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

[geoffjennings79]

We could drag this Perryman/de Burgh stuff out all summer, possibly better than boredom on here occasionally turning Dogs posters against each other.

So which BF poster is the "hooded old man at the rudder"...?!

 

[_Cerberus_]

Half way through the de-listed free agency window, and little movement across the league in general. And no rumors from our end. It is clear most clubs want to try and load up on, and hit this draft. Looks like we will take a draft first approach and probably leave one spot open for someone to train with us during the preseason. Happy to hit the draft. Though still hoping that we can get another pick inside the sweet spot without giving up too much.

 

[cecil]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

 

[bobs head soup]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I agree with this, reckon Anthony Scott is the one.

Has provided us with pretty good value for a supplemental pick up, but feel like his opportunities now look slim to none as a 30 year old next year.

Has a good career outside of footy, so a further concussion impacting his future seems an unnecessary risk.

Moving on seems the smart play allround.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I'd go Gardner in that spot.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Considering the amount of salary cap we've opened up I'd really have liked to pay out one of our fringe players and delist them early to open up an extra spot. We've got a significant portion of the list somewhat likely to move on at the end of next year and it'll be a worse draft (Baker, Scott, Cleary, JJ, Libba, Jones x 2, Poulter etc).

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

 

[cecil]

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

Yes of course, but Duryea, Libba, L Jones and JJ are all very likely to retire. That is without cutting depth players. In a shallow draft you probably don't want many more than 4 picks.

 

[bobs head soup]

Yes of course, but Duryea, Libba, L Jones and JJ are all very likely to retire. That is without cutting depth players. In a shallow draft you probably don't want many more than 4 picks.

Could be we go hard in the trade period next year. Feels like we are clearing salary cap.

 

[Ash1337]

I think a FA next year will be found and hopefully XOH still decides to come to dogs. 2 in.

As for going out nearly half are rookie listed. Poulter Baker Duyrea. Probably a good time to refresh the rookie list next season. As for the rest Only Jones is in the firing line and maybe Coffield if he cant overcome his injuries. So You're looking at JJ, Libba & LJones retiring and Arty scott & Coff delist. 6 senior and 3 rookies. Bring in 3 draft trade/fa/dfa 3 main and rookie 3. It's not as bad as it looks.

 

[Dogs Rule]

You'll friggin hate this mindless speculative garbage but if I subjected myself to it then you should too.

"I don't want this to get misconstrued...."

Yes, yes you do Sam McClure.

McClure - a skid mark on the threadbare jocks of the media.

The definition of a muckraking bull**** artist. Campaigner of the highest order who clearly only got to where he has through nepotism and brown nosing. Would help if he got one call right at some stage.

I mean seriously does anyone honestly believe Bont is going anywhere? Seriously? These crap thought bubbles where hacks feel they have to justify their own existence are everything that's wrong with the saturation media coverage of the game today.

 

[stefoid]

I'm not exactly sure it's a done deal that those players won't be on the list the year after.

Someone like Baker is consistently a solid VFL player, has some versatility, and presumably is enough of a culture fit and professional. It's good to have those players like depth, even if in a best case scenario with not many injuries, they're never actually getting picked.

In that list spot we could have a) a player that ideally we never have to play, or b) a player that ideally develops into a decent best 22 player?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

In that list spot we could have a) a player that ideally we never have to play, or b) a player that ideally develops into a decent best 22 player?

I think you're overestimating upside of the potential career value of whatever player we add to the list that happens to be the last player on the list, either way.

That kind of wishful thinking that was more prominent in the sort of 2000-2015 era of list management has slowly disappeared, the league trends and the good teams are using those list spots as lower-upside role players or culture recruits, understanding that if there's a 50+% chance that any player you list plays fewer than 10 career games or whatever, their ability to be a good clubman or understand team structures in slotting into those games are much more meaningful than the rare chance (although it does exist) of landing a future good long-term player from your last list spot.

It does happen, and I'm not saying we should avoid it, but suggesting that it doesn't happen enough is wrong - all evidence suggests teams do it too much, and they're trending away from it over time. It probably hasn't equalised just yet.

Take e.g. the 2007 first 10 picks of the rookie draft:



Given how many of them played either 0 games or were only given games "to take a look at them" (as opposed to be expected to play at least productively in a role that a mature ager is expected to when picked), it is entirely possible that any of these teams could have had more success in the subsequent years had they not attempted to draft the high-updside, "develops into a decent best 22 player" rather than picking a mature ager, delisted free agent etc. that have stepped in and played a role, rather than picking their alternative worse option from the VFL.

 

[stefoid]

I think you're overestimating upside of the potential career value of whatever player we add to the list that happens to be the last player on the list, either way.

That kind of wishful thinking that was more prominent in the sort of 2000-2015 era of list management has slowly disappeared, the league trends and the good teams are using those list spots as lower-upside role players or culture recruits, understanding that if there's a 50+% chance that any player you list plays fewer than 10 career games or whatever, their ability to be a good clubman or understand team structures in slotting into those games are much more meaningful than the rare chance (although it does exist) of landing a future good long-term player from your last list spot.

It does happen, and I'm not saying we should avoid it, but suggesting that it doesn't happen enough is wrong - all evidence suggests teams do it too much, and they're trending away from it over time. It probably hasn't equalised just yet.

Take e.g. the 2007 first 10 picks of the rookie draft:

View attachment 2159420

Given how many of them played either 0 games or were only given games "to take a look at them" (as opposed to be expected to play at least productively in a role that a mature ager is expected to when picked), it is entirely possible that any of these teams could have had more success in the subsequent years had they not attempted to draft the high-updside, "develops into a decent best 22 player" rather than picking a mature ager, delisted free agent etc. that have stepped in and played a role, rather than picking their alternative worse option from the VFL.

low picks and rookies are a lottery and you don't buy a ticket, you can't win. looking at the top 10 isn't that useful. order them by games played instead. 2007 was a poor year. but 2008 went alright, with 12 players going 100+ games.

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

our 2016 premiership side had 6 rookies (Boyd, morris, JJ, Dal, Picken, Roberts) , a couple of late picks (dicko, wood) and 2 'rejects'. (Biggs, Hamling)

If baker plays 20 nondescript games for us over 4 years, that's 2 tickets in the lottery. multiply that by 3 or 4 similar players clogging the list and it becomes statistically significant.

Club	Signing	Player	Age	Height	Weight	Original Club	Grade	Games↥	Goals	Coaches	Brownlow	Awards
	47	Hawthorn		Luke Breust	18yr	184cm	84kg	Temora/NSW-ACT U18	A	300	549	212	29	AA: 2014, 2018; AA40: 2023; Prem: 2013, 2014, 2015
	19	Fremantle		Matt de Boer	18yr	186cm	85kg	Swanbourne JFC/Claremont	B	223 (138)	83	37	3
	30	Western Bulldogs		Liam Picken	22yr	183cm	80kg	Hamilton FC/North Ballarat U18/Williamstown	B	198	87	84	11	Prem: 2016
	6	Carlton		Jeff Garlett	19yr	180cm	75kg	Burracoppin/Trinity College (WA)/Swan Districts	B+	185 (107)	321	85	10	AA40: 2017
	10	Adelaide		Ricky Henderson	20yr	188cm	91kg	Trentham/North Ballarat	B+	159 (90)	79	76	19
	27	Collingwood		Jarryd Blair	18yr	174cm	81kg	Wonthaggi/Gippsland U18	B	157	121	40	7	Prem: 2010
	13	St Kilda		Zac Dawson	22yr	197cm	93kg	Doutta Stars/PEGS/Calder U18	C+	152 (63)	7	8	0
	8	Richmond		Robin Nahas	21yr	176cm	75kg	Oakleigh Dragons JFC/Salesian College/Oakleigh U18/Port Melbourne	B	117 (83)	135	37	6
	69	Collingwood	Unregistered	Lachlan Keeffe	18yr	204cm	102kg	Marist College Ashgrove/Old Trinity	C+	116 (40)	19	5	0
	74	Fremantle		Greg Broughton	22yr	189cm	82kg	Kingsley JFC/Noranda/Subiaco	B+	110 (68)	19	66	6
	57	Sydney	International	Mike Pyke	24yr	201cm	104kg	Canada	C+	110	48	4	0	Prem: 2012
	48	Fremantle		Clancee Pearce	18yr	182cm	89kg	Noranda/Guildford Grammar/Swan Districts	B	100	36	28	9

 

[threenewpadlocks]

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

our 2016 premiership side had 6 rookies (Boyd, morris, JJ, Dal, Picken, Roberts) , a couple of late picks (dicko, wood) and 2 'rejects'. (Biggs, Hamling)

It's a mistake to look at our squad in isolation and not what correlates generally to good players and therefore wins and therefore premierships.

Brisbane's 2024 flag team for instance

it seems to average about 10 players a year that play 100+

From a previously much larger pool of players
In the history of the rookie draft the median games played is essentially 10 games. You're a 50% chance of never making it to 10 games.

If baker plays 20 nondescript games for us over 4 years, that's 2 tickets in the lottery. multiply that by 3 or 4 similar players clogging the list and it becomes statistically significant.

But speaking econometrically this isn't the right way of phrasing it. List spots are a finite resource. We can only ever give up a certain amount of them as a time. It's not a matter of buying a lottery ticket, it's a matter of distributing the capacity to only offer a maximum number of list spots in the most efficient manner. You have to consider the cost of a losing lottery ticket as part of that as well, and every 18 year old who gets drafted through the rookie draft and plays 0 games (Rypstra etc.) is effectively a "loss" relative to the expectation of 10 games from that list spot or whatever. Those losses accumulate every time you buy a lottery ticket.

I'm not denying that some good players have come from the rookie draft and you miss out on them. Just that historically speaking, teams have erred too much on the side of recruiting players who never make it to 10 games (literally half the players). The equilibrium point should be recruiting non-draftee type players and getting either state leaguers or previously listed AFL players more often, because those types of players in the rookie draft have had a higher median games played than the 18 year olds.

Teams are learning this because the last 10 years has seen teams recruit fewer and fewer 18 year olds with their latest draft picks or rookie draft picks, and more mature agers and players who are 20+ year in age.

To suggest that we should buy a lottery ticket is to suggest that that trend has already gone too far, and swung back past the equilbirum point. I disagree. By drafting mature agers in Gowers, Gardner, Sweet, Scott, McNeil (was 19 so a bit of both), McComb, Baker, Poulter, and Bramble, we have consistently found players who were good enough to get 10+ AFL games, having careers that were much better than the 50% expectation that a 18 year old never gets to 200 games. Sure, none of them are every likely to be a B+ grader, but having the accumulation of value in all of those players on the margins over the player that would have otherwise gotten a game, is the equivalent of nailing that one 200 gamer over their career. We got one year of Gardner playing well. We got one year of Scott playing well etc. etc.

 

[DueWest]

To suggest that we should buy a lottery ticket is to suggest that that trend has already gone too far, and swung back past the equilbirum point. I disagree. By drafting mature agers in Gowers, Gardner, Sweet, Scott, McNeil (was 19 so a bit of both), McComb, Baker, Poulter, and Bramble, we have consistently found players who were good enough to get 10+ AFL games, having careers that were much better than the 50% expectation that a 18 year old never gets to 200 games. Sure, none of them are every likely to be a B+ grader, but having the accumulation of value in all of those players on the margins over the player that would have otherwise gotten a game, is the equivalent of nailing that one 200 gamer over their career. We got one year of Gardner playing well. We got one year of Scott playing well etc. etc.

Quality over quantity would rather one player good enough to play 200 than 9 list cloggers playing 20 games each.

All of them have played a few good games but apart from Bramble , Scott and a few games from McNeil they are a very average lot who done really improve the side into a top 4 contender