for a future 1st and pick 58. But given the Houston deal was connected to Gold Coast because of pick 13, they amalgamated the trades into one big mega trade so to speak.

They looked at multiple variations of splitting first round picks to get a better deal, even considered shutting Gold Coast out of the deal and instead turn to Freo who had 3 first rounders which could have been split a few ways, but they were headstrong on using them solely for Bolton and/or Baker given their current list profile and current pressure on their footy department to get immediate results in 2025.

It was only the last 18 hours or so before the Houston trade got done that things really accelerated to a point that they decided to do the deal. They wanted more on the Monday night and revisited things with all of Gold Coast, Collingwood, Carlton and North on Tuesday morning, but there was nothing left to extract from any party in any potential deal, and so they took it


Bailey Smith is an absolute head case with mental health and substance abuse issues in conjunction with coming off an ACL injury and not having played footy in over 12 months. So I'm not surprised Geelong didn't have to pay a lot for him.

You mention the idea of taking both Ratugolea and Richards to the PSD in consecutive seasons. "Walking" a player to the PSD has got to be the biggest load of veiled threatened BS any list manager presents. In the last 2 years how many deals didn't get done which resulted in a player being "walked" ?? Can't think of any of consequence that's for sure.

As for BZT - they didn't think he could play on the bruisers like Hawkins etc. No one could have foreseen that BZT was going to play to the level he did this year. That's why they went after Ratugolea. If they don't get Ratugolea they're essentially entering season 2024 in the same defensive position they were the year prior (with a massive hole not having a KPD to take on the Hawkins bodies of the league).

Going into a season with Sweet (a massively unproven ruck), Sam Hayes (an absolute spud) and/or Teakle (another spud) and Visentini (a promising young player but a few years away at least from playing consistent AFL footy) would have been beyond a joke given how they were affected by having such a poor ruck situation. At least Soldo was someone who had shown they could be a lead ruck if given the opportunity, though I agree that trading out a first to get the Ratugolea and Soldo moves done was egregious, though I'm not sure what the alternatives could have been outside of not getting those deals done and having gaping holes on the list entering season 2024.

The Lukosius deal was essentially independent of the Houston deal anyway - they were just executed in the same trade.

As for the Houston deal, it got done because of draft position in combination with the current personnel Port have in that position is pretty strong already, and so moving him on gives them an opportunity to re-balance the list a bit. I know that you and I will never agree to the rationale behind the trade, and that's ok. I'm never going to say I'm happy with the deal - like you, I still think it was unders, but I'm not going to bring up the Soldo and Ratugolea deals in conjunction with the Houston trade given the circumstances of 12 months prior as to where the list was at.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we all knew that Sweet and BZT would play to the level they did in 2024, there's no way the Ratugolea and Soldo deals get done.

I can understand the positional requirements. Fine. But you cannot tell me they genuinely thought Ratugolea and Soldo would solve all our problems this year with regards to those positions.

Ratugolea had played one season of reserve football as a key back and was extremely up and down in his few AFL games.

Soldo was and is a bog standard backup ruck with injury issues. We already had brought in another bog standard second ruck, who at least wasn't injured all the time.

They were terrible deals. They are terrible deals. Leaving those deals on the table would have absolutely been the right move. None of those players were ever going to move the needle this year beyond what we already had.

 

[Waspy79]

You mention the idea of taking both Ratugolea and Richards to the PSD in consecutive seasons. "Walking" a player to the PSD has got to be the biggest load of veiled threatened BS any list manager presents. In the last 2 years how many deals didn't get done which resulted in a player being "walked" ?? Can't think of any of consequence that's for sure.

As for BZT - they didn't think he could play on the bruisers like Hawkins etc. No one could have foreseen that BZT was going to play to the level he did this year. That's why they went after Ratugolea. If they don't get Ratugolea they're essentially entering season 2024 in the same defensive position they were the year prior (with a massive hole not having a KPD to take on the Hawkins bodies of the league).

Going into a season with Sweet (a massively unproven ruck), Sam Hayes (an absolute spud) and/or Teakle (another spud) and Visentini (a promising young player but a few years away at least from playing consistent AFL footy) would have been beyond a joke given how they were affected by having such a poor ruck situation. At least Soldo was someone who had shown they could be a lead ruck if given the opportunity, though I agree that trading out a first to get the Ratugolea and Soldo moves done was egregious, though I'm not sure what the alternatives could have been outside of not getting those deals done and having gaping holes on the list entering season 2024.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we all knew that Sweet and BZT would play to the level they did in 2024, there's no way the Ratugolea and Soldo deals get done.

100% correct, well summarised, and for the reasons you point out the trade for Rat and Soldo cannot be seen as being the wrong approach at the time. You also are correct regarding the PSD threat, the lack of clubs leveraging this option is perhaps a sign of the times. Very woke world we live in, everyone needs to be mollycoddled, and on the other side there is likely a fear from clubs (and the league) of being taken to the cleaners for a player claiming mental health issues if a deal is not brokered to a club of choice.

 

[Jonts]

The reason the PSD option is very rarely actually used is because of the club sticks to it's guns the other team often folds.

Look at what the crows got thrown in with peatling for a 2nd after threatening PSD after doing so with Hately.

 

[Waspy79]

The reason the PSD option is very rarely actually used is because of the club sticks to it's guns the other team often folds.

Look at what the crows got thrown in with peatling for a 2nd after threatening PSD after doing so with Hately.

I honestly think it is moreso related to player welfare, trying to do the right thing by people, and minimising fall out. Perhaps think of the league as the actual workplace it is, not as a meat market of bodies.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I honestly think it is moreso related to player welfare, trying to do the right thing by people, and minimising fall out. Perhaps think of the league as the actual workplace it is, not as a meat market of bodies.

Most of these blokes are on at least 5x the median salary and kick a ball for living (for like 4 days a week). Some of them have 5+ year contracts to do this.

They are not slaves

 

[Waspy79]

Most of these blokes are on at least 5x the median salary and kick a ball for living (for like 4 days a week). Some of them have 5+ year contracts to do this.

They are not slaves

Jackson Hately lined up for Essendon's VFL side this season. Getting paid a handsome salary I am sure. I wonder what his second job is to enable him to save enough money to buy a house.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Jackson Hately lined up for Essendon's VFL side this season. Getting paid a handsome salary I am sure. I wonder what his second job is to enable him to save enough money to buy a house.

Spent 5 years in the league, getting paid at least 300k per year on average. Theoretically made 1.5M before he was 23.

But poor wittle Jackson, he has to play VFL!

You are a moron.

 

[Waspy79]

Spent 5 years in the league, getting paid at least 300k per year on average. Theoretically made 1.5M before he was 23.

But poor wittle Jackson, he has to play VFL!

You are a moron.

On what planet was he being paid 'at least $300K a season on average'. Jake Stringer was going to get paid $400K for season 2025. As of 2023, draft picks 1 through 20 receive a basic compensation of $105,000 annually. Given Hately barely played a game at the highest level, you are talking complete and utter garbage.

 

[Schulzenfest]

You mention the idea of taking both Ratugolea and Richards to the PSD in consecutive seasons. "Walking" a player to the PSD has got to be the biggest load of veiled threatened BS any list manager presents. In the last 2 years how many deals didn't get done which resulted in a player being "walked" ?? Can't think of any of consequence that's for sure.

Basically none, I agree. But do you know why that is? Because 90% of the time the club holding the uncontracted player folds and accepts whatever semi-reasonable offer the player receiving the uncontracted player offers. Except where Port are involved, where we bend over backwards to satisfy the club holding the uncontracted player because we're weak negotiators.

Geelong aren't sending Esava to the PSD rather than accepting a future second. Collingwood aren't sending Joe ****ing Richards to the PSD rather than accepting a future third. We just need to grow some balls and learn when and how to use our leverage.

As for BZT - they didn't think he could play on the bruisers like Hawkins etc. No one could have foreseen that BZT was going to play to the level he did this year.

Well they were wrong then. You keep talking about the list managers 'not foreseeing' that certain players would be capable or incapable of doing certain things. Half their job is to correctly identify talent. If they don't foresee how good or how bad players are going to be, they've failed.

That's why they went after Ratugolea. If they don't get Ratugolea they're essentially entering season 2024 in the same defensive position they were the year prior (with a massive hole not having a KPD to take on the Hawkins bodies of the league).

And as it turns out Ratugolea was completely the wrong player for them to after and prioritise, given that BZT is in our best defence and Rat has been shunted out of it. Again, it's their job to identify talent. They failed at it.

Going into a season with Sweet (a massively unproven ruck), Sam Hayes (an absolute spud) and/or Teakle (another spud) and Visentini (a promising young player but a few years away at least from playing consistent AFL footy) would have been beyond a joke given how they were affected by having such a poor ruck situation.

Giving up a first rounder for Ivan Soldo is a joke. Go get Tom Campbell or one of the squillions of other cheap ruck options then if you don't like Hayes or Teakle. You don't give up first round picks for depth. Good clubs don't anyway.

As for the Houston deal, it got done because of draft position in combination with the current personnel Port have in that position is pretty strong already,

And remind me why we were in that draft position again?

I don't agree with the current personnel Port having in that position being strong either by the way. Who's our best half back now, Farrell? He's never sniffed an AA side and he never will. We have quantity of half backs but Houston was our only quality.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if we all knew that Sweet and BZT would play to the level they did in 2024, there's no way the Ratugolea and Soldo deals get done.

Even if we assume we somehow absolutely had to get Ratugolea for some reason, we still gave up more than we needed to. Offer Geelong a future second and hang up the phone. That's what Geelong would have done to us if the parties were switched. They'd have caved. If they didn't, we'll get him for free in the PSD instead. But they would have, so it's a moot point.

There's no amount of desperation for a ruck that justifies spending a first round pick on Soldo. He was contracted, so we didn't have leverage there, I acknowledge that. So go find a similar player where we would have leverage. Throw a blank cheque at Brodie Grundy whose current club desperately wanted him off the books. Give Soldo's money to Matthew Flynn, who is the same level of okay but not great ruck as Soldo but was a free agent.

 

[Chewy316]

Basically none, I agree. But do you know why that is? Because 90% of the time the club holding the uncontracted player folds and accepts whatever semi-reasonable offer the player receiving the uncontracted player offers. Except where Port are involved, where we bend over backwards to satisfy the club holding the uncontracted player because we're weak negotiators.

Geelong aren't sending Esava to the PSD rather than accepting a future second. Collingwood aren't sending Joe ****ing Richards to the PSD rather than accepting a future third. We just need to grow some balls and learn when and how to use our leverage.

Well they were wrong then. You keep talking about the list managers 'not foreseeing' that certain players would be capable or incapable of doing certain things. Half their job is to correctly identify talent. If they don't foresee how good or how bad players are going to be, they've failed.

And as it turns out Ratugolea was completely the wrong player for them to after and prioritise, given that BZT is in our best defence and Rat has been shunted out of it. Again, it's their job to identify talent. They failed at it.

Giving up a first rounder for Ivan Soldo is a joke. Go get Tom Campbell or one of the squillions of other cheap ruck options then if you don't like Hayes or Teakle. You don't give up first round picks for depth. Good clubs don't anyway.

And remind me why we were in that draft position again?

I don't agree with the current personnel Port having in that position being strong either by the way. Who's our best half back now, Farrell? He's never sniffed an AA side and he never will. We have quantity of half backs but Houston was our only quality.

Even if we assume we somehow absolutely had to get Ratugolea for some reason, we still gave up more than we needed to. Offer Geelong a future second and hang up the phone. That's what Geelong would have done to us if the parties were switched. They'd have caved. If they didn't, we'll get him for free in the PSD instead. But they would have, so it's a moot point.

There's no amount of desperation for a ruck that justifies spending a first round pick on Soldo. He was contracted, so we didn't have leverage there, I acknowledge that. So go find a similar player where we would have leverage. Throw a blank cheque at Brodie Grundy whose current club desperately wanted him off the books. Give Soldo's money to Matthew Flynn, who is the same level of okay but not great ruck as Soldo but was a free agent.

You and I see this from polar opposites, oil and water.

Let's leave it at that rather than continuing to waste both of our time.