Strategy Trade and List management (Add your rumour to the simmering stew that is the post season. Edition.)

[Golden_6]

Where'd the myth of him being bad last year come from?

His stats were similar but I did feel he was quite down on 2016. In saying that, it's likely that 2016 was simply a career year and his actual level is more of a 2017 level.

 

[immortalmike]

His stats were similar but I did feel he was quite down on 2016. In saying that, it's likely that 2016 was simply a career year and his actual level is more of a 2017 level.

Or the team sucked and it's harder on a mid of Dahl's type when he doesn't have support from the cream types.
This year he is obviously injured and playing to help the side. Even so we still get excellent games like against GC a couple of weeks ago.

 

[maddog37]

Where'd the myth of him being bad last year come from?

I felt that in 15/16 he was the spark for many of our wins. The leadership he showed us now only appears rarely like in the Ballarat game recently. He seems flat, worn down. Hopefully it is just op or something along those lines.

 

[Tommycash]

Or the team sucked and it's harder on a mid of Dahl's type when he doesn't have support from the cream types.
This year he is obviously injured and playing to help the side. Even so we still get excellent games like against GC a couple of weeks ago.

What injury has he got? I didn't realise he was playing sore, but it makes sense.

 

[immortalmike]

I felt that in 15/16 he was the spark for many of our wins. The leadership he showed us now only appears rarely like in the Ballarat game recently. He seems flat, worn down. Hopefully it is just op or something along those lines.

Has a significant knee injury this year. Thought that last year he was often the only player bar Macrae trying.
Also as a high pressure link up player he relies on the players around him to finish off his work. 15/16 he had that. Last year not so much.

 

[Mattdougie]

I don't believe everything i read .. but on one hand we have a player saying one thing and on another we have you throwing around statements. One of these things has more likelihood to be correct at this point and it isn't a baseless statement made by someone on an internet forum.

What happens from here is anyone's guess but the club has confirmed they want Dahlhaus to stay and he has said the same to this point.

Everyone that has any connection to the club knows Dahl was pissed off after the end of last year. It was mentioned here many times by well respected posters and myself. In fact it was even in the media.

The club have yet to offer him a contract.

How is any of that baseless?

 

[bobby2]

Everyone that has any connection to the club knows Dahl was pissed off after the end of last year. It was mentioned here many times by well respected posters and myself. In fact it was even in the media.

The club have yet to offer him a contract.

How is any of that baseless?

I'm pretty sure there was a recent article that said he has been offered a two year contract by the club.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

It was circulating as far back as the end of 2014 that dalh was unhappy.

 

[Golden_6]

Has a significant knee injury this year. Thought that last year he was often the only player bar Macrae trying.
Also as a high pressure link up player he relies on the players around him to finish off his work. 15/16 he had that. Last year not so much.

There's a chance he is playing sore but I doubt it's a significant knee injury. He's getting up and playing each week and we've shown we would rest players (Bont) if it needed to be done.

 

[immortalmike]

There's a chance he is playing sore but I doubt it's a significant knee injury. He's getting up and playing each week and we've shown we would rest players (Bont) if it needed to be done.

I know it's a significant knee injury.

 

[bobby2]

There's a chance he is playing sore but I doubt it's a significant knee injury. He's getting up and playing each week and we've shown we would rest players (Bont) if it needed to be done.

Bont is also playing injured most weeks though. He only didn't come up for one week because of a flare up late in the week. Just because Dahlhaus hasn't needed to miss a game yet, that doesn't make his injury insignificant.

 

[Mattdougie]

I'm pretty sure there was a recent article that said he has been offered a two year contract by the club.

SEN today said his manager was yet to receive an official offer but expected one very soon

 

[bobby2]

Hey guys, after much thought, I think I've come up with a good plan to save the list.

1. Get rid of our experienced B-graders we could retain at well below market value for some inadequate compensation. Dahl and Wallis have shown better form in the past than their current form, so naturally that means they're now not good enough and we should try to ship them off.
2. Recruit some C graders from other clubs at above market value. Cam Ellis Yolmen has played a couple of good games. If we spend up big to convince him we're the best place for him to continue his illustrious career, it could really pay dividends.
3. Recruit former guns who are now washed up and injury plagued on top dollar. If we're lucky, we might be able to acquire Marc Murphy on a Griffen/deledio type deal. The fact he is a free agent is a bonus, because we won't have to give up any draft picks (except for the Dahlhaus/wallis compensation picks- we wouldn't get anything for them anymore).

I really think these sorts of moves could catapult us back into the top 12 next year with a bit of luck.

 

[bobby2]

SEN today said his manager was yet to receive an official offer but expected one very soon

Fair enough. It was definitely in the HS though that we were offering 2 years and he wanted more, so maybe there was an unofficial offer.

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

Everyone that’s saying that West will eat up anything we get for Dahlhaus, you realise we can trade that pick yeah?

 

[BrunswickDog]

On the basis that they may attract similar money (going by the articles in the HS and Age today), would you give up dahlhaus for Tom Lynch? I think he would be awesone in our team.

Btw, as Connors and d'orazio are repping lynch, he is unlikely to be pushed to us after the whole stringer debacle last year.

 

[immortalmike]

On the basis that they may attract similar money (going by the articles in the HS and Age today), would you give up dahlhaus for Tom Lynch? I think he would be awesone in our team.

Btw, as Connors and d'orazio are repping lynch, he is unlikely to be pushed to us after the whole stringer debacle last year.

We wouldn't get Lynch for what we get for Dahlhaus so the point is moot.
We'd have to give up more.

 

[bobby2]

Everyone that’s saying that West will eat up anything we get for Dahlhaus, you realise we can trade that pick yeah?

Fair comment. What pick and trade would make it worthwhile though? I'd be surprised if we got anything better than a second rounder for him. I'm not convinced that what we get in a trade for that compensation pick is as valuable as Dahl is to us.

We'd also lose the compensation pick if we pick up a free agent. Given we lack mature players in the 25-30 age group, it seems silly to get rid of a 25 year old former AA squad member and prevent ourselves from chasing free agents in that age group. The question sort of becomes would you rather a second round pick that we'll need to on-trade or Dahl + a free agent? The answer to that seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[Dogsman16]

Everyone that’s saying that West will eat up anything we get for Dahlhaus, you realise we can trade that pick yeah?

Imagine the irony if we get 2nd round compensation and it turns out to be a worse pick than the Vickery compo. Our big footy server would just about blow up!

 

[bobby2]

We wouldn't get Lynch for what we get for Dahlhaus so the point is moot.
We'd have to give up more.

Also moot because we could retain Dahlhaus for much less than the HS asking price.

 

[NBates]

Bevo indicated there's a conflict of requests in Dalhaus's contract negotiations. I think that means he (Bevo) doesn't have him in our future plans. A shame, but footy is ruthless and that's how we have to deal to win. Not like the old days. Sad, but that's our world now.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Doggy]

Bevo indicated there's a conflict of requests in Dalhaus's contract negotiations. I think that means he (Bevo) doesn't have him in our future plans. A shame, but footy is ruthless and that's how we have to deal to win. Not like the old days. Sad, but that's our world now.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What? That isn't true.

one of the bigger sticking points is length of contract. They have a list managwment meeting in 2 weeks and Beveridge said they will discuss it more then but by then he may have even signed... doubt that but i am quietly confident they will get it done

 

[The Inbetweener]

On the basis that they may attract similar money (going by the articles in the HS and Age today), would you give up dahlhaus for Tom Lynch? I think he would be awesone in our team.

Btw, as Connors and d'orazio are repping lynch, he is unlikely to be pushed to us after the whole stringer debacle last year.

Wouldn’t stress too much about stuff with Connors lingering. They all move on pretty quickly

 

[Dogsman16]

I remember last year when JJ put off contract talks and we were all talking about what compensation we wanted and virtually wrote his future off at the dogs.

Dahlhaus could be doing the exact same thing, waiting for a good couple of games in a row to maximise his value.

Let’s all remain calm.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Wouldn't mind De Goey. It would take a fair bit, but he's what we need.