Analysis Picking up 'recycled' players and their impact.

[ike2112]

I think a reject is someone who isnt needed or wanted at their old club.

Someone who their old club was happy to have as depth but the player wants better opportunity, isnt a reject. They're not being recycled, essentially they're brokering a new start.

A real reject/recycle is a big gamble. You're basically saying that you think the assessment of people who have seen the player day-in, day-out for 3-4 years is incorrect, or that they'll be a better fit at your club, or that you can 'fix' them. They're a real roll of the dice, probably a low-percentage chance at being best 22 for any prolonged period of time, and extremely unlikely to be an AA or even top 3 B&F level. e.g. Robbie Nahas - they didn't want him any more, North aren't expecting him to be amazing, but they figured if they're going to make a top-4 run (Ha!) then they could do with a player like him on the list to play a handful of games through the year.

Then there are those who are struggling to get in a good side, or want to move location, or something similar. Their risk level differs; someone who barely played 3-5 games somewhere (esp. GWS/GC during the hard years) is a risk because you haven't seen much of them, and its during a flogging. Someone who was the 23rd or 24th player in a GF team is probably considered less of a risk, but then you would likely have to give up more to get them, so that ups the ante a bit. Plus its still no guarantee of getting a quality player - I think in these instances you need to look at the type of player and what contribution they have made in other games, especially if they have a few with star players missing.
Almost everyone we've recruited in the last two offseasons falls into this category. I don't think any of our pick-ups were shown the door other than Maister (where we knew we were gaining a body not a star), Lee (who was actually a very young reject who was then likely on the radar of many clubs for a fresh chance) and maybe Weller.

To go back to the original point though...
I believe AFL now is going through what the NFL did when they first got free agency. Before you know it, the players will get more power, and players will move more freely. In order to be able to retain draft selections but also get a good chance at the growing FA market, it will become more common for teams to cut players loose - contributing, but non-essential players. Further enhancing the FA market. Once they get to the point of having free agency for players in their peak years, and contracts that allow voiding with reduced penalty at certain points, it'll become a cycle that speeds up extremely quick.
And in my view it'll be for the worst, but unfortunately I feel its inevitable.

 

[cooperrules]

Grand effort, although I'm not sure the jury is out on the class of 2013, I think they're all wins TBH. They may not all end up world-beaters, but there's definitely worth there.

No idea personally, just always heard it was a SW decision... Would love to know actually. And no, no you cant

Wasnt he linked with sw at subiaco before he was drafted.

 

[ike2112]

I think it's a bit harsh the whole SW hearts TDL thing.

The club said they were after a small who could maybe develop into a stint in the middle, and by getting TDL it was a more experienced version of Saad and Milera. Presser at the time stated having those three gave us depth and options in the smalls and a hope to have them give us some burst in MF. Got the impression SW might have put in a good word, but far from demanding we get that specific player, the whole footy dept seemed keen on getting a player of that type and in that context, TDL was probably the best one available (without trading further decent picks).
He's not terrible, he's just a peripheral type of player. He has impact with his minimal touches. The hope likely was that in a lesser team, he'd get more ball, and maintain the high % of touches that resulted in score involvements. As it transpired, he never got any more of the ball - if anything he gets less, and isn't the type of player to find it himself. Hence he becomes almost a passenger, something a team in our situation doesn't have the luxury to carry.

 

[VDS66]

why the need to apportion blame when a trade goes wrong? Clubs recruit with the best of intentions. The rest is up to the player.

Don't care who made the call. In the end a player is recruited to do a job... some do and most don't.

 

[gringo2011]

I think a reject is someone who isnt needed or wanted at their old club.

Someone who their old club was happy to have as depth but the player wants better opportunity, isnt a reject. They're not being recycled, essentially they're brokering a new start.

A real reject/recycle is a big gamble. You're basically saying that you think the assessment of people who have seen the player day-in, day-out for 3-4 years is incorrect, or that they'll be a better fit at your club, or that you can 'fix' them. They're a real roll of the dice, probably a low-percentage chance at being best 22 for any prolonged period of time, and extremely unlikely to be an AA or even top 3 B&F level. e.g. Robbie Nahas - they didn't want him any more, North aren't expecting him to be amazing, but they figured if they're going to make a top-4 run (Ha!) then they could do with a player like him on the list to play a handful of games through the year.

Then there are those who are struggling to get in a good side, or want to move location, or something similar. Their risk level differs; someone who barely played 3-5 games somewhere (esp. GWS/GC during the hard years) is a risk because you haven't seen much of them, and its during a flogging. Someone who was the 23rd or 24th player in a GF team is probably considered less of a risk, but then you would likely have to give up more to get them, so that ups the ante a bit. Plus its still no guarantee of getting a quality player - I think in these instances you need to look at the type of player and what contribution they have made in other games, especially if they have a few with star players missing.
Almost everyone we've recruited in the last two offseasons falls into this category. I don't think any of our pick-ups were shown the door other than Maister (where we knew we were gaining a body not a star), Lee (who was actually a very young reject who was then likely on the radar of many clubs for a fresh chance) and maybe Weller.

To go back to the original point though...
I believe AFL now is going through what the NFL did when they first got free agency. Before you know it, the players will get more power, and players will move more freely. In order to be able to retain draft selections but also get a good chance at the growing FA market, it will become more common for teams to cut players loose - contributing, but non-essential players. Further enhancing the FA market. Once they get to the point of having free agency for players in their peak years, and contracts that allow voiding with reduced penalty at certain points, it'll become a cycle that speeds up extremely quick.
And in my view it'll be for the worst, but unfortunately I feel its inevitable.

I agree, the whole FA thing was always contentious but there was a threat that the AFPA could challenge the lack of free agency as a restraint of trade. We were sold the idea that guys not getting a run at good clubs would move freely to another club further down the ladder. The predominant moves have been guys like Buddy and Goddard moving for more dollars. Those guys certainly weren't moving to the bottom clubs to help bolster their stocks and teams like Essendon can offer jobs outside footy to help lure stars and Sydney have manipulated their COLA allowance and they are also only paying a portion of Buddy's wage in the salary cap- something the AFL confirmed isn't a first as Lockett was paid outside the cap as a NSW football ambassador. Not the utopian model we were sold.

 

[kernelT]

Going nowhere:…

Going...
- Tom Lee

How can he be considered 'going'?

Just signed a 2 year extension.

 

[Barrels]

How can he be considered 'going'?

Just signed a 2 year extension.

Meaning he'd want to get fit and have the chance to show something (and actually show something) or he might be on the block; trade, pay out and delist, there are options

 

[Moral Decay]

Recycled Players, who were re-drafted by us not included (Gehrig, Mini, Howard, Allen, L. Fisher, Eddy, Blake), neither are mature age recruits.

2007
Adam Schneider
Sean Dempster
Steven King
Charlie Gardiner

I'd say 3/4 for 2007. King was a valuable member of the side in both 2008 & 2009, while the Dempster/Schneider trade has paid itself off with plenty to spare.

2008
Farren Ray
Colm Begley
Zac Dawson

2/3 for 2008. Ray is still a valuable member of our best 25, and was pretty essential in 09/10. Dawson filled a hole, even though we disliked him, you can't say he failed, especially since he's still in a Premiership contenders best 25.

2009
Andrew Lovett
Brett Peake
Jesse Smith
Adam Pattinson

1/4, Ugly, Ugly year. Lovett was just a numpty, Smith was ridiculous, and Pattinson was pretty lucky to play the half a dozen or so he did. Peake played, and played reasonably well for us. Can't really complain about him.

2010
Ryan Gamble
Dean Polo

0/2. Polo was a Ross Lyon Arousal Curve pick if there ever was one, and Gamble was a half hearted attempt to fix our Forward line with a medium player. Missed out on Luke Dalhaus too because of it, I'm pretty sure, as it was 50/50 between him and Siposs.

2011
Beau Wilkes

Was he a success or not? As a key defender, nope, complete fail. However, when fit, he was part of our Best 22. Have to give a tick to this one. 1/1

2012
Dylan Roberton
Tom Hickey
Trent Dennis-Lane
Tom Lee

Hickey is a success. TDL, not so much. Jury is out on the other two. Will Lee ever fulfill his potential? Will Roberton ever get over his Ankle injury? 1/2, 2 unknown.

2013
Luke Delaney
Shane Savage
Josh Bruce
Maverick Weller
Billy Longer

Delaney is a big win. The Jury is probably out on the other 4. If we get 50 games out of Weller, its a win, for the rest, there's no firm indicator, but all look likely at this stage.

Final Tally?

7/16, with a further 6 I've yet to make a final call on. 09 & 10 are the very ugly ones with 1/6, very reactionary recruiting.

While the success or otherwise of any pick is done with perfect hindsight the factors that I've been interested in are perceived need, and due diligence.

Gamble fit a need and it didn't work out, a respectable choice.
I'm not sure what Polo was meant to be, did he know why he was here?
Beau, like Gamble made sense, it just didn't work as well as we hoped, how much we could have foreseen injury issues I don't know.
Roberton's injury issues are from after he came here, as such he is a success but he is a half back flanker and we just didn't need another one when we got him, fail.
Hickey is a perceived need and his only question mark is injury, which he sustained while here.
TDL, a small forward while we had Saad, Milera, Milne, and Schneider, unbelievably pointless.
Tom Lee, came here injured and unfit but filled a need, at this stage he hasn't played enough to tell, but did we do enough to make sure he was ok? Fail.
Delaney, Bruce, Weller and Longer all fill perceived and real holes at this point all a big tick.
Savage is interesting, if the only position he can play is HBF, then it's a fail, because he leaves the list even more unbalanced. He has been fantastic recently but what we really needed him to be was a HFW/wingman/outside mid.

For all that I think Savage and Roberton are in our best 22, but now we have to churn through some players like Simpkin, Dempster, Gilbert, Geary, Newnes, Ray, Webster, Shenton, Curren and Gwilty. It slows down our rebuild and those were spots that could have been taken by prospective mids.

 

[The Punter]

First of all, recycled is the most subjective term in footy.

Gamble hurt us because he played 11 games, 9 of which he was in and Tom Lynch was not. If Lynch plays 14 games in 2011 instead of 5, does he want to leave? We're still yet to find a consistently productive medium forward.

With the exception of Delaney, I think all last year's players recruited from other clubs were 23 and under, so adhere to the 100 games rule. And Delaney filled a position in need, and is probably top 5 B&F at this stage. How he didn't get a game for North baffles me. Would play him at full back ahead of the poor man's Brian Lake (and I'm no Lake fan - he's only successful when the ball is coming in one way).

Roberton and Maister we got for essentially nothing, and Roberton is back in the side and playing well. He's played five games this year and we're 3-2 in those games. In contrast Jimmy Webster has played 11 games this year, for a record of 2-9.

 

[kernelT]

Gamble hurt us because he played 11 games, 9 of which he was in and Tom Lynch was not. If Lynch plays 14 games in 2011 instead of 5, does he want to leave? We're still yet to find a consistently productive medium forward.

Good post,
This is the biggest problem with having too many GOP's on the list, and not just recycled ones. The temptation to play them ahead of a young guy can be just too great…

This is the problem with the "best 22" mode of team selection… Raph Clark & Brett Peake would comfortably be in our best 22 at times this year, but it's a good thing we have moved on.

Playing CJ as a defensive forward ahead of Saunders this year is something that has disappointed me.

Maister filled a hole for a short time, but we'd be mad to continue on with him at the expense of getting experience into Lee & White… who may or may not make it still.

 

[ike2112]

We were sold the idea that guys not getting a run at good clubs would move freely to another club further down the ladder. The predominant moves have been guys like Buddy and Goddard moving for more dollars. Those guys certainly weren't moving to the bottom clubs to help bolster their stocks...

Not gonna happen. AFl chiefs keeping looking at the US, and NFL in particular.
There, as free agency took off, the moves were big-ticket folks leaving the god forsaken clubs they were drafted to, and moving to mid-table teams willing to pay packets to get the player they think will take them over the edge. To give a hypothetical example, Nathan Jones leaving Melbourne last year to join North for a huge pay. And the others are senior vets going to the big clubs to get a trophy shot. The New England Patriots build a lot of their 00s dynasty around bringing in players in Brian Lake-type moves, giving up zero in return. They were able to almost abandon the thought of having real balance on the roster and having stars in their prime (bar Brady) as they would let the occasional big-money player leave, instead developing their draftees alongside top veteran players who they could pay less money to in exchange for a chance at the championship.
The only teams who didn't win from free agency, were the lowest ones, as they faced the biggest temptation to take FA risks instead of building gradually.
It is broader now, where the rules have become so loose almost every player becomes a free agent twice in their career, let alone once. So now, if anything, the lower teams get as much a shot at recruiting talent as everyone else. But for me that ultimate achievement has ruined the game, teams have no identity any more, and its caused instability in the front office too. Teams pay out masses of cash on free agents, then if they don't suddenly get great they fire the coach, then if that doesn't work they cut more people, buy in more free agents, and the cycle starts again. But there they have far more cash than the AFL clubs, even the smallest NFL club would dwaft Collingwood or West Coast.

The AFL is a much greater league for having the restrictions it currently has in place. 1-team players, loyalty, coaching stability, stability in the league itself, its all a think of the past in the NFL. They couldn't implement a father-son rule now, as the average player who lasts more than 3 years, has 3 clubs. A guy a friend of mine played with, went to training camp with 8 different clubs in a 6yr career. The average person will hate the AFL adopting the NFL system. But players, agents, league folks and some clubs will love it as they'll make a packet of cash from it, and a handful of clubs will be able to constantly top-up with less risk than they have now.

 

[Persevering Saint]

TDL played for Watters back in WA, and was part of a string of WA people that Scotty recruited at the beginning of his tenure. No shame in that, you hire those you have contacts with and who you think are alright.

TDL could have been a steal - 23rd player for a Premiership team (just like Savage). Sometimes, these things just don't work out. That's life.

 

[hayes]

To me TDL is the perfect example for a bad choice of recycled player. For a few years he'd shown he couldn't consistently find the ball and lived off a 6 or so disposal with a couple of Joe the goose goals game in a final (before you all call me captain hindsight I said that at the time ). No more going after guys who have been around for 3-4 years without showing any improvement or aren't playing consistent games. It's different if they're key position or if a team wants the player to stay but can't guarantee opportunity, but from now on I think we should just draft and develop our own. We don't need any low risk/low reward players for a few years.

 

[ike2112]

As I said within an earlier post, I think if the footy dept at that point in time (not the start of Watters' tenure remember) decided they wanted a small forward type who might hopefully develop into playing some on the wing, TDL was probably the best available at that point save for trading away another high pick (which we'd already done for Hickey and Lee). Even with the flaws in his game, he was the most likely at that point.
You never know how people will be when given a wider responsbility but playing in what is effectively a lesser team - he might have become more of a focal point and started getting more ball. He was always pretty effective when he did get hands on it. However now we still see him kicking 2-3 goals off 5-6 touches playing a full game in the VFL, and probably accept he's just not going to affect games at AFL level.