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

[Yojimbo]

Not a chance that Hamilton is earning 300k. Koby earning 450 would also be a stretch.

Under 100k for Declan and 250-325 for Koby sounds about right to me.

If Declan Hamilton had a four year deal then 300k is ball park.

 

[Mutt]

Maybe we wanted to use 4 picks in the draft

Or maybe we will promote Roarke Smith off the rookie list with our fourth pick. So three draftees and a rookie upgrade. If we then rookie list Prudden, we can later upgrade him onto the main list for a long term injury (Wallis or Redpath) or later after round 11 when it's open slather.

 

[Mofra]

Or maybe we will promote Roarke Smith off the rookie list with our fourth pick. So three draftees and a rookie upgrade. If we then rookie list Prudden, we can later upgrade him onto the main list for a long term injury (Wallis or Redpath) or later after round 11 when it's open slather.

Perhaps, but with Redpath & Wallis on the LTI to start the year we can play any rookie we want and in the second half of the year there is the AFL rookie promotion rule that dictates that even if we have no LTIs we can still play one rookie.
I like Rourke but no sure there is such a rush, he's still speculative for mine.

 

[Yojimbo]

I would take Xavier Richards as a DFA, if he passes the N.D.H.P
and go to the draft with the three picks. Richards can play both
ends and lets us focus our picks.

Plan B would be to take four picks to the draft and bid early on
GWS academy pick Zach Sproule and hope they don't match,
but we will see in time what plays out.

I would have cut Prudden though and possibly Hamilton, but i
am blood thirsty at this time of the year.

 

[Beasht]

I originally was a big fan of picking up X Richards as a DFA, however when a guy says that he is 'not fazed' if he doesn't get picked up and his AFL dream is over....I would hate to lose my spot in the 22 for someone with that attitude and doesn't seem like someone the MC would pick.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Reckon we're going to take a mature aged player with a pick in the draft if we don't go down the DFA route so it's effectively the same result either way - three 18 year olds on the list and an older player.

Just as an aside I think think it's a little absurd that you have to draft mature talent anyway. If a player has been passed over by everybody the first time they've nominated for the draft, then every off-season thereafter they should be a free agent. It happens with DFA's so allowing them to be free agents and mature talent from the state league not to be free agents is a little arbitrary given that both groupings of players are effectively clubless and going to play state league the following year if no club picks them up. If the DFA played 0 games for their AFL club then both played the same amount in the state league's anyway so the distinction between the two is arbitrary.

 

[jdz101]

Reckon we're going to take a mature aged player with a pick in the draft if we don't go down the DFA route so it's effectively the same result either way - three 18 year olds on the list and an older player.

Just as an aside I think think it's a little absurd that you have to draft mature talent anyway. If a player has been passed over by everybody the first time they've nominated for the draft, then every off-season thereafter they should be a free agent. It happens with DFA's so allowing them to be free agents and mature talent from the state league not to be free agents is a little arbitrary given that both groupings of players are effectively clubless and going to play state league the following year if no club picks them up. If the DFA played 0 games for their AFL club then both played the same amount in the state league's anyway so the distinction between the two is arbitrary.

I agree a ready-made, older AFL body could be of some assistance just like adams and a couple of others have been.

It'll be even more worthwhile if we can keep making these guys look really good. Sort of like we did with Hamling and grabbing 2nd rounders for them via trade when they inevitably chase that overs contract they'll get offered from elsewhere.

 

[Martyn_30_]

Just as an aside I think think it's a little absurd that you have to draft mature talent anyway. If a player has been passed over by everybody the first time they've nominated for the draft, then every off-season thereafter they should be a free agent. It happens with DFA's so allowing them to be free agents and mature talent from the state league not to be free agents is a little arbitrary given that both groupings of players are effectively clubless and going to play state league the following year if no club picks them up. If the DFA played 0 games for their AFL club then both played the same amount in the state league's anyway so the distinction between the two is arbitrary.

It may open the door to draft tampering where you could start to recruit vfl listed players or hide them during the season and it would probably hurt the northern states with a weaker second tier comp.

 

[NthBondiDoggies]

We have done reasonably well with delisted players so would look at X Rich or Litherland. With both they were able to play in AFL teams but either want a change (XR) or couldn't quite break in - could be same problem at our team. What I don't want is a DFA who has had a few years in a good system but hasn't shown anything. Issue we are trying to cover is the very high chance we lose a few of Bob, Morris and Moyd for an increasing number of games during the year - I don't want this to happen but odds would lean this way. Then we lose Adams likely at end of the year. So that is a lot of A grade experience - can't just replace but can bolster the system. Bigger bodies is more the issue with Morris, ADams and Boyd chunkies - without obvious replacements. Drafts will take a couple of years.

At the other end we are frankly better than the PREMIERSHIP YEAR - had to through it in with Boyd, Stringer, + Cramers + Cloke - minus Big Red but still short with only BTC really able to fill Boyd's role. Need a tall utility forward who can play now I think.

 

[perro_loco]

I expect people who are in the media to have a basic capability to research information and, at least at the surface level, get it right. The analysis of this part of this list did not require a deep analysis (i.e. like you see from King - although his are usually deep but lacking any meaningful breadth, which is why his predictions have very little reliability). The failure with respect to Williams was unforgivable, if he is going to assume a professional position on these issues.

Seriously, I could write a two page 'expert analysis' on the playing list of an NRL club if you gave me a coffee and 45 minutes, and I know absolutely **** all about the sport. You collect information on each player - both statistical and formal commentary from the club and media during the year. Look at best lists in games. Then you look at club sites (like here) with discussions about who is promising and who is in the gun, and then pump out your trite analysis lacking any references for whatever form of media it is. There is very little actual independent analysis, more an ability to integrate information from different sources to design a document (higher on Blooms taxonomy than analysis, lower than actual evaluation, but I digress... Its a very simple task!).

In this case, he clearly already had a body of information to go on of some depth accumulated from personal experience and in depth research, which was great and he demonstrated it in his piece. It wasn't the simple surface level guff of the type I've just provided a formula for. He only needed to go one step further and research the gaps and he didnt. It is a joke, and I dont think we should be defending it.

Saying that other articles are worse doesnt justify it maddog37. Extreme incompetence being the norm in our media is not an excuse for further incompetence of a lesser degree.

That is absolutely good information. The sad bit about this is that is how most of the media operates. Not to mention policy makers in government. don't give these muppets a seminal paper to study. they just cannot read it.

 

[perro_loco]

Another angle would probably be a good idea:

A player who we acquired for free played a key role in helping us to win our first premiership in 62 years, and then netted us something on the trade table (albeit something small). That's a huge win for the club. It's also a huge win for Hamling, as he's gotten to be a premiership player. This has been a very mutually beneficial relationship.

Does it really matter why he is going? Whether money or Kersten or family (realistically, it's probably a combination of all three), he has fulfilled his contract with us and should be able to seek another employer- especially if the alternative employer was willing to offer him better job security than we were. How would you feel if your boss said to you (when you were out of contract): "sorry, we're only going to offer you a short term contract, but you can't explore other opportunities to secure your future"? I know I'd tell my boss to **** off.

"Player power" is an odd phrase that gets bandied about without much consideration. It's really just a simple supply and demand situation. A player has power when multiple clubs want him (lots of demand), as he can choose the best option for himself. A player has no power when no clubs want him (no demand), as he will get delisted and his career will be over- the vast majority of list changes are delistings. Nobody complains about "club power" when the club ends the relationship, but apparently it's a problem when the player does it.

How should clubs react to this new landscape? The good clubs do two key things:

1. Make a good atmosphere for players, so that they are encouraged to stay/ask for a trade to your club.
2. When a player does want to leave, handle it professionally and try to make the best of the situation. It happens to every club. Some clubs have a sook (like Gold Coast), but good clubs just get on with it. A player leaving doesn't have to be a bad thing. Look at what hawthorn did after Franklin left and what we did after Griffen, Cooney, Higgins, Jones and Tutt left.

Bobby2 you are starting to sound like a left wing feral trade unionist. we should go back to feudal times, a time when humans were owned by their masters. ha, ha, … what you say is spot on. in afl, like soccer and any other sport, it is the player who should command the highest price. after all, they are what makes our game (and others go round). there has to be a level of regulation, so that a competition is not too lopsided favouring some clubs and not other as it happens in soccer. in spite of all the problems that our system has it is still a very good one. this is why we won the flag. good management, planning and foresight. this means that those who are the best at managing lists get the rewards and not those who can buy premierships like carltank did a few decades ago. GO DOGS!!!

 

[Deadly Darcy]

We have done reasonably well with delisted players so would look at X Rich or Litherland. With both they were able to play in AFL teams but either want a change (XR) or couldn't quite break in - could be same problem at our team. What I don't want is a DFA who has had a few years in a good system but hasn't shown anything. Issue we are trying to cover is the very high chance we lose a few of Bob, Morris and Moyd for an increasing number of games during the year - I don't want this to happen but odds would lean this way. Then we lose Adams likely at end of the year. So that is a lot of A grade experience - can't just replace but can bolster the system. Bigger bodies is more the issue with Morris, ADams and Boyd chunkies - without obvious replacements. Drafts will take a couple of years.

At the other end we are frankly better than the PREMIERSHIP YEAR - had to through it in with Boyd, Stringer, + Cramers + Cloke - minus Big Red but still short with only BTC really able to fill Boyd's role. Need a tall utility forward who can play now I think.

Problem with a delisted F/A is they are likely to want a multi-year deal on ok $. I can't see any of them this year being worth more than restructuring $ for people who are already on our list. Would rather take a speculative rookie pick and upgrade Roarke Smith (who would be greatful and deserves his chance) to our main list or take a gamble on a ruck prospect late in the draft. Even using pick 72, or whatever it is we have late, we would still get an extra player than the 3 picks Hawks have to use

 

[Mr. Walker]

I am unsure as to why the Bulldogs retained Prudden even as a rookie.

Is it because
a) it is felt with a good injury free run he can develop into a best 22 player
b) he is good depth to cover for injuries to best 22 players
c) the club wants to do the right thing by him with his current injury
d) he is seen as better than what will be available come the rookie pick
e) some other reason that i cannot see

I am assuming it is b or c

 

[King Harold]

I am unsure as to why the Bulldogs retained Prudden even as a rookie.

Is it because
a) it is felt with a good injury free run he can develop into a best 22 player
b) he is good depth to cover for injuries to best 22 players
c) the club wants to do the right thing by him with his current injury
d) he is seen as better than what will be available come the rookie pick
e) some other reason that i cannot see

I am assuming it is b or c

As one of the original Prudden worshippers , I can understand why there is a little angst we have retained him.
But at the same time those that havn't seen much of him when he was up and running are probably seriously underating his ability.
At AFL level he was played at half back , but he is an inside mid only IMO.
Has terrific decision making and a lovely kick in tight.
I think the club does want to do the right thing by blokes that put in the hard work , Prudden is certainly in that camp. Just been destroyed by injuries.

 

[LittleG]

I am unsure as to why the Bulldogs retained Prudden even as a rookie.

Is it because
a) it is felt with a good injury free run he can develop into a best 22 player
b) he is good depth to cover for injuries to best 22 players
c) the club wants to do the right thing by him with his current injury
d) he is seen as better than what will be available come the rookie pick
e) some other reason that i cannot see

I am assuming it is b or c

C is the bigger one. At the dogs you know that if you work hard and aren't a dhead, then even if you do your knee the club will look after you.

 

[littlenails]

It is probably because we are afraid to take a small risk to delist or trade somebody who might possibly turn out OK and put egg on our face.

This, I think has been our strategy all along, retaining dud players year after year. Prudden was been injured just when he was starting to show some good form, but even that form was not up to the standard of say B Williams or Dunkley.

We really have to set better policies and practices in place that enables us to take a risk by delisting a player who isn't quite there whilst at the same time doing something to look after that player's interest. By looking after the players interest I mean by finding that player a place somewhere in another team, perhaps in another competition, perhaps coaching; there would be other options.

Our list management team really has to show some leadership here by constantly trying to improve our list in regards to player delistings whilst at the same time trying to maintain good relationships and harmony within the playing group. I don't think that they are doing a good job, its just the same old, same old. They don't take enough calculated risks.

 

[Boristown]

It is probably because we are afraid to take a small risk to delist or trade somebody who might possibly turn out OK and put egg on our face.

This, I think has been our strategy all along, retaining dud players year after year. Prudden was been injured just when he was starting to show some good form, but even that form was not up to the standard of say B Williams or Dunkley.

We really have to set better policies and practices in place that enables us to take a risk by delisting a player who isn't quite there whilst at the same time doing something to look after that player's interest. By looking after the players interest I mean by finding that player a place somewhere in another team, perhaps in another competition, perhaps coaching; there would be other options.

Our list management team really has to show some leadership here by constantly trying to improve our list in regards to player delistings whilst at the same time trying to maintain good relationships and harmony within the playing group. I don't think that they are doing a good job, its just the same old, same old. They don't take enough calculated risks.

God I hope this is a piss take.

 

[Yojimbo]

I am unsure as to why the Bulldogs retained Prudden even as a rookie.

Is it because
a) it is felt with a good injury free run he can develop into a best 22 player
b) he is good depth to cover for injuries to best 22 players
c) the club wants to do the right thing by him with his current injury
d) he is seen as better than what will be available come the rookie pick
e) some other reason that i cannot see

I am assuming it is b or c

It's e) He is a good bloke and central to player harmony plus he does
not get paid much.

 

[NthBondiDoggies]

What do we think about Schade- rumours we were interested in him last year. At 197 and still young - has played a small number of games but in bad system so could really come on with us?

 

[Alongapoke]

I am unsure as to why the Bulldogs retained Prudden even as a rookie.

Is it because
a) it is felt with a good injury free run he can develop into a best 22 player
b) he is good depth to cover for injuries to best 22 players
c) the club wants to do the right thing by him with his current injury
d) he is seen as better than what will be available come the rookie pick
e) some other reason that i cannot see

I am assuming it is b or c

It's e) because that's the kind of s***house stuff a club like ours wont do. 'cause our list managers know he's worth it and he might be the next Clay Smith that gets you through a prelim 2017/18.......FFS.

 

[jdz101]

It is probably because we are afraid to take a small risk to delist or trade somebody who might possibly turn out OK and put egg on our face.

This, I think has been our strategy all along, retaining dud players year after year. Prudden was been injured just when he was starting to show some good form, but even that form was not up to the standard of say B Williams or Dunkley.

We really have to set better policies and practices in place that enables us to take a risk by delisting a player who isn't quite there whilst at the same time doing something to look after that player's interest. By looking after the players interest I mean by finding that player a place somewhere in another team, perhaps in another competition, perhaps coaching; there would be other options.

Our list management team really has to show some leadership here by constantly trying to improve our list in regards to player delistings whilst at the same time trying to maintain good relationships and harmony within the playing group. I don't think that they are doing a good job, its just the same old, same old. They don't take enough calculated risks.

The kid played 4 afl games and then did his knee. You could understand why the club wants a longer look than that.

It'd be pretty rough to give a guy a go for that size sample, have him do a knee, then possibly end his career.

 

[TommyD13]

What do we think about Schade- rumours we were interested in him last year. At 197 and still young - has played a small number of games but in bad system so could really come on with us?

gonna get re-rookied by the suns so its a no

 

[Northern Dogs]

gonna get re-rookied by the suns so its a no

he only gets re-rookied if no other club picks him up as a delisted free agent, so he is there for the taking if we are interested.

 

[perro_loco]

Another angle would probably be a good idea:

A player who we acquired for free played a key role in helping us to win our first premiership in 62 years, and then netted us something on the trade table (albeit something small). That's a huge win for the club. It's also a huge win for Hamling, as he's gotten to be a premiership player. This has been a very mutually beneficial relationship.

Does it really matter why he is going? Whether money or Kersten or family (realistically, it's probably a combination of all three), he has fulfilled his contract with us and should be able to seek another employer- especially if the alternative employer was willing to offer him better job security than we were. How would you feel if your boss said to you (when you were out of contract): "sorry, we're only going to offer you a short term contract, but you can't explore other opportunities to secure your future"? I know I'd tell my boss to **** off.

"Player power" is an odd phrase that gets bandied about without much consideration. It's really just a simple supply and demand situation. A player has power when multiple clubs want him (lots of demand), as he can choose the best option for himself. A player has no power when no clubs want him (no demand), as he will get delisted and his career will be over- the vast majority of list changes are delistings. Nobody complains about "club power" when the club ends the relationship, but apparently it's a problem when the player does it.

How should clubs react to this new landscape? The good clubs do two key things:

1. Make a good atmosphere for players, so that they are encouraged to stay/ask for a trade to your club.
2. When a player does want to leave, handle it professionally and try to make the best of the situation. It happens to every club. Some clubs have a sook (like Gold Coast), but good clubs just get on with it. A player leaving doesn't have to be a bad thing. Look at what hawthorn did after Franklin left and what we did after Griffen, Cooney, Higgins, Jones and Tutt left.

Nothing much will happen IMO. i think our recruiters will be picking up some serious players. we got players like mclean, williams and others in the 30's +, surely we will get 3 pretty good ones from picks 18, 26(?) and 50. plus the rest. we have a top list and the players love the coach and our culture is fantastic. if i were an afl player i would love to be coached by bevo

 

[perro_loco]

So misjudging the distance of your kicks is a physical limitation rather than a skill that can be improved? Dumbest thing I've seen you post for a while.

Here are some limitations of Willams: He's not 7-foot tall and never will be. He can't run as fast as Usain Bolt and never will.

^those are examples of actual limitations rather than skills which can be improved on.

another limitation of williams and dunkley for that matter is that neither will never break the 264kg world lifting record. for that reason he should be delisted. oh and no way will they become a sumo wrestler.