Mega Thread Trade and List Management discussion

[flipper83]

Anyone keen on Matty Watson? Thought he might be a good fit and there has been some press on him today...very athletic family, similar type to Talia but is a bit more mobile and has at least twice (possibly 3x ) the mental capacity and footy IQ. Im sure he could be a very good player as a KPP with a bit of continuity in his footy/

Don't think he's more mobile than Talia. A few Carlton posters saying he was just too slow to make the grade.

Anyway I'd be happy for the club to rookie list him if they thought he had potential. Think there's better DFA's out there though

 

[Zgope1]

You are wrong Pann, it's not about Tom Boyd for me purely the contract.
2016 Patrick Dangerfield 800k , Tom Boyd 1.6 mill. How many Dogs kicked
more goals last year and how many will kick more next year, he was not
even in front of Redpath in the best 22 for the last part of the year.

Astounded at the conviction in your first statement, and then that it's followed up by judging his acquisition on this year and next! Yeah nah I'd say all 7 are relevant thanks. And our recent record of star player retention too. We're through the woods, with the best young list in the game and that doesn't even factor in the politics of the decision to get him

 

[TedDougChris]

You are wrong Pann, it's not about Tom Boyd for me purely the contract.
2016 Patrick Dangerfield 800k , Tom Boyd 1.6 mill. How many Dogs kicked
more goals last year and how many will kick more next year, he was not
even in front of Redpath in the best 22 for the last part of the year.

19 year old being less physically developed than 24 year old..... Who would have guessed.... ??

 

[Yojimbo]

19 year old being less physically developed than 24 year old..... Who would have guessed.... ??

That's the whole point, 19 year old kid getting paid like he is a proven
commodity. Add that to the fact we payed 800k for a player to play
for an opposition club. Anyway enough, iv'e just had lunch.

 

[VitalDread]

I understand the doubt on Tom Boyd at this point in time
Which i shall name them Damien Barrett's

 

[paulveed]

Anyone keen on Matty Watson? Thought he might be a good fit and there has been some press on him today...very athletic family, similar type to Talia but is a bit more mobile and has at least twice (possibly 3x ) the mental capacity and footy IQ. Im sure he could be a very good player as a KPP with a bit of continuity in his footy/

I remember being quite impressed with what I saw of Watson as a junior. But recalling that, then later watching him play at Carlcrap, I was seriously disappointed. He was slow, seemed short on fitness,and decidedly lacking in intensity.
The kick up the bum [ delisting], might cause a self reassessment on the latter. No doubt our guys could work on the fitness aspect, but he would still need to do some major work [ with a sprinting coach, and perhaps the Vic. Uni. sports sci. guys] on his gait/pace, or lack of it.
I don't see him taking on the gorilla forwards though, so perhaps his role would be as a second defender.
I also would not like to see he and Fletch together in the same back line, given pace is Fletch's greatest weakness as well.
But if we were to pick Watson up, it might mean we could move Fletch to CHF, which has always been my preferred option for him anyway.

 

[King Harold]

Watson is a pretty ordinary footballer. Nice kick but no a lot else.
Much prefer we target Hartigan at Coburg.

 

[Yojimbo]

Watson is a pretty ordinary footballer. Nice kick but no a lot else.
Much prefer we target Hartigan at Coburg.

Hartigan is at Adelaide you mean Hartley, I agree pick 30 lock it in.

 

[Leezorr]

There are going to be some very sheepish posters in 2-3 years time when looking back on their views on Boyd.

I think most Dogs supporters are on board, its more the opposition camps that are gloating over us paying him shitloads and him not kicking 10 a game as a 19 year old.

 

[TedDougChris]

I think most Dogs supporters are on board, its more the opposition camps that are gloating over us paying him shitloads and him not kicking 10 a game as a 19 year old.

There are still justifiable and acceptable questions over the deal, but I think most of us realise the position we were placed in and believe we tried to make the best of a bad situation.

 

[dogzrule]

Interesting article on State league players, plenty of Tall Defender options there, does anyone have any intelligence on them ?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-24/state-league-gems-rough-diamonds-in-the-afl-mix

 

[Pannalstaroz]

You are wrong Pann, it's not about Tom Boyd for me purely the contract.
2016 Patrick Dangerfield 800k , Tom Boyd 1.6 mill. How many Dogs kicked
more goals last year and how many will kick more next year, he was not
even in front of Redpath in the best 22 for the last part of the year.

I'm not sure judging him in his 1st and 2nd years of a 7 year contract is doing you, him or us any favours. Comparing him to a 25yo less so. Argue the money, but frankly, who cares? Someone has to get it.

Edit: again I should read other responses first and I'm not singling out Dogs posters solely, there's a Bigfooty wide stand against him. I think there are those not just here who will rue some of the premature comments they've made.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I think most Dogs supporters are on board, its more the opposition camps that are gloating over us paying him shitloads and him not kicking 10 a game as a 19 year old.

I think for the most part this is fair.

 

[Yojimbo]

I'm not sure judging him in his 1st and 2nd years of a 7 year contract is doing you, him or us any favours. Comparing him to a 25yo less so. Argue the money, but frankly, who cares? Someone has to get it.

Agree Pann i probably made my point poorly, I just think clubs who have
a player on Boyd money expect an immediate return on their investment
as generally a club can only afford one such deal at the most.

 

[go you pups]

What rock where you hiding under last year?

I got a hunch we wanted Daniel, Webb and McLean from all the talk around the place.

Was surprised how high we took them at though. Dale and Hamilton I had no clue who they were though. Wanted another tall to be picked up alongside Cordy also.

 

[King Harold]

Hartigan is at Adelaide you mean Hartley, I agree pick 30 lock it in.

I am such a klutz

 

[Unorth]

I think in most cases it's fair to expect value for money from big contracts. But the Boyd deal is a bit of an unusual case. Obviously the club wasn't paying him on what he had shown at AFL level, but more what they believed he could show. They're paying him lots of money for the first couple of years for potential. So yep, there's a risk involved here. It's big money for something that's not guaranteed- and just to make it clear I'm not saying Boyd won't make it, I like the move, but it can't be denied that the move is a risk. There is a chance he won't live up to the contract. It's ok to think that, to get slightly iffy about the money he's getting.

But there are just a few factors that can't be ignored when looking at the deal. Namely opportunity. In recent years we have failed to land the young key forward we've wanted. Grant failed in that role. Ayce and Roughie didn't become that. Liam Jones. It just looked like it was going to be a long time before we got one. Besides, young key forwards that just recently went at pick 1 pretty much don't ever go on the trade table. It'd take exceptional circumstance for that to happen...like a captain demanding a trade. So it would have been made clear to the Dogs that Boyd wanted out at some stage- and he wanted lots of money. It just so happened that we got put in a situation where we could realise this one season earlier than planned. So from J-Mac and co's point of view; why not? Hell, other clubs supporters prior to the Boyd deal were banging on about how we "needed to poach a big name from the expansion clubs" that we needed to "make a gamble" to take us to the next level in the long term. That opportunity was there. We had a desperate need. Did we overpay to get him? Yes. Was that necessary? I'd say so. Yes his form in his season with the Giants wasn't all that...But that isn't what we would have based our decision solely on. He went #1, had the label "generational" for a reason. The option was there for us to get him...so we did.

Now again, it is a gamble. That can't be ignored and it's ok to worry about the coin he's getting. But we weren't going to get him by offering 500k over 3 seasons. If it wasn't us to give him the deal he has, it would have been someone else the following season. It's a risk, but if J-Mac and co. had doubts over his ability, if they weren't absolutely sure he was going to make it, they wouldn't have given him that deal. He didn't get given that contract just for the sake of it. If they saw fit to have him on the team at that coin, the same team that has identified young talent at a rate possibly unparalleled over the last few seasons, then I'll back them in.

Yes we do cop some flack from other supporters because at this time he's produced little. Which is a little fair. Not entirely, because end of the day he's a 19 year old power forward in the Hawkins mould, not the more mobile, ready made tall. But remember that through all the criticism leveled at him and the club from, say, the main board (shudder) the general consensus prior to the move was that we needed to be bold and poach a young player from GWS. So we did.

 

[fronkalicious]

There are still justifiable and acceptable questions over the deal, but I think most of us realise the position we were placed in and believe we tried to make the best of a bad situation.

We couldn't land a flag last tilt, in part, because we didn't have the balls to land a key forward. That won't be the case this time around. That's worth the price tag alone IMO.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I think in most cases it's fair to expect value for money from big contracts. But the Boyd deal is a bit of an unusual case. Obviously the club wasn't paying him on what he had shown at AFL level, but more what they believed he could show. They're paying him lots of money for the first couple of years for potential. So yep, there's a risk involved here. It's big money for something that's not guaranteed- and just to make it clear I'm not saying Boyd won't make it, I like the move, but it can't be denied that the move is a risk. There is a chance he won't live up to the contract. It's ok to think that, to get slightly iffy about the money he's getting.

But there are just a few factors that can't be ignored when looking at the deal. Namely opportunity. In recent years we have failed to land the young key forward we've wanted. Grant failed in that role. Ayce and Roughie didn't become that. Liam Jones. It just looked like it was going to be a long time before we got one. Besides, young key forwards that just recently went at pick 1 pretty much don't ever go on the trade table. It'd take exceptional circumstance for that to happen...like a captain demanding a trade. So it would have been made clear to the Dogs that Boyd wanted out at some stage- and he wanted lots of money. It just so happened that we got put in a situation where we could realise this one season earlier than planned. So from J-Mac and co's point of view; why not? Hell, other clubs supporters prior to the Boyd deal were banging on about how we "needed to poach a big name from the expansion clubs" that we needed to "make a gamble" to take us to the next level in the long term. That opportunity was there. We had a desperate need. Did we overpay to get him? Yes. Was that necessary? I'd say so. Yes his form in his season with the Giants wasn't all that...But that isn't what we would have based our decision solely on. He went #1, had the label "generational" for a reason. The option was there for us to get him...so we did.

Now again, it is a gamble. That can't be ignored and it's ok to worry about the coin he's getting. But we weren't going to get him by offering 500k over 3 seasons. If it wasn't us to give him the deal he has, it would have been someone else the following season. It's a risk, but if J-Mac and co. had doubts over his ability, if they weren't absolutely sure he was going to make it, they wouldn't have given him that deal. He didn't get given that contract just for the sake of it. If they saw fit to have him on the team at that coin, the same team that has identified young talent at a rate possibly unparalleled over the last few seasons, then I'll back them in.

Yes we do cop some flack from other supporters because at this time he's produced little. Which is a little fair. Not entirely, because end of the day he's a 19 year old power forward in the Hawkins mould, not the more mobile, ready made tall. But remember that through all the criticism leveled at him and the club from, say, the main board (shudder) the general consensus prior to the move was that we needed to be bold and poach a young player from GWS. So we did.

Well said.

One point re Boyd I always have in the back of my mind is when Glen Luff was on his Thursday show on SEN last year (when Boyd was at GWS) I remember them talking about him being like Hawkins, GL said words to the effect of "when big kids are completely dominant in their U18 years (like Hawkins) they always make it at AFL". He cited Cloke and Hawkins as comparable to Boyd, but he made mention that Boyd's figures were a lot better than either of those players as a kid.

I'm with him. Big kids who are junior stars don't always initially transition that to senior sport (I've seen it many times in cricket), because the physical dominance they've had on their opponents isn't easily replicated playing on bigger, stronger men. But do you know what? After about 3 years, when they all of a sudden find that they're as strong as their opponent and they're able to compete physically with them, their confidence and arrogance comes back and BANG they find their feet. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that in 3 years time when Tom looks over at the FB and thinks to himself, I'm better AND stronger than him, you'll see an utterly dominant full forward. Someone who is good in the air, commands space, has good hands and kicks the ball straight. It'll be pretty good

 

[Pannalstaroz]

We couldn't land a flag last tilt, in part, because we didn't have the balls to land a key forward. That won't be the case this time around. That's worth the price tag alone IMO.

Spot on. What was the opportunity cost of not getting him? Keeping the mids happy? Come on.

 

[go you pups]

Just taking the piss bobby2 , iv'e already locked in Gresham and Rioli
at our first two picks. Classic Dalrymple.

Yep

Thank **** Milera will be gone by then

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Actually for Boyd arrogance, go back and watch his game on Aidan Corr against GWS. He knew he was better and he destroyed him.

 

[dogzrule]

Just on 3 AW that we almost got Lobbe for pick 11 but Lobbe was os and he couldn't do a medical otherwise he was coming to us

 

[ErnieSigley]

Bont was a McCartney overrule. Dal wanted kk

What a load of crap.

What's with this fascination in Bmac praise for something he didn't do.
Can't accept he was one of our worst coaches ever!

 

[TedDougChris]

We couldn't land a flag last tilt, in part, because we didn't have the balls to land a key forward. That won't be the case this time around. That's worth the price tag alone IMO.

There are associated benefits (trading reputation etc) to the Boyd deal that are difficult to quantify. My initial comments a few pages back where just of interest, in that the two player types we need now (mobile ruckman, KPD) were both available to us (in Lever and Wright) if we hadn't pursued the Boyd deal. And I just thought it was an interesting discussion point.

I agree that in being aggressive in our pursuit of Boyd was a good thing, as I think it also adds some further self confidence to the club, which seemed to rub off this year. It's another of the intangible benefits that came from the deal.