Rumour Future of the club (Bevo, board, assistant coaches, football department)

[JTCWBFC]

If the year fizzles out (looking likely on form and with our run home) I just don’t see how the board can justify going into next year without change.

Disappointing because pre bye I was almost around to sticking the course. But last week was ****ing awful and the north game not much better.

Times running out.

 

[Doggy]

The rubbish around the Norf game being pathetic is disingenuous to Norf.

They have been very solid for a good four or five weeks and were unlucky not to win more.

The port game was very poor, and it does not help having a bunch of important players injured

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Sanders will be a gun when he gets that prime inside mid role to himself.

So will Darcy Jones, Darcy Wilson, Tholstrup, Windsor etc…

Whoever we got with our first pick was going to be pretty good.

And whoever we would have got with pick 8 or 9 this year will likely be good as well.

Didn’t help that we have way overrated ourselves for the past couple of years.

 

[Doggy]

So will Darcy Jones, Darcy Wilson, Tholstrup, Windsor etc…

Whoever we got with our first pick was going to be pretty good.

And whoever we would have got with pick 8 or 9 this year will likely be good as well.

Didn’t help that we have way overrated ourselves for the past couple of years.

Keeps getting overlooked how the dogs would likely have not had their first pick last year. There was a good chance a bid came in before that for Croft.

Anyone can look at things in hindsight but they clearly had good reason to think that would also be the case and did the best they could in the circumstances

The AFL bolstering Norf's hand hurt a lot as well

 

[dogwatch]

Keeps getting overlooked how the dogs would likely have not had their first pick last year. There was a good chance a bid came in before that for Croft.

Anyone can look at things in hindsight but they clearly had good reason to think that would also be the case and did the best they could in the circumstances

The AFL bolstering Norf's hand hurt a lot as well

I don't entirely agree. It was more complex than that.

I do agree that we analyse these things to death during trade week and we're totally on top of all the scenarios and nuances. But then the intricacies all get forgotten 8 months later.

So let's look back at what happened over that period.
(I'm happy to be corrected if I've got any of this wrong or if I've omitted some key fact.)

We knew our 1st first rounder (#10) would slide out a bit with other matched bids (eg Jed Walter) as well as the compo bid for North (#3) so our first could end up being in the 12-14 range which would definitely make it susceptible to an early bid on Croft. Even if the Croft bid came after that, there was almost no chance that it would come after our 2nd first-rounder (#17, the one we got from Brisbane for Dunks) which was probably going to end up being around 20-22 after earlier bid-matching. So it made sense to trade out those first rounders. But did we have to include our future first as well?

Here's the key trade that we did on 10 October:

Western Bulldogs have acquired Gold Coast’s picks 4, 46 and 51 in exchange for picks 10, 17 & the WB’s future first.

I know the Draft Points Index is far from perfect but it's the best rough guide we've got.
Our incoming picks 4, 46 and 51 add up to 2624 points (2034+331+259)
Our outgoing picks 10, 17 and F1 (let's choose the mid-point and call that one pick 10) add up to 3815 points (1395+1025+1395).

On face value that's a massive bargain for Gold Coast. 1191 points (roughly equivalent to handing them a pick 14).

Of course our motivation was not so much to get an equality of points but to end up with a first rounder AND be able to draft Croft. So we would probably all have been happy if we paid a small premium in achieving that ... but 1200 points?

My point is that there were probably a number of other ways to end up with a top 10 pick and still get Croft.

As I recall it was generally agreed that while some club might bid on Croft before our original first round pick, it was very unlikely (perhaps <10% chance) that anyone would bid for him with pick 11 or earlier, after bid matching. Or pick 10 if you want to be really safe. So all we had to do was parlay our first rounder into pick 7 or 8 and make sure we had also assembled enough points to cover a bid on Croft in the mid-teens (it eventually came at pick 15).

So with a bit of juggling (possibly giving up our 2024 2nd) we could probably have got the required points for Croft and a first round pick around 9-11 in 2023 without giving up our 2024 first. For instance if we'd been able to do something like this:
Incoming picks 8, 46, 51 worth points 2141 points (1551+331+259)
Outgoing picks 10, 17 worth 2420 points (1395+1025)

We still pay a slight premium but it's only 280 points.

No chance we'd have got Sanders but we'd probably have had a shot at whoever we fancied out of players like Caddy, O'Sullivan, Tholstrup, Wilson etc. And we'd still have got Croft.

AND ... we'd have retained this year's first.

There are all sorts of unknowns of course. It might be that nobody wanted to give up their pick in that range. Or that we'd have to go for say pick 6 instead of pick 8 and thus pay a bit more. But we would have had other assets to play with if we needed to get a deal over the line, eg our future 2nd.

As you say hindsight can be an unfair advantage but that really was an eyebrow-raising trade and a number of us commented on it at the time it was done IIRC. Did they really do "the best they could in the circumstances"? I say no. But in their defence if they thought Sanders was a generational talent it might have been worth the big sacrifice. If that's what Power and Milesi thought and that's why they went so hard for pick 4, then they should be judged on how good a call that turns out to be, just like recruiters and list mangers are judged on all their other draft selections.

It's too early to say for sure. I hope like hell they got it right but so far I'm seeing a very solid midfielder who may end up playing 200 games. But not the sort of generational talent I'd do that kind of pick swapping for.

Meanwhile our 2024 draft hand is currently 28, 48 and 82.

 

[Doggy]

I don't entirely agree. It was more complex than that.

I do agree that we analyse these things to death during trade week and we're totally on top of all the scenarios and nuances. But then the intricacies all get forgotten 8 months later.

So let's look back at what happened over that period.
(I'm happy to be corrected if I've got any of this wrong or if I've omitted some key fact.)

We knew our 1st first rounder (#10) would slide out a bit with other matched bids (eg Jed Walter) as well as the compo bid for North (#3) so our first could end up being in the 12-14 range which would definitely make it susceptible to an early bid on Croft. Even if the Croft bid came after that, there was almost no chance that it would come after our 2nd first-rounder (#17, the one we got from Brisbane for Dunks) which was probably going to end up being around 20-22 after earlier bid-matching. So it made sense to trade out those first rounders. But did we have to include our future first as well?

Here's the key trade that we did on 10 October:


I know the Draft Points Index is far from perfect but it's the best rough guide we've got.
Our incoming picks 4, 46 and 51 add up to 2624 points (2034+331+259)
Our outgoing picks 10, 17 and F1 (let's choose the mid-point and call that one pick 10) add up to 3815 points (1395+1025+1395).

On face value that's a massive bargain for Gold Coast. 1191 points (roughly equivalent to handing them a pick 14).

Of course our motivation was not so much to get an equality of points but to end up with a first rounder AND be able to draft Croft. So we would probably all have been happy if we paid a small premium in achieving that ... but 1200 points?

My point is that there were probably a number of other ways to end up with a top 10 pick and still get Croft.

As I recall it was generally agreed that while some club might bid on Croft before our original first round pick, it was very unlikely (perhaps <10% chance) that anyone would bid for him with pick 11 or earlier, after bid matching. Or pick 10 if you want to be really safe. So all we had to do was parlay our first rounder into pick 7 or 8 and make sure we had also assembled enough points to cover a bid on Croft in the mid-teens (it eventually came at pick 15).

So with a bit of juggling (possibly giving up our 2024 2nd) we could probably have got the required points for Croft and a first round pick around 9-11 in 2023 without giving up our 2024 first. For instance if we'd been able to do something like this:
Incoming picks 8, 46, 51 worth points 2141 points (1551+331+259)
Outgoing picks 10, 17 worth 2420 points (1395+1025)

We still pay a slight premium but it's only 280 points.

No chance we'd have got Sanders but we'd probably have had a shot at whoever we fancied out of players like Caddy, O'Sullivan, Tholstrup, Wilson etc. And we'd still have got Croft.

AND ... we'd have retained this year's first.

There are all sorts of unknowns of course. It might be that nobody wanted to give up their pick in that range. Or that we'd have to go for say pick 6 instead of pick 8 and thus pay a bit more. But we would have had other assets to play with if we needed to get a deal over the line, eg our future 2nd.

As you say hindsight can be an unfair advantage but that really was an eyebrow-raising trade and a number of us commented on it at the time it was done IIRC. Did they really do "the best they could in the circumstances"? I say no. But in their defence if they thought Sanders was a generational talent it might have been worth the big sacrifice. If that's what Power and Milesi thought and that's why they went so hard for pick 4, then they should be judged on how good a call that turns out to be, just like recruiters and list mangers are judged on all their other draft selections.

It's too early to say for sure. I hope like hell they got it right but so far I'm seeing a very solid midfielder who may end up playing 200 games. But not the sort of generational talent I'd do that kind of pick swapping for.

Meanwhile our 2024 draft hand is currently 28, 48 and 82.

It's already been done to death that noone was giving up a pick that early without a big premium.

There were teams that paid a second rounder to move up 1 spot.

Giving up 280points is and was fanciful

Guarantee the club knew they'd lose either or both of Smith and English so there is your first rounder

 

[dogwatch]

It's already been done to death that noone was giving up a pick that early without a big premium.

There were teams that paid a second rounder to move up 1 spot.

Giving up 280points is and was fanciful

Guarantee the club knew they'd lose either or both of Smith and English so there is your first rounder

If so, then we simply pay a higher premium. Say 600 points.

My point is there were many ways to do it without trading out our F1. I'd probably have been OK with it if it used our F2 for instance.

You seem to be suggesting this was the only way to get Croft and still have a top 10 pick. I say otherwise. And even if you are right , it doesn't necessarily make it the best way to go. There would have been other choices like saying OK, if we can't get back into top 10 at a reasonable price let's trade for a second first rounder in 2024 and just settle for getting Croft this year (plus the later picks we got).

I agree the path to getting Sanders was much narrower and it's possible that what we did was the only way to do it. He just seemed (both then and now) like an unusual choice to make that sort of sacrifice for.

 

[Doggy]

If so, then we simply pay a higher premium. Say 600 points.

My point is there were many ways to do it without trading out our F1. I'd probably have been OK with it if it used our F2 for instance.

You seem to be suggesting this was the only way to get Croft and still have a top 10 pick. I say otherwise. And even if you are right , it doesn't necessarily make it the best way to go. There would have been other choices like saying OK, if we can't get back into top 10 at a reasonable price let's trade for a second first rounder in 2024 and just settle for getting Croft this year (plus the later picks we got).

I agree the path to getting Sanders was much narrower and it's possible that what we did was the only way to do it. He just seemed (both then and now) like an unusual choice to make that sort of sacrifice for.

Probably want a Liberatore replacement in early rather than waiting a year. They wanted Sanders, 600 points wasn't getting anywhere near it. Norf and Melbourne alone had a far better hand than that.

And like I said, given the players out this year there will be a first rounder and they'd have known that.

They probably also expected a bit of a higher finish this year but I can see why the risk was taken. Nothing ventured, nothing gained

 

[Contador]

I've heard the likely 2nd rounders this year are actually rated higher than the first rounders. Weak top end of the draft so we've done well to trade out of it.

 

[SweatOnMySkin]

Wait until you hear about the guns available with our 3rd rounder

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Apparently keeping all our picks for the rookie draft - full of guns

 

[geoffjennings79]

Bevo won a flag from 7th. He loves a challenge.

So obviously we arguably overpaid for Sanders so Bevo can show he can win a flag again by drafting nobodies in 2024. Another challenge.

You could give him a loaf of bread and a few flathead and he'd turn it into a mid-table team. Or a really ordinary couple of sandwiches. Or something.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Lachie Hunter and Zaine Cordy say hi!

So does Libba

 

[bigdog54]

If the year fizzles out (looking likely on form and with our run home) I just don’t see how the board can justify going into next year without change.

Disappointing because pre bye I was almost around to sticking the course. But last week was ****ing awful and the north game not much better.

Times running out.

Why would they? This is year 3 of the same shit! Prepare to be disappointed again...

 

[bigdog54]

Sanders will be a gun when he gets that prime inside mid role to himself.

He's shown plenty. Don't get the carry on in here

 

[bresker]

He's shown plenty. Don't get the carry on in here

Yeah, he was in most phantom drafts as a top ten player. He was picked in the top ten. He's looked solid so far, not flash, but maybe that'll come with time. Solid is good.

Recruiters can't just draft for this year or next, they've got to get out a crystal ball and look to 2030 . You've got to have a range of solid players in a changing list or the team bottoms out.

 

[ScragCity]

I reckon the club will be pleased with themselves that our many reviews, new coaching panel and org structure reshuffle resulted in a top 12 finish.

 

[TiAn_]

I don't entirely agree. It was more complex than that.

I do agree that we analyse these things to death during trade week and we're totally on top of all the scenarios and nuances. But then the intricacies all get forgotten 8 months later.

So let's look back at what happened over that period.
(I'm happy to be corrected if I've got any of this wrong or if I've omitted some key fact.)

We knew our 1st first rounder (#10) would slide out a bit with other matched bids (eg Jed Walter) as well as the compo bid for North (#3) so our first could end up being in the 12-14 range which would definitely make it susceptible to an early bid on Croft. Even if the Croft bid came after that, there was almost no chance that it would come after our 2nd first-rounder (#17, the one we got from Brisbane for Dunks) which was probably going to end up being around 20-22 after earlier bid-matching. So it made sense to trade out those first rounders. But did we have to include our future first as well?

Here's the key trade that we did on 10 October:


I know the Draft Points Index is far from perfect but it's the best rough guide we've got.
Our incoming picks 4, 46 and 51 add up to 2624 points (2034+331+259)
Our outgoing picks 10, 17 and F1 (let's choose the mid-point and call that one pick 10) add up to 3815 points (1395+1025+1395).

On face value that's a massive bargain for Gold Coast. 1191 points (roughly equivalent to handing them a pick 14).

Of course our motivation was not so much to get an equality of points but to end up with a first rounder AND be able to draft Croft. So we would probably all have been happy if we paid a small premium in achieving that ... but 1200 points?

My point is that there were probably a number of other ways to end up with a top 10 pick and still get Croft.

As I recall it was generally agreed that while some club might bid on Croft before our original first round pick, it was very unlikely (perhaps <10% chance) that anyone would bid for him with pick 11 or earlier, after bid matching. Or pick 10 if you want to be really safe. So all we had to do was parlay our first rounder into pick 7 or 8 and make sure we had also assembled enough points to cover a bid on Croft in the mid-teens (it eventually came at pick 15).

So with a bit of juggling (possibly giving up our 2024 2nd) we could probably have got the required points for Croft and a first round pick around 9-11 in 2023 without giving up our 2024 first. For instance if we'd been able to do something like this:
Incoming picks 8, 46, 51 worth points 2141 points (1551+331+259)
Outgoing picks 10, 17 worth 2420 points (1395+1025)

We still pay a slight premium but it's only 280 points.

No chance we'd have got Sanders but we'd probably have had a shot at whoever we fancied out of players like Caddy, O'Sullivan, Tholstrup, Wilson etc. And we'd still have got Croft.

AND ... we'd have retained this year's first.

There are all sorts of unknowns of course. It might be that nobody wanted to give up their pick in that range. Or that we'd have to go for say pick 6 instead of pick 8 and thus pay a bit more. But we would have had other assets to play with if we needed to get a deal over the line, eg our future 2nd.

As you say hindsight can be an unfair advantage but that really was an eyebrow-raising trade and a number of us commented on it at the time it was done IIRC. Did they really do "the best they could in the circumstances"? I say no. But in their defence if they thought Sanders was a generational talent it might have been worth the big sacrifice. If that's what Power and Milesi thought and that's why they went so hard for pick 4, then they should be judged on how good a call that turns out to be, just like recruiters and list mangers are judged on all their other draft selections.

It's too early to say for sure. I hope like hell they got it right but so far I'm seeing a very solid midfielder who may end up playing 200 games. But not the sort of generational talent I'd do that kind of pick swapping for.

Meanwhile our 2024 draft hand is currently 28, 48 and 82.

One thing I’d point out that is quite important if you’re you’re going to analyse the trade based on draft points is that we also acquired GC’s F3, currently pick 45 this year and worth 347 points.

That would take the points difference in GC’s favour down from 1191 to 844. The equivalent of pick 22.

That being said, I personally don’t think draft points is a particularly good way to evaluate the trade from our side.

 

[_Cerberus_]

People need to stop using the draft points index as a measuring stick to whether it was a good move or not. It is very misleading. And people are to angry we don't have a first round pick this year. We had two last year. Most teams only have two first round selections across a two year period.

We had three first round picks, we made two first round picks. The third ended up being pushed into pick 23 anyway. So to me, we really only gave up a second round pick and gained a third round pick back. Whilst making two first round selections. Think of Croft as being this years first round pick.

 

[_Mike_]

Times running out.

 

[dogwatch]

One thing I’d point out that is quite important if you’re you’re going to analyse the trade based on draft points is that we also acquired GC’s F3, currently pick 45 this year and worth 347 points.

That would take the points difference in GC’s favour down from 1191 to 844. The equivalent of pick 22.

That being said, I personally don’t think draft points is a particularly good way to evaluate the trade from our side.

People need to stop using the draft points index as a measuring stick to whether it was a good move or not. It is very misleading. And people are to angry we don't have a first round pick this year. We had two last year. Most teams only have two first round selections across a two year period.

We had three first round picks, we made two first round picks. The third ended up being pushed into pick 23 anyway. So to me, we really only gave up a second round pick and gained a third round pick back. Whilst making two first round selections. Think of Croft as being this years first round pick.

Happy to abandon draft points if it doesn't suit. As I said it's a very imperfect measure.
It leaves us with no other useful rules of thumb, so discussion of pick and trade value becomes a purely subjective assessment. So be it. Like most other discussions we have here!

Regardless, my point remains. We almost certainly had other options last year.

Looking on, I'd have done it differently but then I'm not Sam Power and I don't know all the considerations and constraints he had to take into account. As far as I know nobody else on this board is Sam Power either.

 

[glenashley]

Fair to say supporters have had 3 constant complaints about Bevo for some time.

1) Seemingly out coached far too often including a lack of a plan B and refusal to tag.

2) Disrespect for the ruck position.

3) Bizarre selection decisions including playing favourites and VFL standard guys ahead of promising youngsters.

It seems he still does all of the above this season despite promised change.

Surely a new coach would address this?

 

[Munnez]

People need to stop using the draft points index as a measuring stick to whether it was a good move or not. It is very misleading. And people are to angry we don't have a first round pick this year. We had two last year. Most teams only have two first round selections across a two year period.

We had three first round picks, we made two first round picks. The third ended up being pushed into pick 23 anyway. So to me, we really only gave up a second round pick and gained a third round pick back. Whilst making two first round selections. Think of Croft as being this years first round pick.

With 12 months in the AFL system which holds value in and of itself when Keath and Jones both approaching the cliff of father time!!

 

[Dogs Rule]

Fair to say supporters have had 3 constant complaints about Bevo for some time.

1) Seemingly out coached far too often including a lack of a plan B and refusal to tag.

2) Disrespect for the ruck position.

3) Bizarre selection decisions including playing favourites and VFL standard guys ahead of promising youngsters.

It seems he still does all of the above this season despite promised change.

Surely a new coach would address this?

You would think so wouldn't you, but here we are...

 

[fred cook]

You would think so wouldn't you, but here we are...

Leon Cameron head of football. Leppitsch senior coach. Tom Hawkins forward coach Done deal and thank your mother for the rabbits