List Mgmt. Too late to rethink on Witts?

[Vicky Park]

One of this year's more contentious topics has been Jarrod Witts and his future. We all know he was injured in game 1 (web between his fingers IIRC?), struggled to get back to full use of his hand, was eventually given a return game in the seniors and played poorly, and was then effectively dropped for the remainder of the season.

With Grundy having a fantastic year, we just haven't been able to find a place for both of them in the side. They are both number 1 ruckmen, and neither appears to play the resting forward/ruck role well enough. But have we exhausted this option?

VFL followers know that Witts, particularly in the second half of the VFL season, has been killing it. Absolutely dominating other VFL, and some AFL ruckmen. Should we have brought him back to the seniors and tried again, especially after Mason Cox tired and tailed off in form?

I am really concerned about letting Wittsy go, even for a high draft pick, which most seem convinced we wont get anyway. A middling second round pick for Jarrod would be highway robbery.

 

[deck]

The simple fact is he is out of contract and he himself will have the final say on whether he stays or go's.

 

[Jelly Bean]

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting though. Are you saying we should try him again as the forward / relief ruck? Or as the primary ruckman (and therefore move Grundy to forward / relief ruck)? Neither will have worked.

We need to trade him, and should have done it last year when his value was higher and there was a ready made FA replacement in Kruezer.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We tried to trade him last year in the Trelaor package and he didnt want to go,

And we dont or didnt need a player like Kreuzer.

I think he realises now that he has to continue his career elsewhere. Its a terrible shame.

 

[Scodog10]

I have to ask VP what is it about this position that has indicated the club is interested in trading him? This is a perfect case of victim of circumstances...

 

[Vicky Park]

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting though. Are you saying we should try him again as the forward / relief ruck? Or as the primary ruckman (and therefore move Grundy to forward / relief ruck)? Neither will have worked.

We need to trade him, and should have done it last year when his value was higher and there was a ready made FA replacement in Kruezer.

I am suggesting we should have tried again, in the second half of the year, to find a way to have both of them in the side. Swapping between primary ruckman and forward/relief ruck. Giving only two games to Witts for the whole of the season was not trying hard enough.

Anyway, its probably a moot point, given Witts is out of contract.

 

[Scodog10]

We tried to trade him last year in the Trelaor package and he didnt want to go,

And we dont or didnt need a player like Kreuzer.

I think he realises now that he has to continue his career elsewhere. Its a terrible shame.

**** we dodged a bullet with Kruezer! There is no way Grundy would have progressed the way he has without being the main man and Kruezer just aint that good...

 

[Vicky Park]

I have to ask VP what is it about this position that has indicated the club is interested in trading him? This is a perfect case of victim of circumstances...

Sco, not sure what your question is. Are you saying we have lost an opportunity to leverage much out of Wittsy?

 

[Vicky Park]

I might change the thread title to 'too late'...

 

[Dynamics]

Essentially his stubbornness/determination last year has robbed us of bargaining power this year.

The club saw this might happen but you can't just frogmarch a contracted player to another club. Not exactly great for morale and he can always just say no. Which he did anyway.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I am suggesting we should have tried again, in the second half of the year, to find a way to have both of them in the side. Swapping between primary ruckman and forward/relief ruck. Giving only two games to Witts for the whole of the season was not trying hard enough.

Anyway, its probably a moot point, given Witts is out of contract.

Agree extra opportunity wouldnt have done any harm but the bottom line is Witts and Grundy are both first ruck specialists and not much chop as forwards. There were definitely times Witts should have played ahead of Cox though. He was gifted far too many games.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Essentially his stubbornness/determination last year has robbed us of bargaining power this year.

The club saw this might happen but you can't just frogmarch a contracted player to another club. Not exactly great for morale and he can always just say no. Which he did anyway.

Doubt his trade value has slipped much. Players of his ilk are rare and clubs that need him will pay up.

 

[Tazzaye]

Doubt he'd wanna stick around

 

[Jelly Bean]

Agree extra opportunity wouldnt have done any harm but the bottom line is Witts and Grundy are both first ruck specialists and not much chop as forwards. There were definitely times Witts should have played ahead of Cox though. He was gifted far too many games.

But Witts and Cox play different positions, which is why Cox got games when Witts didn't. The decision was between Cox and Cloke mostly, not Cox and Witts.

 

[Dynamics]

Doubt his trade value has slipped much. Players of his ilk are rare and clubs that need him will pay up.

Our ability to negotiate is diminished if he has any interest in, say, Essendon. Compared to last year when we were dealing from a position of strength. True, it may not end up changing things that much if he has a certain club in mind that puts us in a good bargaining position.

 

[Scodog10]

Sco, not sure what your question is. Are you saying we have lost an opportunity to leverage much out of Wittsy?

Nah that question was as advertised. I just assumed you had received an indication we were interested in trading him because to my knowledge he's had a contract offer in front of him most of the season. Therefore Witts' destiny is in his hands meaning our hand is forced.

I'm not so convinced there ever was an opportunity to leverage a full return on investment out of him anyway. I didn't want to trade him last year, there's no way we get full trade value for him (I think he's a top 10 league ruckman) and even if we hold him for another season as ruck relief in the seniors he won't do enough to reach his optimum output unless Grundy goes down.

FWIW I think he's making the right call. It's never going to work with him and Grundy in the same line up because they hate sharing the ruck duties. Plus it robs us of two players because a. the output of both ruckmen is lessened and b. we lose the opportunity to play a forward or runner that could have an impact in another role. It's always unfortubate when we lose players we want to keep and invested so heavily in, but this move is best for him so I won't begrudge either party when it gets done.

 

[noideaatall]

I am suggesting we should have tried again, in the second half of the year, to find a way to have both of them in the side. Swapping between primary ruckman and forward/relief ruck. Giving only two games to Witts for the whole of the season was not trying hard enough.
Anyway, its probably a moot point, given Witts is out of contract.

Seems pretty obvious to me Grundy and Witts together doesn't bring out the best in both of them and trying this more won't change that. At best we wait a couple of years until both are their prime and can play together simply because they are that good, not because it works. I do hope we can keep both of them on the list however.

 

[BPikkers]

We tried to trade him last year in the Trelaor package and he didnt want to go,

And we dont or didnt need a player like Kreuzer.

I think he realises now that he has to continue his career elsewhere. Its a terrible shame.

To be honest, a fit Kruezer would be better for the simple fact he is far more agile and can play as a forward.

Unfortunately, Witts just doesn't have the agility to play predominantly as a forward. He is a ruckman, and we all know he can be a good ruckman. We just can't accommodate him with Grundy being sensational.

 

[Vicky Park]

I just assumed you had received an indication we were interested in trading him because to my knowledge he's had a contract offer in front of him most of the season.

No, I was making an assumption.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The fact that Witts:

a) Can't play as a genuine forward threat to save his life
b) Still doesn't really know how to use his size to his advanatage

Will mean he's never going to be our number 1 ruckman. But he sure as shit could be the number 1 ruckman and NUMEROUS other clubs. We should be able to get a really good deal for Witts.

GWS needs a Mumford successor
Hawthorn really just needs a real ruckman
Bulldogs need a real ruckman
Essendon needs a real ruckman
Freo needs a Sandilands successor

There's 5 clubs that could genuinely use Witts and we should be able to get a fair deal out of all of them.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

The fact that Witts:

a) Can't play as a genuine forward threat to save his life
b) Still doesn't really know how to use his size to his advantage

c) One of the slowiest players in the AFL
d) Has a injury prone history
e) Questionable endurance
f) Can't pick up possessions and have an influence around the ground.

Witts is simply not suited to the modern AFL game. Ruckman who are just pure tap ruckman with no other strings to their bow are being weeded out of the game. See Robbie Warnock.

 

[Gone Critical]

To be honest, a fit Kruezer would be better for the simple fact he is far more agile and can play as a forward.

Unfortunately, Witts just doesn't have the agility to play predominantly as a forward. He is a ruckman, and we all know he can be a good ruckman. We just can't accommodate him with Grundy being sensational.

Not sure this is true. Kreuzer has been tried as a forward and struggled. Career wise he doesn't kick goals, has virtually the same career average for disposals, goals and hit outs per game as Witts.

 

[Apex36]

The simple fact is he is out of contract and he himself will have the final say on whether he stays or go's.

^This, unfortunately. I have a feeling that the club would prefer to keep him given his development this season, but given his contract status, the club can only do so much to retain him. If he feels that he will get more senior opportunity elsewhere, they'll find it difficult to change his mind about going.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

To be honest, a fit Kruezer would be better for the simple fact he is far more agile and can play as a forward.

Unfortunately, Witts just doesn't have the agility to play predominantly as a forward. He is a ruckman, and we all know he can be a good ruckman. We just can't accommodate him with Grundy being sensational.

Kreuzer would have been a temporary addition

 

[BPikkers]

Not sure this is true. Kreuzer has been tried as a forward and struggled. Career wise he doesn't kick goals, has virtually the same career average for disposals, goals and hit outs per game as Witts.

Look you might be right. Difficult to judge given the amount of injuries he has had and trying to work out from the stats how many games he actually played forward.

However, I think it's very obvious Kreuzer has a lot more agility. He almost plays ruck like the old 'ruck rover'. Witts the the old style tap ruckman, who doesn't seem to be able to take strong marks around the ground. I'd love to keep him but he really is the only player we can give up and get something decent back.