James Stewart, did we stuff this one up?

[Obese Arachnid]

I agree. If we rated Stewart, that's something we perhaps could have done. I don't know if the recruiters thought there was heat on us to get Ramsay, hence the pick swap. But what you suggest sounds feasible, in the hypothetical scenario in which we rated Stewart as a 2nd-rounder.

Oh don't worry it's all hypothetical, some might say i even plucked it out of my Reg Grundy's.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The point is we should have made who ever was looking at him pull the trigger, i tell you now, locking a pick away on someone 2 weeks before the draft not knowing who might slide would make most clubs think twice, do you honestly believe WS would have locked away 25 for him? because i highly doubt it, and did they even have any picks after that?

Are you are suggesting that we could have gotten someone to bid an earlier pick than #27, and then called their bluff?

Or are you saying that if we'd nominated him a few weeks ago, that despite GWS being prepared to use their now pick #27 (I don't recall what picks they had at the time of the father-son bidding process, and I'm not going to check) to secure him, that they wouldn't have been prepared to do the same at the time even to keep us honest? And the lucrative payoff for doing so would be taking a player at around what we rated him?

Honestly, there's a better chance of Dave riding next year's Melbourne Cup winner.

 

[Gone Critical]

The responses in this thread are so illogical it's doing my head in. I must leave immediately.

TRS it's not illogical just a different strategy people are talking about. Stewart must have a rating somewhere by Collingwood and potentially by nominating him there was a chance of getting him more cheaply than that. It's not just the same as 100 other kids because F/S gives you a chance to put up a nomination and then not take it up. We didn't give ourselves a chance to see if we could get him for less that the value we rated him at. Don't agree with you that it's hard on the kid, the system would be explained to them. Any F/S under the current system has a chance to miss out after nomination even the good ones. Melb and Viney were in a diffficult situation this year if GWS had put their hand up.

The fact that he was taken at 27 means he is rated by at least one other club. We didn't dip our toe in for reasons we outside the inner sanctum are unsure of. It's a reasonable point to discuss

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's illogical to think that although a club selected him with #27, we could have gotten him for a rookie pick if we'd nominated him. And that this somehow shows that we'd stuffed up.

I think we can be pretty sure that the reason we didn't dip our toe in, is that we knew that clubs X, Y and Z rated him as a 2nd-round pick and we rated him as a 3rd round pick (for a top-four club). The "discount" on a father-son selection is only a maximum of 17 picks, eg. if the team that finishes last bids on him and we've won the flag, we can match with our next available selection which will be 17 picks later. If we don't rate Stewart within 17 picks of what the rest of the AFL rate him, there's no value to be had and we're wasting our (and Stewart's) time.

I'll say it again, we've only stuffed up if Stewart turns out to be a gun, which is no different to any of the other players we could have taken but didn't. The stuff up would be that we should have rated him more highly, not that we should have nominated him despite not rating him.

 

[35Daicos]

TRS it's not illogical just a different strategy people are talking about. Stewart must have a rating somewhere by Collingwood and potentially by nominating him there was a chance of getting him more cheaply than that. It's not just the same as 100 other kids because F/S gives you a chance to put up a nomination and then not take it up. We didn't give ourselves a chance to see if we could get him for less that the value we rated him at. Don't agree with you that it's hard on the kid, the system would be explained to them. Any F/S under the current system has a chance to miss out after nomination even the good ones. Melb and Viney were in a diffficult situation this year if GWS had put their hand up.

The fact that he was taken at 27 means he is rated by at least one other club. We didn't dip our toe in for reasons we outside the inner sanctum are unsure of. It's a reasonable point to discuss

Very well said. I just wanted us to bid for him and hope he was ignored by others. If an opposition club put in a bid that we thought was not worth matching, so be it. There just aren't going to be that many F/S recruits available in future and I (and many others) will be watching how things pan out with James Stewart very closely.

 

[35Daicos]

I'll say it again, we've only stuffed up if Stewart turns out to be a gun, which is no different to any of the other players we could have taken but didn't. The stuff up would be that we should have rated him more highly, not that we should have nominated him despite not rating him.

I kind of get what you're saying here, but any club that fails to take a father-son pick, that is basically a free pick, and that player turns into a star elsewhere, looks really dumb. I don't want that to happen to us. Seeing GWS pick at # 27 a player that we didn't apparently rate at all has me a little bit worried. Again, I'd have liked us to at least put a bid in then see what happens.

 

[Gone Critical]

It's illogical to think that although a club selected him with #27, we could have gotten him for a rookie pick if we'd nominated him. And that this somehow shows that we'd stuffed up.

I think we can be pretty sure that the reason we didn't dip our toe in, is that we knew that clubs X, Y and Z rated him as a 2nd-round pick and we rated him as a 3rd round pick (for a top-four club). The "discount" on a father-son selection is only a maximum of 17 picks, eg. if the team that finishes last bids on him and we've won the flag, we can match with our next available selection which will be 17 picks later. If we don't rate Stewart within 17 picks of what the rest of the AFL rate him, there's no value to be had and we're wasting our (and Stewart's) time.

I'll say it again, we've only stuffed up if Stewart turns out to be a gun, which is no different to any of the other players we could have taken but didn't. The stuff up would be that we should have rated him more highly, not that we should have nominated him despite not rating him.

That's supposition on your behalf and I am not as sure as you that clubs advertise their preferences so readily and if they do that they are to be totally believed. When we passed up the F/S nomination a month or more ago there was unlikely to be that degree of certainty

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I kind of get what you're saying here, but any club that fails to take a father-son pick, that is basically a free pick, and that player turns into a star elsewhere, looks really dumb. I don't want that to happen to us. Seeing GWS pick at # 27 a player that we didn't apparently rate at all has me a little bit worried. Again, I'd have liked us to at least put a bid in then see what happens.

It's not a free pick though. It's a maximum-17-pick discount (and possibly as little as 1-pick) on what the keenest rival club reckons the player's worth. The father son system hasn't been a free pick for years.

If someone offers you a $2,000 discount on a $30,000 car you think is worth $20,000, you still shouldn't buy it.

If it turns out that the car was worth $40,000 then you've stuffed up, but the mistake was in your valuation, not your decision making, right?

This thread should really be "Did we stuff up by not rating Stewart higher than a pick in the 50's given GWS were prepared to use #27?", in which case my answer would be "I don't know, so I have to trust the recruiting staff".

 

[Iskender Time]

"In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead"

 

[Obese Arachnid]

"In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead"

I'm sorry but I just have to go lowbrow, it's what I know, forgive me.

Old Mother Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
to get her poor dog a bone
But when she bent over,
Rover took over
and he gave her a bone of his own!

 

[35Daicos]

It's not a free pick though. It's a maximum-17-pick discount (and possibly as little as 1-pick) on what the keenest rival club reckons the player's worth. The father son system hasn't been a free pick for years.

If someone offers you a $2,000 discount on a $30,000 car you think is worth $20,000, you still shouldn't buy it.

If it turns out that the car was worth $40,000 then you've stuffed up, but the mistake was in your valuation, not your decision making, right?

This thread should really be "Did we stuff up by not rating Stewart higher than a pick in the 50's given GWS were prepared to use #27?", in which case my answer would be "I don't know, so I have to trust the recruiting staff".

TRS I know it's not really a free pick as such, it certainly can cost a fair bit these days, and I do know how the system works. In referring to a "free pick" I simply mean someone that we could have taken that nobody else could have had, if we wanted him. I'm just worried that a player that we could have taken that only we had exclusive rights to, has gone to another club and just might turn into a star there.

 

[35Daicos]

"In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead"

Forgive my ignorance, but I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Obese Arachnid speaks of strange things, but this is stranger than even his stuff!

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Forgive my ignorance, but I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Obese Arachnid speaks of strange things, but this is stranger than even his stuff. No offence is meant OA, as you are one of my favourite posters, for what it's worth!

Please, strange is a compliment to what I've been called over the years.

I have no idea what it means either, I just figured it was highbrow, so I had to go low.
Looks like a Malthouse quote to me.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

"In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead"

By the way my above posts are not hanging it on you, I'm just in a great mood & doing my thang.

Now that I've re read it & looked at the thread title I get what you are talking about. Well done.

 

[Iskender Time]

Forgive my ignorance, but I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Obese Arachnid speaks of strange things, but this is stranger than even his stuff!

You honour me, sir.

 

[Iskender Time]

Please, strange is a compliment to what I've been called over the years.

I have no idea what it means either, I just figured it was highbrow, so I had to go low.
Looks like a Malthouse quote to me.

It was one of those things that were more meaningful in my own head than out in the real world. Was largely a reaction to ideas that this might come back and bite us on the bum, but then all such choices potentially can and you just have to make the call.

The question in the OP is a very interesting one but I am more than happy with the bones we picked up.

 

[golazo]

Let's bury this thread. Club doesn't rate him, picked up some guns in the draft, and free agency means drafting our own players isn't the be all and end all - let other clubs take the risks in the draft, and we'll snap 'em up once developed.. Should be a non-issue

 

[vjknight]

relieved we no longer live in the days of 'must recruit sons of former players.'

IN HINE WE TRUST.

 

[the distributer]

It's not a free pick though. It's a maximum-17-pick discount (and possibly as little as 1-pick) on what the keenest rival club reckons the player's worth. The father son system hasn't been a free pick for years.

If someone offers you a $2,000 discount on a $30,000 car you think is worth $20,000, you still shouldn't buy it.

If it turns out that the car was worth $40,000 then you've stuffed up, but the mistake was in your valuation, not your decision making, right?

This thread should really be "Did we stuff up by not rating Stewart higher than a pick in the 50's given GWS were prepared to use #27?", in which case my answer would be "I don't know, so I have to trust the recruiting staff".

Maybe we didn't rate him any higher than a rookie and this whole thing is a pathetic attempt to embarrass the Collingwood football club, orchestrated by one Kevin Sheedy, and to be perfectly honest i wouldn't put it past him, the mans hatred of Collingwood knows no bounds.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Exactly. I don't get why we didn't at least nominate him, hope he was ignored by others, and then pick him up with a very late pick. With the 100 game + qualification for father son picks these days, not that many will come along, I'm just worried about this one. I have great faith in our recruiting people, but even they can make the odd mistake, hopefullly this isn't one!

Have you considered this:
We didn't want him.
Now I know that might seem like one of those crazy wacky ideas that posters come up with occasionally but I really think its worth considering.

 

[mattys123]

Don't worry, if the kid's any good we'll just steal him from GWS in 2 years once his first contract runs out.

 

[DaVe86]

You have to be reasonable when assessing this situation.

Remember that we had to nominate father son before trade week. It was obvious we were going to be quite active, and it would've backed us into a corner if we had committed a 2nd round pick on him. We didn't know if we were going to need to use it as part of a deal etc.

So it was very tough for us to nominate Stewart. It also shows that a side was willing to spend a 2nd round pick on him, and we perhaps weren't as willing. We probably saw him as a 3rd rounder or something....which of course we didn't have that pick by the end of trade week.

I think the whole situation probably worked against us a little bit and we got a bit unlucky...but ultimately I think the club was in a tough situation here as we had no idea what picks we were going to have by the end of trade week when we had to nominate.

We were probably aiming for a top 10 pick with a combination of Dawes or Wellingham + a draft pick...so we couldn't back ourselves into a corner by committing that pick to a player.

 

[krisholio14]

For me it was all about keeping your trading and free agency options open.

It's also not as though you are short on young KPP's with promise.

 

[the distributer]

You have to be reasonable when assessing this situation.

Remember that we had to nominate father son before trade week. It was obvious we were going to be quite active, and it would've backed us into a corner if we had committed a 2nd round pick on him. We didn't know if we were going to need to use it as part of a deal etc.

So it was very tough for us to nominate Stewart. It also shows that a side was willing to spend a 2nd round pick on him, and we perhaps weren't as willing. We probably saw him as a 3rd rounder or something....which of course we didn't have that pick by the end of trade week.

I think the whole situation probably worked against us a little bit and we got a bit unlucky...but ultimately I think the club was in a tough situation here as we had no idea what picks we were going to have by the end of trade week when we had to nominate.

We were probably aiming for a top 10 pick with a combination of Dawes or Wellingham + a draft pick...so we couldn't back ourselves into a corner by committing that pick to a player.

Very true, i think the AFL could/should look at pushing the nomination date back to after trade week, Hine said himself he wanted to get in and out of this draft ASAP and i'm guessing he didn't think we'd have the picks we ended up with.

 

[soreplums]

He gets out bodied by smaller types in one on ones and can't really win the hard ball. Is very good in space and will be best suited to hb/ chb or even a wing.

Went from being hine's golden child to just another player in 12 months