Tippett!!

[Bennymno4]

Jono, thanks for your kind words, though there are plenty of others who post stuff that makes as much sense as anything I come up with.

I'd like to stress that Doctor's post was correct - what I provided (what I always provide) is my opinion only. I have no inside knowledge and I have never professed to have any inside knowledge. My opinions are formed based on what I watch and read (with a healthy dose of scepticism applied to much of it) and from ideas and opinions exchanged with many of the other passionate and knowledgeable posters on here.

I do think that the Swans' trading track record over a decent period of time (ie most of this century) supports the notion that they are not precious about parting with good draft picks for a player they want. Their track record of drafting with picks in the 10-29 range indicates they have good cause not to be precious about trading away these picks, specially compared to their track record of drafting players from pick 30 or so onwards.

Fair enough I strongly disagree. I believe there is not a hope in hell the club would give up a top 10 pick for Tippett in this draft. Others, maybe, this one, not. Can't say about most of this century though, I will leave that to you, your research, and the knowledgable posters.

[Ludwig]

West Coast would be about the worst club for TDL, given they have Le Cras to come back from injury, which will probably push Josh Hill out of the team, who delivered far more this year than TDL has done. They also have Hams. He'd be well down the pecking order. I do think TDL could play a decent amount of senior AFL at the right club, particularly if he gets to string some games together and gets his confidence up. He definitely has some handy tools but I think it's become clear that Longmire and co aren't convinced.

Jesse +22/23 isn't really fair. It's an absolute steal for us, if it happens. But sometimes these things happen, and I'm sure we'll get screwed somewhere down the line with an out of contract player wanting out.

I find the suggestion by a few on here that the Swans were trying to hold onto the first round pick bizarre. We gave away a higher pick for Richards and another for Jolly when they were far less credentialled players than Tippett (and weren't being lured by a largish paycheck). If the Swans had had pick 10, I have little doubt they'd have handed that over for Tippett without a blink of the eye.

I know that I have been on here talking down the amount of compensation we should give for Tippett. The Kurt Tippett we saw in the PF against Hawthorn looked like someone worth 2 top 10 picks, but we should remember he was working over Shoenmakers. Tippett at his best is a really good player and I think he could do wonders for our forward line. But he has been inconsistent over the years, including many spells of poor goal kicking. The number of concussions he has had is well documented, so there is some medical risk to be considered. He doesn't have the runs on the board like a Cloke or Franklin. I think his value has been inflated just because he has been talked about so much for such a long time.

Many have equated the amount of player compensation we should give Adelaide to the salary we are offering Tippett. The higher the salary, the higher the compensation. I look at it differently. The way to look at the deal is the total compensation in money plus players (picks) should be seen as the total cost of the deal to the Swans. The fact that Tippett is probably being overpaid in cash means that for the deal to be equitable from our perspective we should be under-compensating in what we give in player compensation to Adelaide. We should remember that the cost of Tippett's salary could have ramifications down the line in what we can do in acquiring or retaining players. I suspect that the salary package offered Tippett took into consideration that we could make up a bit in the player compensation end due to the circumstances of his departure.

We have also been influenced by the bad press Tippett has received for 'letting down the club that did so much for him.' I think this is very unfair on Tippett. This saga with Tippett wanting to leave Adelaide has been going on for years. I have said before that wanting to go home is a polite way of saying I want out of here. There would be no possible way for Tippett to express a primary desire to leave Adelaide while still playing for the club. He was in a no win situation. It's unfair for Adelaide that so many players want out, but this is not of our making, and we have go home factors to deal with as well. The AFC has to take a portion of responsibility for letting the situation get so far out of hand from their perspective.

Collingwood got good compensation for Dawes because he had 2 years remaining on his contract. Tippett is as close as you can get to being a free agent without being a free agent.

If I weigh up ALL of the many factors involved in this trade, I feel that something equivalent to our first 2 picks, like White plus our first pick, is a fair deal. Last year, this sort of suggestion would rightfully look mad, but not this year IMHO.

Liz, on the TDL matter: I thought WC wanted to play Le Cras in the midfield. I don't really rate Hams and see TDL complementing Hill, rather than competing with him for a spot. But I do agree that if they want to keep Le Cras as a small forward, TDL would be vying with Hill for a spot, who I also rate as a better player.

[Auntie.Gerald]

hhhmmmmm

Tippett is by no means the top of the list for a dominating tall forward in my opinion........but he is the best we can get while our team is at its peak and we would be mad not to go all out to provide ourselves with the best chance of back to back GFs

we have an opportunity in 2013 and maybe 2014 and 2015 with our current roster..........we on the outside have no idea if Mummy will stay at the end of 2013 when his contract is up..........as if Geelong and other melb clubs will not be sounding him out big time to come back to Melb.........so Kurt brings us flexibility in a key position of forward and or ruck and he most importantly provides us another key target up front as Goodes is close to retirement

[Ludwig]

Fair enough I strongly disagree. I believe there is not a hope in hell the club would give up a top 10 pick for Tippett in this draft. Others, maybe, this one, not. Can't say about most of this century though, I will leave that to you, your research, and the knowledgable posters.

Benny, I am more or less on your side in this matter, but with all due respect, Liz is the most knowledgeable poster I have come across on any footy site, and beats all the journos as well. The reason that some of my posts are so long is because I know that I have to put my brain into overdrive if I am going to dispute her viewpoint, and I better have some pretty sound arguments to back my case. And in the end, I usually end up agreeing with her anyway. Would not be surprised if she turned my opinion on this Tippett matter as well.

[Xie Shan]

I tend to agree with ugg about the new ruck rules helping Jesse, in the past he has found it difficult to impose himself on games physically. This rule may give him the confidence to use his leap at the stoppages more. Though, like liz, I'm less certain about the impact the new rule will have on the competition as a whole, you generally need a whole season before assessing the impact of a rule change.

[Matty10]

I'm not convinced this ruck rule change will have the impact people are expecting it to have - or at least, I think the impact is unpredictable. It only affects around the ground throw-ups and throw ins. Throw-ins, in particular, are harder to set up structures for due to the unpredictability of how deep the throw will be. And although contact can't be made before the ball is thrown, I think rucks are allowed to make contact immediately the ball has been thrown. Does that not give ruckmen the licence to bump into each other more forcefully as soon as the ball is in the air, so long as their main aim is to gain position, rather than to nudge the other ruckman out the contest? This could actually favour the bigger bodied rucks over the lighter, more athletic rucks who rely more on balance and jump. It is all going to come down to interpretations by the umpires, and even under the current rules ruck contest interpretations can be highly technical and subjective.

It really does depend on the brief given to the umpires at the start of the season (or each week, as the case may be).

I am not sure that the umpires will allow the rucks to bump into each other to gain position, more likely just allow them to maintain current position if under the ball. I also think we might see an increase in the number of free kicks for shepherding as less mobile ruckman try to block their more mobile opponents from jumping at the ball (under current rules they could find their opponent before the ball was in the air and initiate early contact to limit their athleticism).

[Bennymno4]

Benny, I am more or less on your side in this matter, but with all due respect, Liz is the most knowledgeable poster I have come across on any footy site, and beats all the journos as well. The reason that some of my posts are so long is because I know that I have to put my brain into overdrive if I am going to dispute her viewpoint, and I better have some pretty sound arguments to back my case. And in the end, I usually end up agreeing with her anyway. Would not be surprised if she turned my opinion on this Tippett matter as well.

Check out page 1 white + our first is a maximum.

[liz]

hhhmmmmm

Tippett is by no means the top of the list for a dominating tall forward in my opinion........but he is the best we can get while our team is at its peak and we would be mad not to go all out to provide ourselves with the best chance of back to back GFs

we have an opportunity in 2013 and maybe 2014 and 2015 with our current roster..........we on the outside have no idea if Mummy will stay at the end of 2013 when his contract is up..........as if Geelong and other melb clubs will not be sounding him out big time to come back to Melb.........so Kurt brings us flexibility in a key position of forward and or ruck and he most importantly provides us another key target up front as Goodes is close to retirement

He may not be top of the tree, but it is a pretty short tree. Even half decent key forwards don't come on the market that often, and when they do, there are usually several clubs chasing them.

I'm pretty ambivalent about whether we get Tippett or not. He's yet to show he's a world beater and the reported contract he has been offered does seem high for what he's delivered, We've just won the premership, so the club is clearly in a very healthy state, list wise. But the shiny silver cup does fog over the fact that our forward line was highly dysfunctional for much of the season and we often didn't get enough reward for periods of midfield dominance. We had an unusually large group of midfielders who had superb seasons and who were injury free. Not only were they great (at times) as midfielders, they were incredibly effective at getting into goal scoring positions and converting with a high level of accuracy. It is not often that a club gets four or five true midfielders who contribute over 20 goals each during a season.

So there is clearly plenty of scope for improvement in our forward line set-up and Tippett is available and a decent chance of contributing to that. But if we don't get him, I think there is still plenty of scope for improvement with what we currently have on the list, if not a whole amount of depth.

I am glad that the club is apparently unwilling to sacrifice one of our current young players to secure Tippett. I already love watching the likes of Parker, Johnson, Hanners, Rohan and Reid strut their stuff.

My comments a fair trade cost for him are based on what similar players have been traded for in the past, the fact the club clearly wants him, and that they have offered him a lot of money, as well as the range of draft pick the club has willingly given up in the past for less credentialled targets being offered a lot smaller contract.

[Ludwig]

Check out page 1 white + our first is a maximum.

Spot on. Great call. As I said, I agree with you on this point.

I think it's fair and I hope it comes off.

[liz]

It really does depend on the brief given to the umpires at the start of the season (or each week, as the case may be).

I am not sure that the umpires will allow the rucks to bump into each other to gain position, more likely just allow them to maintain current position if under the ball. I also think we might see an increase in the number of free kicks for shepherding as less mobile ruckman try to block their more mobile opponents from jumping at the ball (under current rules they could find their opponent before the ball was in the air and initiate early contact to limit their athleticism).

But if they have to stand apart from each other before the ball is thrown, surely they have to be allowed to move position while the ball is in the air. And if two ruckmen are moving towards each other and make contact in the process - inevitable if they are trying to move to the same spot, how can one be penalised for bumping into the other unless he is clearly taking out the other ruckman as his primary intent?

It will be fascinating to see how the rule, and its application unfolds. I can't say I am particularly enthused about the idea of that fascination though. I don't really understand the point of the rule change, or what they think it will achieve, other than further justification for the existence of a rules committee.

[rojo]

I was one of those who would have put forth our 2nd round pick + Jesse in order to get KT but would not be too upset with 1st round plus Jesse in light of what Collingwood got for Dawes.

I have not watched KT play except in the game we played against the Crows and I don't remember particularly noticing him in that game, except for maybe him kicking some points and being happy about it. So to me he was not a stand out player and while I accept that he will/should strengthen our forward line, especially as Goodesy and LRT are getting on, I haven't yet seen any reason for treating him as equal to a top 10 draft pick, it is not as though he was Adelaide's no. 1 forward. Hopefully you are all right and he turns out to be worth our 1st round pick.

[Bennymno4]

Spot on. Great call. As I said, I agree with you on this point.

I think it's fair and I hope it comes off.

It will

[Ludwig]

But if they have to stand apart from each other before the ball is thrown, surely they have to be allowed to move position while the ball is in the air. And if two ruckmen are moving towards each other and make contact in the process - inevitable if they are trying to move to the same spot, how can one be penalised for bumping into the other unless he is clearly taking out the other ruckman as his primary intent?

It will be fascinating to see how the rule, and its application unfolds. I can't say I am particularly enthused about the idea of that fascination though. I don't really understand the point of the rule change, or what they think it will achieve, other than further justification for the existence of a rules committee.

I think they may be trying to eliminate the pre-toss wrestling. Once the ball is thrown up, it's back to normal. It will be interesting to see what constitutes contact. For instance, is having touch considered contact or does it have to be 'forceful' contact to be a penalty.

[liz]

I think they may be trying to eliminate the pre-toss wrestling. Once the ball is thrown up, it's back to normal. It will be interesting to see what constitutes contact. For instance, is having touch considered contact or does it have to be 'forceful' contact to be a penalty.

Agree with your first sentence. That would be the logical aim. I guess my question then becomes why do they feel a need to eliminate the pre-toss wrestling? Maybe they think there will be more chance of the ball getting knocked away from congestion but I am not convinced whether this will happen. Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

My main gripe is that I already hate those free kicks they regularly pluck from ruck contests where neither ruckman knows whether he is the penalised or the recipient. This just seems to open the door to yet another kind of random free kick to be ajudicated based on what the umpire had for breakfast that morning.

[Wazza]

I tend to agree with ugg about the new ruck rules helping Jesse, in the past he has found it difficult to impose himself on games physically. This rule may give him the confidence to use his leap at the stoppages more. Though, like liz, I'm less certain about the impact the new rule will have on the competition as a whole, you generally need a whole season before assessing the impact of a rule change.

Funny enough i believe the tactics we employed against WC rucks - Cox and Nic Nat which was later embraced by other teams playing wc, went a long way to having this rule introduced..

Cheers

waz