Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 4 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Doggy]

Brander hell no.
I like Lienert but I don't think he's a need since we signed Tim O'Brien

Both better than what we just delisted though

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

I love hearing that Tim wants to be the #1 ruck. He’s still a pup…

 

[dergert]

Brander hell no.
I like Lienert but I don't think he's a need since we signed Tim O'Brien

Lienert can play tall and small. Imo, can never have too many of them. Would be an instant upgrade on Gardner. It won't happen because of list spots though.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

It might be time to draw a close to the food-related banter on this thread. It was fun while it lasted but I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about overseeing the biggest thread derailing in the history of BigFooty.

Thanks to all who contributed to the amusement (except you Mofra...I'm still not sure what the hell your contribution meant) but I'll ask that we now drag this thread kicking and screaming back on topic.

See, its like this...

Recalcitrants. They're everywhere... Everywhere.

A smarter man than I might even go as far as to call their behaviour lemming like.

 

[Mofra]

Lienert can play tall and small. Imo, can never have too many of them. Would be an instant upgrade on Gardner. It won't happen because of list spots though.

As a pure stopper Gardiner is probably marginally ahead, but with significantly more upside - and with scope to play as a genuine KPP.
Gards is a 'chucker' so I think the more exposure at the highest level he gets, the more composure he builds and the better he gets. I am concerned about him taking a bit of time when it comes to decision making/disposing of the ball but I hope that also comes with composure.

We aren't playing all of Wood/Cordy/Tim O'Brien/Crozier and Truck was playing tall at times last year as well. I like Lienhert but I just don't see him as a list need right now for that tall(ish) 3rd/interceptor role.

 

[hatescaptcha]

I love hearing that Tim wants to be the #1 ruck. He’s still a pup…

Exactly - He’s 24 turning 25 next season. He’s now primed to take that next step. And I’m glad the club is backing him and Sweet in to take us forward in this area.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Puke Darcy




Too soon?

Spam Darcy

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It might be time to draw a close to the food-related banter on this thread. It was fun while it lasted but I'm feeling a little uncomfortable about overseeing the biggest thread derailing in the history of BigFooty.

Thanks to all who contributed to the amusement (except you Mofra...I'm still not sure what the hell your contribution meant) but I'll ask that we now drag this thread kicking and screaming back on topic.

Could always just start a new Trade thread, this one is way too long. I always like to have separate Draft and Trade and List Management Threads for each year anyway.

Then those gourmets among us could continue with the highbrow foodie exchanges

Or use your moddie expertise to scoop up all the posts you find not to your taste and create a separate thread called Dogs on the Menu, or something. You've got nothing else to do

 

[Sharpiesadog]

See, its like this...

Recalcitrants. They're everywhere... Everywhere.

A smarter man than I might even go as far as to call their behaviour lemming like.

Ghee, its like this...

Recalcitrus. They're everywhere... cherrypear.

A smarter ham than I might even go as far as to call their behaviour lemon like.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

Puke Darcy




Too soon?

Spewert Cameri

 

[VitalDread]

Essendon and Fremantle look likely to use four selections, while Sydney, West Coast, the Western Bulldogs and Collingwood are all expected to use three or four picks at the draft.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Where's this idea that Lienert is a key defender come from? He's a tall flanker. Looks to spread on the switch. Isn't a shutdown player.

 

[Doggy]

Spam Darcy

View attachment 1263468

Spam Power

 

[Mofra]

Where's this idea that Lienert is a key defender come from? He's a tall flanker. Looks to spread on the switch. Isn't a shutdown player.

I don't think anyone has referred to him as a KPD?

 

[Virgin Dog]

Essendon and Fremantle look likely to use four selections, while Sydney, West Coast, the Western Bulldogs and Collingwood are all expected to use three or four picks at the draft.

Currently holding 5 picks with value, while the Pies hold 7 picks with value.

With the Pies' move yesterday to split 27 with Richmond, they've ended up with even more picks than before. I can only think this is suggesting clubs can bring as many picks to the draft as they want for the purpose of bid matching. If this is the case, we could stand to win big with our Pick 23 based on what the Pies got for their 27

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Currently holding 5 picks with value, while the Pies hold 7 picks with value.

With the Pies' move yesterday to split 27 with Richmond, they've ended up with even more picks than before. I can only think this is suggesting clubs can bring as many picks to the draft as they want for the purpose of bid matching. If this is the case, we could stand to win big with our Pick 23 based on what the Pies got for their 27

I think the complication is that there isn't fixed main/rookie list sizes, there's only a set overall maximum and ranges for the main/rookie splits. That means that current main list total + number of players drafted in the main draft doesn't necessarily equate to having an entirely full main list. So, basically, you can have main list spots available, but choose not to fill them, as long as you take at least 3 picks at the draft.

I think we have up to 5 main list spots left to fill, so we can use 5 picks for points, but we will probably only use 3-4 actual players and then take the remainder as rookie selections or keep a spot open for mid-season/SSP.

Also remember Martin remains unsigned so there is flexibility there for another spot to be used for points without actually filling it until after the draft.

 

[flipper83]

Currently holding 5 picks with value, while the Pies hold 7 picks with value.

With the Pies' move yesterday to split 27 with Richmond, they've ended up with even more picks than before. I can only think this is suggesting clubs can bring as many picks to the draft as they want for the purpose of bid matching. If this is the case, we could stand to win big with our Pick 23 based on what the Pies got for their 27

Collingwood might also be confident that the later picks won't be needed to match so their first 4 or 5 might match a bid then they draft with the later couple

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I think the complication is that there isn't fixed main/rookie list sizes, there's only a set overall maximum and ranges for the main/rookie splits. That means that current main list total + number of players drafted in the main draft doesn't necessarily equate to having an entirely full main list. So, basically, you can have main list spots available, but choose not to fill them, as long as you take at least 3 picks at the draft.

I think we have up to 5 main list spots left to fill, so we can use 5 picks for points, but we will probably only use 3-4 actual players and then take the remainder as rookie selections or keep a spot open for mid-season/SSP.

Also remember Martin remains unsigned so there is flexibility there for another spot to be used for points without actually filling it until after the draft.

Let me have another go at explaining this coherently.

As far as I'm aware, the rule is not that you can only use as many picks for points as you will take at the draft - it's that you can only use as many as the number of list spots you have available. So you might have 7 open list spots, meaning you can use 7 picks for points, but you don't have to take 7 players. As long as you take the minimum of 3, you're all good.

You can have 42 players on your list at most, excluding Cat Bs. You can fill this with 35 main listed players + 7 rookies, 38 main + 4 rookies, or anywhere in between.

Currently we have 32 main list (not including Martin) + 5 rookie list = 37. So we have up to 5 main list spots, and can use our five picks.

I imagine what will happen is we take Darcy, possibly one player if our next pick is reasonable enough, and two rookie upgrades. Then we'd sign Martin to the main list again, giving us 36-37 main list and 3 rookies. We'd then have to take between 1-3 rookie selections.

It's confusing, but the upshot is we are likely to have more main list spots "theoretically" available than we will fill on draft night. So our points are fine.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Currently we have 32 main list (not including Martin) + 5 rookie list = 37. So we have up to 5 main list spots, and can use our five picks.

This part is highly relevant - I had not realised we have a total of 5, I was under the impression it was 4 currently (but I assume you're correct here)

 

[TBOW]

This part is highly relevant - I had not realised we have a total of 5, I was under the impression it was 4 currently (but I assume you're correct here)

I'm a little surprised we didn't delist and re-contract Wallis to allow us to take 6 list spots into the draft.
Maybe we have too much respect to do that to him? Or maybe delisting and re-contracting players is just not really that simple?

 

[TBOW]

I have queried this previously and don't believe it is correct that the picks update in real time.

You can see this in the matching of JUH last year where we used picks #29, #33, #41, #42, #52 and #54 and got pick #61 back. I believe the way this worked was those 6 picks have a points value of 2,489 and we needed 2,400 to match JUH. The extra 89 points equates to pick #66 (80 points) which at the end of the matching moves forward 5 spots to pick #61. If the picks updated in real time we would have only needed to use pick #29, #32 (#33-1), #39 (#41-2), #39 (#42-3) and #48 (#52-4) = 2,431 points and the original pick #54 would not have been needed in the matching.

I agree with the comment that its good that Collingwood now have 3 picks instead of 2 ahead of our picks in the 40s as long as Daicos is bid on first.

Thanks for clarifying this - so by your calculations did our picks all get pushed back when the pick was created to match for JUH?
Or does that happen simultaneously also - so the matching picks remain as they are and all remaining picks in the draft get pushed back after the bid is matched?

 

[ossie_21]

Thanks for clarifying this - so by your calculations did our picks all get pushed back when the pick was created to match for JUH?
Or does that happen simultaneously also - so the matching picks remain as they are and all remaining picks in the draft get pushed back after the bid is matched?

You mean Jambalaya Ugle-Hagan, right?

 

[Sentinel]

I'm a little surprised we didn't delist and re-contract Wallis to allow us to take 6 list spots into the draft.
Maybe we have too much respect to do that to him? Or maybe delisting and re-contracting players is just not really that simple?

We might still be able to do that. I believe the rule for this year is identical to last year where we did it with Hayes and Cavarra, although it seems that we delisted them both first (which we haven't done with Wallis):

But under a new AFL rule for next season, each club can add two primary-listed players from 2020 to their rookie list for 2021 prior to the draft period, with the Bulldogs committing to the two mature-aged players. (https://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/839625/bulldogs-lock-in-cavarra-hayes)

 

[TBOW]

We might still be able to do that. I believe the rule for this year is identical to last year where we did it with Hayes and Cavarra, although it seems that we delisted them both first (which we haven't done with Wallis):

But under a new AFL rule for next season, each club can add two primary-listed players from 2020 to their rookie list for 2021 prior to the draft period, with the Bulldogs committing to the two mature-aged players. (https://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/839625/bulldogs-lock-in-cavarra-hayes)

So under this rule Wallis would then have to go onto the rookie list? That might be the sticking point.
I could see this rule being used for Martin though.

 

[Sentinel]

So under this rule Wallis would then have to go onto the rookie list? That might be the sticking point.
I could see this rule being used for Martin though.

Yeah sorry I misread your first post and assumed you were talking about delisting him and rookieing him rather than putting him back on the main list.

If it's absolutely necessary I supposed they could move Wallis/Martin to the rookie list and then upgrade someone like Sweet or Gardner, effectively achieving the same result as you suggest but without risking another club swooping on the player?

I don't think I've heard of a club ever delisting and then re-selecting the same player back onto the main list, do you know if it's occured before?