List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part II

[The_Steadier]

Anyone that wants to trade Battle or Marshall has seriously dented their credibility. You just don't let you top end talent go, especially before they have peaked and their value hasn't either. Imaging if we'd sold Lenny, Harves and Lockett before they got to 50 games. You would have been hanging from a pole outside Linton Street when they reached their peak at another club.

This is precisely the mob wife mentality I was talking about.
Wanting all the benefits without any downside.

Premiership winning teams focus of assembling a best 22 that will win a flag.

Instituting blanket rules like 'you dont trade guns' etc without any flexibility gets you nowhere.

Following such a strategy would have you not trade jason dunstall despite having tony lockett in your team as well.

 

[The_Steadier]

Full back, back pocket, back flank. Take your pick.

Ok great.

I contend that battle is a potential A grade chb but is at best a potential B-C grade Full back, back pocket, back flank. Take your pick.

It could therefore be in our best interest to see if a team that could use a potential A grade chb would be interested him in exchange for a gun, ball winning midfielder.

 

[mightymalaka]

This is precisely the mob wife mentality I was talking about.
Wanting all the benefits without any downside.

Premiership winning teams focus of assembling a best 22 that will win a flag.

Instituting blanket rules like 'you dont trade guns' etc without any flexibility gets you nowhere.

Following such a strategy would have you not trade jason dunstall despite having tony lockett in your team as well.

Mob wife mentality?

And i can assure you if i had Tony Lockett and Jason Dunstall i would not be trading either!
They seemed to cope pretty well when the big V walloped SA at the G the one time they played together!

 

[The_Steadier]

Seems pretty evident their ideal back three talls setup is Carlisle, Battle and Wilkie. They've shown a keenness to drop Brown if their isn't a clear match up. That isn't to say they don't rate Brown but I think they like the mix of the three I mentioned if they can get it. I can see Carlisle doing a big pre season working on his defensive game so that he can take the number one tall and Battle play CHB.

I say that what makes jake good is his ability to zone off- intercept mark and attack from defence.

I say that parking jake at FB robs him all almost all opportunites to do any of that.

I say that people want the impossible- jake at his best, AND him at FB.

People want jake to be our Mcgovern- being an intercepting wall in defence,
completely forgetting about the fact that Mcgovern can only do that for WC because Barrass plays FB on the likes of hawkins etc.

 

[Captain Paddy]

I honestly would just like to see us trade out JC for a first if we can find any suitors.

I get that he is a good player and people will be upset and say “but if he is fully fit he is one of our best” etc.

And this is true.

However, from my point of view, he has a terrible demeanour when we lose games. Drops his head and throws the toys out of the cot. At times seems as though he stops trying. Is 28 and had a pretty serious back issue, which will be with him for the rest of his career.

Finally, and probably most importantly... Our bunch of guys all seem super tight. Always celebrating eachother on social media, in photos together etc... Jake is never in any of them. He just doesn’t seem super tight with anyone in particular and I can’t help but wonder if he is good for the culture long term.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

I honestly would just like to see us trade out JC for a first if we can find any suitors.

I get that he is a good player and people will be upset and say “but if he is fully fit he is one of our best” etc.

And this is true.

However, from my point of view, he has a terrible demeanour when we lose games. Drops his head and throws the toys out of the cot. At times seems as though he stops trying. Is 28 and had a pretty serious back issue, which will be with him for the rest of his career.

Finally, and probably most importantly... Our bunch of guys all seem super tight. Always celebrating eachother on social media, in photos together etc... Jake is never in any of them. He just doesn’t seem super tight with anyone in particular and I can’t help but wonder if he is good for the culture long term.

Jumping to a few conclusions there Captain!

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Seems pretty evident their ideal back three talls setup is Carlisle, Battle and Wilkie. They've shown a keenness to drop Brown if their isn't a clear match up. That isn't to say they don't rate Brown but I think they like the mix of the three I mentioned if they can get it. I can see Carlisle doing a big pre season working on his defensive game so that he can take the number one tall and Battle play CHB.

The old FB, CHB positions are a bit redundant these days too. It's all about match ups and getting your guys into positions that they can stop opposition forward entries most effectively.

While Snake isn't the greatest one on one defender, he is absolutely elite in taking intercept marks deep in defence. I'm not sure you really want to move him out towards the 50m line where his lack of pace is exposed.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

I honestly would just like to see us trade out JC for a first if we can find any suitors.

I get that he is a good player and people will be upset and say “but if he is fully fit he is one of our best” etc.

And this is true.

However, from my point of view, he has a terrible demeanour when we lose games. Drops his head and throws the toys out of the cot. At times seems as though he stops trying. Is 28 and had a pretty serious back issue, which will be with him for the rest of his career.

Finally, and probably most importantly... Our bunch of guys all seem super tight. Always celebrating eachother on social media, in photos together etc... Jake is never in any of them. He just doesn’t seem super tight with anyone in particular and I can’t help but wonder if he is good for the culture long term.

The last point is probably for the same reason you don't see Brucey, Seb or Gears out with the boys either.

They've all got newborns at home so are doing the right thing as new Dads.

I'd trade JC for the right price if it helped us jag a high quality mid.

Its sounds like that is no chance of happening though.

 

[The_Steadier]

Seems pretty evident their ideal back three talls setup is Carlisle, Battle and Wilkie. They've shown a keenness to drop Brown if their isn't a clear match up. That isn't to say they don't rate Brown but I think they like the mix of the three I mentioned if they can get it. I can see Carlisle doing a big pre season working on his defensive game so that he can take the number one tall and Battle play CHB.

So you are expecting brown to not be recalled this week?

I think he's almost a certainty to come back in, because I think that you are right that the clubs preferred back 3 talls setup is jake, battle, wilkie but with one crucial disclaimer-
That is the preferred setup ONLY when we play small forward lines.

Which is rarely (although it did occur last week v freo)

This means that I think it's more accurate to describe our preferred back tall setup (against all but short fwd lines) as
Brown at FB, jake at CHB, Wilkie at HBF, Battle at ?

This question mark was filled with 'wing' against the crows- obviously not too successful thus far.

Given that this week is the next game all those guys are available AND we are opposing a non midget fwd line, I'm interested to see what selection night brings.

I think brown comes straight back in (because he is preferred over jake at FB, unless we are opposing a v small fwd line) and like the crows game- battle will need to play somewhere else because jake is our chb.

 

[Half Back Pocket]

I’m sure they do.. they’ve done nothing but fight for the past 5 years. Was a doomed relationship before it began.

Bruce is old school and a tough operator. Opposite of a campaigner. Couldn’t find a more loyal guy to those who are loyal back. Taught me everything I know

Yep. My dads best mate was one of BM's right-hand men. met him quite a few times and seems like a ripper. Wouldn't want to cross him though!

 

[plugger66]

He's played all year at chb right?
That's his best position you're referring to?

Where is battle going to play this week pluggs?
At chb?

What happens if he doesn't?

Would that constitute him being played out of position?

No I wouldn’t because if they have 3 talls then our backs will rotate. You do realise players do that in today’s footy. Well players capable of doing that. Brown obviously can’t. Battle and Carlisle can. I understand your point about our midfield being the main problem. I totally agree. What I don’t agree about is getting rid of very good or potentially very good players to make another area a problem

 

[gringo2011]

I’m sure they do.. they’ve done nothing but fight for the past 5 years. Was a doomed relationship before it began.

Bruce is old school and a tough operator. Opposite of a campaigner. Couldn’t find a more loyal guy to those who are loyal back. Taught me everything I know

Yeah, I know people have been bagging Jack Elliott and he's the same, comes from a different political point of view to me but he's a great guy, super nice away from footy, business or politics where he's combative.

 

[plugger66]

So you are expecting brown to not be recalled this week?

I think he's almost a certainty to come back in, because I think that you are right that the clubs preferred back 3 talls setup is jake, battle, wilkie but with one crucial disclaimer-
That is the preferred setup ONLY when we play small forward lines.

Which is rarely (although it did occur last week v freo)

This means that I think it's more accurate to describe our preferred back tall setup (against all but short fwd lines) as
Brown at FB, jake at CHB, Wilkie at HBF, Battle at ?

This question mark was filled with 'wing' against the crows- obviously not too successful thus far.

Given that this week is the next game all those guys are available AND we are opposing a non midget fwd line, I'm interested to see what selection night brings.

I think brown comes straight back in (because he is preferred over jake at FB, unless we are opposing a v small fwd line) and like the crows game- battle will need to play somewhere else because jake is our chb.

I’m still confused by this. If brown is our best full back why didn’t they drop Carlisle last week as they knew Darcy is solely a stat at home ff when not rucking. I don’t get it

 

[austinnn]

Assuming jake re-signs I wonder if the club has the stones to do as the hawks did last year, and trade a young gun where they had a surplus- in order to bring in a gun to fill a gap elsewhere.

Last year the hawks looked at their list and saw they had 2 guys in sicily and burton who play their best football in a similar manner and position- attacking off half back.
They obviously identified that you can't play 2 loose attacking backmen in the same side no matter how good they are- you will lose games of football with that structure.

Rather than keeping both and playing 1 out of their best position (lessening their effectiveness)- they used that surplus to fix an area they were deficient in post cyril (small fwd/mid= wingard).

It took plenty of risk and guts to trade a guy like burton- especially as he was basically the only home grown elite kid they have had in a decade.
But they were prepared to make a big call- because it's about winning premierships, not collecting stars without regard to how they all fit together.

Having heard years of (often warranted) moaning on here about richo playing guys out of position (goat etc), I would have thought the prospect of moving battle on for a gun mid could garner support- given he could well be staring down the barrel of playing away from chb for the next ~4 years.
(Plus the option of him playing fwd greatly reduces too with king to come into the team).

I'm assuming it will be howled down though through the invoking of a thoughless rule of thumb about 'you don't trade out good players'... without mention of the fact that premiership winning clubs sometimes do exactly that.

People on here act like mob wives sometimes in their attitude to player trades- they want all of the benefits without taking on any of the risk.

Anyone else see a similarity emerging between battle now and burton 12 months ago?

Assuming jake re-signs I wonder if the club has the stones to do as the hawks did last year, and trade a young gun where they had a surplus- in order to bring in a gun to fill a gap elsewhere.

Last year the hawks looked at their list and saw they had 2 guys in sicily and burton who play their best football in a similar manner and position- attacking off half back.
They obviously identified that you can't play 2 loose attacking backmen in the same side no matter how good they are- you will lose games of football with that structure.

Rather than keeping both and playing 1 out of their best position (lessening their effectiveness)- they used that surplus to fix an area they were deficient in post cyril (small fwd/mid= wingard).

It took plenty of risk and guts to trade a guy like burton- especially as he was basically the only home grown elite kid they have had in a decade.
But they were prepared to make a big call- because it's about winning premierships, not collecting stars without regard to how they all fit together.

Having heard years of (often warranted) moaning on here about richo playing guys out of position (goat etc), I would have thought the prospect of moving battle on for a gun mid could garner support- given he could well be staring down the barrel of playing away from chb for the next ~4 years.
(Plus the option of him playing fwd greatly reduces too with king to come into the team).

I'm assuming it will be howled down though through the invoking of a thoughless rule of thumb about 'you don't trade out good players'... without mention of the fact that premiership winning clubs sometimes do exactly that.

People on here act like mob wives sometimes in their attitude to player trades- they want all of the benefits without taking on any of the risk.

Anyone else see a similarity emerging between battle now and burton 12 months ago?

I get the thought process, but Battle is just too valuable to us, he is athletic and can play both ends, still no telling just how good he can be, Carlisle won't last forever and will probably keep picking up injuries here and there. Battlecat is just getting started and is probably one of the top 10 kids at the club, just don't see the point of letting him leave when other options exist.

We're already certain to lose Paddy Robbo and Armo and will probably cast off White, Rice, Longer and/or Pierce, Stuv may also leave, it's not like we are desperate to gut the list. Having a top dog and a promising understudy isn't such a bad thing, especially if both are more than capable swingman.

 

[Mikka84]

Yeah, I know people have been bagging Jack Elliott and he's the same, comes from a different political point of view to me but he's a great guy, super nice away from footy, business or politics where he's combative.

No, no. He’s just a campaigner.

 

[BrutThough]

Well he's played chb all year until getting injured.

Jake has played chb prior to this year, and this year has played chb while battle was injured.

There has been 2 games thus far where both have been available.
First game was vs the crows where battle was played out of position on the wing.
Last week freo went with the shortest fwd line in living memory- meaning brown was dropped and battle could play chb.

Given we aren't playing another midget fwd line this week (or likely ever again to that extent)- the issue still remains.

Where does battle play with jake at chb?

Jake will take the oppositions best forward. Battle will take the opposition's second best forward.
I don't see the issue.

 

[gringo2011]

This is precisely the mob wife mentality I was talking about.
Wanting all the benefits without any downside.

Premiership winning teams focus of assembling a best 22 that will win a flag.

Instituting blanket rules like 'you dont trade guns' etc without any flexibility gets you nowhere.

Following such a strategy would have you not trade jason dunstall despite having tony lockett in your team as well.

I have never wanted to do things with stupid trades or risky deals. We have been chasing a way to do it quicker and stuffing it up. Brisbane started the same, went back to good sensible drafting and then started trading in talent as their stocks rose, same as Melbourne, same as Carlton. Most clubs can't believe they are as shit as they are, try to patchwork, stuff the list, then go back to the tried and tested and it turns around slowly but surely.

Sides like Hawks and Geelong have created a dynastic ability to stay up and ride in players for less money and lower trade values because players demand to go there. We are still a long way off that point. I don't like paying insane long term high value contracts either, Buddy is still killing Sydney's ability to move and has lost them players.

We aren't one star off a premiership next year and losing a player from a stockpile, we are in a rebuild phase still. Losing with of those guys would be insanity.

 

[gringo2011]

No, no. He’s just a campaigner.

Not someone you'd want to be in business with. Nice guy though.

 

[gringo2011]

I honestly would just like to see us trade out JC for a first if we can find any suitors.

I get that he is a good player and people will be upset and say “but if he is fully fit he is one of our best” etc.

And this is true.

However, from my point of view, he has a terrible demeanour when we lose games. Drops his head and throws the toys out of the cot. At times seems as though he stops trying. Is 28 and had a pretty serious back issue, which will be with him for the rest of his career.

Finally, and probably most importantly... Our bunch of guys all seem super tight. Always celebrating eachother on social media, in photos together etc... Jake is never in any of them. He just doesn’t seem super tight with anyone in particular and I can’t help but wonder if he is good for the culture long term.

Or we could just start winning and make him happy.

 

[plugger66]

Not someone you'd want to be in business with. Nice guy though.

Hard nosed. Well something nosed. Not sure his ex likes him that much.

 

[Ducky Tie]

So you are expecting brown to not be recalled this week?

I think he's almost a certainty to come back in, because I think that you are right that the clubs preferred back 3 talls setup is jake, battle, wilkie but with one crucial disclaimer-
That is the preferred setup ONLY when we play small forward lines.

Which is rarely (although it did occur last week v freo)

This means that I think it's more accurate to describe our preferred back tall setup (against all but short fwd lines) as
Brown at FB, jake at CHB, Wilkie at HBF, Battle at ?

This question mark was filled with 'wing' against the crows- obviously not too successful thus far.

Given that this week is the next game all those guys are available AND we are opposing a non midget fwd line, I'm interested to see what selection night brings.

I think brown comes straight back in (because he is preferred over jake at FB, unless we are opposing a v small fwd line) and like the crows game- battle will need to play somewhere else because jake is our chb.

I agree there is a good chance Brown will come in this week. A move I am perfectly happy with. I take your point that Battle and Carlisle are both not suited to naturally taking the number one power forward however this has us in a good position in having Brown at our disposal.

Your definition of what a CHB/FB/HBF has to be is too rigid. It comes with the assumption that you cannot have more than three defenders with height. Richmond won a flag with the model of four tall defenders in Rance/Astbury/Grimes/Broad.

Adelaide played off in a grannie with 5 x defenders above 190 in Hartigan/Kelly/Talia/Lever/Otten. Geelong play Blicavs/Kolo/Taylor/Henry.

Added to this is the bonus that Wilkie is highly capable of playing on tall, medium or small forwards.

Battle playing on a wing against the crows is not evidence that we have too many talls. It is evidence that they see him as a versatile talent who has plenty to offer.

 

[Sully111]

People overthink this sh*t. We finally get some potential stars and some can find a way to have it make sense to get rid of them.

It makes NO sense.

 

[The_Steadier]

[/QUOTE]

I get the thought process, but Battle is just too valuable to us, he is athletic and can play both ends, still no telling just how good he can be, Carlisle won't last forever and will probably keep picking up injuries here and there. Battlecat is just getting started and is probably one of the top 10 kids at the club, just don't see the point of letting him leave when other options exist.

We're already certain to lose Paddy Robbo and Armo and will probably cast off White, Rice, Longer and/or Pierce, Stuv may also leave, it's not like we are desperate to gut the list. Having a top dog and a promising understudy isn't such a bad thing, especially if both are more than capable swingman.

Agreed- it wouldn't be a move made flippantly or without a decent amount of risk attached to it.
But premierships aren't won avoiding risk-
I can't think of a flag that hasn't been won without taking high risk/high reward chances in assembling a best 22.

But if you subscribe to the theory that both jake and josh are both potential AA, intercept marking, loose chb's who can't replicate that elite level in another spot-
having an understudy setup for the next 3-4 years till jake passes the baton is a luxury we can't afford when we have dire needs elsewhere.

I'm not advocating a josh battle firesale, simply posing questions about how we go about creating a best 22 that can win a flag in the next few years.

 

[gringo2011]

People overthink this sh*t. We finally get some potential stars and some can find a way to have it make sense to get rid of them.

It makes NO sense.

I think we have become to drafting and trading being more entertaining that our footy the last few years.

 

[plugger66]

Agreed- it wouldn't be a move made flippantly or without a decent amount of risk attached to it.
But premierships aren't won avoiding risk-
I can't think of a flag that hasn't been won without taking high risk/high reward chances in assembling a best 22.

But if you subscribe to the theory that both jake and josh are both potential AA, intercept marking, loose chb's who can't replicate that elite level in another spot-
having an understudy setup for the next 3-4 years till jake passes the baton is a luxury we can't afford when we have dire needs elsewhere.

I'm not advocating a josh battle firesale, simply posing questions about how we go about creating a best 22 that can win a flag in the next few years.
[/QUOTE]
Who did the tigers let go or wce especially young and up and coming players.