Past #3: Jed Anderson - delisted end '22 - 89 NMFC games - go well Jed

[koshari]

We probably still would have drafted McKay if we'd kept 15 so who the Hawks drafted isn't overly relevant.

blahhh stop letting facts get in the way of a good yarn.

 

[Jaeger]

Don't give up on him yet. Had a shoulder operation in the off-season.
Just needs a clean run at it.

I refuse to believe he's not up to it. He looked like he belonged out there in 2013 as a teenager.
Was used as a sub in the finals and was unlucky not to be in the premiership side.

 

[koshari]

Don't give up on him yet. Had a shoulder operation in the off-season.
Just needs a clean run at it.

possibly , but there are heaps ahead of him that have shown more.

and as for those best 22 you surely cant tell me he would be taking a fwd flank spot from Sugar, TG Or LMac???

 

[North Viking]

Im not trolling I liked the kid he showed plenty in the few games he played (at Hawthorn)
Needs a good run at it and see what happens

lol
Says the guy who sold me a house built on a sink hole. I swear I didn't know about it.
If you are so enamored with him, feel free to take him back.

 

[King Corey]

Fwiw I'd give him a 1 year contract more in hope than expectation purely because trying to get something back in terms of ROI.

There's small signs here and there but he looks like a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 in several football categories. Maybe it'll all fit together and he'll bring something to the table when it does.

He certainly can't cite lack of senior opportunity as an issue in his development as he definitely had a Wonka ticket the first few times he was passed fit.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Contracts thread suggests he is signed until the end of next year.

I'm sure he signed a 3 year deal when he first came to us. It was one of the reasons why he picked us over other suitors.

 

[FloozyRoozy]

If he couldn't make it at Hawthorn he won't make it here, sick of list cloggers to be honest.

 

[Hawk Dork]

If he couldn't make it at Hawthorn he won't make it here, sick of list cloggers to be honest.

Hawks had Rioli Bruest and Poppy ahead of him as a small forward and the Midfield had Sam Lewis Silk Hodge and Shiels (with cameos from the first 3 small forwards) ahead of him while winning GFs and not wanting too much changes

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Bust.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

Contracts thread suggests he is signed until the end of next year.

I'm sure he signed a 3 year deal when he first came to us. It was one of the reasons why he picked us over other suitors.

It was the 2015 trade period he came to us, so this is only his 2nd year with us.

 

[Nutjob]

He definitely has a year to run. He signed a 3 year contract initially


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[koshari]

If he couldn't make it at Hawthorn he won't make it here, sick of list cloggers to be honest.

possibly so, but if you dont flip speculative players through the list you will never know what their ceiling is.

so in reality your always going to have a group of players that are under evaluation.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

He's a dud. Gotta laugh, Hawks have done us over yet again.

 

[Snake_Baker]

He definitely has a year to run. He signed a 3 year contract initially

I don't doubt your personal credibility, but can you provide a source?

He did have a year left on his Hawthorn contract when we brought him in, otherwise I can't find anything.

 

[hellas_johnny]

If he's the player he was supposed to be them he shouldve been knocking down the door getting 20+ and 2 goals a week in the ressies yet he is nowhere near this. Just another hawks dud and list plodder. My best mate is a hawks supporter and he laughs at us getting him

 

[koshari]

If he's the player he was supposed to be them he shouldve been knocking down the door getting 20+ and 2 goals a week in the ressies yet he is nowhere near this. Just another hawks dud and list plodder. My best mate is a hawks supporter and he laughs at us getting him

fortunately we can now laugh at them getting jager and ty

 

[hellas_johnny]

fortunately we can now laugh at them getting jager and ty

Yes we can. Unfortunately though we did not give those players to them so its not as satisfying but ill take it

 

[giantroo]

Both sites show Jed is out of contract

Contract Status: Out of contract at the end of 2017

https://www.zerohanger.com/afl/players/jed-anderson/

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-kangaroos--jed-anderson

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm stickin' with the big roo until someone can provide a source.

 

[Kimbo]

Fwiw I'd give him a 1 year contract more in hope than expectation purely because trying to get something back in terms of ROI.

There's small signs here and there but he looks like a 6.5 to 7 out of 10 in several football categories. Maybe it'll all fit together and he'll bring something to the table when it does.

He certainly can't cite lack of senior opportunity as an issue in his development as he definitely had a Wonka ticket the first few times he was passed fit.

I've been someone who has advocated that we give him a bit of time in the face of what I saw as early criticism. However, while his interrupted pre-season may be an inhibiting factor, playing others ahead of him in recent weeks/months probably says something about where he's rated at the moment.

In terms of attempting to get an ROI, apropos the bolded bit of your post, it fits the "throwing good money after bad" approach, described here:

Sunk cost fallacy (also called the "sunk cost effect," "sunk cost heuristic," "Concorde fallacy," "argument from waste," "investment trap," "escalation of commitment," "irrational escalation" and "escalation bias.")


In economics, a sunk cost is any cost that has already been paid and cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is a mistake in reasoning in which the sunk costs of an activity - instead of the future costs and benefits - are considered when deciding whether to continue the activity. The sunk cost fallacy makes it more likely that a person or an organization continues with an activity in which they have already invested money, time, or effort, even if they would not start the activity had they not already invested in it. The greater the size of the sunk investment, the more people tend to invest further, even when the return on added investment appears not to be worthwhile.


This trap is sometimes described as "throwing good money after bad," because the resources and effort are already lost, no matter what you do now. ​

http://leepublish.typepad.com/strategicthinking/2015/03/sunk-cost-fallacy.html

 

[Jindrrk]

oh here we go again, some people just cannot see ( or choose not to) the trees from the forest.



you dont rate clarke? we got him with the pick that came back from the lions and we also got back into the first round and scored Mckay.

personally i dont think Jed will make it but that complex trade was never just about jed.

you could also argue we could have taken josh dunkley who i rate above burton anyway, or even david cunningham who is showing heaps for carlton.

where it may have been an issue was if gresham was still available at 17 however he wasnt because st k took him the pick before burton went.


but nah just keep telling yourself we took jed at 15!

People are just over complicating this to suit their narrative as per usual.

We had 15 and ended up with 17 or 18. Traded down a couple of spots to get a player we wanted which most likely wouldnt of changed us picking McKay or not. Net result. Plough and the naysayers can talk as much as he/they want/s.

 

[King Corey]

I've been someone who has advocated that we give him a bit of time in the face of what I saw as early criticism. However, while his interrupted pre-season may be an inhibiting factor, playing others ahead of him in recent weeks/months probably says something about where he's rated at the moment.

In terms of attempting to get an ROI, apropos the bolded bit of your post, it fits the "throwing good money after bad" approach, described here:

Sunk cost fallacy (also called the "sunk cost effect," "sunk cost heuristic," "Concorde fallacy," "argument from waste," "investment trap," "escalation of commitment," "irrational escalation" and "escalation bias.")


In economics, a sunk cost is any cost that has already been paid and cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is a mistake in reasoning in which the sunk costs of an activity - instead of the future costs and benefits - are considered when deciding whether to continue the activity. The sunk cost fallacy makes it more likely that a person or an organization continues with an activity in which they have already invested money, time, or effort, even if they would not start the activity had they not already invested in it. The greater the size of the sunk investment, the more people tend to invest further, even when the return on added investment appears not to be worthwhile.


This trap is sometimes described as "throwing good money after bad," because the resources and effort are already lost, no matter what you do now. ​

http://leepublish.typepad.com/strategicthinking/2015/03/sunk-cost-fallacy.html

Yep did have that mind also, hence I've interchanged ROI and sunk cost specifically when referring to Jed.

ROI - factors in injury interruption, confidence etc..

Sunk cost - eff it, hasn't show enough, let's move on.

Who knows where the correct path lay..

 

[FloozyRoozy]

Please Brad use your head at the end of the season and delist him, would rather persist with our other youngsters showing promise! Continue our aggressive rebuild.

 

[Kimbo]

Yep did have that mind also, hence I've interchanged ROI and sunk cost specifically when referring to Jed.

ROI - factors in injury interruption, confidence etc..

Sunk cost - eff it, hasn't show enough, let's move on.

Who knows where the correct path lay..

It's a pity footy ain't a science, eh? It's a challenge to know just how much those factors have played a part or if "hasn't shown enough, let's move on."

 

[RobZombie]

I think Hibberd was the 2nd rounder we already had. We didn't trade that pick.

The two seconds we used on Clarke and Hibberd were both earlier than our original second and would most likely have been gone by then. The one we used on Wagner was a couple of picks after our original second, which I think the Brions used on Mathieson. The whole thing including the swaps with Collingwood in the Aish/Bastinac trade is too hard for me to figure out right now. I'll have a go later.