Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[gangsta deluxe]

You might be thinking about the year before, 2022 he looked completely washed.

I think so, realised I was wrong when I looked at the Charlie votes

 

[doggies ftw]

Yeah I’ve been thinking for a while we may play Bruce at FB, we trialed it late in the year. I think it’d be a good idea to give it a go, or if he does find his form forward (with Lobb & Marra firing) that’s the one situation I’d maybe consider sending Naughty back for a year

 

[Barking Mad]

15 I believe. He's also a big kid

Has a Pakistani passport so good to go next year

 

[dergert]

 

[Mr. Walker]

So there is an embargo by the AFL on announcing any new deals until 3pm today. Is that correct?

 

[BEaston]

Another off season of debating whether Naughton Jamarra Darcy Daniel Bruce plays in defence or forward

exactly.

 

[Here we go dogs]

I hope we are still into Connor McKenna. I reckon he could slot in nicely on a wing or give us the opportunity to bring Dale up the field.

 

[Bulldogs85]

So there is an embargo by the AFL on announcing any new deals until 3pm today. Is that correct?

That’s Correct clubs can’t start trading until 3pm today

 

[Golden_6]

Haha Pickering must still be shitting himself.

'You did well in previous deals so take the shit now'

 

[Mr. Walker]

With the statements by John Ralph and Damien Barrett about what we should do with Dunkley and what will happen, are there any consequences for them if they are wrong? The answer is none , isn’t it? Same answer as how much value we should put on their opinions.

 

[Randomthoughts]

Haha Pickering must still be shitting himself.

'You did well in previous deals so take the s**t now'

Ralph the Mouth Piece for Bears

 

[adogsfan5]

We’ve handed unders for JUH and Darcy? A father son pick and an academy player.

Um sorry what?

 

[RSully14]

I agree with the final part of winning the 2023 flag.

All 3 teams will blink, we will take 'unders' for Dunkley, Brisbane will pay 'overs', we will pay 'overs' for Lobb and Freo will accept 'unders' for him.

 

[LittleG]

He is the type of player our list desperately needs a silky half forward who can kick goals? It’s always go to the draft look at out track record of drafting half forward it’s almost deplorable

With how we play, a speedy winger is a much bigger requirement.

JUH is better in that medium role at the moment anyway. With all the other big boys down there, play JUH as the medium forward.

Drafting a small forward who pressures and tackles; is also a need.

 

[Hobdog]

Another off season of debating whether Bruce plays in defence or forward

Better than twenty pages discussing trades that will never happen


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dergert]

We’ve handed unders for JUH and Darcy? A father son pick and an academy player.

Um sorry what?

I'd say we paid a fair price. Wiped out two draft hands in an important period for the club.

 

[dergert]

Better than twenty pages discussing trades that will never happen


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yeah but Grundy would've suited us!

 

[Golden_6]

I'd say we paid a fair price. Wiped out two draft hands in an important period for the club.

Not to mention the Lions are apparently getting 'unders' for Dunkley, Ashcroft & Fletcher. It's okay if other clubs do it but not us apparently.

 

[Barking Mad]

Yeah I’ve been thinking for a while we may play Bruce at FB, we trialed it late in the year. I think it’d be a good idea to give it a go, or if he does find his form forward (with Lobb & Marra firing) that’s the one situation I’d maybe consider sending Naughty back for a year

I’ve been big on Naughton going back but believes we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Naughton is deceptively quick and provides a heap of pressure down forward. He would be the 3rd/4th tall next year but can play like a small. JUH has also shown enough with his willingness to chase and will only be better. Bruce will chase and bash and crash but another year in and suspect he’ll slow a bit more. He would still provide more pressure that Lobb or Darcy for that matter. I’m thinking Darcy maybe the one back and hope he can become 75/80% as agile as DeKoning at the Cats.
Jones at FB , Gardner on 2nd tall as both have closing speed. Keath 3rd tall and intercepting. Prior to injury this year he showed plenty of dash for a tall. He could be a taller Lever type. Question is, do we need a 4th tall in Darcy who might take a bit to have the agility and playing 4 loses a bit of run from defence. Nice spot to be in if all fit.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I have a query and I wonder if someone can help me understand whether I have this right or not.

So when a player reaches restricted free agency he can choose to leave to join any club he likes however the original club can choose to match the contract offer and keep him at his original club. This would then force the other club to have to trade for him but he would then be under contract.

However if a player goes out of contract before reaching restricted free agency (ala Dunks) then he can still opt to leave and nominate his club of choice but this club doesn’t have the risk of the original club matching the contract offer and can basically low ball the original club on the trade offer and the only leverage that club has is to send that player into the PSD where they receive absolutely nothing in return. Hence the discussion about the Dogs just accepting whatever crumbs that Brisbane are offering. So what is fair here? When free agency was first introduced, players had to serve a certain amount of years before they could force their way out of a club to the club of their choice. So there were meant to be some sort of controls in place that make it harder for players to move to wherever they want prior to free agency. But in reality, players have even more power to force a move before restricted free agency because the original club has basically no leverage other than to threaten to put them in the PSD if the other club decides to not engage in a fair trade.

Like Brisbane could offer us pick 35 and pick 45 for example and just say take it or leave it. And what are we meant to do, just take it because otherwise we lose him for nothing? Where is there any onus on the receiving club to negotiate in good faith? But if that player was a restricted free agent, then the original club could match the contract (like Adelaide did with Dangerfield and I think GWS did with Gezza Cameron) and force the other club to trade fairly.

So I think basically, if I’m right, the system is f**ked. And Dunkley is basically f**king the Bulldogs right up the arse by leaving one year prior to FA and thereby ensuring we cannot get properly compensated because the team he chose actually has other higher priorities in regards to Father Son selections and is therefore forcing us to accept a well below market rate because we have zero leverage. At what point do Dunkley and Pickering say to Brisbane you guys sold me on this dream of playing here, what the F are you now doing by not dealing in good faith? Why is it that the Dogs are the ones that have to accept a substantially less than market offer or get nothing. The system is f**ked!

Have to keep in mind though that the club loses leverage insofar as the PSD works as a tool both with the salary cap and national draft as equalisation.

So often when clubs get "screwed over" it's to the loss of a team that finished higher on the ladder than the team that it's the benefit of.

Like Jackson Hately. Was it entirely fair that Adelaide lowballed and screwed over the trade offer for a recent high draft pick? No not really. But it's "fair" insofar that GWS were closer to winning a flag than Adelaide in the preceeding year.

Likewise with the salary cap. Some teams might screw over others but they have to do so in the levers of the salary cap. Clubs might be disappointed to lose a player but (in theory) it might open up cap room they didn't have.

The difference between Dunkley and other deals is that

a) they're trying to recruit a player from a team that finished lower than they did in the preceeding season

b) Dogs don't particularly want or will benefit from salary cap room in the next season or two. We want to max it out to try and win a flag.

c) To a lesser extent, Brisbane haven't made acquiring Dunkley a greater priority than manipulation of points for draft picks.

It's a more unique scenario given the above than other out of contract situatuons, which Brisbane don't seem to understand that's why they have to pay up. Maybe next time recruit a player from a team that finished above you on thr ladder and/or has more salary cap issues than we do.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

We’ve handed unders for JUH and Darcy? A father son pick and an academy player.

Um sorry what?

What did we hand over for Treloar? Oh, that's right, a favour.

 

[TommyD13]

DO NOT CAVE

 

[go the dogs]

Also any1 else think Brisbane Future 1st could be a little better than what we expect.

I give the following teams a chance of finishing above them. If they get knocked out 1st week of finals would be real nice
Cats
Swans
Dees
Dogs
Tigers
Blues
Power

 

[Sentinel]

"By all means threaten to send a player to the pre-season draft for a better deal. But doing it? No way."

This is just ridiculous. What exactly is the point in making a threat about the PSD if the end result was always going to be that we were never actually serious in doing it? Purely for the Herald Sun headlines that Ralph so desperately craves?

 

[VitalDread]

At the end of the day

Sending Dunkley to the draft doesn't damage us that badly, we don't have enough room to draft 4-5 players this year

Our first is protected with only Croft and Luamon as prospects that we might need to bid on.