News Chris Pelchen quits!

[CALL ME SNAKE]

I had an absolute s**t attack when we got rid of Watters as I thought it was Finey running a hate campaign to out him and put in Richo. I spoke to a woman I know who's brother is a big financial backer and coterie group member. He has sat with the big guys from the club and our famous members during games so has some knowledge of what goes on in the club. He told her some stories which I was told not to repeat to anyone as he was sworn to secrecy. Suffice to say it was untenable and he was acting erratic. From personal experience he was at his kids under 9s match on game day when the game was around an hour away. He was so casual I wanted to get him to the game my self. I think he did some good stuff in development and changing coaches for no reason is idiocy but sometimes there is no going back. Nick Riewoldt was gone to Collingwood- Eddy has publicly said Rooey approached them. Sacking Watters was probably less disastrous than our captain walking. Dogs unfortunately got both.

Yeah when we sacked Watters i thought " Oh bloody hell here we go again" . But besides from a couple of bashing from the media ( mainly from Watters mate Dermie) i was actually surprised how many media people said Watters had to go co's he was pretty much impossible to work with.
There were more negative stories about Watters than about us sacking him for no valid reason.
So i was still dissapointed that we had the embarrassment of another premature coach sacking, and the eventual setback of having to get used to another coaches style for a yr .
But i think the club made the correct call with Watters. A tuff call, but a correct one IMO.
Not sure about the Doggies and McCartney. But to be honest i dont care what they do

 

[SaintsSeptember]

He was on SEN as collingwood president (not media man apparently) about 6 months ago saying that he didn't approach Nick and that he came to them enquiring about going there. I'm not sure who to believe although for my sanity I prefer that Eddie was calling Nick.

Pretty sure that, if Nick was shopping himself around, he'd go through his agent.
Only a prize flog would try to organize a trade during a dinner to discuss a media job.

 

[cuzo]

He was on SEN as collingwood president (not media man apparently) about 6 months ago saying that he didn't approach Nick and that he came to them enquiring about going there. I'm not sure who to believe although for my sanity I prefer that Eddie was calling Nick.

Riewoldt's come out and said that eddie brought him round for dinner to talk about a job post-football at collingwood. Eddie the sly dog then tried to lure rooey across to collingwood, which rooey thought about but then declined.

 

[VDS66]

Our club went through a phase where the senior players took exception to Scott Watters, whether that was justified or not is a moot question. When a coach loses the playing group there is no recourse.

By sacking Watters we did go backwards as a club, but not as much as we could have. Richardson seems to be the right man for the job - and that job is development, but that's not all. He brings with him a legitimacy of his development proficiency as demonstrated by Port Adelaide's rise to contention after being a basket case. We needed someone who was credentialed enough to withstand a couple of years of (seemingly) little progress.

We fans a a fickle lot. We may intellectually comprehend the enormity of the task of grabbing a bunch of kids together and convincing them that they can play as well as Sydney or Hawthorn or Geelong, but we lose patience rather quickly and demand palpable improvement before it is feasible.

That's why Paul Roos was such a good choice for Melbourne. He brings with him enough cred that when he says it will take "this long" to do something, people will accept this as fact. Richo brings a similar cred. At least he will be given some time to pull off the miracle.

Pretty much this.

Richo doesn't have Dal, BJ, Kosi or Milne either.

 

[VDS66]

If you're going to correct me, do it right!

We actually gave up 13, 36 and 55 for Hickey, White (pick 25) and TDL (pick 46).

Gave up 12 and Cripps (forced) for Lee, Wright (pick 24), Murdoch and Saunders.
(we actually got pick 24 and 45 at first but packaged 45 with Cripps for the other two picks in the 40s).

It's impossible to say who the picks might have been.
I know we were really high on Hrovat that year, perhaps half the reason we looked at trading down was thinking he wasn't good value at 12/13. But I think had we not traded for Lee or Hickey, having gaps all over the place we might have gone for Hrovat, Aiden Corr, possibly Grundy if we felt we needed a ruck.

Stefan Martin was on the market, as was Jack Hombsch and at that time a 2nd ruck like Martin and a young defender like Hombsch would have been likely recruitment targets.

In any case my main point was that Pelchen changed plan. He obviously didn't think major rebuild with 18 top draft picks to begin with.
And that Pelchen I think actually erred in his original plan. His new blueprint to success requires going to the draft with high picks. Yet in his early Saints years he did the opposite and traded picks to get in bodies ready to play. I think either Vds is right and they misread the list and thought it could be patched up, or they thought the main concern was the failed drafts 2006-10 so figured some 21yr olds would cover that gap.
It was only in I think Pelchen 's third year they published the 'blueprint ' focusing on the draft.

I reckon the previous admin didn't have the balls to make the hard calls to be honest.

The 2011 crew preferred by Lyon went one year too far. After a slow start, as we started winning games, Lyon reverted to his 2010 troops in the hope of another shot, which I suspect he knew would be his last. His end of an era comment came one year too at IMO.

Had he stayed, in 2012 and made the call, it would have been accepted because of his success. However, he left and Watters came in. Apart from Lyon's compulsory retirements, we pretty much had the same core, al be it a year older. That's why i reckon they tried to add mature players... rather than blood youth.

There was no way Watters had the cred at end of 2012 to say righteo we are trading out stars for picks... not would bringing in kids had made a difference. The gamble appears to have back fired. And we had no fall back because the previous recruits were pretty much all duds.

I don't think there are right and wrong answers on here.. it was a perfect storm just waiting to happen.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Pretty much this.

Richo doesn't have Dal, BJ, Kosi or Milne either.

LOL , if Milne was still playing he'd probably still be either the highest or second highest goal kicker in the team. Look at us stuffing round with Milera and TDL.

 

[bergholt]

LOL , if Milne was still playing he'd probably still be either the highest or second highest goal kicker in the team. Look at us stuffing round with Milera and TDL.

Between them they've played 6 games since Milne retired. How does that count as "stuffing around"?

 

[sammm]

I had an absolute s**t attack when we got rid of Watters as I thought it was Finey running a hate campaign to out him and put in Richo. I spoke to a woman I know who's brother is a big financial backer and coterie group member. He has sat with the big guys from the club and our famous members during games so has some knowledge of what goes on in the club. He told her some stories which I was told not to repeat to anyone as he was sworn to secrecy. Suffice to say it was untenable and he was acting erratic. From personal experience he was at his kids under 9s match on game day when the game was around an hour away. He was so casual I wanted to get him to the game my self. I think he did some good stuff in development and changing coaches for no reason is idiocy but sometimes there is no going back. Nick Riewoldt was gone to Collingwood- Eddy has publicly said Rooey approached them. Sacking Watters was probably less disastrous than our captain walking. Dogs unfortunately got both.

The number of rumors about Watters and his coaching and what he did was just mind boggling.

Things like:
Appointing an assistant coach without going through the board.
Deciding to play a player at the last minute without talking to other assistant coaches.
That most assistant coaches and other staff were going to leave the saints.

And other stuff. It was not just the senior players that there was angst.

 

[Kildonan]

...Nick Riewoldt was gone to Collingwood- Eddy has publicly said Rooey approached them. Sacking Watters was probably less disastrous than our captain walking. Dogs unfortunately got both.

Eddy approached Nick, not the other way round. Riewoldt declined the offer. Later Eddy was chastised for his actions by the SKFC.

 

[ike2112]

Disagree. Had little to do wit the mature age players that both GT ad Lyon recruited and everything to do with the fact that for many years under both GT and Lyon that our recruiters were inept in the kids that they drafted. It is these many poor picks that is the real problem.

True. But it doesn't explain why in Pelchen's first year he didn't start the blueprint he was working off in the end. Instead of trading 12 and 13 for mature bodied youngsters, Dennis-Lane and trying to sign Mitch Brown, he would have been trying to turn 12 and 13 into getting extra picks still in the first 20 and maybe aiming at one of the GC comp or GWS extra picks for future drafts (the only flexibility available in drafts).

An obvious counter-argument is that they considered the list to be in such a need of an injection of youth, they wanted bodies in, even if they were more likely to be B or C-graders, in the expectation the A-graders would come later.
If that was their assessment, I don't really agree with it. We could even have packaged the two in order to move up rather than move down. We've had no extra chances since that year to get any extra picks in the top 13 until this year's offer involving pick 1.

I think there was a different plan by the existing staff and Pelchen to begin with, that they then abandoned around August-September 2013 after re-assessing it.
I often think that, combined with a lot of what else has been said about Watters, his removal was probably most triggered by him not being considered the right type to be the figurehead for that new direction. If he had most of the qualities the STK decision-makers wanted for their 2013-onwards plan, they'd have continued to live with his 'nuances' in the same way people have worked with nutters like Choco over the years. But mid to late 2013 was when they changed plan, and he didn't fit it.

On a side-note, contrary to some I don't think firing Watters lost us much ground in terms of development, because there wasn't much on the list to be developed.
The real issue is that development did not start early enough, by getting players with the talent of Acres and Dunstan in earlier, and my point in the last few posts is that not only was that the fault of the previous regime, but also Pelchen made the same mistake initially also, thinking the list was in better shape than it really was.

 

[Nutsngum]

Damn man, do you rate ANY of Hickey/Lee/Wright/Saunders/White/Murdoch?

 

[Fred]

Damn man, do you rate ANY of Hickey/Lee/Wright/Saunders/White/Murdoch?

At best, some of them might be GOP's. I certainly don't see any future HOF's amongst them.

 

[Kildonan]

True. But it doesn't explain why in Pelchen's first year he didn't start the blueprint he was working off in the end. Instead of trading 12 and 13 for mature bodied youngsters, Dennis-Lane and trying to sign Mitch Brown, he would have been trying to turn 12 and 13 into getting extra picks still in the first 20 and maybe aiming at one of the GC comp or GWS extra picks for future drafts (the only flexibility available in drafts).

An obvious counter-argument is that they considered the list to be in such a need of an injection of youth, they wanted bodies in, even if they were more likely to be B or C-graders, in the expectation the A-graders would come later.
If that was their assessment, I don't really agree with it. We could even have packaged the two in order to move up rather than move down. We've had no extra chances since that year to get any extra picks in the top 13 until this year's offer involving pick 1.

I think there was a different plan by the existing staff and Pelchen to begin with, that they then abandoned around August-September 2013 after re-assessing it.
I often think that, combined with a lot of what else has been said about Watters, his removal was probably most triggered by him not being considered the right type to be the figurehead for that new direction. If he had most of the qualities the STK decision-makers wanted for their 2013-onwards plan, they'd have continued to live with his 'nuances' in the same way people have worked with nutters like Choco over the years. But mid to late 2013 was when they changed plan, and he didn't fit it.

On a side-note, contrary to some I don't think firing Watters lost us much ground in terms of development, because there wasn't much on the list to be developed.
The real issue is that development did not start early enough, by getting players with the talent of Acres and Dunstan in earlier, and my point in the last few posts is that not only was that the fault of the previous regime, but also Pelchen made the same mistake initially also, thinking the list was in better shape than it really was.

I think the club powers that be gave the players one more crack at winning the big one, so the Pelchen rebuild strategy was delayed while they proved that they weren't up to it. I think Pelchen is a one trick pony. The club conceded to his demands to have total control (head of football) in order to have his intellectual prowess guiding our rebuild. He put together a grand plan and began implementing it. The recruiting side of things was going well, but i think it became apparent that many of the other duties that a head of football department were expected to perform were simply not areas of expertise in CP. He found himself wanting in some areas, and had to decide whether his guidance along the recruiting path (his grand plan) was important enough that we could tolerate having deficiencies in other areas in the mean time. Eventually the club said "no" and it appears that he agreed.

 

[Kildonan]

Damn man, do you rate ANY of Hickey/Lee/Wright/Saunders/White/Murdoch?

While Hickey is rather lightly framed, hence may get muscled out a bit, he is a talented ruckman and may well be a B+ for us, Murdoch could be anything from a superstar mid to a delisted, he has X factor, Wright will be a solid C+ / B player for us, I still hold a lot of optimism for the development of Lee, although Membrey looks like taking his spot so he better pull his finger out and prove it to us quick smart, Saunders has that burst speed that is invaluable in clearance situations - so all of these players excite me.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

I think the club powers that be gave the players one more crack at winning the big one, so the Pelchen rebuild strategy was delayed while they proved that they weren't up to it. I think Pelchen is a one trick pony. The club conceded to his demands to have total control (head of football) in order to have his intellectual prowess guiding our rebuild. He put together a grand plan and began implementing it. The recruiting side of things was going well, but i think it became apparent that many of the other duties that a head of football department were expected to perform were simply not areas of expertise in CP. He found himself wanting in some areas, and had to decide whether his guidance along the recruiting path (his grand plan) was important enough that we could tolerate having deficiencies in other areas in the mean time. Eventually the club said "no" and it appears that he agreed.

Well said

 

[ike2112]

Damn man, do you rate ANY of Hickey/Lee/Wright/Saunders/White/Murdoch?

That's not really the point, but since you asked:
Hickey - Yes but worried about his durability
Lee - Not really
Wright - Yes but as nothing more than useful, he's not exactly gonna be a polished gamebreaker
Saunders - Yes, probably more than I should! I think he is a good player who got stuck with the wrong club, don't think we have put him in position to succeed very often so far and he might continue to find limited opportunity and end up elsewhere in 2016.
White - no but I am hopeful
Murdoch - no but would be happy to be proven wrong

Not everyone is gonna achieve what we hope, so I don't see the point in getting high on everyone.

 

[mighty sainters]

True. But it doesn't explain why in Pelchen's first year he didn't start the blueprint he was working off in the end. Instead of trading 12 and 13 for mature bodied youngsters, Dennis-Lane and trying to sign Mitch Brown, he would have been trying to turn 12 and 13 into getting extra picks still in the first 20 and maybe aiming at one of the GC comp or GWS extra picks for future drafts (the only flexibility available in drafts).

An obvious counter-argument is that they considered the list to be in such a need of an injection of youth, they wanted bodies in, even if they were more likely to be B or C-graders, in the expectation the A-graders would come later.
If that was their assessment, I don't really agree with it. We could even have packaged the two in order to move up rather than move down. We've had no extra chances since that year to get any extra picks in the top 13 until this year's offer involving pick 1.

I think there was a different plan by the existing staff and Pelchen to begin with, that they then abandoned around August-September 2013 after re-assessing it.
I often think that, combined with a lot of what else has been said about Watters, his removal was probably most triggered by him not being considered the right type to be the figurehead for that new direction. If he had most of the qualities the STK decision-makers wanted for their 2013-onwards plan, they'd have continued to live with his 'nuances' in the same way people have worked with nutters like Choco over the years. But mid to late 2013 was when they changed plan, and he didn't fit it.

On a side-note, contrary to some I don't think firing Watters lost us much ground in terms of development, because there wasn't much on the list to be developed.
The real issue is that development did not start early enough, by getting players with the talent of Acres and Dunstan in earlier, and my point in the last few posts is that not only was that the fault of the previous regime, but also Pelchen made the same mistake initially also, thinking the list was in better shape than it really was.

I think I remember Pelchen saying at the time that because of the GC and GWS concessions etc, they considered the draft to be diluted enough that the trade down was better value for them. There's also the fact that we wanted Ross anyway, so we got Milera and Saad pretty much for free, Lee was very highly rated the year we picked him up and we managed to get change back for him, and Hickey ended up being a solid pick up, as it allowed us to move Mac on the next year, and filled a hole on our list anyway as we had no one else who could take the number 1 ruck duties (Stanley was at the point where he kept on getting injured at that time as well).
I also think that, at the time, we wanted to get quantity over quality, as the role players and later picks tend to develop slower, so they could have a few more years of development before getting in the extremely highly rated young talent, so the whole list would be firing at the same time, and we can make a serious push for the flag

 

[Periphery]

The real issue is that development did not start early enough, by getting players with the talent of Acres and Dunstan in earlier, and my point in the last few posts is that not only was that the fault of the previous regime, but also Pelchen made the same mistake initially also, thinking the list was in better shape than it really was.

Pelchen couldn't come in and instantly declare a full rebuild was on while doing whatever he wanted. Even if he thought that it was required (and I believe he did) then he'd still have to convince the board and coach and that would take time.

Even then the trading of picks 12 and 13 doesn't scream top up to me, we used them to get two young unproven players and a bunch of kids. That is hardly the actions of a club looking to top up their list for another shot at a flag. If we wanted to have another shot then the picks would have been better used on more proven players that could come in and make an instant impact.

The Brown trade was one of desperation and would have been a huge mistake while the TDL trade was a Watters special and was clearly a bad move, but in the end we ended up with the player taken at that pick anyway.

I don't think the list would be in a better position if we had kept picks 12 and 13 at the expense of what are essentially 6 picks between pick 20 and 43. I believe that your bottom 6 players are as important as your top 6 and at the worst Lee, Hickey, White, Saunder, Murdoch and Wright create some decent depth in the team and given us more chances of getting players of real quality than we would have got with picks 12 and 13. Even if only a third of those 6 players go on to be best 22 then we still break even with picks 12 and 13 (assuming they both turn into good players which isn't a 100% chance). Trading picks 12 and 13 to move up the draft would have just reduced our lists depth even further.

I think Pelchen recognised where the list was at in 2012 but had to compromise until the other major players at the club came to the same conclusion. Even then he still managed to set up the rebuild and get it started.

 

[sammm]

I think the club powers that be gave the players one more crack at winning the big one, so the Pelchen rebuild strategy was delayed while they proved that they weren't up to it. I think Pelchen is a one trick pony. The club conceded to his demands to have total control (head of football) in order to have his intellectual prowess guiding our rebuild. He put together a grand plan and began implementing it. The recruiting side of things was going well, but i think it became apparent that many of the other duties that a head of football department were expected to perform were simply not areas of expertise in CP. He found himself wanting in some areas, and had to decide whether his guidance along the recruiting path (his grand plan) was important enough that we could tolerate having deficiencies in other areas in the mean time. Eventually the club said "no" and it appears that he agreed.

thats what i think as well.

We got rid of Hutchinson who was the football manager as it was decided that Pelchen could do both jobs, obviously in the end it was found that he couldn't.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Getting back to the OP.

I found this trawling through some emails from last year re: the Platinum Members night from August 2013.

Here was my report re: Pelchen- it makes for some interesting reading in hindsight.

++++++++++++++++++

The night started with Shane Wakelin (filling in for Nettles who was in NZ signing off on an extension of the Wellington deal) who amongst other things confirmed;

*NZ deal to stay at 1 game per year for the next 3 years. Possibility to extend to 1 pre season & another H&A game.
*Saints keen to sign alignment with Sandy for another 2 years.

*Saints stand alone team playing out of Moorabbin from 2016.
*Moorabbin #1 Community Development Priority for the AFL

Wakes introduced Chris who ran through a brief career history & background of how he came to be at St Kilda. His heartfelt insight into his relationship with Yabby showed to all present that this man is not only the right man for the job of building a St Kilda Premiership side but also that it is a very personal quest for him. Yabby asked Chris to "look after my Saints" during their last time together before the great man passed...

A summary of where our list sits against other clubs (a bit depressing) followed by an analysis of drafting/retention rates (morbid depression) set the picture of where we are & where we need to go.

Chris compared our current situation to where Hawthorn was in 2004 (& he intimately knows both situations).

The list analysis explained how clubs rate players both at their club & at all other clubs using Champion Data & some internal analysis. Chris spoke of the top 12 players at a club being the key to finals success & ran through how premiership teams from 1999-2012 rated (Bris of 2002 & Geel of 2009 were rated the best sides of that timeframe & had 15 Category 1 (elite across the whole competition) or Category 2 (very high consistent performers) player in their sides. He did say that St Kilda was exceptionally unlucky to cop the equal best side of the last 15 years when we had our highest rated side (12 Cat.1 or 2 players).

There was a strategic list plan, including trade targets (with names XXXX'ed out unfortunately) but a goal of having 4 top 20 picks during the next 3 drafts (so a need to trade in another 1st round pick at some stage- possibly this year). A few trade/draft points summarised;

*CP categorically stated that pick 3 would not be traded.

*GWS playing funny buggers with pick 1- attempting to destablise clubs.

* Talking with 5 key defenders (1 of who contracted- which I assume is Frawley) Age ranging from 19-27.

*Supporters should prepare for unpopular decisions at trade time.

*Dal's contract trigger point- games played- has been reached. Will remain on FA list until his new contract has been submitted to the AFL (which will be after the FA period).

*2014=tough... 2015=sneak up on a few sides, positive signs...2016=clear positive momentum...2017= finals....2018-22= challenging for flag

*Said that should Saad's B sample be positive he will be unable to attend the club in any way shape or form other than to provide anti drug education sessions or receive drug counselling. He can't be employed as a groundsman, in marketing or anything. They are very concerned about Saady's welfare & how the club can support him. They are awaiting direction from the AFL as to whether he can remain on the list.

There was heaps more (Chris spoke for 2 hours) so I'll add some more as it comes back to me.

I left feeling more positive & excited about our future than at any time I can remember. As members we need to hang tough & see this period out..... & get as many supporters to financially support the club as possible.

I said to a mate at the time that I reckon Pelchen could be our best recruit ever... after last night I am absolutely convinced of that. Good times are ahead...

 

[Nutsngum]

That's not really the point, but since you asked:
Hickey - Yes but worried about his durability
Lee - Not really
Wright - Yes but as nothing more than useful, he's not exactly gonna be a polished gamebreaker
Saunders - Yes, probably more than I should! I think he is a good player who got stuck with the wrong club, don't think we have put him in position to succeed very often so far and he might continue to find limited opportunity and end up elsewhere in 2016.
White - no but I am hopeful
Murdoch - no but would be happy to be proven wrong

Not everyone is gonna achieve what we hope, so I don't see the point in getting high on everyone.

Sorry, I meant in a round about way that the 2012 draft may have been rated in a different way by the recruiters and that those many mid range picks would serve us a lot better then 2 picks between 10 and 20. Periphery basically continued that line of thought anyway for me.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That's not really the point, but since you asked:
Hickey - Yes but worried about his durability
Lee - Not really
Wright - Yes but as nothing more than useful, he's not exactly gonna be a polished gamebreaker
Saunders - Yes, probably more than I should! I think he is a good player who got stuck with the wrong club, don't think we have put him in position to succeed very often so far and he might continue to find limited opportunity and end up elsewhere in 2016.
White - no but I am hopeful
Murdoch - no but would be happy to be proven wrong

Not everyone is gonna achieve what we hope, so I don't see the point in getting high on everyone.

Saunders has played enough games where he wins a lot of contested ball, to give me a lot of hope for him.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

There was a strategic list plan, including trade targets (with names XXXX'ed out unfortunately) but a goal of having 4 top 20 picks during the next 3 drafts (so a need to trade in another 1st round pick at some stage- possibly this year). A few trade/draft points summarised;

*CP categorically stated that pick 3 would not be traded.

*GWS playing funny buggers with pick 1- attempting to destablise clubs.

* Talking with 5 key defenders (1 of who contracted- which I assume is Frawley) Age ranging from 19-27.

*Supporters should prepare for unpopular decisions at trade time.

*Dal's contract trigger point- games played- has been reached. Will remain on FA list until his new contract has been submitted to the AFL (which will be after the FA period).

*2014=tough... 2015=sneak up on a few sides, positive signs...2016=clear positive momentum...2017= finals....2018-22= challenging for flag

*Said that should Saad's B sample be positive he will be unable to attend the club in any way shape or form other than to provide anti drug education sessions or receive drug counselling. He can't be employed as a groundsman, in marketing or anything. They are very concerned about Saady's welfare & how the club can support him. They are awaiting direction from the AFL as to whether he can remain on the list.

There was heaps more (Chris spoke for 2 hours) so I'll add some more as it comes back to me.

I left feeling more positive & excited about our future than at any time I can remember. As members we need to hang tough & see this period out..... & get as many supporters to financially support the club as possible.

I said to a mate at the time that I reckon Pelchen could be our best recruit ever... after last night I am absolutely convinced of that. Good times are ahead...

4 Top 20 picks: Well this amount of top picks has been discussed. We certainly seem to have achieved the goal thus far with Pick 18, and a further pick upgrade last year. And a 2nd first round pick this year.

Pick 3 was not traded. Good decision.

Maybe GWS should have played funny buggers...or just let Boyd slip to the first non-GWS side!

Talking to 5. We got 2 (Bruce and Delaney). Wonder who the other three were?

Unpopular decisions - been a few of those!

2014 was pretty tough. TBH I can't see us 'sneaking up on a few sides' next year. Would have gone with 'tough' again.

Saad plot is almost over. Could be on our list by the end of next month.

Overall. Stuck to their word for the most part there.

 

[ike2112]

I think I remember Pelchen saying at the time that because of the GC and GWS concessions etc, they considered the draft to be diluted enough that the trade down was better value for them. There's also the fact that we wanted Ross anyway, so we got Milera and Saad pretty much for free,

That was the previous year; 2011. GWS had 11 of the top 15 picks. We turned pick 20 into Milera, Saad and Ross.
Thought that offseason was fair enough to be honest. Saad, Milera, Ross, Markworth, Newnes, Webster, Lever and Maister/Wilkes. Then Dunell, Shenton, Staley and Minchington in the rookie. The only thing I felt we erred on here is that the list gap of talls was starting to become apparent as Kosi found it harder to stay fit. The only talls in that batch were Lever, replacing Gardiner in our ruck stocks as Stanley moved up the order, and Wilkes who was always a stop-gap foil for Roo, who should have been filling a gap whilst we developed a youngster. Yet we didn't get that youngster onto the list in 2011. It was 2012 that we signed both Lee and White. We'd just lost Lynch and Walsh, losing the development time we'd put into them also.
I remember looking at the time and felt we should have been looking at Josh Jenkins, and whilst I'd say he also seems servicable rather than a star, he was ready to play earlier. He was however one out of 3 I felt we should be looking at, and the other two have been that good Ive forgotten who they were!
Still I was content enough with the recruiting that year, just felt strategically we ought to have drafted a KPF that year to play VFL and learn from Roo, whilst Wilkes filled in for Kosi when required.

2012 was when we gave up the chance to pick high and potentially get an A-grader (or two) in order to get more live bodies in. And go pretty hard after Mitch Brown too remember; that certainly wasn't a grassroot rebuild type of move.
In 2012 there was still a mini-draft but the draft wasn't really diluted. All it effectively means is pick 12 actually = pick 14 in a normal year.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

2012 was when we gave up the chance to pick high and potentially get an A-grader (or two) in order to get more live bodies in. And go pretty hard after Mitch Brown too remember; that certainly wasn't a grassroot rebuild type of move.
In 2012 there was still a mini-draft but the draft wasn't really diluted. All it effectively means is pick 12 actually = pick 14 in a normal year.

Even looking at the trade as if we only swapped Pick 12+13 for 24+25 (+others obviously but not important here). The players that went from 12-23 include: Jaksch, Lonergan, Corr, Garner, Thurlow, Simpson, Grundy, Kennedy, Broomhead, Hrovat, Towers and Paparone.

None of those players really scream superstar any more than White or Wright at this stage. Early days for all though.