Deal or No Deal

[catempire]

We might have finished worse of ...but really what would have been any worse than the way we performed this year?

It's not a matter of whether we would have been better or worse this year. It's a case of whether we would have a better chance at a flag with Ottens or with what we gave up for him. As it stands, the answer IMO is unambiguously with Ottens. He has the runs on the board, the others are unproven.

In a way I’m frustrated that we have put several years into some guys that have obvious deficiencies. McCarthy , Playfair , Kingsley and Gardner all lack confidence to seal the deal. Yet we have persisted with them. Basically 1 project tall is enough fro any list , if a player has got enough of the good stuff to show he is worth investing time into , he would have given evidence by the end of the 2nd year , 3rd year at the most. Look at Nathan , one can see what he may be , for him Id be prepared to wait.

Ah, see this is a different issue. A different issue but one which I don't see eye-to-eye with you on Turbo. What else could we have done? We had an exodus of players of the calibre of Ablett, Brownless, Stoneham and dare I say it, Mensch and we had to replace them with something. The only option was to draft young prospects with the picks we had - poor picks, admitedly. We had to take a punt on the likes of McCarthy, Playfair and Gardiner and, like it or not, the trade for Kingsley has been an out and out winner for us*. Furthermore, we had to persevere with them because (a) KPP prospects take longer to develop on average; and (b) we made plays for the likes of Gehrig and Hall and failed.

So it's all very well to say we persisted for too long, but you've got to question what other option we had.

*Traded by Kangaroos to Geelong for 42nd selection in 2000 national draft - Kangaroos took Daniel Pratt.

 

[Unwritten_Law]

I am not sure if you are saying that my comment you posted as a quote was ridiculous

No. I just switched it over to get the sensible Ottens discussion and his impact on our structure into the one thread. The other one was a dead end.

 

[DBAH0]

At the time I was ok with it.

But right now, I'd rather have Bate and Moloney, and I'm not being harsh on Otto, I just think those 2 are going to be quality 10 year players who would both fit into our 22 very, very nicely.

 

[Turbocat]

..It's a case of whether we would have a better chance at a flag with Ottens or with what we gave up for him. As it stands, the answer IMO is unambiguously with Ottens. He has the runs on the board, the others are unproven...

This will suprise you , I cant agree with you CE. It's not a case of whether we would have a better chance at a flag with Ottens or with what we gave up for him , its simply did we win the flag.

Any recruitment when you have sacrificed tommorow for today rides on the results of today. Ask the Roos. It might have sound great in the off-season to get experienced hands in ahla the MoneyBall Theory but its not so clever now. If we win or at a minimum advance then you can justify almost anything but if you dont then we must always planning and building our list.
Others unproven? I think you would have to agree that Bate look's to have the goods.The other or more unproven but kid's like Meyer or Monfries are the types that the Dogs have built their list on.Light bodied skillful players , I dont think we have too many of this sort on our list.

Ah, see this is a different issue. A different issue but one which I don't see eye-to-eye with you on Turbo. What else could we have done? We had an exodus of players of the calibre of Ablett, Brownless, Stoneham and dare I say it, Mensch and we had to replace them with something. The only option was to draft young prospects with the picks we had - poor picks, admitedly. We had to take a punt on the likes of McCarthy, Playfair and Gardiner and, like it or not, the trade for Kingsley has been an out and out winner for us*. Furthermore, we had to persevere with them because (a) KPP prospects take longer to develop on average; and (b) we made plays for the likes of Gehrig and Hall and failed.

So it's all very well to say we persisted for too long, but you've got to question what other option we had.

*Traded by Kangaroos to Geelong for 42nd selection in 2000 national draft - Kangaroos took Daniel Pratt.

Yes you may well say , that Kent was a great trade for us , I prefer to look at it that he is simply a guy who played because we had no one better. In fact , while he has been in the side he has wasted his time and ours , he has given us far to often below average performances and should have been let go some time ago. That he has been our leading goal kicker says more about us accepting medocrity than him being legit target.

The other guys have had long enough , probably too long. Time to move on clear some spaces on the list

 

[Turbocat]

At the time I was ok with it.

But right now, I'd rather have Bate and Moloney, and I'm not being harsh on Otto, I just think those 2 are going to be quality 10 year players who would both fit into our 22 very, very nicely.

We could not have had Bate and Moloney. We got P12 for Moloney. Bate went P13. Our original pick was P16

 

[rizzo]

Turbo, would be have Prissa if we traded Moloney? I think not.

Prissa > Moloney

 

[Rosella]

But right now, I'd rather have Bate and Moloney, and I'm not being harsh on Otto, I just think those 2 are going to be quality 10 year players who would both fit into our 22 very, very nicely.

Moloney has just spent a year injured.

 

[DBAH0]

Moloney has just spent a year injured.

Doesn't mean he's going to be injury prone for the rest of his career.

 

[Rosella]

Doesn't mean he's going to be injury prone for the rest of his career.

He's had a fair share - wasn't picked up in the National draft because of injury, injuries in first year at Geelong, then that finger injury. Plus a bit of a temperament problem.

 

[catempire]

This will suprise you , I cant agree with you CE. It's not a case of whether we would have a better chance at a flag with Ottens or with what we gave up for him , its simply did we win the flag.

No, disagree. That's one part of it but it's also would we have a better chance next year (and the year after and the year after that, etc) with Ottens or with Moloney and Meyer (for example). To me, there is no way that you could say that we'd be better off with Moloney and Meyer. Without Ottens we would be that far off a flag it would just not be worth showing up.

So just to boil it down, going into next season, would we have a better chance at the flag with Ottens in the team or with Moloney and Meyer in the team. To me, the answer is unequivocally Ottens.

Others unproven? I think you would have to agree that Bate look's to have the goods.The other or more unproven but kid's like Meyer or Monfries are the types that the Dogs have built their list on.Light bodied skillful players , I dont think we have too many of this sort on our list.

Yes. Absolutely have not produced the goods yet. I think you'll find we were all pretty excited about a bloke by the name of David Spriggs after his first season. We all know where he ended up. It takes more than one season to prove your potential contribution to a premiership team.

Yes you may well say , that Kent was a great trade for us , I prefer to look at it that he is simply a guy who played because we had no one better. In fact , while he has been in the side he has wasted his time and ours , he has given us far to often below average performances and should have been let go some time ago. That he has been our leading goal kicker says more about us accepting medocrity than him being legit target.

The other guys have had long enough , probably too long. Time to move on clear some spaces on the list

Mate, I know you've gone particularly sour on Kent in the last little period. But it's pretty hard to argue that it wasn't a winning trade for us. He didn't waste anyones time - he kicked 227 goals for us playing from full forward when we sorely lacked any other reasonable target. He was mediocre of the highest order - don't get me wrong - but to look back at his performance through whatever the opposite of rose coloured glasses are, smacks of petulance to me. We had no choice but to play him and take his 50-odd goals a year. Poor us. It's time for him to go now because there's nothing left he can add. I'm not going to bag the solid performances he put in for us in the past though.

 

[Turbocat]

No, disagree. That's one part of it but it's also would we have a better chance next year (and the year after and the year after that, etc) with Ottens or with Moloney and Meyer (for example). To me, there is no way that you could say that we'd be better off with Moloney and Meyer. Without Ottens we would be that far off a flag it would just not be worth showing up...

So just to boil it down, going into next season, would we have a better chance at the flag with Ottens in the team or with Moloney and Meyer in the team. To me, the answer is unequivocally Ottens.

Yes. Absolutely have not produced the goods yet. I think you'll find we were all pretty excited about a bloke by the name of David Spriggs after his first season. We all know where he ended up. It takes more than one season to prove your potential contribution to a premiership team.

You may be right , a bit hard to judge looking to far ahead but I think the further we project into the future the more likely it is that Ottens will hit the wall due to his body. However Ottens upside may be more than two middle runners , and as you know I think we are thin in the Ruck , without him we would be almost down to the bone. You are also right , Im assuming that those picks will develop and this is no cert but Id say with our track record on picking and developing the fresh kids from the draft we would have a very good chance of having a kid fro the next 5-10 years. Put it this way Ottens is still in play.If he kicks af ew or has a ruck day out in the 07 finals or even if he goes close to winning our B&F then I will wave the white flag.

Mate, I know you've gone particularly sour on Kent in the last little period. But it's pretty hard to argue that it wasn't a winning trade for us. He didn't waste anyones time - he kicked 227 goals for us playing from full forward when we sorely lacked any other reasonable target. He was mediocre of the highest order - don't get me wrong - but to look back at his performance through whatever the opposite of rose coloured glasses are, smacks of petulance to me. We had no choice but to play him and take his 50-odd goals a year. Poor us. It's time for him to go now because there's nothing left he can add. I'm not going to bag the solid performances he put in for us in the past though.

On KK you can call me petualant if you like. Dictionary .com has one definition as it as being easily irritated or annoyed and I have reached the point of no tolerance for him at all. He he produced all that he was capable of?Did he ever make us his primary focus of his attention? Was footy ever #1. Is it too much to expect him to extend himself , should I just be happy with the 227 goals and X number of points and X number of missed shots out of bounce on the full?

 

[catempire]

On KK you can call me petualant if you like. Dictionary .com has one definition as it as being easily irritated or annoyed and I have reached the point of no tolerance for him at all. He he produced all that he was capable of?Did he ever make us his primary focus of his attention? Was footy ever #1. Is it too much to expect him to extend himself , should I just be happy with the 227 goals and X number of points and X number of missed shots out of bounce on the full?

I would have said unreasonably irritable.

If it helps you sleep at night, stay angry with him. I don't think it will. You're better off, as I did long ago, accepting his (serious) flaws and looking forward to the day when we don't have to rely on a playboy, dot-com, erratic forward. I hold nothing against Kent because he made a solid contribution to this club with what I see as minimal footballing talent. I mean think about it - all he can really do is beat his opponent on the lead! He can't kick and he can't mark! Quite remarkable that he could kick over 200 goals in a fairly unsuccessful team. Let it be Turbo. Let it be.

 

[Catnip]

Not only is Prissa>Maloney, but that Bate is as slow as Cameron Ling. Some of this 'Ottens' thread has drifted into the usual discussion about the lack of results of H, Macca and KK. You'd get rid of all three before you got rid of Otto IMO.

 

[Turbocat]

And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Catempire he advises me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

OK CE , no more until our list is finalised

 

[catempire]

And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Catempire he advises me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be

OK CE , no more until our list is finalised

Haha. Good stuff Turbo. Enjoy the silly season mate.