Strategy Trade and List management Thread (cont in Part 2)

[Norm De Guerre]

Take out Ablett and Selwood (both close to the end) and we still have Dangerfield, Duncan, Kelly, Menegola, S Selwood and developing players like Parfitt, Cockatoo and Constable.

As I said our midfield is our strength with or without Dahlhaus.

I would rather we spend the $500k chasing a ruck or small forward but so be it, am keen to get some Dogs fans opinions about why Luke may be leaving.

You have to wonder whether your list management team actually consider him to be a goal kicking small forward. If they do then I would suggest that it is folly on their part and they've just burnt a spot on the list and a 4 year contract.

 

[Unorth]

Us (essentially) ditching Dahl is a bold move, reminds me of American sports, where teams rebuilding on the fly ruthlessly turf out established players (that are still in the desired age bracket) because they want to take the team in a new direction. Really bold move we don't see as much of in this league.

I really do think the money might not have even been a factor; I seriously don't think that we're in such a squeeze that an extra 150k a year or whatever the difference was proved to be the obstacle. I think this was completely a team balance/direction decision. A ruthless, bold, risky decision (we're still turfing out a premiership player who's still at an age where he may bounce back to form yet, which is also an age this team is lacking in), and I'm not surprised it's so polarising. Personally I think we'll be ok. But if we struggle in contested ball (I don't expect we will) next season while Dahl kills it at Geelong, then it won't look good. If Dahl plays well, we play better, then maybe it was a move needed for both sides. But this is a very deliberate gamble, can only see how it plays out now.

 

[BEaston]

Loyalty works both ways. He had what we thought was a fair offer in front of him. Although it's sad from sentimental point of view, it was his choice to take a better offer so I don't begrudge the club in the slightest.

 

[TimlinOfficial]

Hi guys, I come in peace. Have always liked and rated Dahlhaus (was actually at his first ever game!) and thought he was so crucial to your flag year.

I don’t understand why we are chasing him given the strength of our midfield and the fact we are sorely lacking in other areas (namely small forwards and rucks) but will happily take him if, as reported, he accepts a FA offer from us.

I’m really confused why the Dogs are letting him go though. He seems such a heart and soul player who bleeds red white and blue. I know his form hasn’t been at its best in 2017/18 but he’s young in football terms and your young team seems in need of experience....

If the reported figure of $500k is true I don’t think it’s overs at all and am very surprised the Dogs wouldn’t be willing to match or better that offer.

Any insights? From the outside it’s confusing and I believed he would stay at the Dogs until you put out that statement this evening.

I think Luke simply hasn't deserved the contract he's asked for at the Dogs, unfortunately. I think there's a few reasons tonight's announcement has eventuated:

- He's been a great servant and we all love him but his last two seasons have been disappointing and there are Dogs people (myself included) who no longer feel he fits clearly within our best 22, particularly as, like Geelong, our midfield is our greatest strength (particularly inside mids).

- There were rumours reported on by the media of discontent with his training standards.

- Although he may be youngish in football terms, as you note, I think many people would agree with me in saying he has already peaked as a player (probably in 2015-16). He may get back to that peak but I don't think he will go beyond it in the future. I think he's probably maxed out on his potential and will rely on his hardness, durability and tenacity going forward (his best traits - 'heart & soul' etc.), rather than physical/technical improvements.

- Given that likely maxing out of potential and the reality of his last two seasons, coupled with our bevy of young, promising midfielders, I think the Dogs were rightly reluctant to offer him a 4 year deal on $500k or something like that. Further, I think the coaches have probably exhausted their patience on him improving his kicking and particularly his kicking for goal (set shots). He is however a good goalsneak on the snap, although he hasn't found many opportunities to exhibit that skill recently.

I think things could definitely have been different but I'm content with seeing the player leave, albeit sad as we love him and he's given us many fond memories. Hope he has a great time in Geelong, perhaps he can find success as a small forward... I'm unconvinced though

 

[Smiley Boy]

I’m fine with losing Dahl. The guy is heart and soul but I can’t deal with his bomb kicks to no one and his missed set shots from 20m out anymore.

Good time for him to leave with the emergence of Dunkley & McLean. Plus we’ll get decent enough compo you’d assume

Was always a favourite though good luck to him

 

[Leviticus]

I feel like I'm constantly repeating myself on this point, but length of contract barely matters. Only used as a tie-breaker in the rare case of two exactly the same salaries.

Ok, so the salient point is he got a $2m contract.

 

[footyfan000001]

I don’t see why anyone would be annoyed. Signing him for another 4 years would be bad list management. Plus we need the compo pick for West.

 

[dogwatch]

Was not aware. I hoping to see some posts on what sort of compo we should get. To my simple mind, it appears a similar contract to the Motlop contract, therefore, pick 19.

Except it'll be pushed back by all the compensation and priority picks the AFL hands out ahead of that. Could be as many as half a dozen of them so even a notional pick 19 could end up as pick 25-ish.

 

[Leviticus]

Carlton and the suns will get concession picks before our compo

Dahl will probably get us a comp 3 pick knowing our luck, mid 30s

**** it should be more. Shafted again by the AFL.

 

[Mattdougie]

I don’t see why anyone would be annoyed. Signing him for another 4 years would be bad list management. Plus we need the compo pick for West.

This West kid will want to be good

Giving a fair bit away for a player no one rates close to the top ten in a draft that isn’t great after the top 7-8

 

[Leviticus]

I don’t see why anyone would be annoyed. Signing him for another 4 years would be bad list management. Plus we need the compo pick for West.

Yeah, but it sounds like the compo we'll get won't even cover Khamis. You bastards, AFL.

 

[fronkalicious]

Factoring in a 4 pick slide for compensation picks, the following picks would get us points to cover a bid on West at pick 16:

46 (current 3rd)
47 (Roughead compensation)
63 (current 4th)
64 (current 4th).

Ending up with the following would be a superb result:

Pick 7
West
Player traded for Dahlhaus compensation pick

We can go into deficit for Khamis and potentially flip Adams for something as well.

Billings and martin would be the 2 Id focus on.

 

[footyfan000001]

This West kid will want to be good

Giving a fair bit away for a player no one rates close to the top ten in a draft that isn’t great after the top 7-8

He’s rated as a top 12 talent. I’ll take it along with our pick 7.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

Ok, so the salient point is he got a $2m contract.

Nope, average yearly salary. 500k over 4 is considered less than 600k over 2.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I’m so sad Luke has gone, but back the club, we seemed to have played better without him in the tail end of the season.

Ironically he was a Bombers supporter growing up, so sorry cats he is “not coming home”, he is just looking for more money.

All the best Luke, I loved your loyalty and love for the club, you will always be a premiership Bullgod.

 

[Mattdougie]

He’s rated as a top 12 talent. I’ll take it along with our pick 7.

By who?

Every draft I’ve seen he is 16-20 mate

In the end we roll the dice and will be great to see another father son.

 

[dogwatch]

It used to be a rare part of football.
Maybe I don't want to invest in players that may leave or be pushed out on a whim.

I'm guessing you aren't old enough to remember a generation of absolute stars we let go in the 70s and 80s (Dempsey, Quinlan, Round, Templeton ... it's a list frequently trotted out).

The dynamics and motivations for letting players like that go was slightly different but the end result was no different.

 

[Dogs Rule]

McLean, Daniel and Dunkley are not 26 year olds about to hit their prime, which is what I was referring to.
We have very few senior bodies and heads on our list.

Yes, but Dahlhaus is making the decision to go. The club isn’t always at fault here.

He could have accepted the offer on the table from the club, but clearly he hasn’t.

The club can’t be held to ransom. One player isn’t bigger than the club. List management is about balance and if a long term contact for Dahlhaus on $500k for four throws that out of whack, then the club makes the call.

 

[Leviticus]

I’m fine with losing Dahl. The guy is heart and soul but I can’t deal with his bomb kicks to no one and his missed set shots from 20m out anymore...

Now, now. We should not speak ill of the recently departed. But yeah, he learnt at the Barry Round school of kicking.

 

[Next Waiting]

Why on earth not?

The biggest anomaly of the Free Agency arrangements is that clubs get the player for nothing other than the salary they agree to pay him. The club that loses the player does however get a draft pick as compensation ... and this magically appears out of thin air! (In reality we know that it is a conjuring trick whereby all other clubs slip one place down the draft order. In effect the other 16 clubs pay the compo on behalf of the club that gets the so-called "free" agent.)

In the case of well-paid FAs the compensation can be a pick in the 20s in the ND, sometimes even in the top 5 (eg Lynch). Depending on your luck at the draft that could well be a 10-year 200-game player.

However another somewhat quirky feature of Free Agency is that if your club receives a FA in the same year that it loses a FA, you are unlikely to get any compensation at all (depends how much difference there is in their contracts and ages). On the face of it this is fair. However it provides a disincentive for clubs to go after FAs that year.

Now that Dahlhaus has walked, it seems to me that the tactical machinations around whether we go after FAs ourselves should be very much at the centre of our off-season strategy and the compensation issue (potentially losing a compo pick of around 20-28) is critical to those machinations.
It could be another Toby McLean for instance.

So why wouldn't we discuss that at length ... like we do everything else?

Excellent point DW. If we want a bigger fish, next year post west makes more sense. And then it might it be pick 14 - 18 we're talking about and not whatever it is this year if it requires a first rounder.
Meanwhile we can hit the draft and also upgrade rookies this year. Get a FS and Academy player too.
Consolidation of list and game style that could well bear fruit at the back end of 2019 with finals and maybe quality FA ( not that a FA might even be necessary).

 

[immortalmike]

I'm not sure whatever happened to looking after your veterans but considering how ruthless some of our supporters are I guess it's only natural the management would be similar.
I seriously am a dinosaur.

 

[TimlinOfficial]

Factoring in a 4 pick slide for compensation picks, the following picks would get us points to cover a bid on West at pick 16:

46 (current 3rd)
47 (Roughead compensation)
63 (current 4th)
64 (current 4th).

Ending up with the following would be a superb result:

Pick 7
West
Player traded for Dahlhaus compensation pick

We can go into deficit for Khamis and potentially flip Adams for something as well.

Billings and martin would be the 2 Id focus on.

A lot of people talking about Adams as though it's a foregone conclusion that he's leaving the club - is that really the case? Shame if so

 

[CaptainMurphy]

This West kid will want to be good

Giving a fair bit away for a player no one rates close to the top ten in a draft that isn’t great after the top 7-8

The draft is good in the first round. It's just particularly good in the top 7. After the first round it's just a normal draft.

Also we are getting a discount on him. We're not giving away a lot at all. A few late picks for a first rounder is a bargain. Stop looking for things to complain about.

 

[immortalmike]

Yes, but Dahlhaus is making the decision to go. The club isn’t always at fault here.

He could have accepted the offer on the table from the club, but clearly he hasn’t.

The club can’t be held to ransom. One player isn’t bigger than the club. List management is about balance and if a long term contact for Dahlhaus on $500k for four throws that out of whack, then the club makes the call.

What if the contract on the table was insulting and intended to be that way?
Sometimes the club is to blame.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Posters continue to twist themselves in knots justifying this but the truth is there is no justification. It's a poor decision and one that will hurt our culture, youth support, and on field. Losing Stringer took some of my passion, this is taking a fair bit more. I'll always be a member but I'll struggle to care.

I think you’ll care when we’re in the finals next or in a Grand Final or winning a flag.

Stringer went and it hurt, but I got over it and I’ll get over Dahlhaus. Time marches on and the next generation of Dogs step up.

He’s a UFA, so he can do as he pleases, that’s what people don’t seem to get, the player is in full control. Welcome to the wonderfully **** world of free agency.