Ryan Murphy

[chook2734]

Actually... Richmond do have the first pick in the PSD.... Priority picks arent carried into that.

Not much use to them in the case of Murphy this year - he's contracted till the end of '08.

 

[dominguez]

Agreed dom, you'd have to wonder why we'd be keen to deal with Richmond given they've tried their best to screw us over twice in the last 3 years. And really, what is pick 18 going to get you in this draft anyway? Surely if we are looking to get picks, we need something higher than that - it's not like it's going to snare us a Palmer or Masten.

Realistically though Murphy was never a chance of getting us a pick early enough to secure Masten/Palmer. We should chase pick 22 from the bulldogs if the tigers aren't going to be realistic.

He's contracted for 2008 Badseed.

I hope the tigers have a lot of homesick WA boys coming out of contract next time we finish bottom two.

 

[raffrox]

Very simplistic view of our trading. The value of player is not simply a matter of how many Brownlow votes they had the previous year, or whether they were AA.

Sometimes the players we traded had become superfluous to our needs ie Polak and Brown (who you missed) and they were attractive to other clubs because they met their own needs.

All of the players we traded for were targetted because they fit a particular role that we needed to fill.

To say we buy high and trade low ignores the fact that trades are made primarily on our needs. The alternative is to buy low and trade high regardless of our needs, in which case we would be trading for the "best value" players this trading period regardless of whether they were mids/forwards/ruckman/defenders, when we really should be trading for midfielders if anything.

The timing of a players contract expiry also has more of a bearing on when trades take place than their previous years performance.

I love your optimism and blind faith Rondhouse. I really do.

I lost mine a fair while ago.

 

[Lach72]

I love your optimism and blind faith Rondhouse. I really do.

I lost mine a fair while ago.

That's a bold faced lie...that's not blind faith and optimism, that's intimate football knowledge and complete reporting of the facts...

Next thing, you'll be accusing him of being Cameron Schwab

 

[Roundhouse]

I love your optimism and blind faith Rondhouse. I really do.

I lost mine a fair while ago.

Optimism?

I'm just saying that we have generally traded to try and fill certain holes in our list.

Hardly an revelation.

Dom is advocating that we trade high instead of trading low. By this rationale we would be trading those players who are filling a role well for us. Hardly seems wise when you think about it.

Doms theory suggests that the players we should be looking to offload this trade period are those who have had a standout, or breakout, year like Hayden or Warnock. It doesn't take into account the fact that they are filling roles in our structure and have contracts in place.

I'm pointing out that Doms is a poorly thought critique of trading, thats all. How does that equate to blind faith?

 

[dominguez]

Dom is advocating that we trade high instead of trading low. By this rationale we would be trading those players who are filling a role well for us. Hardly seems wise when you think about it.

Doms theory suggests that the players we should be looking to offload this trade period are those who have had a standout, or breakout, year like Hayden or Warnock. It doesn't take into account the fact that they are filling roles in our structure and have contracts in place.

I'm pointing out that Doms is a poorly thought critique of trading, thats all. How does that equate to blind faith?

What a load of nonsense, that's not what I'm saying at all. A lot of guys in recent times have been traded out after one bad year. They go from being a required player and an important part of our structure to superfluous to our needs in 12 months.

Medhurst and Polak had their worst year since being drafted last year and we let them go. McPhee was great in his first year then struggled with OP in 02 and we let him go. Croad had the worst season of his career in 2003 so we ditched him. Simmonds was a ruckman who spent a year at full forward and we let him go. Murphy has had one bad year and we might trade him this time.

Because we are always after a quick fix we panic and say player X is struggling, lets get rid of him for player Y at that other club because he is exactly what we need. If a player has shown they have ability and can fill a role they shoud be retained. We need to retain a core group then add youth each year, not recruit the great white hope every 12 months.

Polak and Medhurst would have been worth much more in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 than they were last year.

Where did I suggest we trade Warnock and Sandilands? Warnock is the perfect example of my point. His value is currently high. IF we had 4 or 5 ruckmen it would be the perfect time to trade Warnock because of a surplus of players for that one role. But that the fact that we only have two realistic ruck options makes him one of our most important players. Just like our lack of midfielders makes Hasleby one of our most important players, my initial point that you took umbrage with.

 

[E Shed]

You don't take into account that it may be the move that has helped the player to get a fresh start and play good footy again. Would Soli have had as many opportunities and played as good if he stayed at Essendon? I doubt it. Same goes for Polly staying here with all his mates or Medders getting out of his comfort zone. It's the kick up the pants they need sometimes.

 

[sabre_ac]

Polak and Medhurst would have been worth much more in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 than they were last year.

That is exactly the point.
The writing was on the wall regarding Polak especially the past two trade periods, yet we hung on to hope and got very little for him. While he went on to have a decent career.

I am not saying we shouldn't have traded Polak last season, I am saying we should have traded him years earlier.

The high low arguement as some merits, but there is also an arguement for cutting your losses.

 

[Roundhouse]

What a load of nonsense, that's not what I'm saying at all. A lot of guys in recent times have been traded out after one bad year. They go from being a required player and an important part of our structure to superfluous to our needs in 12 months.

Medhurst and Polak had their worst year since being drafted last year and we let them go. McPhee was great in his first year then struggled with OP in 02 and we let him go. Croad had the worst season of his career in 2003 so we ditched him. Simmonds was a ruckman who spent a year at full forward and we let him go. Murphy has had one bad year and we might trade him this time.

Because we are always after a quick fix we panic and say player X is struggling, lets get rid of him for player Y at that other club because he is exactly what we need. If a player has shown they have ability and can fill a role they shoud be retained. We need to retain a core group then add youth each year, not recruit the great white hope every 12 months.

Polak and Medhurst would have been worth much more in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 than they were last year.

Where did I suggest we trade Warnock and Sandilands? Warnock is the perfect example of my point. His value is currently high. IF we had 4 or 5 ruckmen it would be the perfect time to trade Warnock because of a surplus of players for that one role. But that the fact that we only have two realistic ruck options makes him one of our most important players. Just like our lack of midfielders makes Hasleby one of our most important players, my initial point that you took umbrage with.

Why do you keep bringing up Simmonds? He wanted a five year big-money deal or he wanted out. We traded him low because Richmond were willing to offer what he wanted, and they were well placed in PSD to get him for nothing.

Polak had an attitude problem, and the club gave him a couple of seasons to grow out of it. He didn't, he sooked because he wasn't getting game time (others players had passed him) and he left. What should we have done with Polak? Trade him early even though the club thought he could fulfill his potential? Try to hold onto him and play him regardless of form just to get his value up? You seem to be advocating both at various stages in your little high/low spiel.

Murphy is in the same position that Medhurst and Polak were when they were coming into the last stages of their contracts. You noted that they got worse every year, what if Murphy follows that pattern? What justifiction is there to advocate holding onto him any longer, when you are bagging the club (with the benefit of hindsight) for holding on to Polak and Medhurst too long. It's these blatant contradictions I find baffling.

The Warnock thing is the icing on the cake. Your saying if we had four or five ruckmen it would be the perfect time to trade him. Switch back to reality for a second, if we had 4 or 5 ruckmen that could actually play Warnock would not have stood out at all, and might not have even got a game this year so his value wouldn't be high. If we had 4 or 5 ruckmen who were hacks, then why would we trade away Warnock who fills that role better than any of them, just because his stocks are high? You can't have 4 or five ruckmen that everyone wants because most of them would not even be getting a regular game.

Your buy low/trade high idea only works if you know in advance how good a players next few seasons will be, and if you know in advance how good their understudies will be.

It's typical flawed Dom-b logic. The kind that makes people feel smarter because they can look back with the benefit of hindsight and say, "you should of done this because look how this turned out".

You look at drafting and trading and say 'that could have turned out better', as a means of bagging the club, but you fail to even entertain the possiblity that things that have actually turned out worse.

 

[dominguez]

Why do you keep bringing up Simmonds? He wanted a five year big-money deal or he wanted out. We traded him low because Richmond were willing to offer what he wanted, and they were well placed in PSD to get him for nothing.

Polak had an attitude problem, and the club gave him a couple of seasons to grow out of it. He didn't, he sooked because he wasn't getting game time (others players had passed him) and he left. What should we have done with Polak? Trade him early even though the club thought he could fulfill his potential? Try to hold onto him and play him regardless of form just to get his value up? You seem to be advocating both at various stages in your little high/low spiel.

Murphy is in the same position that Medhurst and Polak were when they were coming into the last stages of their contracts. You noted that they got worse every year, what if Murphy follows that pattern? What justifiction is there to advocate holding onto him any longer, when you are bagging the club (with the benefit of hindsight) for holding on to Polak and Medhurst too long. It's these blatant contradictions I find baffling.

The Warnock thing is the icing on the cake. Your saying if we had four or five ruckmen it would be the perfect time to trade him. Switch back to reality for a second, if we had 4 or 5 ruckmen that could actually play Warnock would not have stood out at all, and might not have even got a game this year so his value wouldn't be high. If we had 4 or 5 ruckmen who were hacks, then why would we trade away Warnock who fills that role better than any of them, just because his stocks are high? You can't have 4 or five ruckmen that everyone wants because most of them would not even be getting a regular game.

Your buy low/trade high idea only works if you know in advance how good a players next few seasons will be, and if you know in advance how good their understudies will be.

It's typical flawed Dom-b logic. The kind that makes people feel smarter because they can look back with the benefit of hindsight and say, "you should of done this because look how this turned out".

You look at drafting and trading and say 'that could have turned out better', as a means of bagging the club, but you fail to even entertain the possiblity that things that have actually turned out worse.

Simmonds wanted out because Connolly decided he was a full forward and not a ruckman. The fact that Richmond offered 5 years was a bonus, if we had matched it he still would have walked.

Polak had a bad attitude because he fell out with Connolly. In 2003 Polak was assured prior to re-signing that his mentor wouldn't be traded. A bit childish of him to assume what was said during the season would hold true during trade week, but he was only 19 and he felt that his trust had been broken when Croad was traded. A more disciplined coach would have been able to mend that fence but Connolly assured Polak of a forward role for the coming season to try to make Polak happy which allowed the tail to wag the dog.

Murphy will be a better player in 2008 because he won't be playing under Connolly. If Harvey doesn't think he can get the best from Murphy he should move him on, just like Connolly should have traded Polak and Medhurst much earlier when it was evident that he wasn't going to be able to turn their potential into reality.

Gilmore is our 4th best ruckman and he played a lot of games this year. If he was 200cm he'd be tradeable this year.

Other clubs know in advance how good a players next few years will be. But at Fremantle we've had 3 dud coaches and our players haven't gone on with it after showing early potential. Pavlich is the only player we've drafted and developed in 13 seasons to consistently be among the best players in the competition in his position. That's one player in 13 years. All that trading of draft picks has produced one good player and one finals victory.

How much worse could things have turned out? Only twice in 13 years have we won more games than we've lost.

 

[Roundhouse]

Simmonds wanted out because Connolly decided he was a full forward and not a ruckman. The fact that Richmond offered 5 years was a bonus, if we had matched it he still would have walked.

Polak had a bad attitude because he fell out with Connolly. In 2003 Polak was assured prior to re-signing that his mentor wouldn't be traded. A bit childish of him to assume what was said during the season would hold true during trade week, but he was only 19 and he felt that his trust had been broken when Croad was traded. A more disciplined coach would have been able to mend that fence but Connolly assured Polak of a forward role for the coming season to try to make Polak happy which allowed the tail to wag the dog.

Murphy will be a better player in 2008 because he won't be playing under Connolly. If Harvey doesn't think he can get the best from Murphy he should move him on, just like Connolly should have traded Polak and Medhurst much earlier when it was evident that he wasn't going to be able to turn their potential into reality.

Gilmore is our 4th best ruckman and he played a lot of games this year. If he was 200cm he'd be tradeable this year.

Other clubs know in advance how good a players next few years will be. But at Fremantle we've had 3 dud coaches and our players haven't gone on with it after showing early potential. Pavlich is the only player we've drafted and developed in 13 seasons to consistently be among the best players in the competition in his position. That's one player in 13 years. All that trading of draft picks has produced one good player and one finals victory.

How much worse could things have turned out? We've had 11 bad seasons in 13 years.

We only have one good player? We've only had one good player in 13 years?

That's strange, in another thread you argued that Connolly had inherited a "great" list.

More recently you've said that we currently have a "superb list".

Your rundown on Simmonds and Polak makes them sound like candidates for a weepy telemovie about a callous coach smashing the dreams of innocent young boys.

Let me guess, these tragic happenings in the life of the young Graham Polak are "widely accepted" titbits that you've garnered from wehavethepoison or 6pr?

 

[dominguez]

We only have one good player? We've only had one good player in 13 years?

That's strange, in another thread you argued that Connolly had inherited a "great" list.

More recently you've said that we currently have a "superb list".

Your rundown on Simmonds and Polak makes them sound like candidates for a weepy telemovie about a callous coach smashing the dreams of innocent young boys.

Let me guess, these tragic happenings in the life of the young Graham Polak are "widely accepted" titbits that you've garnered from wehavethepoison or 6pr?

It's true though. Players at Fremantle play a good game here, a good game there. Pav is the only player we have drafted and developed to string really good seasons together. Hayden making the squad of 40 would probably be the only player we've had figure in All Australian contention apart from Bell and Pav in the last 3 or 4 seasons.

Connolly did inherit a superb list. It's not my fault that he couldn't turn very good young players into the elite players of the competition.

We do have a superb list when Bell and Hasleby are in there. Hopefully Harvey can get the squad to perform to their potential in 2008 and beyond. Even if Bell and Hasleby depart I'm confident that we won't be sitting 6 and 9 next season.

I don't need 6PR and wehavethepassion to tell me that one finals victory in 13 seasons is embarrassing.

 

[Cameron_K]

Polak had a bad attitude long before he was 19.

 

[raffrox]

Why do you keep bringing up Simmonds? He wanted a five year big-money deal or he wanted out. We traded him low because Richmond were willing to offer what he wanted, and they were well placed in PSD to get him for nothing.

Polak had an attitude problem, and the club gave him.....It's typical flawed Dom-b logic..... etc etc...... that makes people feel smarter because they can look back with the benefit of hindsight and say, "you should of done this because look how this turned out".

You look at drafting and trading and say 'that could have turned out better', as a means of bagging the club, but you fail to even entertain the possiblity that things that have actually turned out worse.

Roundhouse, any chance Freo's coaches or management have done anything wrong in the last 5-6 years or is it always lazy players or the wrong fit or the benefit of hindsight or... some other excuse?

 

[dominguez]

Polak had a bad attitude long before he was 19.

If that is the case why use a top four draft pick on him? Richmond seem to be pleased with him.

 

[Cameron_K]

Polak had issues that were present long before any club looked at him but with the potential he had and what he had shown it was worth the risk. I don't hold anything against the club for taking the chance but the guy just needed to get out of WA.

Mind you, he did ok playing as a loose man in defense for Freo as well.

 

[Bulldogs_6]

whats the most youd give us for farren ray, honestly? straight swap for murphy? you need a fast developing midfielder and we need a KPP so i wuldnt go past it

 

[Cameron_K]

whats the most youd give us for farren ray, honestly? straight swap for murphy? you need a fast developing midfielder and we need a KPP so i wuldnt go past it

If that deal is placed on the table I wouldn't be surprised to see Freo agreeing to it.

 

[sabre_ac]

If that deal is placed on the table I wouldn't be surprised to see Freo agreeing to it.

I agree.

Murphy will turn into a fine player, but due to the recruiting of Tarrant he is wasted in our lineup.

Ray is as good as we are going to get, otherwise upgrade our pick.

 

[hodge = gun]

From Hawthorn what would you realistically want for him???

 

[Freo Blood]

We only have one good player? We've only had one good player in 13 years?

That's strange, in another thread you argued that Connolly had inherited a "great" list.

More recently you've said that we currently have a "superb list".

I have often heard these arguments and wondered what happened to our wonderful list and did it ever exist. I also remember some of CC's soundbites after a close Dockers/Saints where he dribbled on about a future of blockbuster finals played against the other up and comer StK.

Who did we have that made us look the goods for the future.
Top draft picks in Pav CHF and Polak CHB, Midfield of Hase, Ryley Dunn. Plus Bell (returning prem player), Headland (a returning prem player , ex No 1 pick and Brownlow fancy) and Farmer (recent 70 goal a year small forward).

On paper looked like the nucleus of a top flight team. What has it turned to? Pav and Bell - no complaints, the rest underachieved or brain explosions. That is a hell of a lot of wasted talent I reckon and will be a while before we have young talent like that at our disposal again..

In the meantime we have traded away picks and not drafted well imo.

So in answer to my question... yes we had the potential players but they or the club couldn't get it together enough. 2 winning seasons in 6 says it all let, alone 2 in 13.

Still, saddle me up for my 3 seats in the concrete monstrosity next year and beyond. Go Harv's and the purple.

 

[dockertor]

I agree.

Murphy will turn into a fine player, but due to the recruiting of Tarrant he is wasted in our lineup.

Ray is as good as we are going to get, otherwise upgrade our pick.

I hope you mean Ray + upgrade our picks. But no trade would still be the best strategy

 

[Scham]

From Hawthorn what would you realistically want for him???

Your first pick is what we'd want, doubt you'd give it but, so there'll be no dealing with the Hawks on Murphy IMO.

 

[pistol17]

From Hawthorn what would you realistically want for him???

i doubt we could do a straight swap with the hawks for anyone on your list we would want. We wouldnt want to throw a pick in to sweeten the deal.

But Roughead maybe?

 

[inferno66]

Murphy for Hawks first pick