Recruiting - going after the big fish

[Whispering_Jack 27,992]

The idea of repairing a team’s playing list by chasing after a “big fish” is by no means something new - it’s been going on for decades. North Melbourne used it well under Ron Barassi when the then VFL adopted the short lived “10 year rule”. Melbourne has tried it and failed a few times, egs  “Diamond Jim” Tilbrook in the early 70s, Peter Moore (despite the Brownlow) and Kelvin Templeton under RDB.

 The advent of free agency has seen an annual push for teams to chase big names coming out of contract. 

The question is whether it’s the right strategy for clubs to take. 

I bring this up after reading a long rant on a Collingwood supporter site which I will reproduce in the next post. It’s about whether the Pies should be chasing Tom Lynch who becomes a free agent at the end of the year.

[Whispering_Jack 27,992]

This from Two Man Bob on Extreme Black ‘n’ White:- 

“I'm nervous about getting Tom Lynch - maybe we shouldn't.

Going into a bidding war for a "gun recruit" is shaping up to be "fools gold" in the AFL, and the track record of teams having successfully acquired said "gun" has not been good in the last 20 or so years.

It begins with our acquisition of Buckley.

No doubt one of the most celebrated players in AFL history, but the records will always show that his services were not required by Brisbane, who completed a trifecta - two Premierships of which were won against the club hat had taken Buckley away from them.

And this is after a period of mediocrity in which Buckley's influence at the Club could do nothing to make it competitive until Mick came along.

We have a similar outcome with Carlton's gung-ho acquisition of Nick Stevens from Port.

Again, a highly-publicised acquisition that did nothing for the Blues despite the planning and cost to get him there.

In fact, Port won the Premiership the following year after losing this elite midfielder to Carlton.

Carlton tried again with the acquisition of Judd. Judd was going home, so the loser in this "bidding war" was not so much the Eagles, but the Pies who were into their necks to win Judd's services over Carlton.

Again, while Judd was a great servant to the Blues (like Bucks to the Pies), it amounted to nothing in terms of team silverware. The team that lost that "bidding war" to Carlton (missing out on Judd) had a Premiership flag a few years later in 2010.

The Swan's forays into the acquisiton of both Tippett and Franklin has so far amounted to nil - and one of those guys is now gone!

Again, these guys (well, Franklin, at least) have been great for the club, but they haven't been that "missing link" to a Flag.

In more recent times, our successful play for the services of gun midfielder Adam Treloar has not really made significant impact to our side.

Conversly, the team who missed out on his services of which the Club and fans alike were very vocal of) is the current reigning Premier.

I can understand how in the 70s, a dynasty could be build with money and acquisitions. But that was a time before equalisation and before the salary cap.

It was a time before the professionalism of the sport.

I've said it before and I will say it again now - the success I have witnessed at the Pies has come on the back of growing a team with within and then getting "top-up" players to fill specific needs.

The 1990 team, many of whom came through the Under-19 system together, were supplemented by "discards" from other teams who represented a need (Moorwood, Barwick, etc), as well as the drafting of two clever, but not necessarily outstanding, young rovers in Francis and Russell.

Missing out on Judd in the mid-noughties was a blessing is disguise...look at the team we were able to accumulate with our draft picks as a result of not selling them away for an absolute gun of the competition. Top-ups Jolly and Ball were the icing on the cake.

I have a serious fear that going "all-out" for Lynch is less a guarantee of success than NOT going after him!

The track-record of sides acquiring these types of players in a heated bidding system is not great.

In many cases, the result has been hugely negative.”

[Mach5 4,482]

Normally I'd agree.

Treloar hasn't helped Collingwood as much as they'd liked, but will be a good player.

However, Tom Lynch is a star of the competition and has been the best player in the league for periods. If they can get him, they should.

Like Treloar, the question relates to cost, and anything more than they paid for Treloar, I think would verge on too much for Lynch.

I'm also beginning to seriously question the value of true KPFs or KPP in general, as the game continues to evolve. Lynch is blue-chip, but I'm not sure he's worth it if his influence is marginalised by the style of play.

[Freddy Fuschia 665]

Does Jake Lever qualify as a “big fish”?

[Sir Why You Little 34,510]

Would love Lynch in a Demon Jumper

[Whispering_Jack 27,992]

9 minutes ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

Does Jake Lever qualify as a “big fish”?

Reasonably so and definitely not a sardine but on the other hand, he hasn’t been recruited as the club’s saviour. I would say that he’s been added as cream to provide a valuable ingredient missing from our defence, a player who could become a great but at this stage a player who would fit in evenly with the top players on our list. 

[Lucifers Hero 37,078]

36 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This from Two Man Bob on Extreme Black ‘n’ White:- 

“I'm nervous about getting Tom Lynch - maybe we shouldn't.

The track-record of sides acquiring these types of players in a heated bidding system is not great.

In many cases, the result has been hugely negative.”

The poster misses the point that as an FA Lynch is 'free' to the receiving club - unless GCS match the offer then they give up picks/players ala Dangerfield. 

 

Re the principle of chasing a 'big fish' - if he is a 'free', I say go for it. 

 

Excuse me for asking WJ - what on earth takes someone of your renown to reading a Pies forum. 

[Whispering_Jack 27,992]

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Excuse me for asking WJ - what on earth takes someone of your renown to reading a Pies forum. 

Occasionally go there for a good laugh but didn’t do so after Rd 23 last year for some reason.

[Dockett 32 1,213]

5 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The poster misses the point that as an FA Lynch is 'free' to the receiving club - unless GCS match the offer then they give up picks/players ala Dangerfield. 

 

Re the principle of chasing a 'big fish' - if he is a 'free', I say go for it. 

 

Excuse me for asking WJ - what on earth takes someone of your renown to reading a Pies forum. 

Understand what you are saying but Judd, Buddy  etc ate up a huge amount of salary cap which is ok if you can satisfy all your other players and stay in the game for some new ones. So does carry some risk.

Hate to say this, and it’s very rare  but inclined to have some sympathy with the chap from Carrinbush.

[BAMF 3,787]

What is the definition of a big fish? In my opinion, it would be a player that you have given up significant currency in salary cap space or the trade itself.

Free agency changes things as you no longer need to trade for the player. While no one has landed the marquee type player and won the premiership yet, I think its only a matter of time until someone does. 

Lance Franklin moved to the Swans under free agency. They have made the grand final twice so far.

Nathan Buckley was traded for pick 12 (Chris Scott) and 2 players (Starcevich and Leehman). Nathan captained the side for 9 years, won 6 best and fairests, 7 All Australians, 1 Brownlow medal, 2 Grand Final loses, 1 Norm Smith.

Surely, every magpie supporter would do the same deal again if looked upon in hindsight. 

Tom Boyd was a number 1 draft pick who was traded for Ryan Griffen (current captain) and pick 7. He signed a contract for  7 million dollars over 7 years. His team won a premiership 2 years later. Does this example somehow not count? Maybe because Boyd isnt actually that great a player? (Yes. He was good on the day it counted)

[Stretch Johnson 2,568]

It's not a simple argument 

You need to take into account the state of your list,  what you are getting against what you are giving up?

Having 10 duds in your side and one superstar ain't going to win you a flag.

Having said that having a couple of match winners in a team of even contributors will give you every chance. 

And then what of development, coaching and culture?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Stretch Johnson

[rjay 23,922]

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I've said it before and I will say it again now - the success I have witnessed at the Pies has come on the back of growing a team with within and then getting "top-up" players to fill specific needs.

This is the crux of the argument and one I agree fully with...

It's how we are building our list now and in my mind the right way to succeed.

[Moonshadow 16,210]

One size big fish does not fit all examples. Sure, some have flopped (pardon the pun), but many others have been pivotal in their teams GF success. Lynch at Brisvegas quickly comes to mind, and now Boyd's super granny performance two years ago.

As Stretch mentions above, a big fish is wasted in a crappy team. Amongst quality depth and where needed, a big fish can make a huge difference.

Jake Lever at 21 years of age, surrounded by the likes of Hibberd, Jetta, Lewis and Hunt is imo the perfect asset to compliment the development of Oscar and Frost.

[Deemania since 56 6,144]

2 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This from Two Man Bob on Extreme Black ‘n’ White:- 

“I'm nervous about getting Tom Lynch - maybe we shouldn't.

Going into a bidding war for a "gun recruit" is shaping up to be "fools gold" in the AFL, and the track record of teams having successfully acquired said "gun" has not been good in the last 20 or so years.

It begins with our acquisition of Buckley.

No doubt one of the most celebrated players in AFL history, but the records will always show that his services were not required by Brisbane, who completed a trifecta - two Premierships of which were won against the club hat had taken Buckley away from them.

And this is after a period of mediocrity in which Buckley's influence at the Club could do nothing to make it competitive until Mick came along.

We have a similar outcome with Carlton's gung-ho acquisition of Nick Stevens from Port.

Again, a highly-publicised acquisition that did nothing for the Blues despite the planning and cost to get him there.

In fact, Port won the Premiership the following year after losing this elite midfielder to Carlton.

Carlton tried again with the acquisition of Judd. Judd was going home, so the loser in this "bidding war" was not so much the Eagles, but the Pies who were into their necks to win Judd's services over Carlton.

Again, while Judd was a great servant to the Blues (like Bucks to the Pies), it amounted to nothing in terms of team silverware. The team that lost that "bidding war" to Carlton (missing out on Judd) had a Premiership flag a few years later in 2010.

The Swan's forays into the acquisiton of both Tippett and Franklin has so far amounted to nil - and one of those guys is now gone!

Again, these guys (well, Franklin, at least) have been great for the club, but they haven't been that "missing link" to a Flag.

In more recent times, our successful play for the services of gun midfielder Adam Treloar has not really made significant impact to our side.

Conversly, the team who missed out on his services of which the Club and fans alike were very vocal of) is the current reigning Premier.

I can understand how in the 70s, a dynasty could be build with money and acquisitions. But that was a time before equalisation and before the salary cap.

It was a time before the professionalism of the sport.

I've said it before and I will say it again now - the success I have witnessed at the Pies has come on the back of growing a team with within and then getting "top-up" players to fill specific needs.

The 1990 team, many of whom came through the Under-19 system together, were supplemented by "discards" from other teams who represented a need (Moorwood, Barwick, etc), as well as the drafting of two clever, but not necessarily outstanding, young rovers in Francis and Russell.

Missing out on Judd in the mid-noughties was a blessing is disguise...look at the team we were able to accumulate with our draft picks as a result of not selling them away for an absolute gun of the competition. Top-ups Jolly and Ball were the icing on the cake.

I have a serious fear that going "all-out" for Lynch is less a guarantee of success than NOT going after him!

The track-record of sides acquiring these types of players in a heated bidding system is not great.

In many cases, the result has been hugely negative.”

This is precisely why we should fully support Collingwood's acquisition of Lynch - the negativity of it all will bring smiles to every other supporter of every other team on every other day of the week when the Magpies come up in derisory discussions. I think we'd all like that to occur and simultaneously, watch Eddie the Neddy attempt to talk his way out of it. This will destroy his Presidency.

[Deemania since 56 6,144]

2 hours ago, Freddy Fuschia said:

Does Jake Lever qualify as a “big fish”?

Nope, that was only the end result of the financial transaction.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Smartest thing I’ve read from a Collingwood supporter.

[markc 975]

i thought Nick Stevens wanted to go to Collingwood but Port refused the trade 

[Sir Why You Little 34,510]

18 minutes ago, markc said:

i thought Nick Stevens wanted to go to Collingwood but Port refused the trade 

Correct. His impact at Carlscum was fairly ordinary...

[daisycutter 28,562]

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Correct. His impact at Carlscum was fairly ordinary...

he played well at carlton. the rest consisted of too much crap. same with judd

[Sir Why You Little 34,510]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

he played well at carlton. the rest consisted of too much crap. same with judd

Stevens was ok. He was never going to lift a team to a GF. Port made the right call, they dealt on their terms

[Adzman 2,085]

Are you sure this was originally written by a Collingwood supporter? It is an interesting argument that I tend to agree with.

For the record, I think lever is a solid player and I'm aware we paid overs in terms of salary and at the trade table but that doesn't mean that he won't bring success to the club. 

Lynch is a huge get for anyone, but at cool million a season I think he will certainly eat up cap space wherever he goes.

[DaveyDee 421]

2 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

It's not a simple argument 

You need to take into account the state of your list,  what you are getting against what you are giving up?

Having 10 duds in your side and one superstar ain't going to win you a flag.

Having said that having a couple of match winners in a team of even contributors will give you every chance. 

And then what of development, coaching and culture?

You have nailed it - much will have to do about where you are in “the cycle” both on and off the field. What will look like a poor descision by one club may be a winner for another club.

”Topping up “ is a legitimate proven strategy when you are in a position to “top up”

[rjay 23,922]

34 minutes ago, Adzman said:

Lynch is a huge get for anyone, but at cool million a season I think he will certainly eat up cap space wherever he goes.

Will cost a fair bit over the $1mill I would think & on a long term deal...

[Sir Why You Little 34,510]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Will cost a fair bit over the $1mill I would think & on a long term deal...

Could make a club a lot of money as well, gotta spend to make....

[DV8 2,271]

4 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The idea of repairing a team’s playing list by chasing after a “big fish” is by no means something new - it’s been going on for decades. North Melbourne used it well under Ron Barassi when the then VFL adopted the short lived “10 year rule”. Melbourne has tried it and failed a few times, egs  “Diamond Jim” Tilbrook in the early 70s, Peter Moore (despite the Brownlow) and Kelvin Templeton under RDB.

 The advent of free agency has seen an annual push for teams to chase big names coming out of contract. 

The question is whether it’s the right strategy for clubs to take. 

I bring this up after reading a long rant on a Collingwood supporter site which I will reproduce in the next post. It’s about whether the Pies should be chasing Tom Lynch who becomes a free agent at the end of the year.

 

3 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Normally I'd agree.

Treloar hasn't helped Collingwood as much as they'd liked, but will be a good player.

However, Tom Lynch is a star of the competition and has been the best player in the league for periods. If they can get him, they should.

Like Treloar, the question relates to cost, and anything more than they paid for Treloar, I think would verge on too much for Lynch.

I'm also beginning to seriously question the value of true KPFs or KPP in general, as the game continues to evolve. Lynch is blue-chip, but I'm not sure he's worth it if his influence is marginalised by the style of play.

2 Mtr Peter could be handy?  And maybe cheaper, allowing the Suns to hold Lynch?