Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 3 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Doggies_13]

Two trades for mature players and three draftees is what managed last year. Can see the same again this year.

I don’t mind if we make more trades, I’m happy to see us use next years first rounder to get a best 22 player. I’d like us to look at some delisted free agents if they can play a role and offer us an upgrade on our current depth and more than happy to take JUH, Raak and Ewan.

I don’t even mind trading schache if it’s for a player but all the talk of trading picks and players out to get all these later picks makes no sense. Especially when it means keeping guys like gowers. Our currently uncontracted players list is a list of guys who are not up to it or cooked with a few exceptions which are obvious and that means we have no need to trade contracted players unless they want out.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Haha I doubt any club would be interested in him

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Our injury history gives a sh*t, we constantly have our team relying on our 30th player and we are already very young. Let’s go with the suggestions on here atm let’s say we move on Richards schache Lloyd who are all contracted and our first this year, plus suckling and Dickson retire and we delist Lynch, Greene and Trengove. We bring in Stephenson and Phillips.

So we go to the draft with 6 list spots and the picks consist of 2x second rounders 3 x third rounders and a fourth rounder. JUH gets bid on early as expected and there is a bid on Raak, we end up 3 picks at the end of the draft and get late draft pick 3 kids.

Whilst Stephenson, Phillips and JUH are upgrades on schache, Lloyd and Richards, we then as depth still have gowers, Roarke, Hayes, Porter, lachie younG. Who are all worse players than Trengove, schache, Richards, Lloyd. Also less experienced, plus 6 new draftees.

We should be getting rid of the deadwood like gowers, Hayes, Porter, Lynch, lachie young etc. Keeping our contracted guys who have scope to improve. Using next years first to bring in best 22 players and keeping a better position in this years draft to get just the 3 players we need. Get some better depth players that come cheap that are an upgrade on our current depth.

I don’t care if we have pick 10 and it gets chewed up on JUH, he is rated pick one if we use pick 10 who cares. Also next year worrying about we have the west twins do we know they are any good? Do we know the father son won’t be changed like the academy bidding where first round is free from bids? We have so much talent under 23 yet we want to hit the draft hard every year rather than get older I don’t get it

I’m a bit thick when it comes to list managment so don’t follow that well.

Aren’t we dropping list sizes? Why do we need to bring in 6 draftees?

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Haha I doubt any club would be interested in him

Crawfords a clown. Wouldn’t take anything he says seriously.

 

[weltschmerz]

I’m a bit thick when it comes to list managment so don’t follow that well.

Aren’t we dropping list sizes? Why do we need to bring in 6 draftees?

If we bring in six mid-range draft picks to match the bid on Jamarra, we have to have six open list spots. So we're either drafting with those, or getting people in the pre-season draft.

 

[Philthy1]

I’m a bit thick when it comes to list managment so don’t follow that well.

Aren’t we dropping list sizes? Why do we need to bring in 6 draftees?

No list sizes are not changing for next year, it will be the year after. Too late to change them for next year.

 

[Doggies_13]

Dickson
Trenners
Suckers
Gowers
Porter
Schache
Lynch

There’s 7 there. Trade our first for established player and pick. Dump Greene, redraft as rookie. Take JUH and Raak at draft.

Looks pretty good to me.

But who are the other 5 players coming on to the senior list to replace those 7 guys other than JUH and Raak? And how many picks are we taking to the draft if we trade our first?

Personally I would let go of:
Dickson - retired
Suckling - retired
Gowers - delisted
Lynch - delisted
Porter - delisted
Greene - delisted (doesn’t seem to be in contention to play)
Trengove - delisted (same not in contention)
Trade next years first for a Best 22 player

Draft JUH, Raak and Ewan. Maybe 1 more pick at most
Traded in best 22 player
Looking at a pressure small forward that’s cheap (lonie, Bedford, Turner)
Look at Isaac smith as a free agent
trade for o’halloran from GWS

If we have the option of trading a contracted player such as schache because they want out then I’m all for that but it must be for a player coming back the other way not just extra picks.

 

[Philthy1]

Haha I doubt any club would be interested in him

Crawford is delusional.

 

[weltschmerz]

If we end up with extra picks at the end of the draft after bid matching, I think we'd do well to leave an open list spot or two, invite some mature agers to train with us over the summer, and sign the best fit before the season starts.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

If we bring in six mid-range draft picks to match the bid on Jamarra, we have to have six open list spots. So we're either drafting with those, or getting people in the pre-season draft.

Will it take that many picks to get JUH and Raak? Would be ok to bring in a couple of rookies if need be, even 4 rookies. They aren’t going to cause the age demographic headaches Doggies 13 is talking about.

The only road block to the scenario where we can use our first for an established player is our ability to cut the amount of players we need. That’s where I see it falling over as it sounds like it’ll need to more than the 7 I thought it would.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

But who are the other 5 players coming on to the senior list to replace those 7 guys other than JUH and Raak? And how many picks are we taking to the draft if we trade our first?

Personally I would let go of:
Dickson - retired
Suckling - retired
Gowers - delisted
Lynch - delisted
Porter - delisted
Greene - delisted (doesn’t seem to be in contention to play)
Trengove - delisted (same not in contention)
Trade next years first for a Best 22 player

Draft JUH, Raak and Ewan. Maybe 1 more pick at most
Traded in best 22 player
Looking at a pressure small forward that’s cheap (lonie, Bedford, Turner)
Look at Isaac smith as a free agent
trade for o’halloran from GWS

If we have the option of trading a contracted player such as schache because they want out then I’m all for that but it must be for a player coming back the other way not just extra picks.

Have list sizes already been determined? I thought the discussions were still going.

I wouldn’t be too unhappy using next years first for a player,I just want us to take full advantage of having access to JUH. Which is using the pick elsewhere.

 

[Doggies_13]

Will it take that many picks to get JUH and Raak? Would be ok to bring in a couple of rookies if need be, even 4 rookies. They aren’t going to cause the age demographic headaches Doggies 13 is talking about.

The only road block to the scenario where we can use our first for an established player is our ability to cut the amount of players we need. That’s where I see it falling over as it sounds like it’ll need to more than the 7 I thought it would.

The picks you take into the national draft do not include rookie list picks. Taking 4 rookies wouldn’t make any difference to needing to draft 6 players.

I may be wrong but also I believe any rookie upgrade picks can’t be used to match a bid but could be wrong.

If we trade our first we probably need 3 early to mid second rounders to match a bid for JUH and even that may not be enough.

 

[weltschmerz]

Will it take that many picks to get JUH and Raak?

Yeah, if we trade of our first rounder for a player. It'd take about 2000 points to match Jamarra, assuming pick 2. We don't have a second round pick this year, and if we don't have a first rounder either, we're paying with a couple of third rounders and whatever we can scrape up through trading out fringe players. Jamarra will cost about four late round 2/round 3 picks.

 

[Doggies_13]

Have list sizes already been determined? I thought the discussions were still going.

I wouldn’t be too unhappy using next years first for a player,I just want us to take full advantage of having access to JUH. Which is using the pick elsewhere.

As far as I know no decision on list sizes has been made.

I understand why people like yourself want to take advantage of getting rid of our first and getting JUH but the side effect of that is that we need to move more players on, bring in more picks to be able to match a bid and therefore have to draft more players at the national draft or in the preseason draft

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Yeah, fair enough. It’s incredibly difficult to trade our first without causing a cluster * list management period post season? Got it.

If we went ahead with it anyway, whether it be draft or rookie players, I wouldn’t be too fused having an extra few 18yr olds around if it meant our on field 22-28 were strengthened considerably.

Powers been pretty good so far, let’s see what he can wrangle up come trade time.

 

[Ash1337]

As far as I know no decision on list sizes has been made.

I understand why people like yourself want to take advantage of getting rid of our first and getting JUH but the side effect of that is that we need to move more players on, bring in more picks to be able to match a bid and therefore have to draft more players at the national draft or in the preseason draft

From what was reported. Clubs are happy to go with 40 + 2. So probably delist/retire trade atleast 7 and upgrade or delist 2 rookies.

 

[flipper83]

With cuts to assistant coaches for next year we should be looking at players like Isaac Smith who can help with some of the coaching load as well as being mature heads the field.

 

[BEaston]

For all those who want us to trade our first out and trade contracted players out. Are you also happy to keep players like gowers, Hayes, Porter etc, and give another year to guys like Dickson and suckling? or draft multiple kids at the end of the draft?

We do not know list sizes but a couple of things are certain, how many picks we take to the draft there MUST be the corresponding amount of list posts available. So if we take 6 picks to be able to match bids for JUH, Raak and McPherson then we better be happy drafting 3 players basically at the end of the draft and getting younger as a list again.

We have a plethora of players that aren’t going to improve us, aren’t up to it or are cooked. Most of those are out of contract and can be moved on but if we want to trade out picks and try to play games with draft picks and get rid of contracted players then those blokes will be staying or we will be drafting even more kids.

We should be trading next years first for players, keeping contracted players and getting mature players into the club not keeping dead wood and bringing in a bunch of kids again.

It’s strange that the people generally using us being too young as a list as an excuse for poor performances are the same that want us to get younger. Is that so they always have an excuse for a poor performance?

Really? Are you keeping track of individual posters and their opinions? I'm not sure about that... but maybe you're right.

Poor performance is subjective, so first you assume people agree with your assessment that we've been poor. As someone on here that has highlighted the age profile of our list in comparison with performance, I'm actually fairly happy with our performances and don't see them as poor. I would guess there's others in the same boat. We're looking good to make finals 2 years running, with a young list and fielding a younger team than the oppo most weeks. You can say the age thing is making excuses if you like, I would say it's looking at context but it's all subjective really.

As someone that thinks that way, I agree with your premise on the list mngt strategy. I don't want us getting younger so I would take exception to your statement that those highlighting our list age also want to get younger. I'm sure there's others in that boat too.

I agree with you that we shouldn't be losing contracted players and we don't want to be taking on excess draftees at the back of the draft. If the club wanted to open up list spots for the points we have some players that are pretty good candidates to move from the rookie list to the main list. This means we can open the spots while not making our list too young. This would help as well if the rookie list is reduced to two. Roarke Smith and/or Gardner would be OK to move over, both players having spent many years in the system now with some games under their belt.

With the rules still up in the air it's hard to figure out or develop a strategy at this point but to me Gowers, Porter, Dickson, Lynch are clear cuts. Suckling and Trengove probably go also. I would definitely be keeping Jong and Duryea and would prefer to keep Greene, Cavarra, Hayes (1 yr due to poor wing depth) but can see clear arguments for cutting those 3 too if required due to the list sizes reducing. It depends on whether the rule that 3 players must be taken in the draft applies to next year. I would re-rookie Young. Looks like Khamis as Cat-B could be re-rookied as well with no hit to the list cap.

So I think we'd end up with around 8 or 9 off the main list depending on rule changes. If list sizes have to come down to 38+2 then that gives us 4 or 5 spots to play with. Could get 3 draftees then top up the remaining with upgrades from our rookie list.

WRT trading, I agree with you that I reckon our 1st this year should be kept but future picks should be used if we're upgrading the best 22. I also agree with you that we'd only trade contracted players if a player comes back to us. Definitely happy with those strategies.

 

[The wily weagle]

Pardon the intrusion

I almost fell off my chair today when i heard Dale Morris had been let go by the club. One of the good guys in the sport and from all accounts, a good football brain to boot. Of all the people the club could have cut, he would have struck me as the last guy to let go

 

[dogz]

Schache is still only 23...
Improved every year at the dogs until this year when Bevo didn’t like to play him.
Bruce isn’t really that much better apart from more body mass and a worse kick

I hope people enjoy the experience of JUH playing and developing.... I’m concerned people are expecting too much for a first year player in 2021

 

[Mattdougie]

Pardon the intrusion

I almost fell off my chair today when i heard Dale Morris had been let go by the club. One of the good guys in the sport and from all accounts, a good football brain to boot. Of all the people the club could have cut, he would have struck me as the last guy to let go

Most of us feel the same but Bev has his boys and the rest miss out

 

[Philthy1]

Schache is still only 23...
Improved every year at the dogs until this year when Bevo didn’t like to play him.
Bruce isn’t really that much better apart from more body mass and a worse kick

I hope people enjoy the experience of JUH playing and developing.... I’m concerned people are expecting too much for a first year player in 2021

I think Schache's issue is that he is 200cm yet plays like a flanker. Struggles with contested marking and body contact, but is too tall to be a flanker when the ball is on the ground. Beautiful kick tho.

 

[Doggies_13]

Really? Are you keeping track of individual posters and their opinions? I'm not sure about that... but maybe you're right.

Poor performance is subjective, so first you assume people agree with your assessment that we've been poor. As someone on here that has highlighted the age profile of our list in comparison with performance, I'm actually fairly happy with our performances and don't see them as poor. I would guess there's others in the same boat. We're looking good to make finals 2 years running, with a young list and fielding a younger team than the oppo most weeks. You can say the age thing is making excuses if you like, I would say it's looking at context but it's all subjective really.

As someone that thinks that way, I agree with your premise on the list mngt strategy. I don't want us getting younger so I would take exception to your statement that those highlighting our list age also want to get younger. I'm sure there's others in that boat too.

I agree with you that we shouldn't be losing contracted players and we don't want to be taking on excess draftees at the back of the draft. If the club wanted to open up list spots for the points we have some players that are pretty good candidates to move from the rookie list to the main list. This means we can open the spots while not making our list too young. This would help as well if the rookie list is reduced to two. Roarke Smith and/or Gardner would be OK to move over, both players having spent many years in the system now with some games under their belt.

With the rules still up in the air it's hard to figure out or develop a strategy at this point but to me Gowers, Porter, Dickson, Lynch are clear cuts. Suckling and Trengove probably go also. I would definitely be keeping Jong and Duryea and would prefer to keep Greene, Cavarra, Hayes (1 yr due to poor wing depth) but can see clear arguments for cutting those 3 too if required due to the list sizes reducing. It depends on whether the rule that 3 players must be taken in the draft applies to next year. I would re-rookie Young. Looks like Khamis as Cat-B could be re-rookied as well with no hit to the list cap.

So I think we'd end up with around 8 or 9 off the main list depending on rule changes. If list sizes have to come down to 38+2 then that gives us 4 or 5 spots to play with. Could get 3 draftees then top up the remaining with upgrades from our rookie list.

WRT trading, I agree with you that I reckon our 1st this year should be kept but future picks should be used if we're upgrading the best 22. I also agree with you that we'd only trade contracted players if a player comes back to us. Definitely happy with those strategies.

Firstly never said every poster wants to trade our first and trade contracted players merely posed the question of how they fix the consequences of doing so.

I never said we have been poor, I also never all posters who want to trade our first and contracted players also use the we are a young team excuse it’s just that some seem to be the same. I said it seemed many of the poster want to go down a path where we likely end up with a younger list are the same who use list age as a reason when we put in poor performances (that’s doesn’t mean a poor season) (Collingwood, Saints, blues, Richmond were all poor performances) young teams are up and down is a common argument made to justify such performances and there is probably some truth to the lack of experience costing us games but that should make us want to get older.

I’m not sure picks assigned to rookie list upgrades can be used to match bids.

My post was more aimed at those suggesting we trade players such as schache Richards and Lloyd for picks, trade our first rounder this year and just take a heap of picks to the draft. More wondered whether they realised the consequence of such a strategy on our list age, list quality and chances of matching a bid for JUH

 

[Doggies_13]

Just for clarification if JUH is bid on at pick 2 it requires we have 2017 points to match the bid. If we traded our first for a player our remaining picks would be: 38, 47 and a fifth rounder.

Those picks equal 781 points. So we would need the equivalent of pick 13 to match a bid.

Keeping our first rounder which is currently pick 10 or splitting It for 2 second rounders is the better option unless we want to go into massive points deficit which basically wipes out our first next year anyway.

 

[Mojorisin]

Just for clarification if JUH is bid on at pick 2 it requires we have 2017 points to match the bid. If we traded our first for a player our remaining picks would be: 38, 47 and a fifth rounder.

Those picks equal 781 points. So we would need the equivalent of pick 13 to match a bid.

Keeping our first rounder which is currently pick 10 or splitting It for 2 second rounders is the better option unless we want to go into massive points deficit which basically wipes out our first next year anyway.

I'd be looking at a trade to bring in points and a player for the first pick so for example as one spoken about recently.
Stephenson + a second for our first and future third.