Lots of discussion going on about Da Silva and other players and people on this site being concerned about our perceived lack of success .
We need to get over our inferiority complexes and biases. The non thinkers can be like that but sensible people see it exactly the way you do.
The mentality here is similar to a public auction, people bid because they want to win, not the property but the game. They just bought one on the impulse and then miss the one they really wanted because of that impetuous.
In saying that you still have to understand the market which means you need to inspect and understand the nuances of all the properties and who's bidding and stress that process by offering only at prices you are prepared to pay for the value expressed. Da Silva for all intents and purposes is probably worth 300k, rhetoric says he will get 600 (hoping, think Galvin).
If Riley Smith was up for auction, my guess he would pull say 450 from the right club. Whats he worth to us, my guess 350 which I hope is what he is being offered with KPI's and incentives for games played and the potential to get to that 600 number. Very Similar when we lost Mahoney. We weren't going that extra....was that a mistake .....hindsight and rhetoric still has that argument as subjective, Most at the time on here we are against matching the higher price and we lost a few players as a result.
We basically have all agreed on not matching DB's price and that has shown to be the right move given his burnout.
When we see a specific person to either obtain or retain, then we have every right to pay overs and accept the commentary of the critic's, who incidently put prices on anything with no knowledge of the current cap and how it is structured or managed. Why? because it is assumed it suits our agenda!
By all means make observation's and qualify your comments, but it is hard to be critical when you don't know.
Find out first before jumping in. Actully how desperate are we in obtaining Da Silva as against not letting someone else get him on the perception of losing an opportunity (not qualified).
Replies
Well that's the type of discussion I was trying to create Bup.
You have defined it further and that makes for more discourse and that's what I try and establish when I write a blog.
You may say that Smith is not an 80 minute player and I agree with you at this point of time. That said he has aerobically attacked and surpasssed Gutherson's records and that is no mean feat.
WE need a back up regardless but I think that back has to come from the hookers we are developing. I understand there is one or two with great promise.....its also a position we have to recognise burnout and injuries with.
Someone like "Cheese" i would have thought ideal in that as a bench he can play legitimate FG roles as a hooker/or forward.
Any more mobile and lighter weight edges or middles could also be developed down those lines. e.g what happened to Hands to take him off the boil? Burnout or gut busting maybe?
These are things that no doubt go on regularly with the R&R Group as well as the coaching staff......presumably?
My further guess was BA had those things in his head and kept them there. Unquestioned that model has expired, shame he could not evolve with the process from his own point of further development as a coach. I am not sure that tradional thinking has not changed for the whole processing of developing coaches.
Lets look at Hasler, Maguire, Flanagan, even Bennet as examples and the look at the ones that are objectively seeming to change,ie. Stewart, Robinson
Then we go to guys like Payton, Cronulla, Woolf, Marshall, Siebold, Webster.....where do they sit.....
Rookies it seems is Ryles and a myriad of assistant's that have not met the standards Ryles has established.
That leaves us with Bellamey and Cleary as the standouts.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next