Strategy Trade and List Management thread 3 (...The pining for the departed. Edition)

[54dreamsalive]

Guys we are missing a great effort again by our list management team.

Getting the prize pick 26 was magic and gives us a chance to land exactly what we need.

• We need an Betts like forward
• We need a class outside runner
• We need a Clean hands half back

pick 18 Shai Bolton -betts clone but can go onball
pick 26 Rotham tall half forward with run
pick 50 Guefi class outside runner

 

[Borgsta]

Seriously WTF? I've just looked at the b and F finishes as guides to how the club rates a player. You don't need to speak to anyone to see Jong finished 16th last year and 27th this year. Why you would even suggest otherwise has me puzzled.



I don't see how you can conclude anything other than Bev rates Jong about 27th on our list based on the B and F - and that in a year where we had players dropping like flies (and where Jong missed relatively few games due to injury).

And that we didn't increase our offer to match what the market was offering Jong says to me the list team weren't that fussed if Jong left.

But as you say, people are welcome to their opinions.

Probably because Bevo alone does not vote on the B&F and 22 players are not awarded votes for every game. Its not indicative of where a player rates on our list outside probably the top 10, maybe top 15 at a push.

If we werent fussed if Jong left we would not have offered him a contract. That is what actually happened to several players at the Dogs.

 

[Gollo]

Guys we are missing a great effort again by our list management team.

Getting the prize pick 26 was magic and gives us a chance to land exactly what we need.

• We need an Betts like forward
• We need a class outside runner
• We need a Clean hands half back

pick 18 Shai Bolton -betts clone but can go onball
pick 26 Rotham tall half forward with run
pick 50 Guefi class outside runner

Shai Bolton can't kick, forget him.
Josh Rotham isn't a half forward, he's a third tall defender. Hasn't had the production this year, defensive craft needs improvement.
Many better options than Guelfi.

 

[54dreamsalive]

Shai Bolton can't kick, forget him.
Josh Rotham isn't a half forward, he's a third tall defender. Hasn't had the production this year, defensive craft needs improvement.
Many better options than Guelfi.

Have you seen ant off them play??
your picks would be??

 

[Mattdougie]

Guys we are missing a great effort again by our list management team.

Getting the prize pick 26 was magic and gives us a chance to land exactly what we need.

• We need an Betts like forward
• We need a class outside runner
• We need a Clean hands half back

pick 18 Shai Bolton -betts clone but can go onball
pick 26 Rotham tall half forward with run
pick 50 Guefi class outside runner

Lol

No
No
No

The last thing we need is another forward. Smith Dicko McLean Crameri Dunkley Dahl and probably bringing Long in if we can get him.

Run isn't an issue we have

Like Murph or Wood or JJ ?

 

[TedDougChris]

Whenever i see a notification about this thread i get a bit of hope then realize its the same stuff over and over again

My cats breath smells like cat food.....

You have to admit - this wasnt what you were expecting with this notification and it slightly more logical than some of the discussion on here.....

 

[Dogs54]

Seriously WTF? I've just looked at the b and F finishes as guides to how the club rates a player. You don't need to speak to anyone to see Jong finished 16th last year and 27th this year. Why you would even suggest otherwise has me puzzled.



I don't see how you can conclude anything other than Bev rates Jong about 27th on our list based on the B and F - and that in a year where we had players dropping like flies (and where Jong missed relatively few games due to injury).

And that we didn't increase our offer to match what the market was offering Jong says to me the list team weren't that fussed if Jong left.

But as you say, people are welcome to their opinions.

I was just questioning your statement that you had cold hard facts about the MC's opinion on Jong. I understand how you came to that opinion but don't agree that the B&F votes is the sole mechanism to rate a player. I think this reflects your opinion against a player and you look for anything that supports your point of view. I try to look for positives in our players and think Jong has improved in 2016 compared to 2015.

 

[Testekill]

Guys we are missing a great effort again by our list management team.

Getting the prize pick 26 was magic and gives us a chance to land exactly what we need.

• We need an Betts like forward
• We need a class outside runner
• We need a Clean hands half back

pick 18 Shai Bolton -betts clone but can go onball
pick 26 Rotham tall half forward with run
pick 50 Guefi class outside runner

Betts like forward would probably be Long who has played small at both ends.

 

[go you pups]

We need more talls mccrae..... Not more runners

Lead up CHF type, ruck rookie and a solid KPD prospect imo

Add Long or Hannan onto that last

Gotta cover for Morris once he goes, losing Hamling and Goetz hasn't been ideal in regards to our list build imo. Question marks over Big Reds durability now and Adams obviously

 

[go you pups]

In the VFL we have Dale = a runner, Lynch = a runner and Williams = a runner

These 3 will get a go when they deserve it, but they are all capable also.

 

[Gollo]

Have you seen ant off them play??
your picks would be??

Yes, I've seen all of them play. They're all WA players; I'd find it highly unlikely we take 3 WA players from 3 picks.

Pick 18 options I like: Jy Simpkin, Dan Venables, Will Hayward, Josh Battle
26: Jordan Gallucci, Josh Battle (if he's available), Hayward ("), Willem Drew
50: Ben Long, Jordan Ridley ("), Jack Maibaum

 

[House_of_Dahl]

Sorry mate but sometimes it can be a little irritating to have your opinion called rubbish and laughable when basic logic says otherwise.

But as you suggest I'll move on, and perhaps leave you to your outrageously funny and non-repetitive Nahas jokes.

A bit ironic that discussion started with you posting:

Sorry but this is rubbish.

Cold, hard facts are that in the MC's eyes and relative to the rest of the list Jong went backwards this year. Jong finished 16th in last years B and F. He finished 27th this year - a year where he had less injuries.

The above would be a key reason why we didn't match the market by offering Jong a three year deal. We offered him a two year deal which was below Jong's market value as assessed by other clubs.

And if Jong was best 22 he'd have played in the most important game of the year - especially after being BOG in the twos the week before. With a fitter list, Jong will slip back further in the pecking order next year as the likes of Wallis, Cloke, Murphy, Redpath, Crameri, Williams, Dale, Suckling, Campbell, new draftees, etc all compete with Jong for best 22 in addition to the GF 21 we've retained.

I don't understand why folks insist on talking Jong up beyond the ok depth player that he is. I won't disrespect Jong by calling him a potato but IMO along with Roberts, Jong is the only player on our list capable of playing poorly enough to almost single handedly cost us a game.

The sooner Jong's senior game time can be reduced the better IMO. Hopefully next year Jong's opportunities will be even more limited and he looks elsewhere in October next year.

And not sure the best and fairest vote is the most accurate way to rate a player. I'm not certain how the votes work but isn't it top 5 of the match get votes? If that's case you could be the sixth best player every game (and by extension the 6th best player at the club) and never get a vote.

And Wallis was our only injured midfielder when Jong was selected in the first final before he got injured huimself. So he might be midfield depth but he's first drop or near abouts atm.

 

[54dreamsalive]

Lol

No
No
No

The last thing we need is another forward. Smith Dicko McLean Crameri Dunkley Dahl and probably bringing Long in if we can get him.

Run isn't an issue we have

Like Murph or Wood or JJ ?

So we need nothing? we so need leg speed in the forward line not for next year but future

Outside class is a must for any team and we have the chance as premiers to take a punt

 

[54dreamsalive]

Yes, I've seen all of them play. They're all WA players; I'd find it highly unlikely we take 3 WA players from 3 picks.

Pick 18 options I like: Jy Simpkin, Dan Venables, Will Hayward, Josh Battle
26: Jordan Gallucci, Josh Battle (if he's available), Hayward ("), Willem Drew
50: Ben Long, Jordan Ridley ("), Jack Maibaum

Pick 18 Simpkin,Venables,Hayward gone Battle a risk
Pick 26 Gallucci,Hayward gone drew a risk
Pick 50 all good choices there I hope

 

[54dreamsalive]

Pick 18 Simpkin,Venables,Hayward gone Battle a risk
Pick 26 Gallucci,Hayward gone drew a risk
Pick 50 all good choices there I hope

point being team list managers have done it again....

 

[footyfan000001]

In the VFL we have Dale = a runner, Lynch = a runner and Williams = a runner

These 3 will get a go when they deserve it, but they are all capable also.

HUGE fan of Lynch.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

A bit ironic that discussion started with you posting:



And not sure the best and fairest vote is the most accurate way to rate a player. I'm not certain how the votes work but isn't it top 5 of the match get votes? If that's case you could be the sixth best player every game (and by extension the 6th best player at the club) and never get a vote.

And Wallis was our only injured midfielder when Jong was selected in the first final before he got injured huimself. So he might be midfield depth but he's first drop or near abouts atm.

I think every player gets rated every game they play.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Pick 18 Simpkin,Venables,Hayward gone Battle a risk
Pick 26 Gallucci,Hayward gone drew a risk
Pick 50 all good choices there I hope

Bolton more likely gone at 18 than Simpkin or Hayward.

 

[go you pups]

HUGE fan of Lynch.

Yeah he impressed me in the VFL finals

His pace is a weapon, if he becomes half the player JJ is then we will have another good one on our hands

 

[maddog37]

I want a Rioli!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm a huge advocate for picking the best avaliable talent, not trying to fill any positional need.

Follow my logic:

Firstly, any player who you draft, typically, don't contribute significantly in their first few years. In other words, you're generally giving them games for development. For example, I have nothing against Josh Dunkley given games in the finals, because he played well enough, and it's important for his development as a player. He also played extremely well for a first year player. But I don't think he played significantly better than other players who were in the reserves - I mean, I don't think we would have been anything more than a point a game better or worse with Jong in the team instead of Dunkley, for example.

Therefore if you're looking at a new draftee making a material difference above and beyond a typical fringe player in their first 2-3 years, to fill a weakness in the structure of the team, you're asking too much of that 18 year old.

So basically you're looking at how that player fits into your structure 3-4 years down the line not so much how he fits into the structure next year.

But the thing is - once that player is good enough to be in your best 15-20 players 2-3 years down the line, the strengths and weaknesses, with modern trading and free agency, the strengths and weaknesses of you list and structures 2-3 years down the line could be completely different.

Like take our weaknesses right now. Some people might say we have a weakness for genuine pace across the wing and half back. People would advocate that we pick a pacy wing/half-back to fix that weakness.

But whoever we draft with pick 18 or whatever, it's unrealistic to expect them to play above and beyond the players already running of half-back. Even if it's a weakness, they're not going to be better than, say, Brad Lynch or Roarke Smith who have an extra year or two of development ahead of the, even if one was pick 18 and the others rookies. I'd expect the running defender at pick 18 to be better than those two in 3 years time, but, say, next year, say Johannisen gets injured, and it's a matter of picking between Brad Lynch and the pick 18 running defender to fill his void, I don't think it's more than a point or two per game difference picking between the two of them.

So what does that mean? Say we get Jasper Pittard as a FA next year. That throws our weaknesses of our list completely differently, and now with, say, a fit JJ and Pittard for 2018, what was a weakness in 2017 becomes a strength in 2018. The fact that we drafted for a running defender in 2016 now looks silly because they won't be able to get a game unless one of Pittard or JJ is now not fit. And at the same time, say we passed over a midfielder or whatever with pick 18 to pick that running defender because we identified a "weakness".

That's why you should draft the best avaliable talent, because the new player movement era combined with the fact that draftees aren't good enough to fix any perceived weakness in their first year or two means that you've got to take the player you think is the best.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

I'm a huge advocate for picking the best avaliable talent, not trying to fill any positional need.

Follow my logic:

Firstly, any player who you draft, typically, don't contribute significantly in their first few years. In other words, you're generally giving them games for development. For example, I have nothing against Josh Dunkley given games in the finals, because he played well enough, and it's important for his development as a player. He also played extremely well for a first year player. But I don't think he played significantly better than other players who were in the reserves - I mean, I don't think we would have been anything more than a point a game better or worse with Jong in the team instead of Dunkley, for example.

Therefore if you're looking at a new draftee making a material difference above and beyond a typical fringe player in their first 2-3 years, to fill a weakness in the structure of the team, you're asking too much of that 18 year old.

So basically you're looking at how that player fits into your structure 3-4 years down the line not so much how he fits into the structure next year.

But the thing is - once that player is good enough to be in your best 15-20 players 2-3 years down the line, the strengths and weaknesses, with modern trading and free agency, the strengths and weaknesses of you list and structures 2-3 years down the line could be completely different.

Like take our weaknesses right now. Some people might say we have a weakness for genuine pace across the wing and half back. People would advocate that we pick a pacy wing/half-back to fix that weakness.

But whoever we draft with pick 18 or whatever, it's unrealistic to expect them to play above and beyond the players already running of half-back. Even if it's a weakness, they're not going to be better than, say, Brad Lynch or Roarke Smith who have an extra year or two of development ahead of the, even if one was pick 18 and the others rookies. I'd expect the running defender at pick 18 to be better than those two in 3 years time, but, say, next year, say Johannisen gets injured, and it's a matter of picking between Brad Lynch and the pick 18 running defender to fill his void, I don't think it's more than a point or two per game difference picking between the two of them.

So what does that mean? Say we get Jasper Pittard as a FA next year. That throws our weaknesses of our list completely differently, and now with, say, a fit JJ and Pittard for 2018, what was a weakness in 2017 becomes a strength in 2018. The fact that we drafted for a running defender in 2016 now looks silly because they won't be able to get a game unless one of Pittard or JJ is now not fit. And at the same time, say we passed over a midfielder or whatever with pick 18 to pick that running defender because we identified a "weakness".

That's why you should draft the best avaliable talent, because the new player movement era combined with the fact that draftees aren't good enough to fix any perceived weakness in their first year or two means that you've got to take the player you think is the best.

It always costs more, both in salary and trade, to trade for needs. So you'd prefer to not be in a situation where you are forced to. Also the type of player you need might not be available. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to draft for present needs, but surely those at the club could project a couple years down the track and draft according to those needs. Otherwise we could end up with a bunch of kids coming through who largely play the same style of football. If we have no young ruck, keep a mind towards that when drafting, for example. Same with any other position. I think a balance is needed where you don't reach far down the draft for needs but you can tend towards certain players if it's a bit of a toss-up, especially later in the draft where you aren't as certain of anyone's ability to make it.

 

[go you pups]

I'm a huge advocate for picking the best avaliable talent, not trying to fill any positional need.

Follow my logic:

Firstly, any player who you draft, typically, don't contribute significantly in their first few years. In other words, you're generally giving them games for development. For example, I have nothing against Josh Dunkley given games in the finals, because he played well enough, and it's important for his development as a player. He also played extremely well for a first year player. But I don't think he played significantly better than other players who were in the reserves - I mean, I don't think we would have been anything more than a point a game better or worse with Jong in the team instead of Dunkley, for example.

Therefore if you're looking at a new draftee making a material difference above and beyond a typical fringe player in their first 2-3 years, to fill a weakness in the structure of the team, you're asking too much of that 18 year old.

So basically you're looking at how that player fits into your structure 3-4 years down the line not so much how he fits into the structure next year.

But the thing is - once that player is good enough to be in your best 15-20 players 2-3 years down the line, the strengths and weaknesses, with modern trading and free agency, the strengths and weaknesses of you list and structures 2-3 years down the line could be completely different.

Like take our weaknesses right now. Some people might say we have a weakness for genuine pace across the wing and half back. People would advocate that we pick a pacy wing/half-back to fix that weakness.

But whoever we draft with pick 18 or whatever, it's unrealistic to expect them to play above and beyond the players already running of half-back. Even if it's a weakness, they're not going to be better than, say, Brad Lynch or Roarke Smith who have an extra year or two of development ahead of the, even if one was pick 18 and the others rookies. I'd expect the running defender at pick 18 to be better than those two in 3 years time, but, say, next year, say Johannisen gets injured, and it's a matter of picking between Brad Lynch and the pick 18 running defender to fill his void, I don't think it's more than a point or two per game difference picking between the two of them.

So what does that mean? Say we get Jasper Pittard as a FA next year. That throws our weaknesses of our list completely differently, and now with, say, a fit JJ and Pittard for 2018, what was a weakness in 2017 becomes a strength in 2018. The fact that we drafted for a running defender in 2016 now looks silly because they won't be able to get a game unless one of Pittard or JJ is now not fit. And at the same time, say we passed over a midfielder or whatever with pick 18 to pick that running defender because we identified a "weakness".

That's why you should draft the best avaliable talent, because the new player movement era combined with the fact that draftees aren't good enough to fix any perceived weakness in their first year or two means that you've got to take the player you think is the best.

Good in theory TNP

However, what happens when these best available types get replaced by other best availables in a year, 2-3 etc?

We have seen Dunkley fly past Stevens and Daniel/McLean fly past Hrovat and Honeychurch over the last year. Suckling and Williams replaced Fuller last year also.

We end up getting basically nix for Stevens and Hrovat when they are out of contract. We can't keep on drafting like this because it will bite us in the backside and then we are relying on trade/FA to target weak areas in our list which are gambles due to other clubs could be interested in said player we are targeting, or that player might remain loyal (look at Carlisle and Hurley for example).

I don't want to sound like a hindsight hero, but imo Membrey>>>>Hrovat and Brown>>>>>>Fuller would be better for us from a list perspective as we were linked to those players at those picks at the time.

Collins and Adams were two very good gets in the second round imo and they help our deficiencies down back, but we have lost another KPD while Morris and Adams have question marks on them.

Our list is very good currently imo and is well stacked with midfield depth, we take best available talls early, then best available of the rest late. We have potential deficiencies in the ruck and down back after next year with Campbell (could get frustrated as a number two), Morris (old), Adams (homesick) and potential forward deficiencies 2 years down the track say if Cloke declines and Redpath doesn't recover, though we have players who can do a job for now before these new kids are required to take the step up say a Morris, Adams, Cloke and Campbell, they may not be long termers though so there has to be a contingency in place which reduces the chance of us needing to sell our future and do a Fremantle to cover areas of perceived weakness through B/C grade talls (will all those trade ins work out for them? Doubt it)

 

[BRWB]

A bit ironic that discussion started with you posting:



And not sure the best and fairest vote is the most accurate way to rate a player. I'm not certain how the votes work but isn't it top 5 of the match get votes? If that's case you could be the sixth best player every game (and by extension the 6th best player at the club) and never get a vote.

And Wallis was our only injured midfielder when Jong was selected in the first final before he got injured huimself. So he might be midfield depth but he's first drop or near abouts atm.

It's nice that we can agree Jong is midfield depth.

And FWIW every players gets assessed in every game by Bev and four assistants. So you (and others') mental gymnastics about why Jong polled poorly are all for nought. And yes he was also relatively poor on a per games played basis. Simple fact is that Jong is not that highly rated by the MC relative to the rest of the list.

Charles Sutton Medal
How they vote: Coach Luke Beveridge and four assistants each give a vote from zero to five for each player in each game of the season. Players can receive a minimum of zero or maximum of 25 votes for any game.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-09/top-10-best-and-fairest-from-every-club

 

[scooter600x]

It's nice that we can agree Jong is midfield depth.

And FWIW every players gets assessed in every game by Bev and four assistants. So you (and others') mental gymnastics about why Jong polled poorly are all for nought. And yes he was also relatively poor on a per games played basis. Simple fact is that Jong is not that highly rated by the MC relative to the rest of the list.

Charles Sutton Medal
How they vote: Coach Luke Beveridge and four assistants each give a vote from zero to five for each player in each game of the season. Players can receive a minimum of zero or maximum of 25 votes for any game.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-09/top-10-best-and-fairest-from-every-club

It's something like (and I'm paraphrasing):

5 votes - dominate performance that directly affected the result
4 votes - clearly won his position
3 votes - beat his opponent
2 votes - broke even with his opponent
1 vote - beaten on the day but contributed
0 votes - poor performance, well beaten by his opponent.

In a big win it's likely that most - and potentially everyone - will poll votes.