Cutting our noses off?

[Crow-mo]

lets look at the Hudson situation dispassionately.

values will always differ, value is in the eye of the beholder. but in synthesising the two ends of teh spectrum maybe we can get a better feel for what the value is, and what ours and the Doggies dominant position is.

The Player

• excellent lead ruckman
• new to the game, and has lower miles on clock for his age
• is 28
• Ruckman tend to age better than many other positions
• 3rd in hard ball gets in entire league, irrespective of position
• is an experienced, ready to play, sure thing ruckman
• was bemoaned by many, as potentially the difference between us and the 2005 flag.

Adelaide Football Club

• Have only 1 experienced, quality, ready to play ruckman
• have a policy of not awarding players 30 or over more than 2 year deals? (or is it 1)
• In order to keep player must offer a 3rd year
• would need to either pay a higher market price to replace him, or accept next year as a rebuilding year, and hope a junior ruck makes the leap

Footscray

• Need an experienced ruckman
• will need to pay a strong market price for player
• will need to satisy AFC for trade (will involve some hurt)
• will need to offer 3 years

So to keep Hudson we offer another year -another year at what must be the cheapest, quality lead ruckman rate in the league. refer: Cain hackland.
to replace hudson we will need to offer more money, more years, and more assets out the door in trade.

the doggies, are offering more money, more years, and to give up sufficient trade assets to broker a hostile trade.

an entire season >>>>>>>>>> money, years, trade assets (ready made replacemnt) >>>>>> 1 year on contract. we have to give up one of these. which one makes sense? remember he is 28, we are not violating any silly internal policies.

it costs us so little to keep him, and the doggies will pay so much to get him - why wouldn't he feel undervalued? and why do we take him for granted?

this is F***ing madness.

 

[jenny61_99]

Crowmo - all good arguments. (Huddo will be 29 next year when the season starts by the way). Huddo however is not an "excellent" ruckman. It's his second and third efforts that make him valuable to us. In fact I think he is more valuable at ground level for us than he is in the air. We can replace that with a good small, in and under, quick mid-fielder. Let's face it, your ruckman shouldn't be the leading stat winner in hard ball gets!

Adelaide's policy is to give players over the age of 30, a 1 year contract. The third year of this contract Hudson wants, he will be 31. They have that stance for a reason, and I think it's fairly obvious why they do. Why should they change that philosophy?

Are we being too pedantic? I don't think so. As someone else said in another thread, I think this says more about Ben Hudson than it does about Adelaide.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think it says more about our supporters.

and yes, he IS an excellent ruckman. that is not even debatable.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think it says more about our supporters.

and yes, he IS an excellent ruckman. that is not even debatable.

I think it IS debatable and I disagree! He is a good ruckman but has far more value to us at ground level rather than the traditional knock/tap ruckman. And as Ive just said in the OTHER Hudson post (was it really necessary to start another one?? ) the Club did bend the rules for Edwards - for a reason. He was a 200+ gamer, small, mid-fielder with no injury history. Compare that to the 50 gamer, ruckman back only 12 months from a knee-reconstruction. The risk factor is far greater with Huddo than it was with Edwards.

In your own words, you said let's look at the situation dispassionately, but you were unable to do that. "This is ****ing madness". It is a very emotive subject, but if you look at it logically, you will understand why. Maybe still not agree, but you will understand.

 

[Allefgib]

Remember the Geelong game people... we were SLAUGHTERED in the Ruck with no Hudson.

With Hudson in the side he's basically held the ruck together all year almost single handedly with part time help from those learning the game.

 

[jenny61_99]

Remember the Geelong game people... we were SLAUGHTERED in the Ruck with no Hudson.

With Hudson in the side he's basically held the ruck together all year almost single handedly with part time help from those learning the game.

So we should change the rules because of ONE game????

Let's say this wasn't an issue, and he comes out and does another knee pre-season. We are without him for the year anyway. At some stage we need to develop the young ruckmen we have in the squad. Biglands coming off a reco will be a slow return, but the others will just need to stand up. Hopefully they all have big pre-seasons, build up their bodies and give it a red hot go.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think it IS debatable and I disagree! He is a good ruckman but has far more value to us at ground level rather than the traditional knock/tap ruckman. And as Ive just said in the OTHER Hudson post (was it really necessary to start another one?? ) the Club did bend the rules for Edwards - for a reason. He was a 200+ gamer, small, mid-fielder with no injury history. Compare that to the 50 gamer, ruckman back only 12 months from a knee-reconstruction. The risk factor is far greater with Huddo than it was with Edwards.

not being funny, but i'm not sure your views on our players is very reliable. at best, they're a little "different".

fwiw, he played 22 games this year, and ranked 11th in the league for hitouts. which when taken in context of our rotation policy, makes a nonsense of this he's no good as a tap ruckman thing.

In your own words, you said let's look at the situation dispassionately, but you were unable to do that. "This is ****ing madness". It is a very emotive subject, but if you look at it logically, you will understand why. Maybe still not agree, but you will understand.

I'll give you some logic:
1. the doggies do not agree. they value him FAR more highly than we do.
2. we either don't replace him, or we pay a hell of a lot more to replace him.

but anyway, your views are noted.

 

[tribey]

Can any Legs fans here remind us of Craig's player management/retention rate during his time with Norwood?

It seems to be going pearshaped for him at a rate of knots.

 

[relapse]

not being funny, but i'm not sure your views on our players is very reliable. at best, they're a little "different".

fwiw, he played 22 games this year, and ranked 11th in the league for hitouts. which when taken in context of our rotation policy, makes a nonsense of this he's no good as a tap ruckman thing.



I'll give you some logic:
1. the doggies do not agree. they value him FAR more highly than we do.
2. we either don't replace him, or we pay a hell of a lot more to replace him.

but anyway, your views are noted.

I agree with you, people saying that Hudson is demanding too much etc is incorrect.

Footscray's offer is what is now the current market value for Hudson, I would dare say that it wouldnt be hugely different to Adelaide's offer I think the main point of issue is 2 years instead of 3.

Are Adelaide really going to standby and watch a quality ruckman that they have spent time and money in go back to Melbourne over the sake of some inflexible rule about players receiving contracts after they are 30 ??

The extra money and year of a contract seems a far smaller price than what Adelaide will have to pay if we lose Hudson.

 

[baaaallllll]

I agree with you, people saying that Hudson is demanding too much etc is incorrect.

Footscray's offer is what is now the current market value for Hudson, I would dare say that it wouldnt be hugely different to Adelaide's offer I think the main point of issue is 2 years instead of 3.

Are Adelaide really going to standby and watch a quality ruckman that they have spent time and money in go back to Melbourne over the sake of some inflexible rule about players receiving contracts after they are 30 ??

The extra money and year of a contract seems a far smaller price than what Adelaide will have to pay if we lose Hudson.

I guess AFC might be taking a look at the bigger picture. They obviously have a rule and my guess is they would not be the only club, that once you hit 30 you have year by year rolling contracts.

If they bend the rules for Ben, then he sets a precedent that others may follow. Hence AFC realise they might have to take the pain now to avoid other players trying to hold the club to ransom again.

I am not saying that what AFC are doing is the right thing but I am stating a reason why they might be sticking to the 2 years.

 

[jmorg1]

If Hudson leaves, obviously we will suffer in the short term but in the long term, it may actually work out for the best if it gives some of the younger ones the opportunities they've been craving.

 

[NikkiNoo]

fwiw, he played 22 games this year, and ranked 11th in the league for hitouts. which when taken in context of our rotation policy, makes a nonsense of this he's no good as a tap ruckman thing.

Actually what I would like to see in respect to this argument CM is time on ground for Hudson and the others above him in that list.

Hudson I would guess has actually spent more time on the ground than many others this season as our rotation policy changed this year in respect to rucks. He was first up until about the 11/12 minute mark, would come off then and return at around the 20 - 22 min mark to finish off the quarter.

For a rough guess I would have thought he had spent about 60 - 70% on the ground per game.

Also, sometimes he would be taken off and then return earlier to spend time up forward as well. This then effects the validity of time on ground vs ruck taps as we can't assume that he spent the whole time on the ground as the ruck. But I would be interested to see those stats anyway.

 

[WALL-e]

Huddo is basically a tall midfielder!

as said he gets his clearances but he has to because he doesnt get many hit outs to advantage.

if he signes a 3 year deal he will be 32 by the time the season after his contract runs out starts and this does violate our policy.

he is from werribee who affiliate with the doggies and i believe the doggies will give up high to get him.

lets go witht he trade if we can get what we need out of it eg

huddo+kenny+pick 10 for Tiller, Mcmahon, pick 5 and cameron wood from lions(wb ship pick 10 to them)

 

[jmorg1]

huddo+kenny+pick 10 for Tiller, Mcmahon, pick 5 and cameron wood from lions(wb ship pick 10 to them)

So basically the Dogs give up Tiller, McMahon and pick 5 for just Hudson and McGregor. Anybody else see a flaw in that? And why would we have to go through the Bulldogs for Wood in that case, couldn't we just deal pick 10 directly to Brisbane?

 

[fightingdreamer88]

fwiw, he played 22 games this year, and ranked 11th in the league for hitouts.

What that means is that there are 10 ruckman with a greater number of hitouts than Huddo; yet he leads all ruckmen for contested possessions so while he is a good-but-not-great tap ruckman, he is a brilliant winner of the hardball.

We need to get something good for him, very good because for his overall influence around the contest he is vitally important to us and it would be no different for any other side.

 

[WALL-e]

So basically the Dogs give up Tiller, McMahon and pick 5 for just Hudson and McGregor. Anybody else see a flaw in that? And why would we have to go through the Bulldogs for Wood in that case, couldn't we just deal pick 10 directly to Brisbane?

reason 1 is because the doggies recruiter has come from the lions staff and works closely witht hem.

second is because of the structure of the afl trade system it is much simpler to do so then begin a second trade, also some rubbish picks or players may be thrown is as change

 

[Southerntakeover]

lets look at the Hudson situation dispassionately.

values will always differ, value is in the eye of the beholder. but in synthesising the two ends of teh spectrum maybe we can get a better feel for what the value is, and what ours and the Doggies dominant position is.

The Player

• excellent lead ruckman
• new to the game, and has lower miles on clock for his age
• is 28
• Ruckman tend to age better than many other positions
• 3rd in hard ball gets in entire league, irrespective of position
• is an experienced, ready to play, sure thing ruckman
• was bemoaned by many, as potentially the difference between us and the 2005 flag.

Adelaide Football Club

• Have only 1 experienced, quality, ready to play ruckman
• have a policy of not awarding players 30 or over more than 2 year deals? (or is it 1)
• In order to keep player must offer a 3rd year
• would need to either pay a higher market price to replace him, or accept next year as a rebuilding year, and hope a junior ruck makes the leap

Footscray

• Need an experienced ruckman
• will need to pay a strong market price for player
• will need to satisy AFC for trade (will involve some hurt)
• will need to offer 3 years

So to keep Hudson we offer another year -another year at what must be the cheapest, quality lead ruckman rate in the league. refer: Cain hackland.
to replace hudson we will need to offer more money, more years, and more assets out the door in trade.

the doggies, are offering more money, more years, and to give up sufficient trade assets to broker a hostile trade.

an entire season >>>>>>>>>> money, years, trade assets (ready made replacemnt) >>>>>> 1 year on contract. we have to give up one of these. which one makes sense? remember he is 28, we are not violating any silly internal policies.

it costs us so little to keep him, and the doggies will pay so much to get him - why wouldn't he feel undervalued? and why do we take him for granted?

this is F***ing madness.

This is SPARTA! **** the face, we can always get a new nose.

A few points... your assuming that Hudsons contract demands were sincere. He knows the clubs over 30 policy as well as anyone, and there is the possibility that it was just Hudsons way of forging himself an escape route from the club.

From what ive heard we offered him similiar money, but for two years. This is not unreasonable for a player who will be 29 at the start of next year and is only a year removed from a career threatening knee injury.

As for the Doggies... they may be willing to pay him more money etc etc.... there is a reason theyve not won a premiership in 50 years though. Not sure they are the sharpest knives in the draw.

Also, if everyone of our players who could get more money elsewhere left, we wouldnt have kept our version of the fab four together very long.

 

[betterthanu]

It could also be that we don't want to give him a 3 year deal as we expect Maric/Meesen/Griffin to overtake him within 2 years. Didn't McLeod get a 2 year deal when he was 30? if that's true then it would appear that rule isn't as inflexible as we think and there could be another reason for the talks breaking down.

 

[finn]

hudson's centre square tapwork in the final against hawthorn was as good as anybody's often straight down the throat of edwards or thompson.
his work on the ground is an added bonus.
personally what i'd like to see is adelaide keep hudson and give biglands the flick but rules have to be flexible in a game that is as flexible. Perhaps this is also why adelaide teams seem to not play instinctively sometimes - too much emphasis placed on the structure and not enough placed on ability.

 

[macca23]

It could also be that we don't want to give him a 3 year deal as we expect Maric/Meesen/Griffin to overtake him within 2 years. Didn't McLeod get a 2 year deal when he was 30? if that's true then it would appear that rule isn't as inflexible as we think and there could be another reason for the talks breaking down.

Excellent point.

By the start of 2010 they will be certainties to have done that IMO.

 

[Crow-mo]

This is SPARTA! **** the face, we can always get a new nose.

he he

A few points... your assuming that Hudsons contract demands were sincere. He knows the clubs over 30 policy as well as anyone, and there is the possibility that it was just Hudsons way of forging himself an escape route from the club.

From what ive heard we offered him similiar money, but for two years. This is not unreasonable for a player who will be 29 at the start of next year and is only a year removed from a career threatening knee injury.

As for the Doggies... they may be willing to pay him more money etc etc.... there is a reason theyve not won a premiership in 50 years though. Not sure they are the sharpest knives in the draw.

Also, if everyone of our players who could get more money elsewhere left, we wouldnt have kept our version of the fab four together very long.

it's not fair or reasonable to question his sincerity in his contract demands at this stage. who knows, maybe you're right but we shouldn't go down that path yet.

he's not exactly on fab four money though is he? and he hasn't exactly had a whole career to stuff away the beans either?

again, I know for a 100% solid gold fact, that our cousins are paying one of their ruckman twice what he is asking.

 

[Crow-mo]

It could also be that we don't want to give him a 3 year deal as we expect Maric/Meesen/Griffin to overtake him within 2 years. Didn't McLeod get a 2 year deal when he was 30? if that's true then it would appear that rule isn't as inflexible as we think and there could be another reason for the talks breaking down.

again, maybe you're right.

if so, isn't that another reason why he would want to/should leave?

though, what exactly do we do:
a) between now and in 2 years
b) what if we're wrong?

 

[Southerntakeover]

it's not fair or reasonable to question his sincerity in his contract demands at this stage. who knows, maybe you're right but we shouldn't go down that path yet.

he's not exactly on fab four money though is he? and he hasn't exactly had a whole career to stuff away the beans either?

again, I know for a 100% solid gold fact, that our cousins are paying one of their ruckman twice what he is asking.

Well, perhaps your right on his sincerity, but as more and more stories surface about him not taking too well to his suspension and being sent to his room to think about what hes done, the more suspicious i get on that front.

The fab four were just the most easily understood example, im sure there are plenty of other players not on superstar money who could command larger figures elsewhere. Young players, who havent had a career to save as well. Lets say for another example, Ben Rutten. To build a sucessful club, you do require some players to have the strength of character to accept below the maximum amount of money they could get in an open market.

As for the 'inbred cousins' example... well, i find it amazing they are paying what you suggest (not that i doubt it). Still, when that contract was signed, the player was a) a recent premiership player, b) a few years younger than Huddo is at current, and c) not coming off a major career threatening injury.

 

[AndrewJo]

Can any Legs fans here remind us of Craig's player management/retention rate during his time with Norwood?

It seems to be going pearshaped for him at a rate of knots.

Supporters have been grizzling that we have not participated during Trade Week and suddenly it is "pear shaped" because McGregor and Huddo have not signed. Why do you think it is going pear shaped? Talk to friends of players and you will find that the great majority are veru happy with the management at the Crows. In every Club you will find players moaning when they are not picked and that is life.

 

[Predator.]

the clubs over 30 policy

What exactly is the policy? No new contracts for anyone over 30?

Having to have a policy for such decisions, to me smacks of a group of people who don't trust their judgement enough.