Strategy Trade and List Management thread 4 (Be sure to huddle around your transitor radio at 11 am Edition)

[Mr. Walker]

If we assume what Marks Stevens says is true and "the Dogs are just about over the line in luring Trengove to the kennel as a FA" then that must mean

a) it is as a FA and there will be no picks coming from the Dogs
b) Port have agreed not to match our offer

That's the only way it can work isn't it as he is a DFA not a FA? The alternative is it is a trade.

 

[Dogsman16]

If we assume what Marks Stevens says is true and "the Dogs are just about over the line in luring Trengove to the kennel as a FA" then that must mean

a) it is as a FA and there will be no picks coming from the Dogs
b) Port have agreed not to match our offer

That's the only way it can work isn't it as he is a DFA not a FA? The alternative is it is a trade.

He's a restricted FA. And I doubt port have made any final decision on whether to take the compo or the trade. They would probably want to figure out the size of the contract prior to that decision being made.

I presume that Trengove has probably just verbally agreed to join and nothing more thus far.

 

[Mofra]

We've been linked with a number of key backs in the past two seasons so it's obviously an area of concern for us, Trengove is an upgrade on Roberts and Young and a different type of defender to Zaine, and much bigger than Morris who I wouldn't want in the no 1 or 2 defender spots in 2018 anyway.

He's an upgrade and it will cost us no picks. He loses a couple of kilos to improve his speed and agility after adding a few last pre-season. For me it's a no-brainer, improving the list without using a pick.

 

[coxman]

there is a trade Q&A with jon ralph on the herald sun website today from 12:30 if anyone wants to fire a few questions his way, you may have to be a subscriber though

 

[BRWB]

Even then calling Young overtaking Roberts is not only harsh, it's completely hyperbolic. I really don't want to hang crap on Young because it's for completely understandable reasons (he's the youngest listed player), but he was deplorable in the last 3-4 games that he played - Patton, Dixon, kicking bags on him, his critical turnovers in the 1st half vs GWS that directly led to goals, etc. If there wasn't some sort of extenuating circumstances (not wanting to dent his confidence and development by playing him), Roberts clearly would have been preferred to Young by the end of the year again.

So that's what happened - how could anyone miss that? Now that you point it out I can clearly visialise Bev at the MC meeting demanding to leave the clearly better player in Fletch out and sacrificing our finals chances so as to not hurt Youngy's feelings.

Stunning analysis.

Mediocrity and averageness mean the same thing. The ayce comparison (27 games in seven years including a stretch of gifted games in 2015) is unnecessarily harsh.

In his fourth year, he played every game after round 5 apart from a four week ankle injury + three week comeback through vfl. In his fifth year, he played 18 games and completely blanketed key forwards in prelim and grand finals. He had established himself within our team in his fourth and fifth years.

Continuing to his sixth year, Fletch had played in 9 of 12 games this year when he re-signed. A two year contract seems appropriate for a player who was making the team most weeks. He was re-signed before Young was picked ahead of him. You can't expect the club to have known that fletch would only have one more afl game for the year at the time.

It's all good and well to say he's not technically best 22 and that he's only played so many games because others have been injured, but that really doesn't matter if your first choice players can't get out on the park. Adams has been far from durable and we need a backup.

Refusing to offer another contract would've been foolish by the club. At worst, he is serviceable, cheap and loyal depth in a position of need. At his best, he can nullify Jeremy Cameron. Either way, he is a bulldogs premiership hero who deserves a bit more respect around here.

You make some reasonable points re games played. And yes Fletch may have appeared 'serviceable' when our mids and Fwds played defence and we won most of the clearances. But Fletch isn't competent or even 'serviceable' if he has to play one on one. Never has been. IMO.

Certainly not worth a two year extension. One year at best or better yet wait till the end of trade period like we have with Crameri (who is probably much more in demand) before deciding his future. That would have been prudent list management and far from foolish IMO.

 

[Dogs Rule]

there is a trade Q&A with jon ralph on the herald sun website today from 12:30 if anyone wants to fire a few questions his way, you may have to be a subscriber though

I'll set the alarm. Seriously, he's guessing like the rest of us.

I know he thinks he's an expert, but he's nothing more than a genuine headwobbler.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

there is a trade Q&A with jon ralph on the herald sun website today from 12:30 if anyone wants to fire a few questions his way, you may have to be a subscriber though

He gets his answers from here, so just fire them here instead.

 

[coxman]

I'll set the alarm. Seriously, he's guessing like the rest of us.

I know he thinks he's an expert, but he's nothing more than a genuine headwobbler.

Yeah I don't rate his journalism much at all he seems to go off news stories that other journos have already broke

 

[footyfan000001]

He's a restricted FA. And I doubt port have made any final decision on whether to take the compo or the trade. They would probably want to figure out the size of the contract prior to that decision being made.

I presume that Trengove has probably just verbally agreed to join and nothing more thus far.

If Port get Motlop in FA - I doubt they will match Trengove's offer.

 

[hutchy31]

Honestly, these guys are getting paid for this tripe. Jesus Christ.

Hey Jimmy, rebounding defenders are one of the few parts of our list that don't require much reinforcement - and even if further support was required, we wouldn't be going after Jackson ****ing Thurlow.

Idiot.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ve-plenty-to-think-about-20170905-gyb16r.html

 

[murphy2bedabest]

Am I correct in saying that Dangerfield is the only RFA who has been matched ? Chances are Fyfe and Martin would have been if they wanted to leave, this is because the compo wasn't up to scratch for Danger.

I wouldn't think many if any at all would get matched, unless they are an out and out star.

 

[MJ_Dogs]

If port actually want to keep Trengove then they'll match. But just to catch our bluff? No chance. I think we'd let go the deal if they asked for too much. Then they're left with less cap space. Too risky for them. We'll be fine

 

[Doggy]

If Port get Motlop in FA - I doubt they will match Trengove's offer.

If they get Moplost as a FA they would be more likeky to match

 

[BRWB]

If we have committed to Trengove and he to us then that tends to explain media reports that we were pressuring Lever for an answer. I doubt we'd want both.

So if these reports are correct it would appear we aren't getting Lever. And that may not be a bad thing.

There are going to be folks concerned that Trengove is just average and we should have targeted Lever.

1 - Trengove is actually a serviceable backman and is a clear upgrade on Fletch, Young and Collins while being more durable than Adams. So he improves our list in an area of need.

2 - Trengove also offers much needed mature ruck cover. Two birds one stone. Signing Trengove as a FA stops us spending/wasting resources on a ruck and a back (Lever for instance would have cost multiple high picks)

3 - People should look back on when Tom Boyd was traded in - and I don't regret getting Tom as it won us a flag. The alternative could have been we took a high pick for Griffen and used the two top ten picks to draft a similar level player in 2m Peter and ironically Lever. (Both players we'd been rumoured to be into)

The opportunity cost of trading high picks, particularly when you have a gun drafter in Dal, should not be underestimated.

TL DNR: Getting Trengove makes a lot of sense on a number of fronts, and in a lot of ways is the perfect FA signing

 

[BatteredBulldog]

If we have committed to Trengove and he to us then that tends to explain media reports that we were pressuring Lever for an answer. I doubt we'd want both.

So if these reports are correct it would appear we aren't getting Lever. And that may not be a bad thing.

There are going to be folks concerned that Trengove is just average and we should have targeted Lever.

1 - Trengove is actually a serviceable backman and is a clear upgrade on Fletch, Young and Collins while being more durable than Adams. So he improves our list in an area of need.

2 - Trengove also offers much needed mature ruck cover. Two birds one stone. Signing Trengove as a FA stops us spending/wasting resources on a ruck and a back (Lever for instance would have cost multiple high picks)

3 - People should look back on when Tom Boyd was traded in - and I don't regret getting Tom as it won us a flag. The alternative could have been we took a high pick for Griffen and used the two top ten picks to draft a similar level player in 2m Peter and ironically Lever. (Both players we'd been rumoured to be into)

The opportunity cost of trading high picks, particularly when you have a gun drafter in Dal, should not be underestimated.

TL DNR: Getting Trengove makes a lot of sense on a number of fronts, and in a lot of ways is the perfect FA signing

Yeah good post !

Whilst Trengove isn't a star (there are only a handful in each team) he would have been more than serviceable in a few of our later season games where the Dogs were "bullied" by some gorillas like Patton and Dixon.
A good signing if we get him.

 

[Mr. Walker]

If Port get Motlop in FA - I doubt they will match Trengove's offer.

Are there any reports on what our offer to Trengove is?

 

[footyfan000001]

Are there any reports on what our offer to Trengove is?

Dont think we will know until after finals. Nothing reported yet.

 

[footyfan000001]

If they get Moplost as a FA they would be more likeky to match

I assumed that if they were spending 500-600ish on Motlop then they wouldnt?

 

[hutchy31]

If we have committed to Trengove and he to us then that tends to explain media reports that we were pressuring Lever for an answer. I doubt we'd want both.

So if these reports are correct it would appear we aren't getting Lever. And that may not be a bad thing.

There are going to be folks concerned that Trengove is just average and we should have targeted Lever.

1 - Trengove is actually a serviceable backman and is a clear upgrade on Fletch, Young and Collins while being more durable than Adams. So he improves our list in an area of need.

2 - Trengove also offers much needed mature ruck cover. Two birds one stone. Signing Trengove as a FA stops us spending/wasting resources on a ruck and a back (Lever for instance would have cost multiple high picks)

3 - People should look back on when Tom Boyd was traded in - and I don't regret getting Tom as it won us a flag. The alternative could have been we took a high pick for Griffen and used the two top ten picks to draft a similar level player in 2m Peter and ironically Lever. (Both players we'd been rumoured to be into)

The opportunity cost of trading high picks, particularly when you have a gun drafter in Dal, should not be underestimated.

TL DNR: Getting Trengove makes a lot of sense on a number of fronts, and in a lot of ways is the perfect FA signing

I would agree. The Lever deal - while I would have welcomed him with open arms - is risky for exactly the reasons you've outlined, but also because it's not certain how good he really is. He's playing alongside a gun KPD in Talia and is rarely asked to take the main forwards. I think he's already a good player and will be a great one, but it's not absolutely certain. Wherever he ends up it'll be interesting to see how he stands up.

 

[Woofing]

Can any of the gents closer to the club confirm the whispers that Tommy Libs personal issues may be more significant then alluded too and may not be on any list next year ?
I stress whispers but very concerning for him add a person if true let alone footy

 

[Mofra]

Honestly, these guys are getting paid for this tripe. Jesus Christ.

Hey Jimmy, rebounding defenders are one of the few parts of our list that don't require much reinforcement - and even if further support was required, we wouldn't be going after Jackson ******* Thurlow.

Idiot.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ve-plenty-to-think-about-20170905-gyb16r.html

If JJ is out then we are relying on Biggs and Suckling for rebound, Williams is still finding his feet and Wood plays more intercept than real attacking HB.

Lynch hasn't come on as much as we'd like - he one of the best kicks at the club but is more outside than the bush tucker man.
I can see us drafting someone who can play the role but I can't see us aggressively trading for someone.

After Trengove, we'd consider a ruck and/or a leading forward although after Stef Martin I'm not sure there's really anyone else out there we want who is available.

 

[cleveland]

Can any of the gents closer to the club confirm the whispers that Tommy Libs personal issues may be more significant then alluded too and may not be on any list next year ?
I stress whispers but very concerning for him add a person if true let alone footy

Has a obvious drug problem sadly. Would surprise me if he wasnt on our list last year though

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Has a obvious drug problem sadly. Would surprise me if he wasnt on our list last year though

What ridiculous and slanderous speculation.

 

[BRWB]

If JJ is out then we are relying on Biggs and Suckling for rebound, Williams is still finding his feet and Wood plays more intercept than real attacking HB.

Lynch hasn't come on as much as we'd like - he one of the best kicks at the club but is more outside than the bush tucker man.
I can see us drafting someone who can play the role but I can't see us aggressively trading for someone.

After Trengove, we'd consider a ruck and/or a leading forward although after Stef Martin I'm not sure there's really anyone else out there we want who is available.

Doesn't Trengove provide ruck cover? Nothing special but better than Bont or Jong rucking.

 

[Mofra]

Doesn't Trengove provide ruck cover? Nothing special but better than Bont or Jong rucking.

He does, but he's just "ok" at it.
I want him predominantly playing in defence where he's played his best football in all his seasons bar one.