Bluemour Melting Pot XIX - Give Me Ed Baby - Return of the Prodigal Son

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Luko is growing in stature with each successive post!
He was quoted, by pretty much every single talent scout out there, as being the best KPP prospect across the board - skills, ability overhead or off the ground, ballwinning, leadership, in front of or behind the ball - in the last 15 years, or being the best talent available in the draft across that time. I'm not exaggerating at all.

He has elite talent but I don't recall him ever being profiled as the 'leader of men' type you're making him out to be. If those who know make the call that he's leaving next year then it's in the club's interests to look at all their options to extract the best possible return.
Here's my rejoinder, seeing as there are a fair few people disagreeing with me here.

You're GC. You have a significant series of problems; your team has no traditional club pull, you're in a non-football state with the double issue of being in a bit of a party town (with all the influence that can have over a group of young men) and the first attempts at building this club failed because the officials in place completely misread both what they needed and how to treat their players. This has lead to a significant amount of the best players leaving for better pastures, and their quality being replaced by good honest triers.

Now, they've got something of a template for their success (provided they can follow it) in GWS. They got in massive amounts of first round draft picks; they surrounded that youth with mature talent in Mumford and Shaw (and Johnson, albeit a few years later) but they also supplemented their early draft stocks with quality players who were also leaders for their current clubs, in Ward, Scully and Davis. Now, that older tier of players has begun to drop off, the next tier of leaders (Coniglio, Greene) has begun to step up and take on onfield leadership roles, ensuring that while Johnson/Mumford/Shaw are retiring or their input is decreasing in quality the next rung down has standards to maintain, that when one player leaves another steps up; basically, the Hawthorn model during their premiership years. If you take it in minutiae, this is also a similar path laid out by Brisbane, albeit staggered; Brisbane lost a shitload of players, got in KPP talent across multiple drafts, obtained players who have formed significant boons for them onfield as leaders in Beams, Robbo, and now Hodge, before adding midfield talent and leadership via the draft.

You also have both Brisbane and GWS losing players, but having those leaving changing; they go from players wanting out to players wanting opportunities, and going from players you cannot afford to lose to players you haven't tagged as essential.

So, GC recruits the best KPP prospect in recent history, coupled with his potentially equally talented offsider in Rankine; they supplement these draft picks with good honest hard working triers, mature bodies to ensure that they aren't getting pulverised on the field (merely the scoreboard). They ensure that they can continue this influx of talent by working with AFL HQ to obtain a beginning of first round PP, ensuring that the get two midfield prospects both earmarked as potential captains in Anderson and Rowell. You're working to turn the club around off-field, you removing the rumoured schism in the playing list left over by Ablett and you're making players accountable on gameday; baby steps. You surprised a few teams early in the season, because unlike previous years your work ethic is not subpar.

Suddenly, you're hearing in the media - and from player managers - that one of the keystones of your team is slated to receive multi million dollar offers from a number of other clubs.

How do you react to that, given your history with players leaving, with the template for success entailing that you cannot lose players unless you either have them in surplus (as is not the case for Lukosius) or you can afford to lose them (again, not the case). So, what do you do?

You could do precisely what you're suggesting (Crouch and 4) but this completely undermines what you're trying to accomplish. He's your future CHF or CHB (or tall winger, or ruckman; you name it, he can do it) and a potential captain. Who are you going to draft in this draft to compensate for his lack, not next year, but over the next 10?

The AFL would not allow him to leave any more than they would allow Coniglio (or any of the others receiving 'marketing' payments) to leave GWS. He would be offered a subpar contract at salary cap level, but would receive just crazy money outside of it. And, realistically, the AFL rather needs to shove their foot up the Adelaide club's arses anyway, because while the Vic clubs try to lure young players home we at least have to compete with each other to do it, and the kids we target generally are niche. Adelaide had their sight on Gibbs from the moment he was drafted, as they have Rankine and Lukosius, and you simply cannot have clubs behaving in such a parasitic manner towards other clubs. It isn't compatible with a sustainable competition.

Therefore, GC can and should completely dig their heels in and force titanic, colossal overs for him; I'm talking picks 4, their future first and second, and Crouch. Make them bleed, and offer them a kickstart to their rebuild over the next few years to compensate for taking what is a monumental risk in leaving what we have observed as a template for success.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Okay, let's say a man with the initials BG who plays for Collingwood and his name rhymes with Modie Mundy requests a trade to us, what the * do we even give up for him? Two firsts wouldn't even begin to be enough.

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is we couldn't get it done unless we pretty much gut our team.
 
Okay, let's say a man with the initials BG who plays for Collingwood and his name rhymes with Modie Mundy requests a trade to us, what the fu** do we even give up for him? Two firsts wouldn't even begin to be enough.

EDIT: The point I am trying to make is we couldn't get it done unless we pretty much gut our team.
We trade them two first rounders? Doens't gut our team and that's about as much as anyone has ever given up before. They couldn't ask for much more.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

He was quoted, by pretty much every single talent scout out there, as being the best KPP prospect across the board - skills, ability overhead or off the ground, ballwinning, leadership, in front of or behind the ball - in the last 15 years, or being the best talent available in the draft across that time. I'm not exaggerating at all.


Here's my rejoinder, seeing as there are a fair few people disagreeing with me here.

You're GC. You have a significant series of problems; your team has no traditional club pull, you're in a non-football state with the double issue of being in a bit of a party town (with all the influence that can have over a group of young men) and the first attempts at building this club failed because the officials in place completely misread both what they needed and how to treat their players. This has lead to a significant amount of the best players leaving for better pastures, and their quality being replaced by good honest triers.

Now, they've got something of a template for their success (provided they can follow it) in GWS. They got in massive amounts of first round draft picks; they surrounded that youth with mature talent in Mumford and Shaw (and Johnson, albeit a few years later) but they also supplemented their early draft stocks with quality players who were also leaders for their current clubs, in Ward, Scully and Davis. Now, that older tier of players has begun to drop off, the next tier of leaders (Coniglio, Greene) has begun to step up and take on onfield leadership roles, ensuring that while Johnson/Mumford/Shaw are retiring or their input is decreasing in quality the next rung down has standards to maintain, that when one player leaves another steps up; basically, the Hawthorn model during their premiership years. If you take it in minutiae, this is also a similar path laid out by Brisbane, albeit staggered; Brisbane lost a s**tload of players, got in KPP talent across multiple drafts, obtained players who have formed significant boons for them onfield as leaders in Beams, Robbo, and now Hodge, before adding midfield talent and leadership via the draft.

You also have both Brisbane and GWS losing players, but having those leaving changing; they go from players wanting out to players wanting opportunities, and going from players you cannot afford to lose to players you haven't tagged as essential.

So, GC recruits the best KPP prospect in recent history, coupled with his potentially equally talented offsider in Rankine; they supplement these draft picks with good honest hard working triers, mature bodies to ensure that they aren't getting pulverised on the field (merely the scoreboard). They ensure that they can continue this influx of talent by working with AFL HQ to obtain a beginning of first round PP, ensuring that the get two midfield prospects both earmarked as potential captains in Anderson and Rowell. You're working to turn the club around off-field, you removing the rumoured schism in the playing list left over by Ablett and you're making players accountable on gameday; baby steps. You surprised a few teams early in the season, because unlike previous years your work ethic is not subpar.

Suddenly, you're hearing in the media - and from player managers - that one of the keystones of your team is slated to receive multi million dollar offers from a number of other clubs.

How do you react to that, given your history with players leaving, with the template for success entailing that you cannot lose players unless you either have them in surplus (as is not the case for Lukosius) or you can afford to lose them (again, not the case). So, what do you do?

You could do precisely what you're suggesting (Crouch and 4) but this completely undermines what you're trying to accomplish. He's your future CHF or CHB (or tall winger, or ruckman; you name it, he can do it) and a potential captain. Who are you going to draft in this draft to compensate for his lack, not next year, but over the next 10?

The AFL would not allow him to leave any more than they would allow Coniglio (or any of the others receiving 'marketing' payments) to leave GWS. He would be offered a subpar contract at salary cap level, but would receive just crazy money outside of it. And, realistically, the AFL rather needs to shove their foot up the Adelaide club's arses anyway, because while the Vic clubs try to lure young players home we at least have to compete with each other to do it, and the kids we target generally are niche. Adelaide had their sight on Gibbs from the moment he was drafted, as they have Rankine and Lukosius, and you simply cannot have clubs behaving in such a parasitic manner towards other clubs. It isn't compatible with a sustainable competition.

Therefore, GC can and should completely dig their heels in and force titanic, colossal overs for him; I'm talking picks 4, their future first and second, and Crouch. Make them bleed, and offer them a kickstart to their rebuild over the next few years to compensate for taking what is a monumental risk in leaving what we have observed as a template for success.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply.

While you're talking about Brisbane, consider Josh Schache. Plans can and will change as events unfold - events which may include a freakishly talented player who lacks a mongrel edge making it clear that he wants to be traded to a two team town. Schache of course is a level down, but in the hypothetical where the great white hope is clearly walking out, the expansion club needs to be proactive. The mods might want to move this convo as we're now light years away from anything resembling bluemour discussion ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top