Strategy Trade and List Management thread 4 (Be sure to huddle around your transitor radio at 11 am Edition)

[Dogs Rule]

This is largely the same list that won the AFL & VFL premierships 12 months ago. We're not going crazy just yet.

I think some of us have taken one of these:

 

[The Original Swooper]

You need to remember with Port Melbourne is that they are generally a lot older and more experienced than the AFL aligned clubs who have a bunch of 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players new to the system running around, many of whom were playing TAC cup or equivalent 1-2 years ago. Most of our team would have been aged 22 or younger, compared to Port who had I think 8 ex-AFL listed players and a number of others who have been in the VFL system for 7+ years.

They also train as a complete team every week whilst aligned clubs play roundabouts. Some of the players yesterday have probably never trained with the VFL boys.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I'm not in the habit of passing on scuttlebutt, but I also heard on SEN at 11.40 today that Stringer is definitely gone and there is a "watch this space" on Luke Dahlhaus. Don't shoot the messenger.

Well SEN would know of course

 

[DoggyStyle]

I'm not in the habit of passing on scuttlebutt, but I also heard on SEN at 11.40 today that Stringer is definitely gone and there is a "watch this space" on Luke Dahlhaus. Don't shoot the messenger.

I get why we may have to trade Stringer, but if Dahlhaus is on the trade table so is my membership, he bust his gut every week.

 

[Lightsxo]

disagree. lonie is a natural small forward whereas honeychurch is not

Hey Saints fan here, Lonie is a midget but a forward he is not.

He has next to no goal sense and struggles to kick the ball 30 metres from a set shot (he had a set shot from about 20 metres out where he didn't make the distance).

He's a good little in and under midfielder who will get crushed in the the AFL so we play him as a forward.

I suspect if he stays as a midfielder than VFL is his level but as a forward a lot of work to do.

I like him cause he's a campaigner but eh, he worth less than what we paid for Koby last year

 

[Sentinel]

Fair enough, I don't live in Melbourne so I'm not up with subtleties of the VFL.
Port Melbourne sure looked bigger and uglier.
But the main game is AFL and I stick by my assessment, gloomy as it may be.

Yeah Port are always big and ugly, they're the richest VFL club and bring in plenty of ex-AFL players who have just left the system each year. It's good for the competition that alongside Williamstown there are some competitive stand alone sides and gives the AFL kids a chance to come up against bigger bodies before going up to the top flight.

Another factor is that the AFL listed Footscray players were mostly from the bottom rung of our list (at present). We had a rookie (NMM), a bloke about to be delisted (Hamilton), some raw first year players (Lipinski, Greene and Young) and a handful of more experienced guys who have been mostly out of sorts this year (Boyd, Boyd, Smith, Roberts). Bailey Williams and Lukas Webb rounded it off and Williams was our best.

We also might have had guys like Tom Campbell, Tim English, Kieran Collins, Honeychurch, Brad Lynch etc but for various reasons they were missing so it certainly wasn't a true reflection of our reserves side at full flight.

 

[The Original Swooper]

One thing many of you Trade strategists overlook. The AFLPA now has the ball fair and square in the players court. If any player wants out, and nominates a club the options are simple :-

Say no ( if contracted)
Talk him into going to another club

If you say No, you risk having a highly paid non committed player.

The player HAS RIGHT OF REFUSAL to be traded to a club he doesn't want to play for.

So you either take the risk keeping him, or trade for unders to let him go to the club of his choice. It's a players market.

I don't necessarily agree with the rules, but avoiding a restraint of trade court scenario is why the AFL allows this. Probably for another thread, but I believe a player should be bound to the club's desires for the initial 5 years of his career. To offset the Restraint issues, FA or RFA status could be allowed after that initial period.

 

[Doggy]

I get why we may have to trade Stringer, but if Dahlhaus is on the trade table so is my membership, he bust his gut every week.

We don't have to trade ANYONE

 

[lateniter]

Yeah Port are always big and ugly, they're the richest VFL club and bring in plenty of ex-AFL players who have just left the system each year. It's good for the competition that alongside Williamstown there are some competitive stand alone sides and gives the AFL kids a chance to come up against bigger bodies before going up to the top flight.

Another factor is that the AFL listed Footscray players were mostly from the bottom rung of our list (at present). We had a rookie (NMM), a bloke about to be delisted (Hamilton), some raw first year players (Lipinski, Greene and Young) and a handful of more experienced guys who have been mostly out of sorts this year (Boyd, Boyd, Smith, Roberts). Bailey Williams and Lukas Webb rounded it off and Williams was our best.

We also might have had guys like Tom Campbell, Tim English, Kieran Collins, Honeychurch, Brad Lynch etc but for various reasons they were missing so it certainly wasn't a true reflection of our reserves side at full flight.

Fair enough (again).
The way you put it, I guess Footscray has an excuse.
I'm not sure the same goes for the A team.

 

[Sentinel]

One thing many of you Trade strategists overlook. The AFLPA now has the ball fair and square in the players court. If any player wants out, and nominates a club the options are simple :-

Say no ( if contracted)
Talk him into going to another club

If you say No, you risk having a highly paid non committed player.

The player HAS RIGHT OF REFUSAL to be traded to a club he doesn't want to play for.

So you either take the risk keeping him, or trade for unders to let him go to the club of his choice. It's a players market.

I don't necessarily agree with the rules, but avoiding a restraint of trade court scenario is why the AFL allows this. Probably for another thread, but I believe a player should be bound to the club's desires for the initial 5 years of his career. To offset the Restraint issues, FA or RFA status could be allowed after that initial period.

Can't say I agree with your last point. I believe free agency rules are a little too far in the player's favour, but the average AFL career I think lasts 3 years or thereabouts. If you're a young player like Nathan Hrovat who has worked hard for several years and can't find an opportunity in the AFL side, only for North Melbourne to come and say 'we'll give you 22 games in the seniors next year', you should be fine to ask for a trade to a preferred club, otherwise your career is quickly going to be on the scrapheap. 5 years is a hell of a long time in the AFL.

I don't believe however that a contracted played like Stringer has the right to nominate a club - if he so desperately wants out we should be able trade him wherever we see fit and will get the best deal. Obviously there are factors like his kids in Melbourne, but I'd imagine a decent club would take that into consideration too.

 

[SCRAY72]

Yeah Port are always big and ugly, they're the richest VFL club and bring in plenty of ex-AFL players who have just left the system each year. It's good for the competition that alongside Williamstown there are some competitive stand alone sides and gives the AFL kids a chance to come up against bigger bodies before going up to the top flight.

Another factor is that the AFL listed Footscray players were mostly from the bottom rung of our list (at present). We had a rookie (NMM), a bloke about to be delisted (Hamilton), some raw first year players (Lipinski, Greene and Young) and a handful of more experienced guys who have been mostly out of sorts this year (Boyd, Boyd, Smith, Roberts). Bailey Williams and Lukas Webb rounded it off and Williams was our best.

We also might have had guys like Tom Campbell, Tim English, Kieran Collins, Honeychurch, Brad Lynch etc but for various reasons they were missing so it certainly wasn't a true reflection of our reserves side at full flight.

Didnt they nearly go bust last year?
Williamstown might have gone past them financially.

 

[JJHunter]

I've read through many pages of this thread but still can't find an explanation. Why is Lukey D's name been mentioned as a possible trade? He not happy?

Libba, Stringer, Dalhaus

First two have form issues clearly - dalhaus back half of year just okay. So wonder why he would have a critical exist meeting ?
Perhaps we need to look off field not onfield when looking at the feedback Dalhaus allegedly got.

That may lead you down a path to understanding why Wallis seems very much on the clubs side when discussing stringer and the level of commitment the club are asking him to make. Perhaps they are asking all three of these guys for the same level of commitment and sacrifices away from footy. Maybe to abstain from some things they found they were gorging themselves on.

Its the only thing that fits it all together for me because clearly on what we saw onfield there wouldn't be anything you would think they can be too harsh on Dalhaus over.

 

[Sentinel]

Didnt they nearly go bust last year?
Williamstown might have gone past them financially.

Ah perhaps. Historically speaking they and Williamstown have always been the richest but you might be right about recent years.

 

[SCRAY72]

Can't say I agree with your last point. I believe free agency rules are a little too far in the player's favour, but the average AFL career I think lasts 3 years or thereabouts. If you're a young player like Nathan Hrovat who has worked hard for several years and can't find an opportunity in the AFL side, only for North Melbourne to come and say 'we'll give you 22 games in the seniors next year', you should be fine to ask for a trade to a preferred club, otherwise your career is quickly going to be on the scrapheap. 5 years is a hell of a long time in the AFL.

I don't believe however that a contracted played like Stringer has the right to nominate a club - if he so desperately wants out we should be able trade him wherever we see fit and will get the best deal. Obviously there are factors like his kids in Melbourne, but I'd imagine a decent club would take that into consideration too.

The movie Moneyball is interesting when players are called in to the GM's office and told where they are traded to and they just accept it and clean out their locker.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Can't say I agree with your last point. I believe free agency rules are a little too far in the player's favour, but the average AFL career I think lasts 3 years or thereabouts. If you're a young player like Nathan Hrovat who has worked hard for several years and can't find an opportunity in the AFL side, only for North Melbourne to come and say 'we'll give you 22 games in the seniors next year', you should be fine to ask for a trade to a preferred club, otherwise your career is quickly going to be on the scrapheap. 5 years is a hell of a long time in the AFL.

I don't believe however that a contracted played like Stringer has the right to nominate a club - if he so desperately wants out we should be able trade him wherever we see fit and will get the best deal. Obviously there are factors like his kids in Melbourne, but I'd imagine a decent club would take that into consideration too.

In the Hrovat case surely common sense prevails. I'm not saying you can't trade them. I'm suggesting Clubs ( who are the ones offering them their employment) must be protected initially. I used 5 years as a random number. Make it 3, then the opposite applies. Hey, we developed this ungrateful sack of **** and was ready for serious AFL time and he wants out. Any AFL club with sense in a Hrovat scenario would be foolish to not let him go.

If after 5 years a players has not established himself, or decides he loves the club and it's the only place he wants to be, there's a chance it's not ever going to happen.

I get your point re 3 year life expectancy, but let's be honest, players who only last that long aren't the type of players that can cause such grief to their clubs (and fans) however a Stringer type could Remember, we took the risk other clubs were unwilling to take.

 

[Sentinel]

The movie Moneyball is interesting when players are called in to the GM's office and told where they are traded to and they just accept it and clean out their locker.

Yeah the American system is crazy, it extends to all of their big league sports. Players are signed onto contracts one week and then waived the next. Similar to Jarryd Hayne, they might be a week away from the start of a season without any guarantee if they're even going to have a team that year. The salaries are exponentially bigger so its perhaps slightly easier to bear, you couldn't do it to a 20 year old kid earning a little over $100,000.

 

[BRWB]

Libba, Stringer, Dalhaus

First two have form issues clearly - dalhaus back half of year just okay. So wonder why he would have a critical exist meeting ?
Perhaps we need to look off field not onfield when looking at the feedback Dalhaus allegedly got.

That may lead you down a path to understanding why Wallis seems very much on the clubs side when discussing stringer and the level of commitment the club are asking him to make. Perhaps they are asking all three of these guys for the same level of commitment and sacrifices away from footy. Maybe to abstain from some things they found they were gorging themselves on.

Its the only thing that fits it all together for me because clearly on what we saw onfield there wouldn't be anything you would think they can be too harsh on Dalhaus over.

Yeah I don't get the criticism of Dahl. Onfield he had a reasonable season I thought, especially the first half of the season. Cops a lot of knocks and has a genuine crack. Sure not skilled but that's not a hanging offence. (If it was we wouldn't have many players left).

Libba and stringer were well down and deserve arse kicking.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Yeah the American system is crazy, it extends to all of their big league sports. Players are signed onto contracts one week and then waived the next. Similar to Jarryd Hayne, they might be a week away from the start of a season without any guarantee if they're even going to have a team that year. The salaries are exponentially bigger so its perhaps slightly easier to bear, you couldn't do it to a 20 year old kid earning a little over $100,000.

If I was 18 and offered 100k to play footy in Timbuktu I'd be on the next bus. Ok, in my day possibly Horse and cart.

 

[ScragCity]

One thing many of you Trade strategists overlook. The AFLPA now has the ball fair and square in the players court. If any player wants out, and nominates a club the options are simple :-

Say no ( if contracted)
Talk him into going to another club

If you say No, you risk having a highly paid non committed player.

The player HAS RIGHT OF REFUSAL to be traded to a club he doesn't want to play for.

So you either take the risk keeping him, or trade for unders to let him go to the club of his choice. It's a players market.

I don't necessarily agree with the rules, but avoiding a restraint of trade court scenario is why the AFL allows this. Probably for another thread, but I believe a player should be bound to the club's desires for the initial 5 years of his career. To offset the Restraint issues, FA or RFA status could be allowed after that initial period.

You forgot the third option: match any offer and let him go to Brisbane in the PSD if he doesn't play ball and then take the draft pick compensation.

 

[BRWB]

You forgot the third option: match any offer and let him go to Brisbane in the PSD if he doesn't play ball and then take the draft pick compensation.

What is this draft pick comp you speak for PSD? Never heard of it myself.

 

[Sentinel]

In the Hrovat case surely common sense prevails. I'm not saying you can't trade them. I'm suggesting Clubs ( who are the ones offering them their employment) must be protected initially. I used 5 years as a random number. Make it 3, then the opposite applies. Hey, we developed this ungrateful sack of **** and was ready for serious AFL time and he wants out. Any AFL club with sense in a Hrovat scenario would be foolish to not let him go.

If after 5 years a players has not established himself, or decides he loves the club and it's the only place he wants to be, there's a chance it's not ever going to happen.

I get your point re 3 year life expectancy, but let's be honest, players who only last that long aren't the type of players that can cause such grief to their clubs (and fans) however a Stringer type could Remember, we took the risk other clubs were unwilling to take.

I can see where you are coming from, and like I said I think anyone under contract shouldn't have a leg to stand on with regards to where they might go.

But for those out of contract, it works both ways - at the end of a contract, the club can decide the player isn't the right fit for them, why shouldn't the player be allowed to do the same? Perhaps an OOC player who wants to be traded (and isn't a free agent) could have the option of nominating 2 or more clubs to be traded to, and their original club can then work to find the best deal from there? Might prevent the original club being bent over in a deal.

 

[Sentinel]

If I was 18 and offered 100k to play footy in Timbuktu I'd be on the next bus. Ok, in my day possibly Horse and cart.

It sounds you come from a time when 100k would buy you several houses and then some!

 

[Mattdougie]

Stinger to Norf for Goldstein
Dahl to Geelong for Stanley
Libba to Hawks for Vickery

Solves all our ruck problem in one swoop!

While we are at it Bont to the saints for Hickey

Bang!!!! Best ruck division ever.

Trade Campbell to the cats for Motlop

Then move Motlop Honey and Jong into the midfield and we dominate for years to come.

Doesn't matter coz Bev won and flag last year and he has a golden ticket forever so who cares how we go

 

[Barking Mad]

Libba, Stringer, Dalhaus

First two have form issues clearly - dalhaus back half of year just okay. So wonder why he would have a critical exist meeting ?
Perhaps we need to look off field not onfield when looking at the feedback Dalhaus allegedly got.

That may lead you down a path to understanding why Wallis seems very much on the clubs side when discussing stringer and the level of commitment the club are asking him to make. Perhaps they are asking all three of these guys for the same level of commitment and sacrifices away from footy. Maybe to abstain from some things they found they were gorging themselves on.

Its the only thing that fits it all together for me because clearly on what we saw onfield there wouldn't be anything you would think they can be too harsh on Dalhaus over.

This is the part that makes me believe Stringer may be up for a move. Wallis is a very impressive young man and he bleeds red white and blue. The tone in which he spoke was very measured yet you could hear the passion in it. If he's annoyed I place a bit of merit in what's being said in the media. Just wish he'd been asked about the others as it appears he wasn't ever going to play with a dead bat

 

[ScragCity]

What is this draft pick comp you speak for PSD? Never heard of it myself.

Well even if so, I think it'd be worth rolling the dice and offering him the choice between Brisbane and a Melbourne club of our choosing even if we end up getting nothing out of it. I'd rather see Stringer go to a rubbish club like Brisbane and Norf while we get nothing in return than see him go to Geelong for a late first in 2018.