Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Scott Tracy]

Lobb is the best depth we've had for awhile. If anyone of JUH, Naughton, Darcy or English go down, he is straight back into the team. He can play all those roles. Much better compared to Bruce (post 2021), Shache and Sweet.
He is 31 and I doubt he will go to his 4th club unless he spends 80% of the Season in VFL.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Think English can be much better forward than Grundy. But then he's just holding Darcy out

I very much disagree with this. We tried playing him forward for large stretches in large parts of the latter part of the 2021 season (to try and play a role after Bruce went down).

R22 vs. Hawthorn: 0 goals, 10 disposals, 10 hitouts, 2 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
R23 vs. Port Adelaide: 2 goals, 1 hitout, 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50
EF vs. Essendon: 0 goals, 1 hitout, 15 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
SF vs. Brisbane: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 22 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 0 marks inside 50 (this was the game that Young was having a stinker rucking in the 1st half so we basically returned to rucking English for the second half, helping us win, Martin comes in the next week)
PF vs. Port: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 11 hitouts, 0 marks inside 50, 0 contested marks.
GF: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 12 hitouts 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50.

Granted he won a few frees but he wasn't doing anything at all as a key forward to influence the game. At all. From memory he actually took a couple of those marks inside 50 when he was actually playing his 35% game time in the ruck or whatever.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Darcy had 30% of CBAs against the Suns too, which is significantly higher (except for the Cats end of year game last year for Lobby) that any of our 2nd rucks have had for a long time. Maybe that's a product of the Suns having a 3rd gamer and Casboult in there but I'd love for the trend to continue and spike up even more to give Tim both a spell down forward and on the pine.

 

[adogsfan5]

If Tim leaves, would Sam be the #1 next year? Or would we need to go out and get another mature ager?

 

[Foxman98]

Think English can be much better forward than Grundy. But then he's just holding Darcy out

Being a better forward then Grundy isn't an achievement, Tim is not a very good forward

 

[_Cerberus_]

If Tim leaves, would Sam be the #1 next year? Or would we need to go out and get another mature ager?

Given rucks generally take a few years. As well as his injury history, experience and strength.

I reckon we will go for experienced cover regardless, or a potential starter. I still rate him as a better forward, who will be good as a relief/share ruck duties, than a true number one ruck, where we will be wasting his best talents. His hit outs to advantage numbers are still need big improving.

He isn't ready to ruck full time yet. Would hate to stunt his development if we get him injured playing ruck full time before he is physically ready.

He will be best as the Lobb role than the English role long term in my opinion. He looked more likely to take those hard pack marks than our other two tall players with 150 plus more games on him against the Suns.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

I dont understand the angst when it comes to Lobb and his place on the list. He's what he's always been a flawed, inconsistent tall who on occasion will go on a hot streak of games that makes you question everything you thought of him. The problem he and by extension the club now faces is that his career is running smack bang into a fast rising, generational unicorn who when fit shows why he will be the most dominant player on our list within 3 years. I suspect that the club has always seen Lobb as a relatively cheap bridge to a time when Darcy is fully ready to be unleashed upon the game. However that time is being so quickly compressed to a point where we may already be on the other side of the Lobb bridge.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

I’d much rather Lobb as back up on $500k a year than Sweet on $150k.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Still maintain that we should of gone for Grundy and they should of gone for Lobb.

Would fix our “English cant ruck” issue and would fix their “Lack of secondary ruck” issues. Both teams screwed up in that period.

Should have

 

[Unorth]

The other question is if Lobb is happy being depth and what was perhaps promised to him when brought over.

It doesn't bother me much. He was a gamble to try and fix up a glaring weakness last year to try and get a flag (lol), along with a generous deal to an old Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

33

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

. We maybe underestimated Darcy in the process, or at least how quickly he would come on.

As long as we don't go sunk cost and play Lobb just so it doesn't look bad (which we don't appear to be), he can be moved on relatively easily at the end of the year. Someone would be happy to take him. Or if Tim leaves he suddenly has a place.

As long as Darcy stays in and gets games if fit, I think that's most important. Yes the Lobb trade goes down as a dud but we didn't expect last season to go as terribly as it did.

Darcy is at least equally as good now with one of the highest ceilings in the comp (literally/metaphorically both). Play him and all is well.

 

[TiAn_]

Lobb’s fine, goal a game last year and hit his straps as finals approached. The issue was we weren’t in them.

We would have had about another 20 games of Buku as forward/ruck if we hadn’t made that trade.

 

[Dog 36]

I’d much rather Lobb as back up on $500k a year than Sweet on $150k.

The other side of this is would you rather pay Lobb $500k and English say $1.0M a year or do away with English and Ruck Lobb and Darcy

 

[Charlie Bucket]

The other side of this is would you rather pay Lobb $500k and English say $1.0M a year or do away with English and Ruck Lobb and Darcy

Nup. Lobb will be done in a couple of years leaving us with Darcy and Smith.

Need to capitalise on us having one of the best rucks in the comp and another who’s likely to become the best.

Unless English wants out, I wouldn’t trade him.

 

[Dog 36]

Nup. Lobb will be done in a couple of years leaving us with Darcy and Smith.

Need to capitalise on us having one of the best rucks in the comp and another who’s likely to become the best.

Unless English wants out, I wouldn’t trade him.

Agree but I ask what are you prepared to pay English ?

Don’t trade him yes but what are you prepared to pay him ?

At 1M he’s almost 8 times the worth of Sweet in output ? 2 times Lobb?

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Agree but I ask what are you prepared to pay English ?

Don’t trade him yes but what are you prepared to pay him ?

At 1M he’s almost 8 times the worth of Sweet in output ? 2 times Lobb?

On current form and uncertainty around his concussion issues, probably $800k. $900k at the very most.

He’ll get offers of $1mil elsewhere so 800k is about right.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Agree but I ask what are you prepared to pay English ?

Don’t trade him yes but what are you prepared to pay him ?

At 1M he’s almost 8 times the worth of Sweet in output ? 2 times Lobb?

By definition any player is worth infinitely more than a player not getting a game. So yes.

We could afford to keep Sweet. There's just no logic paying more money than the required minimum amount for a player that you'd give such a minute chance to pushing out another player on form.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

I very much disagree with this. We tried playing him forward for large stretches in large parts of the latter part of the 2021 season (to try and play a role after Bruce went down).

R22 vs. Hawthorn: 0 goals, 10 disposals, 10 hitouts, 2 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
R23 vs. Port Adelaide: 2 goals, 1 hitout, 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50
EF vs. Essendon: 0 goals, 1 hitout, 15 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
SF vs. Brisbane: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 22 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 0 marks inside 50 (this was the game that Young was having a stinker rucking in the 1st half so we basically returned to rucking English for the second half, helping us win, Martin comes in the next week)
PF vs. Port: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 11 hitouts, 0 marks inside 50, 0 contested marks.
GF: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 12 hitouts 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50.

Granted he won a few frees but he wasn't doing anything at all as a key forward to influence the game. At all. From memory he actually took a couple of those marks inside 50 when he was actually playing his 35% game time in the ruck or whatever.

Maybe right. Just feels like Tim would make a good 2nd ruck/KPF. But we already have Darcy and Lobb in that role anyway. Kinda odd really having options there, that being such a hard/unicorn role.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

On current form and uncertainty around his concussion issues, probably $800k. $900k at the very most.

He’ll get offers of $1mil elsewhere so 800k is about right.

I didn't really follow it but was Brashaw concussion retirement just excluded from their cap? Does that reduce the risk of getting stuck with a long contract and concussion?

 

[Anja_Nees]

Maybe right. Just feels like Tim would make a good 2nd ruck/KPF. But we already have Darcy and Lobb in that role anyway. Kinda odd really having options there, that being such a hard/unicorn role.

Tim went well early as a third tall forward in 2021. Kicked 9 in five games before getting injured and then we lost Martin.

I think Darcy offers more forward than him so as he develops it’ll be more Darcy forward and English ruck but if Darcy became a ruck beast English might go back there for a bit.

 

[Mojorisin]

I didn't really follow it but was Brashaw concussion retirement just excluded from their cap? Does that reduce the risk of getting stuck with a long contract and concussion?

It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.
So Paddy McCartin's contract is out of the cap but Bradshaw's was still in the cap, although they were trying to change that at the time.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the situation will give a better response.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

I didn't really follow it but was Brashaw concussion retirement just excluded from their cap? Does that reduce the risk of getting stuck with a long contract and concussion?

No sure. Have heard part of it is.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.
So Paddy McCartin's contract is out of the cap but Bradshaw's was still in the cap, although they were trying to change that at the time.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the situation will give a better response.

That sounds fair. But now that's established it will be pretty simple to find a doc that is prepared to say don't/can't play with multiple concussions.

What about other injuries that mean you physically can't play? Are they excluded from the cap if they force you to retire?

A request for a mental health exclusion would be an interesting one, eg Tom Boyd scenario. Think he just wore one for us and took less, the legend.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.
So Paddy McCartin's contract is out of the cap but Bradshaw's was still in the cap, although they were trying to change that at the time.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the situation will give a better response.

I don't think that's entirely right, because the retirement risk from previous concussions was already known by Melbourne when they re-signed him to his contract, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to exclude him from their cap as a result. The injury provisions explained to you and as outlined in the AFL's collective bargaining agreement are more or less for surprising and unforeseen injuries. Obviously they can partially exclude it but not entirely.

Otherwise you'd just sign injury-prove players to expensive contracts and retire them on the basis that because they're medically unfit to play (say with a year to go on their contract with an injury that rules them out of the year) so you shouldn't have to pay them, but can effectively operate above the cap. That isn't fair, nor is it the intention of the salary cap.

 

[Mojorisin]

I don't think that's entirely right, because the retirement risk from previous concussions was already known by Melbourne when they re-signed him to his contract, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to exclude him from their cap as a result. The injury provisions explained to you and as outlined in the AFL's collective bargaining agreement are more or less for surprising and unforeseen injuries. Obviously they can partially exclude it but not entirely.

Otherwise you'd just sign injury-prove players to expensive contracts and retire them on the basis that because they're medically unfit to play (say with a year to go on their contract with an injury that rules them out of the year) so you shouldn't have to pay them, but can effectively operate above the cap. That isn't fair, nor is it the intention of the salary cap.

But if that were the case then Sydney wouldn't have been able to have Paddy taken off their books before he signed with them he had already retired once due to concussion.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

But if that were the case then Sydney wouldn't have been able to have Paddy taken off their books before he signed with them he had already retired once due to concussion.

Think it's different for single-year and multi-year contracts. McCartin was only ever contracted for one additional year at the end of his season which he was retired in.