2016 Trade/FA discussion (no hypothetical trades)

[Crawb]

I'm not interested in young players. We need mature players with leadership. 25+ year olds

*Looks at composition of our list*

Errr....we should be very interested in young players.

We're not anywhere close to finals or even competing for Top 12. We're 3 years away from that alone, absolute minimum. We need to accept that and do a rebuild properly and stop taking short cuts; that's literally why we're rebuilding a rebuild of the original rebuild. Sure you don't want to go as far as a Melbourne; older leadership is important, and we badly need a mature KPF for example with Clarke's retirement and Merrett on his last legs ASAP. And sure we have a few decent kids, but so does every other club in a vaguely similar position to us, we've got nothing special in an overall sense.

How do you fix that if the young talent we have isn't outstanding and the older talent is non-existent? We simply need to get more elite talent coming through. Now it's delusional to think we can find that sort of talent in the form of older players on the market because A) There is little of it on the market and B) We're about 18th of their preferred destination list. We need to accept that in order to get the elite talent required we have to do that through the draft and we have to let certain sections on our list evolve to fill the areas required through the slow process of retention. Let the 21-22 year olds become that decent 25yr old peak talent, let the current solid 25yr old group become that experienced older leadership that is badly required. Does this take time? Yes. Is this even more pain after a decade of hurt? Yes. But there are no sensible alternatives. We've cut corners before in the rebuild process and it has resulted in an extended period of shitness which means we now badly want to get back to being vaguely competitive, and hence that's why cutting corners can seem attractive right now. But we just need to accept our medicine for a few years, and get a proper rebuild done. We can't afford another decade of shitness. Let's just cut our losses and do it right. Hopefully the club doesn't stray from that, but we've got form doing that sadly...

 

[CarloLion]

Yep, well said. I'm slowly coming to the sad conclusion that Hanley, Rockliff, Beams and Rich are really only going to be keeping us competitive in the coming years and not getting us to the top.

Theres too much of a rebuild to come for us to have a real crack while they are still around. Real success will have to come with the Schache, Allison, Keays, Mathieson age group

 

[Judge]

Is there another Tom Ruggles or Marcus Adams anywhere?

 

[DanT7]

We should have played CBeams, Cutler, Bewick, Bell, Harwood as second string midfielders today. To cover Christensen, Zorko, Robinson, Lester (who are our second string midfielders). Like the days when Adcock, McGrath, even Browny would have a run through the midfield.
Poor Evans having to play as a midfielder was so harsh.

 

[SizeMatters]

Is there another Tom Ruggles or Marcus Adams anywhere?

We seem to be the only club that isn't interested in mature aged recruits. Can find some diamonds in the rough late in the drafts.

 

[Bucking Beads]

*Looks at composition of our list*

Errr....we should be very interested in young players.

We're not anywhere close to finals or even competing for Top 12. We're 3 years away from that alone, absolute minimum. We need to accept that and do a rebuild properly and stop taking short cuts; that's literally why we're rebuilding a rebuild of the original rebuild. Sure you don't want to go as far as a Melbourne; older leadership is important, and we badly need a mature KPF for example with Clarke's retirement and Merrett on his last legs ASAP. And sure we have a few decent kids, but so does every other club in a vaguely similar position to us, we've got nothing special in an overall sense.

How do you fix that if the young talent we have isn't outstanding and the older talent is non-existent? We simply need to get more elite talent coming through. Now it's delusional to think we can find that sort of talent in the form of older players on the market because A) There is little of it on the market and B) We're about 18th of their preferred destination list. We need to accept that in order to get the elite talent required we have to do that through the draft and we have to let certain sections on our list evolve to fill the areas required through the slow process of retention. Let the 21-22 year olds become that decent 25yr old peak talent, let the current solid 25yr old group become that experienced older leadership that is badly required. Does this take time? Yes. Is this even more pain after a decade of hurt? Yes. But there are no sensible alternatives. We've cut corners before in the rebuild process and it has resulted in an extended period of shitness which means we now badly want to get back to being vaguely competitive, and hence that's why cutting corners can seem attractive right now. But we just need to accept our medicine for a few years, and get a proper rebuild done. We can't afford another decade of shitness. Let's just cut our losses and do it right. Hopefully the club doesn't stray from that, but we've got form doing that sadly...

We've got plenty of young players. We can't keep rebuilding forever. We are lacking mature players with leadership qualities

 

[dlanod]

We seem to be the only club that isn't interested in mature aged recruits. Can find some diamonds in the rough late in the drafts.

Bourke.
Freeman.
Beasley.
ZOB.
Wrigley.

We've basically picked up one every couple of years. They just haven't made the grade, like so many. If you have a dig through the Dogs' recruiting history you'll find a lot of flame outs on mature agers for the occasional success in Picken and Adams. The same for Geelong and so on.

 

[captainrich]

Bourke.
Freeman.
Beasley.
ZOB.
Wrigley.

We've basically picked up one every couple of years. They just haven't made the grade, like so many. If you have a dig through the Dogs' recruiting history you'll find a lot of flame outs on mature agers for the occasional success in Picken and Adams. The same for Geelong and so on.

Bourke, Freeman and Beasley would not technicallly be termed mature aged recruits....all were overagers, but you would surely term a mature ager at 20+

ZOB and Wrigley showed some good signs, ZOB could do no worse winning the ball than our current mids though he had the discplinary issues with Leppa, and Wrigley was quite unlucky to do his ACL thought he would have had a good future with us

Our recruiting team isn't as good as say GC, Bulldogs, Collingwood or Geelong in identifying these late gems though who actually graduate from being mere role players to stars in their own right, which is fair enough given the lack of funding we relly have

 

[dlanod]

Bourke, Freeman and Beasley would not technicallly be termed mature aged recruits....all were overagers, but you would surely term a mature ager at 20+

Is there really a difference between a 19 year old and a 20 year old? 18 to 19 I get because it means that they've been passed over in at least one draft, but 19 to 20 - other than it being a nice round number, I don't see much of a difference between an "overager" versus "mature ager".

Meant to throw in Bewick there as well.

Our recruiting team isn't as good as say GC, Bulldogs, Collingwood or Geelong in identifying these late gems though who actually graduate from being mere role players to stars in their own right, which is fair enough given the lack of funding we relly have

They also take more punts on them. I don't know that they're definitely better at it, but they've picked mature/over agers regularly on their rookie list whereas we've taken more speculative picks. However I do agree that it's in these late picks that less funding shows its head more. It's "easy" (relatively) to take the early picks. If you can get a best 22 player every two years off the rookie list though, it can give you a lot of leeway on earlier picks although all of Clarke, Claye Beams and Hanley were rookies.

 

[captainrich]

Is there really a difference between a 19 year old and a 20 year old? 18 to 19 I get because it means that they've been passed over in at least one draft, but 19 to 20 - other than it being a nice round number, I don't see much of a difference between an "overager" versus "mature ager".

Meant to throw in Bewick there as well.



They also take more punts on them. I don't know that they're definitely better at it, but they've picked mature/over agers regularly on their rookie list whereas we've taken more speculative picks. However I do agree that it's in these late picks that less funding shows its head more. It's "easy" (relatively) to take the early picks. If you can get a best 22 player every two years off the rookie list though, it can give you a lot of leeway on earlier picks although all of Clarke, Claye Beams and Hanley were rookies.

i just meant guys are older than 20, who have been missed on a few drafts been in the state leagues for a while and know they're games pretty well ZOB is a good example of that whereas Bewick he still came in with alot to improve on.

I think with our late selections we should be looking for specific things in the mature agers which alot of teams have found late, ie good ball use/kicking, speed.

Couple of queensland players went in the rookie draft as mature age rookies which we surely would have identified before the victorian teams

 

[theteamtobeat]

Trade Bait: Sam Mayes, Ryan Lester, Rohan Bewick, Ryan Harwood

Trade Targets:
Adam Saad
Zach Tuohy
Jake Lloyd
David Astbury
Jack Steele
Brendan Ah Chee
Seb Ross
Alex Sexton
Jarryd Lyons
Mason Cox

Unlikey, but worth a inqury:
Tom McDonald
Michael Hurley
Josh Jenkins

 

[M Malice]

young players currently on our list- ie. currently 23 or under. 2019???

B. d. gardner s. skinner h. andrews

HB. l. dawson d. mcstay t. cutler

C. n. robertson b. keays r. matheison

HF. l. taylor j. freeman j. green

F. j. walker j. schache j. mcgrath

R. a. smith s. mayes r. lester

INT. e.hipwood r. william m. paparone m. close

depth. j. watts j. mcginness c. hanley m. hammelman h. beasley j. clayton j. jansen b. evans j. paine

i am very confident that andrews, keays, matheison, taylor and schache will be at the least very good players for us by then, there are few others that i think probably wont make it eg. smith, lester, watts, mcginness, jansen and paine the others are anybodies guess ATM.

i am hoping by 2019 we will be a flag threat.

that would mean merrett, martin and west would more than likely be retired or surplus to requirements by then. rich, rockliff, d.beams, robinson, zorko and hanley will be 30 or a bit older, not necessarily a bad thing if they are playing well (just look at hodge, burgoyne and mitchell all well past 30), although i would say we wouldn't carry that many over 30s at the same time.

hopefully allison and ballenden in the next 2 drafts from the academy at a minimum. IMO we need a few mature age ie. 24/25 now players.

the recruiting, list management and most importantly the development and coaching staff have a few very important years re our long term future.

 

[M Malice]

Trade Bait: Sam Mayes, Ryan Lester, Rohan Bewick, Ryan Harwood

Trade Targets:
Adam Saad
Zach Tuohy
Jake Lloyd
David Astbury
Jack Steele
Brendan Ah Chee
Seb Ross
Alex Sexton
Jarryd Lyons
Mason Cox

Unlikey, but worth a inqury:
Tom McDonald
Michael Hurley
Josh Jenkins

love that list theteamtobeat, if i could pick 3 i would go saad, hurley and mcdonald as they have shown they will be very good players. would also take a go at jenkins or sam day, look like they could both have a breakout year though and be very hard to get.

i know hurley can elect to be an UFA but do you know anything about the others contract/agency status? i think we need to stick to players around the 24 to 26 (at the most) age bracket as of now.

 

[Fatcat08]

We seem to be the only club that isn't interested in mature aged recruits. Can find some diamonds in the rough late in the drafts.

Dayne Zorko says hi

 

[Tom14]

Ah Zach Tuoy, how I have missed you. But would he be in our best 22???

 

[Ironmonger]

Last year we missed out on Seedsman, Suckling and Wilson, so chances are once again we’ll be casting around for a small defender.

The team with an obvious surplus of these players is GWS. In particular, Nick Haynes seems to have slipped behind Wilson, Kennedy, Williams and Heath Shaw, plus Griffen seems to be playing more and more as a defender. I believe Haynes has had some injury issues lately but even so he can’t be certain of a regular game.

Haynes is clearly AFL-ready and could hold down a starting spot in a team much better than ours. I don’t think he’s out of contract, but he should be a target for us. We’d probably have to offer something upwards of pick ~20 for him but he’s a better bet than most draftees outside of the top 10.

 

[Milux]

Ah Zach Tuoy, how I have missed you. But would he be in our best 22???

Yep. Ahead of C beams (as much as i love him) and cutler. Both cuts and beams might have room for improvement tuoys great off half back. In a team that wants quick ball movement he would be pritty exciting.

 

[Crawb]

We've got plenty of young players. We can't keep rebuilding forever. We are lacking mature players with leadership qualities

And guess what? The young players aren't any better than what Carlton or St. Kilda have. But go ahead, let's cut more corners in the rebuild process and subject ourselves to another decade of mediocrity...

 

[Milux]

Last year we missed out on Seedsman, Suckling and Wilson, so chances are once again we’ll be casting around for a small defender.

The team with an obvious surplus of these players is GWS. In particular, Nick Haynes seems to have slipped behind Wilson, Kennedy, Williams and Heath Shaw, plus Griffen seems to be playing more and more as a defender. I believe Haynes has had some injury issues lately but even so he can’t be certain of a regular game.

Haynes is clearly AFL-ready and could hold down a starting spot in a team much better than ours. I don’t think he’s out of contract, but he should be a target for us. We’d probably have to offer something upwards of pick ~20 for him but he’s a better bet than most draftees outside of the top 10.

Never heard of him. Thats not saying he's no good. Whats his gamestyle and ability like?

 

[Bucking Beads]

And guess what? The young players aren't any better than what Carlton or St. Kilda have. But go ahead, let's cut more corners in the rebuild process and subject ourselves to another decade of mediocrity...

Hey! I'm not talking about bringing in nature players who are no good. I Want B+ or A graders who are mature aged that can provide leadership to our side.

 

[dlanod]

Last year we missed out on Seedsman, Suckling and Wilson, so chances are once again we’ll be casting around for a small defender.

The team with an obvious surplus of these players is GWS. In particular, Nick Haynes seems to have slipped behind Wilson, Kennedy, Williams and Heath Shaw, plus Griffen seems to be playing more and more as a defender. I believe Haynes has had some injury issues lately but even so he can’t be certain of a regular game.

Haynes is clearly AFL-ready and could hold down a starting spot in a team much better than ours. I don’t think he’s out of contract, but he should be a target for us. We’d probably have to offer something upwards of pick ~20 for him but he’s a better bet than most draftees outside of the top 10.

Haynes is best 22 but coming back from injury so has been playing the NEAFL. He was a fixture when not injured last year, and he's probably (should) coming in this week. GWS's first choice defensive line would probably be Davis, Marchbank and Haynes when fit, but they never are at the same time so Corr gets a lot of games and Patfull is acting as a steadier this year. He's not competing with the guys you've listed for a spot - if you want a true small forward from GWS outside their best 22, Williams would be a good get.

Never heard of him. Thats not saying he's no good. Whats his gamestyle and ability like?

He's basically Patfull mk 2. Slightly undersized but a great intercept marker. Solid defensively as well. Last year was his first real year where he had an uninterrupted run and showed why he'd be a fixture in a defensive 50. Think McStay but more likely to put his body on the line, in part because he's had several years more development.

 

[Crawb]

Hey! I'm not talking about bringing in nature players who are no good. I Want B+ or A graders who are mature aged that can provide leadership to our side.

Did you even read my previous posts? It is seriously delusional to think we can attract mature A grade elite talent. A) There is little of it on the market, ever. B) Unless they're from Queensland the mature elite talent is probably more likely to choose the NT Thunder over us. We're not a destination club and this isn't AFL Fantasy or SuperCoach.

We need to accept the rough reality that the only way to secure A grade elite talent is through the draft for a club like us. And because of that we need to let the current core group evolve into the older group as we simply cannot find better on the market in that area too, unless you want another 2010 disaster or a bunch of Reserves standard hacks that ultimately contribute little towards getting us closer to success.

It's a tough reality. But one we need to accept and make work. It's do-able but it will take time (but it will be much shorter than another botched rebuild)

 

[Bucking Beads]

Did you even read my previous posts? It is seriously delusional to think we can attract mature A grade elite talent. A) There is little of it on the market, ever. B) Unless they're from Queensland the mature elite talent is probably more likely to choose the NT Thunder over us. We're not a destination club and this isn't AFL Fantasy or SuperCoach.

We need to accept the rough reality that the only way to secure A grade elite talent is through the draft for a club like us. And because of that we need to let the current core group evolve into the older group as we simply cannot find better on the market in that area too, unless you want another 2010 disaster or a bunch of Reserves standard hacks that ultimately contribute little towards getting us closer to success.

It's a tough reality. But one we need to accept and make work. It's do-able but it will take time (but it will be much shorter than another botched rebuild)

I'd prefer not to read any of your posts from now on. Thanks for your time.

 

[royboys4eva]

Last year we missed out on Seedsman, Suckling and Wilson, so chances are once again we’ll be casting around for a small defender.

The team with an obvious surplus of these players is GWS. In particular, Nick Haynes seems to have slipped behind Wilson, Kennedy, Williams and Heath Shaw, plus Griffen seems to be playing more and more as a defender. I believe Haynes has had some injury issues lately but even so he can’t be certain of a regular game.

Haynes is clearly AFL-ready and could hold down a starting spot in a team much better than ours. I don’t think he’s out of contract, but he should be a target for us. We’d probably have to offer something upwards of pick ~20 for him but he’s a better bet than most draftees outside of the top 10.

As a side note Haynes was named as one of the Giants better players in their reserves game on the weekend. I don't mind him. Would certainly get a game for us. Hoskin Elliott is another who is in and out of their side and has plenty of ability but is fighting for the same spot with 5-6 quality players. Not sure what his contract details are. But clubs like the Giants who have an abundance of talent are who we should be looking at.

 

[Crawb]

I'd prefer not to read any of your posts from now on. Thanks for your time.

Facts and reality is a bit annoying for you?