Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[_Cerberus_]

Anyone know when the next day of exit interviews are for those in the VFL?

 

[Doggies_13]

Hasn’t helped grossly overpaying for Sanders. Not much different to what Geelong paid GWS for Jeremy Cameron.
Let that sink in

We have clarity on the trade now:

Out: 2023 picks 10 and 17, 2024 pick 12.

In: 2023 Picks 4 (became 6 Sanders), 46 (became 45 Frreijah), 51 (used towards Croft), 2024 pick 44.

Pick 10 if we kept it would have been pick 12 by the time we drafted, likely no Croft bid.

Pick 17 if we kept it becomes pick 20 and disappears on Croft.

Pick 12 this year is basically what we paid to go to pick 4 which became pick 6 to get Sanders and we got Freijah through with the steak knives.

Taking into account that pick 17 was always being completely chewed up by Croft.

It was basically 2023 pick 12 and 2024 pick 12 for Sanders and Freijah.

Now players around that pick 12 Gothard, Tholstrup, Rogers (suns academy, Croft (F/S), Green, Leake, Wilson.

Other than Wilson, Sanders has shown more than all of them if even argue so has Freijah.

Obviously who is around pick 12 this year could bite us but on current outcome we are ahead on this trade than what we could have gotten without trading.

Our third and fourth rounders this year went out last year for Harmes and Coffield.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If we genuinely want to improve the list, we have to cut the "fringe" players that actually aren't really fringe and work towards replacing them with ones that are genuinely on the cusp of selection or better. As an example, I find the resignation towards trading out contributors like Daniel and Macrae, contrasted with the 'must keep Cleary' attitude baffling. Similarly, I'd much prefer to keep Clarke, a first round pick playing one of the hardest positions on the ground, than Cleary, who has plateaued and was always an outside chance to make it.

I suspect there's a bit more to Cleary staying on the list as he's a min-contract, low-fuss, little issue of him playing a role or finding a position in a break-glass kind of emergency kind of player, who trains hard and is respectful to his place in the wider squad etc.

It's not as if his general VFL form has been so poor that you wonder if he's ever going to reach AFL standard. If anything his VFL form over his career has been good enough that people in this thread would be highlighting him as a player to recruit.

 

[BulldogMuscle]

Anyone know when the next day of exit interviews are for those in the VFL?

Today as far as I’ve been told. Should have delisting announcements this week.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We have clarity on the trade now:

Out: 2023 picks 10 and 17, 2024 pick 12.

In: 2023 Picks 4 (became 6 Sanders), 46 (became 45 Frreijah), 51 (used towards Croft), 2024 pick 44.

Pick 10 if we kept it would have been pick 12 by the time we drafted, likely no Croft bid.

Pick 17 if we kept it becomes pick 20 and disappears on Croft.

Pick 12 this year is basically what we paid to go to pick 4 which became pick 6 to get Sanders and we got Freijah through with the steak knives.

Taking into account that pick 17 was always being completely chewed up by Croft.

It was basically 2023 pick 12 and 2024 pick 12 for Sanders and Freijah.

It's probably a slight overpay on our part (while only being slight, I've seen discussions about this trade which go to either extremes, it was either a masterful part of strategic advantage or an absolute disaster that we could have drafted four superstar players instead of Sanders.)

The reason for our overpay was probably being spooked a little bit that a Croft bid may even come before pick 10/12 (though that was always unlikely), as well as a desire to draft a top-10 genuine centre bounce midfielder as that sort of young, top-end talent has been missing for several years and a need with Bont, Treloar and Libba's ages, we hadn't moved Richards in there at that stage, and with Dunkley and Smith leaving.

In the end, the benefit was a Croft bid coming a bit later, meaning our later picks was a bit earlier, which allowed us to get Freijah (as you said).

 

[Sharkey66]

I wouldn't pay Cleary out, but I'm finding the board's stance on him quite surprising.

He's played four games in three years while upwards of 12 players have been cycled through those parts of the ground. In those games he's been fine if unspectacular. Ditto at VFL level, where he has played pretty much the same as he was 12 months ago.

If we genuinely want to improve the list, we have to cut the "fringe" players that actually aren't really fringe and work towards replacing them with ones that are genuinely on the cusp of selection or better. As an example, I find the resignation towards trading out contributors like Daniel and Macrae, contrasted with the 'must keep Cleary' attitude baffling. Similarly, I'd much prefer to keep Clarke, a first round pick playing one of the hardest positions on the ground, than Cleary, who has plateaued and was always an outside chance to make it.

Frankly, I think there is a disconnect between the results people want on-field and the list management suggestions they're making.

This.

Cleary is an ok player, but if we are not going to play him, then what's the point of him taking up a list spot.

 

[Golden_6]

It's probably a slight overpay on our part (while only being slight, I've seen discussions about this trade which go to either extremes, it was either a masterful part of strategic advantage or an absolute disaster that we could have drafted four superstar players instead of Sanders.)

The reason for our overpay was probably being spooked a little bit that a Croft bid may even come before pick 10/12 (though that was always unlikely), as well as a desire to draft a top-10 genuine centre bounce midfielder as that sort of young, top-end talent has been missing for several years and a need with Bont, Treloar and Libba's ages, we hadn't moved Richards in there at that stage, and with Dunkley and Smith leaving.

In the end, the benefit was a Croft bid coming a bit later, meaning our later picks was a bit earlier, which allowed us to get Freijah (as you said).

It's an overpay but nabbing Freijah will always save this deal in hindsight. I think almost everyone on this board would be comfortable drafting Freijah as high as pick 10.

 

[VitalDread]

Dogs backed themselves into being a deep finals team with that trade

Plus with being the most evenly stacked draft, we aren't overall misses out when we can draft similar players with later picks

If this draft was like last year or the year before, it's a far worse deal

 

[Ash1337]

We have clarity on the trade now:

Out: 2023 picks 10 and 17, 2024 pick 12.

In: 2023 Picks 4 (became 6 Sanders), 46 (became 45 Frreijah), 51 (used towards Croft), 2024 pick 44.

Pick 10 if we kept it would have been pick 12 by the time we drafted, likely no Croft bid.

Pick 17 if we kept it becomes pick 20 and disappears on Croft.

Pick 12 this year is basically what we paid to go to pick 4 which became pick 6 to get Sanders and we got Freijah through with the steak knives.

Taking into account that pick 17 was always being completely chewed up by Croft.

It was basically 2023 pick 12 and 2024 pick 12 for Sanders and Freijah.

Now players around that pick 12 Gothard, Tholstrup, Rogers (suns academy, Croft (F/S), Green, Leake, Wilson.

Other than Wilson, Sanders has shown more than all of them if even argue so has Freijah.

Obviously who is around pick 12 this year could bite us but on current outcome we are ahead on this trade than what we could have gotten without trading.

Our third and fourth rounders this year went out last year for Harmes and Coffield.

The pick dogs traded was used on Tholstrup. I also doubt Croft wouldn't be be bid on before then because the bid before 10 was Read by Geelong who would likely just bid on Croft because they were in the middle of a deal with dons. The risk would just be too great to keep it.

If dogs did keep the pick who would they take at 13? Collard probably? Or Edwards?

 

[Pencil case]

We have clarity on the trade now:

Out: 2023 picks 10 and 17, 2024 pick 12.

In: 2023 Picks 4 (became 6 Sanders), 46 (became 45 Frreijah), 51 (used towards Croft), 2024 pick 44.

Pick 10 if we kept it would have been pick 12 by the time we drafted, likely no Croft bid.

Pick 17 if we kept it becomes pick 20 and disappears on Croft.

Pick 12 this year is basically what we paid to go to pick 4 which became pick 6 to get Sanders and we got Freijah through with the steak knives.

Taking into account that pick 17 was always being completely chewed up by Croft.

It was basically 2023 pick 12 and 2024 pick 12 for Sanders and Freijah.

Now players around that pick 12 Gothard, Tholstrup, Rogers (suns academy, Croft (F/S), Green, Leake, Wilson.

Other than Wilson, Sanders has shown more than all of them if even argue so has Freijah.

Obviously who is around pick 12 this year could bite us but on current outcome we are ahead on this trade than what we could have gotten without trading.

Our third and fourth rounders this year went out last year for Harmes and Coffield.

I still think that trade was great for us.

 

[Dog 36]

I still think that trade was great for us.

Was and will be going forward

 

[DiamondDogs8]

This.

Cleary is an ok player, but if we are not going to play him, then what's the point of him taking up a list spot.

The club assumed he would have developed further by now when he was given that extension.

At the very least he is a serviceable, but unspectacular ‘break glass’ option in an area we are light in.

He will most likely be off the list come the end of 2025, but it’s not the end of the world having him around for next year.

 

[Bonty4]

Can people stop judging last years trade on Sanders. The kid will be just fine, not every top 10 kid hits the ground flying like Reid Daicos etc. he was highly rated and will be completely fine next year.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Can people stop judging last years trade on Sanders. The kid will be just fine, not every top 10 kid hits the ground flying like Reid Daicos etc. he was highly rated and will be completely fine next year.

I don't think anyone's criticising Sanders, just than in 15 years' time when the careers are said and done, it's probably a greater than 50% chance that an early teens pick would have found a player good as Sanders anyway.

 

[Optimistic Dog]

We have clarity on the trade now:

Out: 2023 picks 10 and 17, 2024 pick 12.

In: 2023 Picks 4 (became 6 Sanders), 46 (became 45 Frreijah), 51 (used towards Croft), 2024 pick 44.

Pick 10 if we kept it would have been pick 12 by the time we drafted, likely no Croft bid.

Pick 17 if we kept it becomes pick 20 and disappears on Croft.

Pick 12 this year is basically what we paid to go to pick 4 which became pick 6 to get Sanders and we got Freijah through with the steak knives.

Taking into account that pick 17 was always being completely chewed up by Croft.

It was basically 2023 pick 12 and 2024 pick 12 for Sanders and Freijah.

Now players around that pick 12 Gothard, Tholstrup, Rogers (suns academy, Croft (F/S), Green, Leake, Wilson.

Other than Wilson, Sanders has shown more than all of them if even argue so has Freijah.

Obviously who is around pick 12 this year could bite us but on current outcome we are ahead on this trade than what we could have gotten without trading.

Our third and fourth rounders this year went out last year for Harmes and Coffield.

Yes, we also did not know at the time Bailey was going to do his knee. We would probably knew he was gone and hoping he had a good year to up his trade value to a really early pick.

 

[stefoid]

Hasn’t helped grossly overpaying for Sanders. Not much different to what Geelong paid GWS for Jeremy Cameron.
Let that sink in

I think bean counting over picks isnt worth it - the only important thing is picking the good players.

Its like the Lobb trade - it was either going to be a great trade or a crap one, depending entirely on how useful Lobb turned out to be.

Same with Sanders - if he fails, its a horrible waste of draft currency, but if he stars, it was genius to trade up to get our hands on him.

 

[AFDogs]

Can we please just get Houston? Then I'll be okay about losing Bailey and Jack.

Make it happen.

 

[Bonty4]

I don't think anyone's criticising Sanders, just than in 15 years' time when the careers are said and done, it's probably a greater than 50% chance that an early teens pick would have found a player good as Sanders anyway.

Imo he will be elite, not just good

 

[JTCWBFC]

My only concern with Sander is the game seems to be getting faster & faster, mids more explosive & I worry about his pace & ability to get out of the contest.

Fingers crossed it all works out.

 

[Bonty4]

My only concern with Sander is the game seems to be getting faster & faster, mids more explosive & I worry about his pace & ability to get out of the contest.

Fingers crossed it all works out.

Pendlebury while never quick has played 350? Bont aint a speedster and hes arguably the best player in the league. Yeh the game is changing, go watch Sanders u18s highlights, there will always be a position in the afl for players who seem to have more time even if they’re not quick but have a brilliant footy mind

 

[yebach]

We had more options than just trading up for Sanders I'm guessing.
Could we have traded the Sanders picks for picks in this year's draft?
I would have traded both our first's last year for a first in this year's draft.
We would still have Croft and at least 2 first's this year.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Can we please just get Houston? Then I'll be okay about losing Bailey and Jack.

Make it happen.

Yeah agreed. Need a bit of a win.

Also, I love this time of year when the likes of Geelong and others want a starting 22 player, a player that went top 10 in the draft who has proven himself in finals, a player with speed who will be a key cog in the midfield, but don't want to give anything up.

Of course we should be asking about their players? We should be in there ears trying to convince them to come over. Geelong does that, so return the favour.

So De Koning for Smith is not outrageous. More of it.

 

[Gridlock'd]

We had more options than just trading up for Sanders I'm guessing.
Could we have traded the Sanders picks for picks in this year's draft?
I would have traded both our first's last year for a first in this year's draft.
We would still have Croft and at least 2 first's this year.

We were big on Watson weren’t we? Then the Hawks swooped in.

 

[Pencil case]

Yeah agreed. Need a bit of a win.

Also, I love this time of year when the likes of Geelong and others want a starting 22 player, a player that went top 10 in the draft who has proven himself in finals, a player with speed who will be a key cog in the midfield, but don't want to give anything up.

Of course we should be asking about their players? We should be in there ears trying to convince them to come over. Geelong does that, so return the favour.

So De Koning for Smith is not outrageous. More of it.

De Koning is the last type of player we need

 

[Dog 36]

De Koning is the last type of player we need

Helps our defence personnel going forward especially when Jones and Lobb retire

De Koning JOD and Buss etc going forward and for a long time is an attraction