Wells

[Turbocat]

Just a question. Would you guys have prefered to have Wells or Johnson?

 

[Wrenny]

Easy

Long Term Wells

Short Term Johnson

While wells would give you 10 quality years of service Kane johnson is still only 25 he still has 7 years and he is in his prime.

I suppose the richmond staff wanted to have immediate results in the midfield instead of drafting a kid. We reacted to well to that and now we got an experienced midfield and some young midfielders comign through from last years draft in gilmour, dragacevic, foley, raines, Tuck etc

 

[Weaver]

We got - Kane Johnson, Jay Schultz and Tim Fleming.
We 'gave-up' - Jason Torney, Daniel Wells, Kris Shore and Luke Jericho.

We got our our potential 200 game, blue-chip prospect in Schulz. In Schulz we got a potential KP player which we needed more than a midfielder like Wells.

Good deal in hindsight and saying it was Johnson for Wells is too simplistic.

 

[Turbocat]

200 games? blue chip?Schulz? Good Luck

 

[Darth_Tiger]

when the tigers made the trade they thought they were giving up pick 4, in that draft there were only 3 top players regarded as genuine superstar talent so the tiges opted to trade it. unfortunately the blues got done for salary cap and pick 4 became pick 2. i think they would have still traded it but they would have gotten more for it. I think the club wanted an imediate on field leader in Johnson and this is why they traded to get him.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Originally posted by Weaver
We got our our potential 200 game, blue-chip prospect in Schulz. In Schulz we got a potential KP player which we needed more than a midfielder like Wells.

Surely you jest? 200+ games...we're talking AFL board here yeah.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by nineteen eighty
Surely you jest? 200+ games...we're talking AFL board here yeah.

You chose to ignore the use of the word potential twice and prospect.

A top-10 pick is the opportunity to pick up a blue-chip prospect. A highly rated junior who you hope will play 200 games and be a best and fairest calibre player. Maybe it works, maybe its Pettifer.

In this trade we didn't swap Wells for Johnson. We traded down to get access to a blue-chip KP prospect of which we had none. Maybe Schulz plays 50 games, maybe he plays 200, who knows.

We dropped from 4th (ended up 2nd) to 14th (ended up 12th). We got the midfielder we needed in Johnson AND the 2nd-3rd best tall player available.

 

[Carlos]

Originally posted by Weaver
We got - Kane Johnson, Jay Schultz and Tim Fleming.
We 'gave-up' - Jason Torney, Daniel Wells, Kris Shore and Luke Jericho.

In Johnson, you weren't only getting a very accomplished midfielder, you were also getting a 2 time premiership player. I think that was as much the appeal for Frawley and co as his footballing talent was. At the time, you guys were screaming for quality experience and leadership. Johnson has given you that and more.

North still had our fair share of premiership players and leaders around to help bring through our youngsters, as well as a reasonable second teir (on paper anyway!! ) but Laidley was obviously thinking long term with how he wants his teams to play: fast and skillful. Wells suits that perfectly.

I'll never understand why you gave away Torney. Very consistent player IMO.

In terms of Shultz vs Shore, i do like big Jay but i do think he has limitations. But i'm rapt with Shore. He was taken bottom age, has grown to be 193cms (was 189 when we got him) and I've heard Laidley say some ridiculous things about him (possible future captain, mentioned names like Tarrant and Hird as possible comparisons). I've seen him play for our VFL side and he is still young, but looks the goods and will be given plenty of time.

All in all, i think we both came away from it pretty well.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Carlos
In Johnson, you weren't only getting a very accomplished midfielder, you were also getting a 2 time premiership player. I think that was as much the appeal for Frawley and co as his footballing talent was. At the time, you guys were screaming for quality experience and leadership. Johnson has given you that and more.

Johnson also serves as a good role-model for Coughlan. Coughlan needed his workload reduced (he broke down anyway) but Johnson really helps him when both are fit.

Originally posted by Carlos
I'll never understand why you gave away Torney. Very consistent player IMO.

Always 15th-20th best player, couldn't make the move to midfield a success and was a specialist HBF and we allready had one of those in Chaffey. It was about trying to get better and not just being happy with what we had. Also had to save some salary cap money to bring in Johnson.

Originally posted by Carlos
In terms of Shultz vs Shore, i do like big Jay but i do think he has limitations. But i'm rapt with Shore. He was taken bottom age

Well Schulz is bottom age too. In fact he is a month younger than Kris Shore and coming out of the SANFL reserves was probably a year of development behind a TAC player like Shore (far less weights and specific programs in SANFL juniors).

Allready has 10 games, was only 19 about 3 weeks back, and won't really be ready for a couple more years 20-21 is a good age for a big bloke like him. In fact Adam Goodes had not even made his debut at the same age (he was 19 and a couple of months).

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Originally posted by Carlos


All in all, i think we both came away from it pretty well.

agreed there carlos.
both north and the tigers did well out of the 3 way deal.the crows on the other hand.

cheers!