Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[DannyB4]

17
F2
25 (Daniel)
32 (Macrae)

Not a bad draft haul it’s looking like.

I’d also try and bring in next years first to try have 4 inside 32 and 2 inside 15-20. Possibly swap for one of Richmond’s this year.

This could be our most promising national draft in a few years.

This draft is very overrated. This draft hand would be good enough, no need to compromise our hand next year when Butters becomes available as a pre-agent.

 

[Doggy]

This draft is very overrated. This draft hand would be good enough, no need to compromise our hand next year when Butters becomes available as a pre-agent.

I'd be surprised if we ended up with that draft hand

 

[DannyB4]

Unpopular opinion but I don't hate that trade by west coast

Same I thought it was a decent trade for them.

They've had Top 3 picks for the past 5 years now. Finally they have a chance to land 2x ready-made additions to their Best 22 for the next 150 games at least and all they had to give up was to slide back 10 picks.

 

[coxman]

Hope were involved.

Here’s one for the points index experts, if we got pick 25 for Daniel 32 for macrae could we offer those to Gold Coast for their pick 13, maybe add our pick 35 if we needed then we would have pick 13 and 17 (from smith trade) at worst to take two first round picks to the draft. Understandably it would leave us with only pick 48

 

[DannyB4]

I'd be surprised if we ended up with that draft hand

I think the balls in our court with the Daniel and Macrae trades because I don't see why Nth and Aints wouldn't offer 25 and 32 respectively.

Re: Pick 17 and F2 I think the F2 will be up to whether Geelong want to be c**** or not

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've seen it mentioned that getting second rounders for Macrae/Daniel improves our list. I am much more uncertain about that.

When you look at a second rounder, particularly ones that are looking like being 30+, what you're hoping for is a solid role player who is consistently in the best side. That's what Macrae/Daniel were this year.

Unquestionably, the outcome will be a younger list, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But a better list requires some luck. Trading out best 23 players for middling picks is a risk.

Once again I do feel there is a disconnect between our desire and push to contend and our list management approach.

Agree to an extent but getting off the salary has some value, even if we're sacrificing our ability to contend in 2025 for our ability to contend in 2026 and 2027 for it.

We surely will land a free agent next year?

 

[dergert]

Saints going hard for Norf's pick 2

 

[DannyB4]

Agree to an extent but getting off the salary has some value, even if we're sacrificing our ability to contend in 2025 for our ability to contend in 2026 and 2027 for it.

We surely will land a free agent next year?

How about a pre-agent?

 

[Scottish Bob]

Thoughts on a straight swap for Macrae?

 

[Bald]

Thoughts on a straight swap for Macrae?

View attachment 2142045

For Membrey? He's out of contract, not worth anything earlier than pick 55.

 

[Anja_Nees]

I would like to add that I'm not saying this is the Bulldog's fault. This is all in hindsight, the reported offer from the Hawks last year would have been brilliant but if he didn't want to go, we couldn't force him. It just feels like Smith, Connors and Geelong knew this was happening this year. We just had the misfortune of him getting a season ending injury and now Geelong are leveraging that as not to pay us more.

The contract point still stands; we always seem to have at least 2 key players out of contract every year. i do understand this is a balance with the cap. But we leave ourselves open to opportunism a lot.

Rocket was certainly pretty clear in his belief that with Connors these moves are planned at least 12 months in advance. Odds are Hawks were interested but terms had been agreed with Geelong for this year.

Being fair, Geelong wouldn’t have been certain they’d rebound this year or that Smith would do his knee. They might have thought they’d be paying more.

 

[Doggy]

Thoughts on a straight swap for Macrae?

View attachment 2142045

We don't need another forward..

 

[Anja_Nees]

Thoughts on a straight swap for Macrae?

View attachment 2142045

An ok player but really plays like a KPF so probably not needed.

 

[DannyB4]

Thoughts on a straight swap for Macrae?

View attachment 2142045

Sure Macrae for 32 + Membrey.

 

[Scottish Bob]

We don't need another forward..

we probably do need a mid-sized one, all we have is talls and Weightman i completely overlooked he was uncontracted.

 

[W W Biscuit]

Saints going hard for Norf's pick 2

Obviously looking to include that in any deal for Macrae.

 

[Ash1337]

Membrey can walk as a DFA because he has no contract.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

I've seen it mentioned that getting second rounders for Macrae/Daniel improves our list. I am much more uncertain about that.

When you look at a second rounder, particularly ones that are looking like being 30+, what you're hoping for is a solid role player who is consistently in the best side. That's what Macrae/Daniel were this year.

Unquestionably, the outcome will be a younger list, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But a better list requires some luck. Trading out best 23 players for middling picks is a risk.

Once again I do feel there is a disconnect between our desire and push to contend and our list management approach.

That assumes we don't bundle those picks and move up the draft or trade them for future picks with an eye towards the mythical big fish.

I think the former is the goal we are working towards.

Because they are a strong well run club. That robs every other club to stay on top with full AFL support as everyone goes to Geelong for the "Lifestyle" on n which I call BS but AFL has zero interest in looking too closely or they might have to admit the system is broken

Id be ecstatic if the boot was on the other club and we could pillage other clubs talent to remain competitive for going on 30 years. As Geelong have.

All's fair in love, war and football.

 

[Proffessor]

Our drafting in the top 20 has been ridiculously good for while. Since 2012 we’ve drafted Macrae, Stringer, Bontempelli, Dunkley, English, Naughton, Richards, Smith, Weightman, Jammarah, Darcy (two gifts) with Bussingler, Croft and Sanders in the last two years (too early to tell).

Only real miss in a decade has been Collins.

If we accept the currently offered draft pick for smith then his selection would also need to be classified as a miss.

Pick 7 plus ~ 6 years of development time and effort to ultimately net a pick expected to end up in the low twenties, is a long way from a good outcome.

 

[adogsfan5]

Here’s one for the points index experts, if we got pick 25 for Daniel 32 for macrae could we offer those to Gold Coast for their pick 13, maybe add our pick 35 if we needed then we would have pick 13 and 17 (from smith trade) at worst to take two first round picks to the draft. Understandably it would leave us with only pick 48

I’d be stoked if we had 13 and 17.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

We surely will land a free agent next year?

 

[Zim^zuM]

This trade period is no longer about players changing clubs. It's the integrity of the system on trial. Seriously, if the conduct of Geelong, their major sponsor and Smith's manager doesn't come in for serious and heavy scrutiny, then I don't think I want to follow this game anymore...even with the Dogs still in the competition.

Presently, I couldn't give a rat's clacker if we trade away our players for two firsts, a future third or a 2027 ninth twice removed. It's a circus, and a distraction. More to the point, if one party can admit an intention to draft tamper, and the AFL and its bootlicking media are fully on-board with that, then this game is rotten to the core and I don't want to be a part of it.

Absolute circus created by the AFL themselves. We life in a world where a "free agent" nets the departed club a first round pick next to theirs no matter where they finish. Yet someone not a "free agent" but out of contract can manipulate the situation where the departed club gets 0.

It's supposed to be the other way round. Free agents leaving is where there should be the possibility of a club getting 0 return.

Quite simply in our situation if he was sent to the draft we should be compensated with the pick he is selected with offering clubs some sort of protection. It's then up to the clubs to assess the risk and work out if they're better of doing a trade or rolling the draft trade. Geelong shouldn't have the upper hand. Yet they do.

 

[Unorth]

We surely will land a free agent next year?

Hawthorn list management:

 

[dogwatch]

…

will be up to whether Geelong want to be c**** or not

They’ve already shown their hand on that one.

 

[Redders98]

We’ve offered Matt Kennedy a 3 year deal, I like it.