News Chris Pelchen quits!

[ike2112]

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.
........
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.

Great points; never considered that, but with that perspective, getting a team to bottom-out will take some convincing. Kind of makes sense that he would let the incumbent plan plod along for a bit before saying "see - this needs fixed and it'll take more than what you're currently doing".

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.

Never said it was top-up. But it was quantity over quality, and not just bringing in development kids but deliberately targeting people who could play right away more or less.
I believe that our list had a gap of players who had not been developed for 2-3 years ready to play AFL at 21/22. So they targeted people who had that development at other places.
But in the process it contradicts the thought process of getting and keeping top 18-21 picks, so I do feel that points towards a strategy change after 2012.
Going hard after Brown, and signing TDL (which I maintain would have seemed a decent idea at the time) actually points further to me, to a fractured strategy of not topping up, but trying to tread water whilst hoping we can fast-track kids in; instead of signing an A-grade 18yr old (or maybe 2) we went for 4-5 20-21yr olds who could all contribute and were all a chance to be B-grade and do a job. And potentially would have had what the club hoped was a KPD (Brown) for the next few years and a small forward who could give some run on the wing (their stated aim in the Milera/Saad/TDL moves according to Watters).

I think your first part above adds a bit of clarity in my mind though. I felt Pelchen made the same mistakes as everyone else to begin with, and only changed course in mid-2013. Hence I don't necessarily think he is the great messiah, he's as prone to the same misjudgements as others.
But it does seem more likely he was towing the line to begin with in order to prove to the board that he needed free reign to do a proper rebuild.

I do still think some of the decisions around 2011-12 will haunt our rebuild, as we recruited players who filled the list gaps well enough at the time, but I can't see some of them being part of a team gunning for finals in 2018 ->
Hence I have a suspicion our charge back up the ladder with stutter a bit and it'll actually be 2021/22 before I'm dancing semi-naked down the streets of St Kilda with a giant foam AFL cup...

 

[ike2112]

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.

Conmpletely true. And with the perspective garnered from Periphery's post, can see why they did it.

If the 2013 blueprint of getting high picks onto the books was followed though, I think we'd have potentially even looked at trading up into the top 10. Dumping a senior player (maybe even trading Dal a year early[!]) for a high pick, trading a 1st and 2nd rounder to move up the board.
Maybe Jackson Macrae or Lachie Plowman could have been the 2012 equivalen of Billings being drafted.
It would however have meant everyone accepting the bottoming-out strategy earlier than they did, which I accept following the last few pages of debate would have been unlikely.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Conmpletely true. And with the perspective garnered from Periphery's post, can see why they did it.

If the 2013 blueprint of getting high picks onto the books was followed though, I think we'd have potentially even looked at trading up into the top 10. Dumping a senior player (maybe even trading Dal a year early[!]) for a high pick, trading a 1st and 2nd rounder to move up the board.
Maybe Jackson Macrae or Lachie Plowman could have been the 2012 equivalen of Billings being drafted.
It would however have meant everyone accepting the bottoming-out strategy earlier than they did, which I accept following the last few pages of debate would have been unlikely.

Great reply. Been a mature & interesting discussion with you and Periphery Well done to you both. Both add immensely to the forum.

 

[tbarker]

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.

An interesting hypothetical A2R. I know the club was shocked that Grundy slipped to 18ish and there were no guarantees that he would be around at our pick 12 or 13 so at the time they didnt think they were giving up the opportunity to draft him by trading out 12and 13. I think the club looked at the picks between 12-25 and felt it was pretty even so the club may as well get other benefits along with 24 and 25 and potentially get the same talent. In hindsight, Grundy did slip and skews the analysis.

What I would say is that the filth scum smashed that draft with Grundy, Kennedy and Broomhead. All can seriously play. I rate Corr very very highly and Lonergan has shown signs although for a big bodied kid he hasn't come along as quickly as say Dunstan (which everyone expected Lonergan to do). I would be very happy if we had picked up Corr and Lonergan with picks 12 and 13.

I love Wright but his kicking is a genuine concern. I also love Spencer but he has high bust factor considering he has potentially replaced Corr.

Overall I am happy with what the club did because you are correct in saying that their draft year was not like 2001 where picks 12 and 13 were highly likely to be guns.

I would have been happy to keep BJ and give him the 4th year on a performance basis........

 

[kernelT]

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.

This is the point that seems to be lost on those who remain hysterical about giving up 12 & 13.

If you rate picks 12 - 25 as very even, then those trades/downgrades are a no-brainer for a side so bereft of young talent.

If Pelchen was dead-set on downgrading picks every year, we would have done it with 3 last year and again this year for 1.

 

[ike2112]

I think if Pelchen applied the 2013/14 strategy to the 2012 draft we'd have traded a senior player and walked away from the draft with something like Plowman, Corr and Hrovat. But not have perhaps Joey for example, nor Lee, White, Murdoch, Ross.

 

[Nutsngum]

I think if Pelchen applied the 2013/14 strategy to the 2012 draft we'd have traded a senior player and walked away from the draft with something like Plowman, Corr and Hrovat. But not have perhaps Joey for example, nor Lee, White, Murdoch, Ross.

Honestly this would probably have been an impossible selling point to the admin at the time and also the supporters. 2012 was still a good year for us and we were pretty unlucky to miss finals from those 12 wins.

Also we kind of did start letting the top end go a bit by allowing Goddard to walk. We could still have matched Essendon afterall.

 

[God Save Max King]

Why do people trust Finnis and Bains over Chris Pelchen? What have they done that would have them rated over Pelchen? Why do some think that Pelchen's job at St Kilda is almost done? I would say that the hardest year of our rebuild is still to come and we still haves pieces to move on/that can be flipped. This whole focus towards high performance, does that mean that we pushed Pelchen out because we could not afford him?

At least we have a scapegoat for trading McEvoy and Stanley, and letting Dal Santo and Goddard walk. Still, I'm not happy. We had a guy who had balls, whether he used them for good or not may be up for debate, but he took the risks a smaller club needs to take.

 

[gy027]

I have a friend who is a journalist (an actual good one)
Who said Pelchen and Finnis both wanted the same things but had different views on getting there.
Pelchen is very focussed wants a total rebuild. Armitage gone this year Steven the next load up on draft picks bottom out and then challenge for a premiership. That is his goal and nothing and no one will make him deviate from this path.
Finnis wants the same end goal but has to also consider the economic effect of being crap for 4 or 5 years will have on the club
Personally i do not know who is correct.

 

[Periphery]

I have a friend who is a journalist (an actual good one)
Who said Pelchen and Finnis both wanted the same things but had different views on getting there.
Pelchen is very focussed wants a total rebuild. Armitage gone this year Steven the next load up on draft picks bottom out and then challenge for a premiership. That is his goal and nothing and no one will make him deviate from this path.
Finnis wants the same end goal but has to also consider the economic effect of being crap for 4 or 5 years will have on the club
Personally i do not know who is correct.

This would make sense and would align well with some of the rumors that have been floating around.

 

[hayes]

If that's true then maybe Pelchen had to go. His way would be perfect if we wanted to become Melbourne.

 

[SK_MD_#7]

Also explains why Finnis basically all but put to bed the Armitage trade crap very early as well.

 

[Mowman]

I have a friend who is a journalist (an actual good one)
Who said Pelchen and Finnis both wanted the same things but had different views on getting there.
Pelchen is very focussed wants a total rebuild. Armitage gone this year Steven the next load up on draft picks bottom out and then challenge for a premiership. That is his goal and nothing and no one will make him deviate from this path.
Finnis wants the same end goal but has to also consider the economic effect of being crap for 4 or 5 years will have on the club
Personally i do not know who is correct.

Would rather be crap side for 4 to 5 years then being a middle of the road side for the next 10 years like Richmond & carlton and topping up with c & b graders all the time

 

[Mowman]

Why do people trust Finnis and Bains over Chris Pelchen? What have they done that would have them rated over Pelchen? Why do some think that Pelchen's job at St Kilda is almost done? I would say that the hardest year of our rebuild is still to come and we still haves pieces to move on/that can be flipped. This whole focus towards high performance, does that mean that we pushed Pelchen out because we could not afford him?

At least we have a scapegoat for trading McEvoy and Stanley, and letting Dal Santo and Goddard walk. Still, I'm not happy. We had a guy who had balls, whether he used them for good or not may be up for debate, but he took the risks a smaller club needs to take.

Good post mate, I really liked we had a plan for once and Pelchen was sticking to it and doing what he said he would do

 

[hayes]

Would rather be crap side for 4 to 5 years then being a middle of the road side for the next 10 years like Richmond & carlton and topping up with c & b graders all the time

We are going to be crap for four or five years though. Last year, this year and I'd say we've got another couple of tough years ahead before the likes of Billings, Acres, Dunstan etc hit 50 games. I haven't done the research but I'm pretty confident that by the end of the rebuild we would've aquired more draft picks than Port did during their rebuild and look how well they're going.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

I have a friend who is a journalist (an actual good one)
Who said Pelchen and Finnis both wanted the same things but had different views on getting there.
Pelchen is very focussed wants a total rebuild. Armitage gone this year Steven the next load up on draft picks bottom out and then challenge for a premiership. That is his goal and nothing and no one will make him deviate from this path.
Finnis wants the same end goal but has to also consider the economic effect of being crap for 4 or 5 years will have on the club
Personally i do not know who is correct.

Good post. Added to that is that Finnis wants to place his own people within the football department like any new chief executive - put their own stamp on things.

I can see both points of view. Based on above, Pick 12 added to picks 1, 21, & 22 would have been handy and given us that great KPP at 12 with three mids. Next year picks 1,2. Would have had Petracca, Parish, and Mathieson leading our midfield with Dunstan Acres et al which would have been obscene in a further 4 years time. Now counter with the fact that we need to have some level of competitiveness which meant not pulling the trigger on the full rebuild because noone wants to do a Melbourne. That is not what Finnis was brought in to do....we've got to hope that a partial rebuild will do the trick. There is still a chance that we get picks 1 & 2 next year as we may not be able to match an offer made to JS....

 

[VDS66]

Must admit that once the dust settled, I am a bit miffed about all of this. Not withstanding what trades were offered to us, I am a bit underwhelmed by the trade period. Pick 1 was always ours and all we really did was get pick 21.

If Finnis is concerned about our financial situation then he should go cap-in=hand to the AFL for $$$ and concessions, just like every other club does.

I can see both sides of the argument, and CP's plan was far more aggressive than most. If pick 12 was offered up for Armo, we should have taken it IMO.

I just hope the club didn't get cold feet and squibbed the opportunity that comes with bottoming out... and as others have stated... we don't end up like Richmond or Blues... just for the sake of being a bit more competitive on the park.

That said, maybe the powers that be believe that Richo has enough talent to work with and we don't need to cut so deep?

 

[ike2112]

I haven't done the research but I'm pretty confident that by the end of the rebuild we would've aquired more draft picks than Port did during their rebuild and look how well they're going.

Port got a few high picks, but also benefitted from circumstance and did well to develop lower picks.
We need another couple elite bodies I'd say but should have that by Nov 2015.

Taking Wingard off a high pick is one thing, but Trengove having an injury which saw clear top-10 talent drop to them so late, and then likes of Westhoff developing from wherever he was (can't recall if he was rookie draft but he was certainly a long-shot!).

We need people to step into roles also, in the way Delaney looks to have, for example.

 

[ike2112]

Here's a wee teaser...

It seems talks with Jack are being held off, not sure by which side.
If we're considering him walking in 2015 and receiving probably a top 2-3 pick...

Should we have shopped him to GWS now and tried to get Cameron or Boyd and/or Shiel?
Pick 1 and Jack, for Boyd and Shiel, or Treloar?
If we'd done it right at the start of trade week it would have been before Griffen asked to get out.

GWS must realise they are going to lose players, and if they keep just getting picks in return they'll never progress. They need live bodies, and Jack would be great for them.
Bear in mind this is on the expectation we lose him anyway and only get a single pick back.

 

[SK_MD_#7]

Here's a wee teaser...

It seems talks with Jack are being held off, not sure by which side.
If we're considering him walking in 2015 and receiving probably a top 2-3 pick...

Should we have shopped him to GWS now and tried to get Cameron or Boyd and/or Shiel?
Pick 1 and Jack, for Boyd and Shiel, or Treloar?
If we'd done it right at the start of trade week it would have been before Griffen asked to get out.

GWS must realise they are going to lose players, and if they keep just getting picks in return they'll never progress. They need live bodies, and Jack would be great for them.
Bear in mind this is on the expectation we lose him anyway and only get a single pick back.

No.

You don't just ship someone off because you're scared he'll leave. Just plain stupid.

You back yourself in to get them signed.

 

[Periphery]

I might be a drawing a long bow here but it's just an idea:

What if Finnis said to Gillon Mclachlan "Either our finances suffer from a longer due to a full rebuild and you have to bail us out, or you give us a PP next year and save yourself some money."

A priority pick costs the AFL nothing and I'd hazard a guess and say any negative press from that would be less than they'd get from bailing us out.

The rebuild wouldn't be set back too much and I'd say it would be the best result possible. Pick 1 and 2 next year and we'd still have the option of trading 1 of Armo/Steven if the payoff was big enough (Cameron).

 

[ike2112]

No.

You don't just ship someone off because you're scared he'll leave. Just plain stupid.

Don't agree. It makes good business sense, to shift something whilst it's worth more. Like selling something before the new, better model comes out and drops the value of yours.

Happens all the time in football (soccer) where teams cash in on a player who is likely to see out their contract and leave in 11 months. And in US sports it's prevalent. AFL free movement hasn't matured yet but when it does teams will realise that it makes sense; in particular where a team has an interstate player who obviously wants to head home.

For us I'd say it's more a case of deciding if we would rather get the year out of him, or genuinely felt we could keep him. If the club are having doubts about whether they want to keep him, and would prefer pick 2 instead, in theory we'd be as well getting something done asap.

 

[Nutsngum]

I think that shipping both Armo and Steven off shows that whilst Pelchen is an excellent list manager and willing to do the hard and tough things required, his understanding of development is lacking which is something we need from the head of football.

We only have a handful of veterans left and almost noone in the middle ground of experience. Yes the draft picks armo and Jack would get us now would be excellent but we will lose hard in development over the next few years without them.

Its the difference between being down the bottom like Melbourne, with no experienced players to take the hits and provide the courage or down the bottom like Port who were beaten down but became better for it.

 

[VDS66]

The elephants in the room are the 2 new clubs and the sort of talent they are accumulating. Hence my belief that he wanted as much top end talent as possible. To a large extent, the strategy almost mimics what they are doing. He is basically stripping the list back to it's core and starting again.

So now it's up to the club to trade and recruit smart. If you just trade for picks and bring in elite kids, your odds of success increase with the volume.

If we are now taking a less aggressive approach, then the club has to be spot on with every single move it makes IMO.

There are pros and cons for both strategies.

 

[holllywood]

So we had pick 3 last year, pick 1 this year and the following 2 drafts probably top 5 picks again.

But we are going to be stuck in no mans land because we didn't get pick 12 this year?

Must be a pretty good player that pick 12.