Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Thunderoad]

We should have just traded Smith against his will when it suited us.

Even though you can't.

That would have solved all our problems.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Clearly there are reasons that both clubs and players would want to sign shorter and longer contracts for certain reasons.

Players like Pickett and Petracca were not able to extricate themselves from Melbourne this off-season because of long-term deals they previously signed, even when they wanted to leave.

If a player comes to you and says "look, I don't think it's going to happen, but I'm only signing a three or four-year deal because so much can change in three or four years, and I want some flexibility in my future as seen by the examples of how quickly a club can change, as is the case with Melbourne post 2021 flag", what really more can a club do?

It's clear that how self-centered Smith was as an individual he was wanting to control his own destiny and would not have signed a long term deal at all.

Smith will probably either run out his contract or get close to it at Geelong, too, in my eyes.

 

[dogwatch]

I think a large reason that English went backwards in competitiveness last season was due to Sweet going. He went from training against a man mountain from beginning of Nov to training against 18year old Lachlan Smith. Club needs to look at getting in a mature age ruckman as a rookie.

English will never be a competitive beast but he was much more competitive in 2023 than this year

Not so sure about that. In fact it's an indictment on a 27yo AA ruck with well over 100 games experience if he needs that sort of training partner just to be competitive in matches. Yes, it would help but surely it shouldn't make such a difference as we saw in 2024.

I am guessing, but I think his concussion history might have had a lot to do with it. That would be quite understandable too.

Remember he had a worrying knock in the early pre-season and didn't join in full contact training until just before the practice matches. I suspect that affected his (and our) whole season. I don't think he/we are out of the woods yet either. It will be a key factor in how well we fare in 2025.

 

[BEaston]

Sure we do.

On the balance of probabilities it's extremely unlikely those picks return anything of comparable quality to what we lost, especially now that our draft guru who was a massive part of our finals success now works for Sydney. I could be wrong.

I was outspoken of the the view that Macrae and Daniel should have been playing over guys that are still here. Both will likely still play pretty good football next season and beyond.

No doubt they will both play some good football in larger roles in worse teams next year.

Somewhat irrelevant to us though.

Realistically, we've very rarely been burnt by player leaving us. Dunkley really the only one. Even good players like Hunter, Dahlhaus, Stringer, etc.

 

[Foxman98]

Sam Walsh also signed a 4 yr extention at the same time Smith signed for 2. Both from the same draft.

So in 6 years we have a handful of players most of which have easy reasons to explain why pick 1/FS/Academy yet you think we had any power to do anything against his will?

 

[Angak]

So in 6 years we have a handful of players most of which have easy reasons to explain why pick 1/FS/Academy yet you think we had any power to do anything against his will?

How do you know it would have been against his will to sign for anything more than 2 yrs he signed for in 2022?

 

[Foxman98]

How do you know it would have been against his will to sign for anything more than 2 yrs he signed for in 2022?

Because if he wanted more he would've signed for more not a hard thing to grasp

 

[maddog37]

Sam Walsh also signed a 4 yr extention at the same time Smith signed for 2. Both from the same draft.

So we should sign Riley Sanders for 6-7 years now?

 

[Foxman98]

So we should sign Riley Sanders for 6-7 years now?

Apparently so,

Smith was progressing well at the time so clearly didn't want to sign long term and miss out on extra $$,

You are either signing them for more then they're worth/produced or they sign shorter term contracts which is magically what 99% of players do early days until they are established or in Mac Andrews case bend the Suns over

 

[dergert]

Fahey's numbers in the VFL look huge.
Surely GWS don't delist him?!

 

[lachy]

How do you know it would have been against his will to sign for anything more than 2 yrs he signed for in 2022?

But you said the club MADE a Mistake in not signing him for more than 2 years with no evidence at all that he would have or wanted to

 

[Mojorisin]

Fahey's numbers in the VFL look huge.
Surely GWS don't delist him?!

He'd almost be a walk up start off our HBF. You'd think he'd be kept on given the loss of perrymen and Cumming.

 

[Angak]

So we should sign Riley Sanders for 6-7 years now?

Sanders is yet to prove he is AFL standard.

Over the next 12-18 months if Sanders can prove he is AFL standard or demonstrates high potential I would have zero problems locking him away for 5-6 yrs.

If the expansion Tassie team want him they would have to pay overs instead of the weak bargaining position we were put in with Smith.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I think a large reason that English went backwards in competitiveness last season was due to Sweet going. He went from training against a man mountain from beginning of Nov to training against 18year old Lachlan Smith. Club needs to look at getting in a mature age ruckman as a rookie.

English will never be a competitive beast but he was much more competitive in 2023 than this year

He's got Lobb and Darcy to practise against, both of whom can ruck quite well.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Sanders is yet to prove he is AFL standard.

Over the next 12-18 months if Sanders can prove he is AFL standard or demonstrates high potential I would have zero problems locking him away for 5-6 yrs.

If the expansion Tassie team wanted him they would have to pay overs instead of the weak bargaining position we were put in with Smith.

But the whole point is these contracts go both ways.

Sanders doesn't himself have to accept a contract that locks him down for several years, if he either has the confidence that he can keep improving his game and become very highly paid, and/or he wants the flexibility to be able to want to remove himself from the Dogs in the future.

On the flipside, if that improvement in form never comes, he doesn't have the negotiating power to demand more or a longer contract.

By all accounts, Smith rejected us trading him out in 2023 because he knew that his poor form had lost some of his market value (both with us and Geelong) and he was backing himself in to have a better 2024 to earn more money in a new deal.

Of course, it was his own gamble, and if he'd had an identical year in 2024 to 2023, even without an ACL he probably would have gotten a worse deal at Geelong.

The answer is sort of "neither" given the ACL and he's gotten a contract in Geelong that is not the most lucrative in the competition, but in some respects, may be overpaid if his ACL impacts his future output and/or his 2023 form continues for the rest of his career. But on the other hand, he's demonstrated traits and abilities and had self-confidence that his 2023 form was a bit of a blip in a career that would be closer to his 2020-early 2022 form, if not even improving as he gets more experience as a player.

 

[Angak]

But you said the club MADE a Mistake in not signing him for more than 2 years with no evidence at all that he would have or wanted to

Not true.

I based my assumption on recent history under the list management leadership of Bains, Power and Bevo where we only offer max 2-3 yrs to young players. I concluded this was strategically driven by the list management team as opposed to being purely player driven.

Of course this is an assumption, which I'm happy to proven wrong, but at least it is supported by recent historical data.

 

[BrisDog]

So we should sign Riley Sanders for 6-7 years now?

God no

 

[TiAn_]

I really think not having Daniel or Macrae as a will they/won't they be sub query every week will really help settle the team and the noise around selection.

Great point. That was a constant talking point all year, along with Bailey Smith playing at half forward the year prior. All that noise is gone now.

 

[Thunderoad]

Not true.

I based my assumption on recent history under the list management leadership of Bains, Power and Bevo where we only offer max 2-3 yrs to young players. I concluded this was strategically driven by the list management team as opposed to being purely player driven.

Of course this is an assumption, which I'm happy to proven wrong, but at least it is supported by recent historical data.

Generally the onus sits with the assumptor to prove the assumption.

 

[lachy]

Not true.

I based my assumption on recent history under the list management leadership of Bains, Power and Bevo where we only offer max 2-3 yrs to young players. I concluded this was strategically driven by the list management team as opposed to being purely player driven.

Of course this is an assumption, which I'm happy to proven wrong, but at least it is supported by recent historical data.

But its an assumption not at all based on fact.

What evidence do you have that we only OFFER 2 to 3 years for young players. Your assumption is based on your own assumption, yet there is something wrong with the club.

JUH actually said when he signed the 2 year extension that he was not ready to sign a longer bigger contract, including those being offered by other clubs.

No club is actually doing this better than anyone else.

One of the AFL's and importantly the AFLPA's biggest issues is lack of movement each trade period.

From the outside looking in, the fact that the vast majority of players re sign with their clubs suggests most clubs are doing this well including us.

The big risk with longer term contracts is players form dropping off a cliff , injury or not being able to cope in the AFL landscape. We traded out 2 just before there is a likely hood of the first of those happening.

With JUH we gave him and us breathing space to see where he might had. To this stage he has been nothing but respectful and appreciative to the club who has looked after him since his NGA days despite rumor's and 'media' reports.

I would expect Darcy, Richards, Bont and JUH to all sign longer term contracts in the next 12 months of varying lengths and have no issue with any of them. However, Libba has signed 1 or 2 year contracts nearly his whole career proving contract lengths do not dictate whether players move or not

 

[Angak]

But its an assumption not at all based on fact.

What evidence do you have that we only OFFER 2 to 3 years for young players. Your assumption is based on your own assumption, yet there is something wrong with the club.

JUH actually said when he signed the 2 year extension that he was not ready to sign a longer bigger contract, including those being offered by other clubs.

No club is actually doing this better than anyone else.

One of the AFL's and importantly the AFLPA's biggest issues is lack of movement each trade period.

From the outside looking in, the fact that the vast majority of players re sign with their clubs suggests most clubs are doing this well including us.

The big risk with longer term contracts is players form dropping off a cliff , injury or not being able to cope in the AFL landscape. We traded out 2 just before there is a likely hood of the first of those happening.

With JUH we gave him and us breathing space to see where he might had. To this stage he has been nothing but respectful and appreciative to the club who has looked after him since his NGA days despite rumor's and 'media' reports.

I would expect Darcy, Richards, Bont and JUH to all sign longer term contracts in the next 12 months of varying lengths and have no issue with any of them. However, Libba has signed 1 or 2 year contracts nearly his whole career proving contract lengths do not dictate whether players move or not

We've lost Dunkley and Smith, both out of contract, entering their prime and the consensus being we got unders in terms of compensation for their abilities.

The idea that "No club is actually doing this better than anyone else" is head firmly planted in the sand stuff.

 

[Libbaaaa]

We've lost Dunkley and Smith, both out of contract, entering their prime and the consensus being we got unders in terms of compensation for their abilities.

The idea that "No club is actually doing this better than anyone else" is head firmly planted in the sand stuff.

Dunkley requested a trade with two years left on his deal. Was our best player in 2021 prior to his shoulder injury, rushed back and was part of our finals run. The club would have put an offer in front of him to extend prior to the 2022 starting, but his mind would have been made up. Not sure there is much more the club could have done.

 

[MrChristo]

Clearly there are reasons that both clubs and players would want to sign shorter and longer contracts for certain reasons.

Players like Pickett and Petracca were not able to extricate themselves from Melbourne this off-season because of long-term deals they previously signed, even when they wanted to leave.

Exactly.

There's a fine line between the Club having control because Player A is contracted, and the Club have no control because no-one wants to take the contract off our hands.

I'm sure most players in this day and age are professional enough to get on with playing footy where ever they land (Petracca and Oliver perfect examples), but like I said, super fine line between being able to command a high draft pick/great deal and being stuck with a player with issues.

 

[lachy]

We've lost Dunkley and Smith, both out of contract, entering their prime and the consensus being we got unders in terms of compensation for their abilities.

The idea that "No club is actually doing this better than anyone else" is head firmly planted in the sand stuff.

Usually using terms like 'is head firmly planted in the sand stuff' is supported by evidence of some sort.

Consensus from whom? Others using assumptions supported by no evidence.

Why use Dunkley as an example. Dunkley was instrumental in us making a Grand Final then won the Best and Fairest for us after Essendon did not want to pay full value, however though uncontracted we did get pick 21 a future first and second round pick for him which only really only ended under par with the Lions making the Grand Final despite losing this years Norm Smith winner to a knee injury.

As for Smith, whether we wanted to get rid of him or not if he did not want to go when we could have got more for him under contract there is nothing we can do. So was the club wrong in actually contracting him in the first place or should they have moved him on at the end of 2022, also not under contract, as he would only sign a 2 year contract.

What did Melbourne get in exchange for their premiership player and third in their best and fairest this year???

You seem to just look for ways to be unhappy with the club for some reason.

Using our trading, drafting and contracting particularly in the last 10 seasons as a basis for this seems strange given only one clubs results in this period is actually better than ours

 

[Angak]

Usually using terms like 'is head firmly planted in the sand stuff' is supported by evidence of some sort.

Consensus from whom? Others using assumptions supported by no evidence.

Your not seriously suggesting that we didn't unders for Dunkley or smith?