Ottens - What would we give up?

[Star]

Ok, obviously with what has been reported in the press and by Wrath, we are seriously looking at Ottens.

What do people think is a realistic offer to Richmond for him. I don't mean Shane Clayton and pick 86 but something we can afford to offer and Richmond may accept. Given Richmond's lack of key defenders I will get the ball rolling;

Pick 10 and Shannon Watt

Also, knowing what was offered for Rawlings last year and the fact that we are getting JWS for a bargain basement 3rd round pick;

Pick 10 and Pick 26.

What do others think?

 

[tashibatts]

I think trading our first 2 picks would be stupid, unless we know we are getting a second rounder from another club for xyz player.. we do have to draft 3 players, regardless of trades- we have one.. I think we should hold onto our 2nd round pick as getting our draftees from the 5th round doesnt seem the smartest idea in the world.

Pick 10 & Corey Jones (Or Jess Sinclair)

Shannon Watt would probably also do the job with pick 10.

Go Roos

 

[Lidge]

Just because Richmond have come out publicly and named their price, doesn't mean that's what will be required to strike a deal. Purely a negotiation tactic, and a starting point to work from.

There's no way that I'd want us giving up our 1st 2 picks. If that's the final price, we'll need to offload a player to another club to get a draft pick back to provide us with some currency at the national lottery.

Who's to say that a straight player swap wouldn't be acceptable?

eg

Ottens/Petrie
Ottens/Pick 10 & McKernan
Ottens/Pick 26 from North - Pick 9 from Adelaide & Corey Jones to the Crows

To hard to say what the respective clubs will consider to be a fair deal. Too many scenarios to consider.

My suggestion - save our energy trying to guess the outcome and just hope the club does better than last year and we don't give away too much for whoever we end up getting.

 

[Star]

I am not in favour of trading our first 2 picks but raised the possibility after it was rumoured this was the offer on the table for Rawlings last year.

There was even someone on here who suggested we offered 3 picks for him.

 

[NeoBlaze]

What I want to know is if we're going after both Ottens and Simmonds. I think we are from all the commotion, if that's the case wowee things will be getting pretty interesting down at Arden St

 

[Star]

What I want to know is if we're going after both Ottens and Simmonds. I think we are from all the commotion, if that's the case wowee things will be getting pretty interesting down at Arden St

I would prefer Ottens and hope we are not chasing both if it means off loading either of Hale or McIntosh. I think these 2 will be as good as Simmonds at the very worst.

 

[tashibatts]

We're still interested in Chad Morrison according to Sports Tonight

I wonder when we'll hear about Simmonds (if he wants the five year deal or not)

Go Roos

 

[NeoBlaze]

I would prefer Ottens and hope we are not chasing both if it means off loading either of Hale or McIntosh. I think these 2 will be as good as Simmonds at the very worst.

I certainly don't disagree with you there...if it were me, I'd prefer we go for Ottens if we're going to throw buckets of cash and give a huge contract it may as well be to someone who can become something huge at the very best and pretty good at the worst.

This really sux with Wrath not being able to tell us anything, as in who and who isn't expendable etc etc.

 

[fusion]

I know Wallace has often praised Hale on the radio. It wouldn't but suprising if he asked for pick 10 + Hale.

Would we accept this though? I'm not 100% convinced Hale is going to make it at senior level.

Richmond won't want McKernan as someone suggested... they'll want draft picks or youngsters that don't cost much.

 

[moomba]

Would anyone care to give me a brief overview of Ottens' season. I know he started off on fire, but it has been downhill since then until this season. Injury concerns? Form concerns? Confidence concerns? Richmond concerns?

I would be reluctant in any case to give up any of our tall prospects, we don't have a heap of strength in that area, and I would hate to see one of them starring for Richmond while Ottens sits on the injured list. We could give up Watt, and replace him with another FB but IMO we would still be short in that area, for me Watt is a must keep. Drew may have had a poor year, but I have seen enough of him to discount any one year at this stage of his career.

 

[NeoBlaze]

Would anyone care to give me a brief overview of Ottens' season. I know he started off on fire, but it has been downhill since then until this season. Injury concerns? Form concerns? Confidence concerns? Richmond concerns?

I would be reluctant in any case to give up any of our tall prospects, we don't have a heap of strength in that area, and I would hate to see one of them starring for Richmond while Ottens sits on the injured list. We could give up Watt, and replace him with another FB but IMO we would still be short in that area, for me Watt is a must keep. Drew may have had a poor year, but I have seen enough of him to discount any one year at this stage of his career.

I think Ottens statistically is as good as he ever has been, but his impact hasn't get as good. I think that has more to do with Richmond being utterly useless as opposed to him being bad all round.

 

[Moti]

We all forget that Hale is only 20 and that it usually takes 3 - 4 years for a the really big guys to start showing consistency. The fact that he has been consistent at the lower grades for the past 2 years bodes very well.

 

[CoastBhoy]

Would anyone care to give me a brief overview of Ottens' season. I know he started off on fire, but it has been downhill since then until this season. Injury concerns? Form concerns? Confidence concerns? Richmond concerns?

.

B.Ottens

2004
games 18
av poss 12.8
av marks 5.5
av hit outs 23.6
av tackles 2.1
G/B 16-8

CAREER
games 129
av poss 12.4
av marks 5.2
av hit outs 15.6
av tackles 1.5
G/B 152-79

 

[NeoBlaze]

Scratch this idea, get Ottens and then we need to stock up on some Key backmen.

Hypothically if we get Ottens. We have Rocca next year, who if he plays in a similar vein of form can play at FF with McKernan being his backup, Ottens to play all year as no.1 ruck with Hale as his deputy with McIntosh knocking at the door to give some competition. If Rocca doesn't perform there will be McKernan or one of Hale and McIntosh to take over his spot. If Ottens doesn't perform in the ruck McKernan goes in there as no.1 ruck with Ottens in the forward line. This gives us a hell of a lot of flexibility. I'd keep Brown as CHF and take the pressure of Drew to be at CHB which he's more suited to. Brown can play the Johnathon Brown role of just maurauding into other players and running around the ground freeing up the forwardline and acting as a linkman. Next year if this comes off, we'll give the top 8 a real shake.

Then the year afterwards, Rocca will retire, maybe McKernan will too, along with Colbert and Archer. That leaves huge holes in our squad. Rocca nd McKernan will be replaced by McIntosh and Hale bar injury or stalls in their progress, as well as Chad Jones and Kris Shore. Archer will probably be replaced by Trotter or Jesse Smith and Colbert will hopefully be replaced by Perry. But like I said we're still way short on quality KP backmen. So we need to get someone like Bizzell who despite his age would easily slot into our backline and would add some real depth to our squad. I think we should also get serious about getting some other KP backmen

 

[CoastBhoy]

Then the year afterwards, Rocca will retire, maybe McKernan will too, along with Colbert and Archer. That leaves huge holes in our squad. Rocca nd McKernan will be replaced by McIntosh and Hale bar injury or stalls in their progress, as well as Chad Jones and Kris Shore.

Given Rocca has 1 maybe 2 years left in him , and we seem to be going after ruckman in this years trade , i've got no doubt they must be grooming either Hale or Mc Intosh for the fullforwards role for the future.

 

[NeoBlaze]

Given Rocca has 1 maybe 2 years left in him , and we seem to be going after ruckman in this years trade , i've got no doubt they must be grooming either Hale or Mc Intosh for the fullforwards role for the future.

i totally agree with you. For mine I hope it is McIntosh, i think he'd be more dominant as a forward, Hale would be good too, but he wouldn't OWN a forward 50 if you know what i mean

 

[myboywellsy]

totally agree with you NEO... but with say hamish at full forward in 05/06 depending on development/trades etc... do you think that Drew is better suited to CHB and possibly playing browny at full back and stop all the guess work. i think that is his position, he could be a mal michael type that we so desperately need.

i'd be happy with pick 10 + CJ/sinclair
or maybe pick 10+26+J Clayton+ C Mckernan honestly don't think that is much to give up for a potential brownlow medalist????? and someone who with the right angry pills could make us a very very hard team to beat.

who knows what they'll take i just hope we get him. it wil make the off season slighly more bearable and at least we can stick it up those geelong tools!!!!

GO ROOS

 

[Harry is a gun]

Ottens/Pick 10 & McKernan
QUOTE]
This would be an ideal trade

 

[Event Horizon]

Ottens/Pick 10 & McKernan
QUOTE]
This would be an ideal trade

C'mon people!? Lets get a bit more realistic here if we are going to have a meaningful discussion. I guess you could have suggested pick 10 and Shane Clayton but why waste bandwidth...

Lets start by looking the other teams vying for Ottens - Geelong and Sydney.

Both have their first pick well above the 'magic' top 10 boundary. For them to satisfy Richmond they would have to obtain another pick from somewhere that is lower than their first pick or else we are in front of them.

For them to obtain that earlier pick they have to get it either from the bottom 3 (Bulldogs did say they may consider trading pick 6) or from Carlton, Collingwood, Adelaide or us.

Carlton has declared they are keeping their pick. We all know how hard Collingwood is to trade with. Adelaide is a dark horse here. They may offer their pick to Geelong in exchange for one of their midfielders but Geelong will be hard pressed to make the hard decision in this situation.

All that tells me that we are better placed than anybody as we already have a pick 10, and anything we choose to add may sound better to Richmond than anything Geelong or Sydney can offer. What worries me is should Collingwood decide to enter the race, we'd be in more trouble, but our salary cap room is another factor that works in our favour.

What we'd need to add to pick 10? Hard to say but Wallace wouldn't want to lose Ottens for nothing and I suspect will have to agree to what we have to offer as our pick 10 trumps Geelong and Sydney from the outset.

I feel it may have to be a player added to pick 10 and not a draft pick. Which player? Could be one of the youngsters unfortunately, although with Zantuck leaving Richmond they may accept someone like Baird, but not very likely.

They'd be pushing for Trotter but we'd tell them to go South.

 

[Wrath]

I certainly don't disagree with you there...if it were me, I'd prefer we go for Ottens if we're going to throw buckets of cash and give a huge contract it may as well be to someone who can become something huge at the very best and pretty good at the worst.

This really sux with Wrath not being able to tell us anything, as in who and who isn't expendable etc etc.

Join the membership with me next year and you'll get to know what went on during the dinner. l understand the cost of it, but by the same token, l am sure you appreciate the position l am in, if me and others who join up abuse the privaledge, then how long do you think that privaledge will be available for. All l can say it is money well spent for those that can afford it.

Now back to the Ottens trade, as l have said a few times, to get quality we have to give quality. l would much rather we gave away our first 2 rounds of picks for Ottens if Richmond took that, but l doubt it would get Ottens to us. Reality is, we either have to give them a high 2nd tier player with our pick 10, or trade that high 2nd tier player to another club for a first rounder and give that to the Tigers. Who that 2nd tier player is, hard to say, but if you go through our list, there are a number of contenders.

Wrath

 

[Woodson]

Re: Ottens - Why would we want this risk ?

I hope Ottens goes elsewhere. Overpriced and too fragile for my liking. Keep pick #10 and get a 10 year player that isn't going to strip the club blind like Ottens may. Remember ppl... Ottens = back injury = out most of 2003 = back + hamstrings = TROUBLE then we are surely screwed while the Toothless Tiges get to laugh at us. Can't see Ottens being our savior. Is way overated and plays without real 'in your face' presence. IMHO

 

[Shinboners]

Re: Ottens - Why would we want this risk ?

I hope Ottens goes elsewhere. Overpriced and too fragile for my liking. Keep pick #10 and get a 10 year player that isn't going to strip the club blind like Ottens may. Remember ppl... Ottens = back injury = out most of 2003 = back + hamstrings = TROUBLE then we are surely screwed while the Toothless Tiges get to laugh at us. Can't see Ottens being our savior. Is way overated and plays without real 'in your face' presence. IMHO

Anyone getting a sense of deja vu?

Remember this time last year and how much we wanted Jade Rawlings and his dodgy knees?

 

[desie]

I know Wallace has often praised Hale on the radio. It wouldn't but suprising if he asked for pick 10 + Hale.

I don't think there's anything surer than that this is what Wallace will be asking for if we can't deliver two first rounders considering the number of times I've heard him wrap Hale and that Richmond will find themselves needing a ruckman with only Stafford left. That being said I'd be disappointed if we even considered it.

I know it's extremely unpopular but I'm wondering if Brent Harvey and Collingwood might become a factor in all this if the scuttlebut is correct. They do have pick 7 after all. As a disclaimer this is only musing on my behalf. I've got a feeling if we get Ottens we'll perceive it as having cost too much in any case but that's the price you pay for 6 foot 7 blokes who have real ability, regardless of how much he's shown it recently.

 

[3rdEchelon]

We're still interested in Chad Morrison according to Sports Tonight

I wonder when we'll hear about Simmonds (if he wants the five year deal or not)

Go Roos

Interesting how that same report on Sports Tonight also referred to North as being 'cashed-up'.

 

[Roobunny]

Re: Ottens - Why would we want this risk ?

Anyone getting a sense of deja vu?

Remember this time last year and how much we wanted Jade Rawlings and his dodgy knees?

Yes...rather clearly...this is why I'm not excited about the idea of giving away so much for Ottens..