Mega Thread Trade and List Management discussion

[Pugz89]

No DMac nomination. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-27/dogs-pass-on-nominating-fatherson-prospect-darcy-macpherson

 

[Dogsman16]

No DMac nomination. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-27/dogs-pass-on-nominating-fatherson-prospect-darcy-macpherson

Had to be done IMO.

 

[Testekill]

Suspect that we'll roll the dice on him falling to the rookie draft.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

No DMac nomination. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-27/dogs-pass-on-nominating-fatherson-prospect-darcy-macpherson

Good decision. Doesn't necessarily mean he won't get to us, but it gives us more flexibility on the night.

 

[Zeno The Great]

Had to be done IMO.

Interesting...will back the club in, they mustn't be impressed if passing him in this draft. Did very well at the combine.

"MacPherson overcame injury concerns to be one of the standout players at this month's NAB AFL Draft Combine. He placed among the top-10 of the running vertical jump, agility, beep test, clean hands and kicking tests."

 

[Dogsman16]

Good decision. Doesn't necessarily mean he won't get to us, but it gives us more flexibility on the night.

Agree I'd certainly consider him strongly at pick 51 if the cards fell our way but we can't afford to be locked in with him at a certain selection when it is apparent that this draft should be looked at on a needs basis. If we got 3 nice talls with our first 3 and he's at 51 I'd be delighted to pick him up but a lot would have to fall our way for that to happen.

Very good decision from the club in my view.

 

[TedDougChris]

This year signals a fairly ruthless intent with respect to list management. Grant, Cordy, Talia gone, DMac not nominated. Minson would have been gone too if there had been interest...

 

[Dogsman16]

Interesting...will back the club in, they mustn't be impressed if passing him in this draft. Did very well at the combine.

"MacPherson overcame injury concerns to be one of the standout players at this month's NAB AFL Draft Combine. He placed among the top-10 of the running vertical jump, agility, beep test, clean hands and kicking tests."

I'm not doubting his ability at all. But to me this stronly indicates that where possible we are looking for certain needs at this draft and Darcy doesn't fill any of our current needs.

 

[goodcop badcop]

Interesting...will back the club in, they mustn't be impressed if passing him in this draft. Did very well at the combine.

"MacPherson overcame injury concerns to be one of the standout players at this month's NAB AFL Draft Combine. He placed among the top-10 of the running vertical jump, agility, beep test, clean hands and kicking tests."

He tests better then he plays. There's better options in the draft and Darcy is too much of the same in regards to our other smalls anyway.

 

[Yojimbo]

Bang on. People talk as if we were in a position to negotiate. We were trying to land a blow and poach a player, we needed a yes and we utilised one of the most unique salary positions a teams had in years.

What shits me to tears about all this talk is no one floats the alternatives.

Bending over and receiving picks for Griff like some submissive dog club was NOT an option and the fan base would've found that off season extremely hard to swallow.

It also ignores that we were throwing around money at bog average / old players before the event anyway, it's not like we weren't exploring the ways we could put our money to good use. Damn us for grabbing one of the highest perceived prospects in the land! Even one that we'd researched and liked for years!

All this and we had no trouble convincing Lobbe to come over, suckling to come over, signing up our future stars to get out of the woods for the Boyd window.

And better yet in the last twelve months we've had a star emerge that'll make boyds role an easier one!!

Good post Zgope1, except for the Lobbe reference he was contracted
for four years as well as the vice captain at Port most probably would
have cost more than Boyd. Thank god he was overseas at the time
sometimes you just get lucky.

 

[Zeno The Great]

He tests better then he plays. There's better options in the draft and Darcy is too much of the same in regards to our other smalls anyway.

Agree, if there is one area I'm pretty sure we can get 100% mutual agreement on here, it's in regards to having enough strength and depth in the smalls departments.

 

[TedDougChris]

He tests better then he plays. There's better options in the draft and Darcy is too much of the same in regards to our other smalls anyway.

That's my reading of it too. Perhaps we've learnt from Fuller - test the guys in the heat of the game, not on when they have plenty of time and space. If he is good enough, hopefully we pick him up somewhere in the drafting process.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

So can we nominate him for the rookie draft still?

EDIT: Looks like we didn't. Interesting.

 

[flipper83]

Pretty sure we can still take him at 51 if we want. I don't think anyone will pick him before then. Just gives us more flexibility if there is someone we rate higher there.

 

[flipper83]

If nobody takes him in the main draft we can nominate him as a rookie.
I think someone might take him though. Maybe Geelong

 

[GreatSouthWest]

The Dogs will also keep their options open in the rookie draft, where they won't nominate MacPherson as a father-son rookie if he falls through the national draft without a club

Interesting

 

[Roscoe_au]

Backing our list management team in. Playing the nice guy won't win us a final. We should be ruthless and send a clear message to the playing group that if they perform, they play.

Tutt and Jones will be thanking their lucky stars they bailed when they did.

 

[Doggies7]

Still early but we made a tough call on Jayden Foster that looks like it may have been the correct one. Hard to say obviously at this stage but it's good to see we aren't overly friendly / sentimental about making these calls on our list and have a ruthless edge (Foster, McPherson, Ayce, Grant etc).

McPherson looks like a decent prospect though, would be massive if we can nab him in the rookie draft or worst case scenario, none of the players we like are there at 51 and we grab him then.

 

[Sentinel]

Could someone explain what disadvantage there would be in nominating him? Given we can wait until the day to see if other clubs bid for him, why not nominate and then if the price is too high just let him slide? I might be missing something, but I see it as nothing lost to nominate and then let another club bid higher if they chose and we then pass.

EDIT: Because we are then locked into taking him if no other club bids, even if we don't want him after seeing who we pick up earlier. Answered my own question, sorry.

 

[Cudi]

Like the call, was a bit iffy about him considering we have quite a few similar players already so he is not a need on he list.

Same as Foster last year, can't be just nominating blokes just because of the romance of it.

 

[fronkalicious]

Macpherson a bit of a victim of circumstance.

Had we been able to get lobbe across the line, I believe Hrovat would have been moved for cap space, paving the way for Mcpherson to be nominated.

 

[flipper83]

[QUOTE="Had we been able to get lobbe across the line, I believe Hrovat would have been moved for cap space, paving the way for Mcpherson to be nominated.[/QUOTE]
Can you tell us who to and what for?

 

[Yojimbo]

Vitaldread changes his DMac avatar to a Chicago Bulls avatar
and then BAM two days later DMac not nominated by the
Dogs, me smells a rat.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Could someone explain what disadvantage there would be in nominating him? Given we can wait until the day to see if other clubs bid for him, why not nominate and then if the price is too high just let him slide? I might be missing something, but I see it as nothing lost to nominate and then let another club bid higher if they chose and we then pass.

EDIT: Because we are then locked into taking him if no other club bids, even if we don't want him after seeing who we pick up earlier. Answered my own question, sorry.

Does the same rule apply in the rookie draft? Does the club have to pick him up if no one bids in the rookie draft?

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

I don't think people realize what we were asking Tom Boyd to walk into. We were asking him to forsake other clubs in favour of a club who just were 5th last, just had their captain (and a bunch of other players) walk out and didn't have a coach. The contract had to be enticing because we were a worse prospect than the Blues at that point (just let that sink in).

Can someone forward this to Mr. Barrett please?