List Mgmt. 2018 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

[Giant Strides]

Well, I'd be concerned that we double down on failure and give him another year (or worse, two).

This news confirms what I discussed in my two previous posts - his recruitment was a huge cost to GWS in the loss of other opportunities.

 

[Danny88]

Well, I'd be concerned that we double down on failure and give him another year (or worse, two).

This news confirms what I discussed in my two previous posts - his recruitment was a huge cost to GWS in the loss of other opportunities.

Hindsight is 2020 though. The guy has been a super start for a long time. If perhaps we had a better medical dept (or maybe just more luck) we would have seen that. Contextually he was supposed to be the cream

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

X

Hindsight is 2020 though. The guy has been op0a super start for a long time. If perhaps we had a better medical dept (or maybe just more luck) we would have seen that. Contextually he was supposed to be the cream

I think that's a fair comment. It's a common fallacy that a decision is wrong if the outcome is bad. The decision is about probabilities and you can make a brilliant decision and get a poor outcome. If that happens you've just got to accept it and not change what your doing.

It wasn't necessarily a good decision though and that's the rub.

All you can do is get someone with fresh eyes to go over the process and from the same position and knowledge at the time try and identify any flaws in the process or errors of judgement. Similar to what the club is doing with injury management. That might be a good idea.

 

[sydney_gws]

I'd like to add a bit more analysis to this topic. There was a thread on BF last year IIRC about SOS's drafting - started by a Carlton supporter who was proclaiming him as a drafting/trading God, and lots of other (including GWS) supporters who were less favourable. For myself, the answer is (like many things in life) somewhere in the middle. However, I think that later drafting (and trading too) has been less effective and poor at times.

The initial U17 selections (not SOS selections) were pretty good, with a 50% pass rate, which isn't too bad at that age. Cameron, Shiel, Treloar, Wilson, Bugg & Hombsch have ranged from above average to really good in the overall competition, and I think that only in Hombsch did GWS not recognise the correct level of talent. We had a couple of reasonable pickups in the undrafted selections (Kennedy, Mohr) and there were several OK zone selections (Hampton, Miles, Townsend, Bruce) although we gave 3 of 4 of these away for nothing (so perhaps didn't fully recognise their talent). Part of that probably came down to the surfeit of talent that GWS had from the 2011 draft with the range of selections we had. Notwithstanding, the problem with the start up of the new club is that the majority of initial talent came from the same year, which both regulates its peak achievement (poor talent year, lower club ceiling) and requires that the talent be whittled down over time to achieve the normal age distribution of an AFL club. The 2011 draft selections were pretty good - the only real failure was Sumner, and that is possibly largely injury related. Downie was probably heading towards a failure, but overtaken by his health-related retirement. Trading Tyson for Kelly and Adams for Shaw in subsequent years were good results to assist GWS's team development and redistribute age. Of the selections, probably only Coniglio & Greene are A grade stars, but Patton, WHE, Haynes, Smith & Adams are looking B or B+, and Buntine (if he can overcome injuries) & Tomlinson are useful and are C+ at least. Of the guys we overlooked, Wingard stated he wouldn't stay and in that first year such a disruptive influence would have been toxic. Lachie Neale is the other miss - but so did every other club several times. Others who played a lot of games like BEllis, Newnes, Hill, Yeo, Sutcliffe don't feature on my 'that was a big miss' list. The one we would have benefitted from (perhaps - if we could have used him amongst the other talent) was Tom Mitchell - who we tried to entice away from Sydney at the time. So I rate the start up selections based on the talent chosen versus that available as a solid A.

The 2012 draft was a poorer effort as SOS reached to fill holes - although arguably this is down to the lack of ability to trade in players to fill holes (i.e. players not wanting to come to Sydney and a new, lowly club). Wines, Macrae & Grundy are the obvious misses, while I maintain that Whitfield is an essential cog in GWS's team and certainly not a miss in my view. Strangely, the games played list (a measure to me of standing at a club) from this year is dominated by rookie promotions & father/son selections; of the drafted players the top 10 features 3 GWS selections (Whitfield, Corr & Plowman) - the last of which I don't think was too much of a mistake although perhaps a reach, but we undersold him in the later trade. Zac Williams was the value pick up. Wines for O'Rourke (understand the intent for an inside-outside type, but ultimately a massive failure) and Grundy instead of Jacksch (or Corr if you want the latest pick we had) would have made 2012 an A rather than a B- effort (although not in my view a 'Victorian conspiracy', just a failure of talent identification). Whitfield, Wines, Macrae, Corr, Grundy would have been the ideal selections for us - but that would have still created problems in that not all of Ward, Cogs, Shiel, Kelly, Scully, Whitfield, Wines, Macrae can really play in the same team!

2013 was actually pretty reasonable - no-one would have passed on Boyd as #1 pick at the time, while Kelly, McCarthy & Lobb were all fine selections where they were. Barrett a late academy selection was fine at the time, although Jed Lamb in the PSD would prove to be a failure. Of the missed players, 'the Bont' is the obvious one but purely a hindsight selection at #1, while Matt Crouch instead of McCarthy may have prevented some of our later headaches. I'd give that a solid B to B+. Lobb was good in 2016 & 2017, so his struggles in 2018 have been disappointing. Mumford and Shaw being traded in would be the kickstart of GWS's development into a finals team.

2014 would be SOS's last draft, and the one which GWS fans complain most about. However, the trade period was really good for us - we cleaned out deadwood in O'Rourke, Jacksch, Whiley, Frost, Giles (though I had a soft spot for him) and the ungrateful Boyd, bringing in the experienced Joel Patfull (who would prove to be an excellent short term pickup) and the former AA Griffen while landing an extra two early first round picks. The problem was misidentifying talent and wasting all five of our first and second round picks - all of whom left the club leaving just academy pick Finlayson by 2018. The problem was not completely talent related - Marchbank & Steele were solid talents but didn't want to be in Sydney for various reasons, while injury cruelled Pickett & Ahern. I'd also add that the guys from this year wore the brunt of the 2016 AFL decision to cut GWS's list size & TPP - they had yet to show their full talent but were on larger contracts to keep them until it could be realised, which became a millstone for GWS when the changed TPP conditions were mandated. Still, a poor outcome for GWS, but I'll admit I'm not convinced of the talent in the players from this year except for a few.

2015 saw a large batch of GWS Academy talents coming through in Hopper, Matt Kennedy, Himmelberg & Flynn and the club's need to continue its list size reduction to meet (the original) 2019 deadline for normal list size. I recall saying at the time that GWS needed to be careful about only taking academy kids that we needed (in terms of list size , balance and filling needs) rather than simply who was available, to ensure we kept our talent pool high. I don't have too much of an issue over who we moved on this year, except we would have preferred not to lose Treloar (but got decent trade value for him) and I thought that Plowman was undercompensated (through having to also move contracted players in Sumner, Lamb & Phillips) as was Bugg. Taking just the 4 draftees plus 2 cheap trade-ins (Simpson & Johnson) was/is fine in my view. In hindsight, getting two slower-paced mids in Kennedy & Hopper was perhaps a touch unbalanced, and I think we were as taken in by the overhype of the time as others. In hindsight, arguably keeping Bugg and not selecting Kennedy may have been better - Bugg being more versatile in being able to play back, forward and midfield. However, it's hard to tell whether we pushed Bugg out or he wanted to go home for more opportunity. The academy guys we didn't take (that people complain about in general) consisted of Cornell, Irvine, Coughlan and Tiziani - the last of whom we selected a year later and of the former two were selected elsewhere as rookies and subsequently cut; so we really didn't overlook any talent this year. To be honest, if we looked at Hopper as OK but not a star and needing more development and Kennedy & HH as second round talents (where I think they fit once the overhype is removed), then this was a solid draft for us.

In my opinion, 2016 was the year that GWS made its biggest mistakes. Partly this came from the AFL decision to reduce the list size and TPP in response to us making finals for the first time (how shortsightedly reactive). That decision, and the resulting squeeze on TPP, makes it really difficult to tell what trade outs occurred because of GWS talent management decisions, players wanting to go home, or purely pragmatic contract $ reductions. However, we cut 9 players and brought in 7 - 6 via draft and Deledio by trade. I think that turnover was too much, and undermined our depth, which is what is hurting us badly in 2018. We should be reasonable in our criticism, though, because losses such as WHE can be seen as trading away the bountiful 2011 age group for a later age group, and arguably WHE had not hit the heights that we thought he could. The 2014 crop bore the brunt of the AFL decision, particularly Ahern & Pickett through their injuries, while Steele and Marchbank perhaps were not fought for as hard as we otherwise might have due to the TPP situation. IMHO, the better scenario for GWS was a loss of say 5 (such as Palmer, McCarthy, McKenna, Marchbank, Pickett) and selecting just 3 in the national draft (Taranto, Setterfield and one of Perryman or Cumming or someone else) while getting de Boer in the rookie draft. And the biggest mistake of all was trading for Deledio. No offence to the man, but as I feared at the time, he was an incredibly poor pick up (doubly so at the price paid) with his injury prone body. I'd argue that he cost us retaining Dev Smith (who has been a massive loss up front and rotating through midfield this year) due to $ as well as another first round pick in the 2017 ND. In regards the overlooked GWS Academy talent, while Macreadie, Garthwaite, Mutch and Sam Fisher all ended up on other clubs' lists, I don't see that any would be GWS's saviour in our current circumstances; although you could argue Mutch instead on Perryman, Cumming or Tiziani might have been a better outcome (though I think that would be a hindsight call). Instead, the experienced players could have been our saviour - for example, keeping someone like Stewart would have negated the need for Keeffe (Stewart being able to play forward & second ruck, also releasing HH to the defence) and assisted us with HH & Patton so out of form this year. Again somewhat of a hindsight call given that you couldn't condemn Stewart for going to Essendon for a better chance at first grade, which he's grasped. WHE and Steele would similarly have gotten games through our current injury crisis in lieu of lesser talent such as Buckley, Reid & Lloyd.

I think it's too early to make a call on 2017's outcome, especially with guys like Bonar & Daniels having had injury disrupted first pre-seasons. However, I'd note the influence of the Deledio trade on 2017. Had he not been traded in, I think we could have retained Smith - negating the over-focus on small/medium forwards in the ND and rookie drafts. As well, we would have held an existing first round pick (#15 from Geelong) and our third round pick. So we could have gotten the guys that we did anyway, but would have been ahead in retaining an experienced player in Smith. The non selections of Academy kids Powell, Richards, Langlands and Myers or removed Academy kids like Brander and Spargo I don't see as having any bearing on this year; but time will tell in future.

So, while I agree that we needed and need to be pragmatic about academy kids, I'd argue that some of the non-selections prove exactly that the GWS recruiters have been (and yet they have copped flak from us on BF about not selecting the likes of Macreadie & Spargo, who were all overlooked for specific perceived flaws or list balance aspects). Perhaps we will ultimately be disappointed by Hopper and Setterfield (hard to tell with the latter due to his injuries), but most other clubs would have jumped at them where we matched for them. We were pragmatic at getting Taranto ahead of academy talent, and he looks pretty good. We got Bonar as a quick, big-bodied midfielder - exactly what is being asked for in the previous post - but he needs time to develop. Criticism of Shipley is unwarranted IMHO - while we probably could have got him as a rookie his selection at #64 is hardly a major misstep and when he's used in his primary inside mid position he may prove better than he showed in his initial two first grade games.

As I said, the 2016 trade & draft period is the biggest mistake from what I assess - largely IMHO attributable to the AFL decision on list size & TPP - and this has contributed to the lack of depth being seen in 2018; which has been exposed by the massive injury toll this year, but also last year's injury toll that restricted development in some of our junior players. I actually don't see the lack of SA draftees or lesser number of WA draftees as being a particular flaw in our list composition, although happy to discuss who anyone thinks would have been a better choice than an incumbent.

Think the deledio trade was bad, as is the Smith trade. We should have at least tried to get Shaun McKernan included, he at least had a red-hot go whilst playing, is better than O'Keefe or Dawson Simpson.

 

[dlanod]

Think the deledio trade was bad, as is the Smith trade. We should have at least tried to get Shaun McKernan included, he at least had a red-hot go whilst playing, is better than O'Keefe or Dawson Simpson.

Keeffe has a red hot go when in the team. He's just not very good.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Keeffe has a red hot go when in the team. He's just not very good.

He tries really hard but his mobility kills him. He looks like a cart horse trying to keep up with thoroughbreds.

 

[fridgeman]

I think the selections all come down to salary and what is available ideally we would have being able to keep either Kennedy or Smith but I think they both left for a combination of opportunities and money, I just hope they are being paid well and Smith has 6/7 years left so he should play in finals in that time and at the moment the Blues are still in a critical condition but some signs of life with Cripps and Curnow looking good it is still 2/3 years of them being competitive IMO
And interesting with Mumford retiring if he was contracted for 2018 and if he had to be paid out?

 

[dlanod]

I think it was pretty clear we couldn't pay Smith what he thought he was worth unless we wanted to let someone more highly rated like Lachie or Kelly go at some point.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I think the selections all come down to salary and what is available ideally we would have being able to keep either Kennedy or Smith but I think they both left for a combination of opportunities and money, I just hope they are being paid well and Smith has 6/7 years left so he should play in finals in that time and at the moment the Blues are still in a critical condition but some signs of life with Cripps and Curnow looking good it is still 2/3 years of them being competitive IMO
And interesting with Mumford retiring if he was contracted for 2018 and if he had to be paid out?

Matt Kennedy wasn't offered a contract so I think he had little choice. Leon mentioned that Wilson, Smith and Kennedy could all end up back at the club this year at the awards night. That might have meant we'd offer a rookie spot if we couldn't trade.

Maybe the assessment was we had sufficient depth in his position he was worth too much to carry under the cap in the circumstances.

Mummy was contracted for this year. These things seem to be shrouded in fog unnecessarily to me, but enough people whose views I respect have indicated that you can pay a player returning due to injury outside the cap. He definitely would have had to be paid.and fair enough to me.

I dont think there are many circumstances when a contract cannot be paid. Maybe with the AFL's agreement the player has breached their obligations under the contract. Given we kept paying Cam McCarthy after he walked out, presumably that would be murdering a teammate or armed robbery of the club cafe.

 

[dlanod]

Mummy was contracted for this year. These things seem to be shrouded in fog unnecessarily to me, but enough people whose views I respect have indicated that you can pay a player returning due to injury outside the cap. He definitely would have had to be paid.and fair enough to me.

I dont think there are many circumstances when a contract cannot be paid. Maybe with the AFL's agreement the player has breached their obligations under the contract. Given we kept paying Cam McCarthy after he walked out, presumably that would be murdering a teammate or armed robbery of the club cafe.

It is next to impossible to get a contract annulled without paying it to the player. There is a clause for "serious or repeated misconduct" but it's proven next to impossible to use.

Examples:

1. Nick Stevens got paid out outside of the cap using Carlton's injury cap when he retired as a result of injury.
2. Michael Voss and Joel Patfull got kept on their club's playing list because the club couldn't afford to pay out the player in the year of their retirement.
3. Andrew Lovett got paid despite being "delisted" as a result of rape allegations. St Kilda made noise about recovering his pay but never went through with it.
4. Cam McCarthy got paid despite returning home before the season started.
5. Brendan Fevola got a negotiated payout of about 80% of his remaining contract after being cut by Brisbane. From what I recall, I don't think Brisbane had a leg to stand on if Fev dug in, but both parties wanted to move on ASAP.
6. Mal Michael retired from Brisbane and then unretired to move to Essendon, but did not receive any termination payment for the remaining year on his contract for Brisbane.
7. Mitch Clark retired from Melbourne but did not receive any termination payment for his remaining year(s) on his contract.

From the CBA, 17(e)(ii) indicates clubs don't need to provide termination payouts to players who have retired (items 6 & 7) but don't provide many other exceptions (items 3, 4 and 5). Injury payments are covered under section 16.3 and especially 16.3(f) allow for payments for up to 30 games to be paid for terminated contracts, and there's no listed exception for retirements (items 1 and 2) - which is probably why you see retirements due to injury spike with one year left on a player's contract.

Edit: Here's a bit of info on the injury allowance: https://outline.com/b9E77d

I can't find a reference to it in the new CBA or AFL rules, so I'm not sure if it no longer exists or just exists separate to the CBA.

 

[cowgirl_99]

Talking of trades and draft picks... One the Giants haven't used yet in real terms...Two words = Aiden Bonar. Let the boy play. He's been outstanding in the NEAFL and showed plenty in AFLX Great build, plenty of height, can run and makes smart decisions with the football. What does he have to do to get a game?? Nothing to lose considering 4 losses in a row.

​

 

[Raymann]

I think it was pretty clear we couldn't pay Smith what he thought he was worth unless we wanted to let someone more highly rated like Lachie or Kelly go at some point.

Club was not willing to pay overs for someone who they considered would play forward pocket

 

[Danny88]

Talking of trades and draft picks... One the Giants haven't used yet in real terms...Two words = Aiden Bonar. Let the boy play. He's been outstanding in the NEAFL and showed plenty in AFLX Great build, plenty of height, can run and makes smart decisions with the football. What does he have to do to get a game?? Nothing to lose considering 4 losses in a row.

View attachment 504460​

He will get a go. Recent neafl report stated he needed more outside ball and time in f50 with he ball. I think he has hoops to jump through to get a gig

 

[Andre the Giant]

Unless there is a seismic change in the game it is pretty clear that big immobile players are the dinosaur of modern footy.

We unfortunately have a few players in this category and i think at season end will need to make some hard decisions.

The modern game relies on agility and accountability, we have guys with height and no agility which makes our forward line unbalanced.

That said our midfielders need a massive wake up call. They all wait for someone else to do the work and are far more active on Instagram then on the footy field.

There are very few blokes that are playing with consistency and effort.

Lachie Whitfield is a beacon and is playing with tremendous effort but where are his mates? Shiel gets tagged nearly every week, Cogs started the year on fire but his last month has been poor and Ward has really dropped off.

I reckon Hopper is trying very hard but he is really limited by a lack of agility and Perryman is still 18 months away. Kelly is not right, he probably needs an op but we can’t afford to put him away yet.

We definitely need to be very active traders this year. It’s a good draft so even if we can get a few early 2nd rounders to add to what we have I would be comfortable for us to move on some blokes. We should really look closely at WAFL and SANFL guys as well who are ready to go and won’t cost as much.

Our depth isn’t sufficient as we don’t get enough from our “A” graders who are really more like “B” graders consistency wise.

 

[Teeso]

Unless there is a seismic change in the game it is pretty clear that big immobile players are the dinosaur of modern footy.

We unfortunately have a few players in this category and i think at season end will need to make some hard decisions.

The modern game relies on agility and accountability, we have guys with height and no agility which makes our forward line unbalanced.

That said our midfielders need a massive wake up call. They all wait for someone else to do the work and are far more active on Instagram then on the footy field.

There are very few blokes that are playing with consistency and effort.

Lachie Whitfield is a beacon and is playing with tremendous effort but where are his mates? Shiel gets tagged nearly every week, Cogs started the year on fire but his last month has been poor and Ward has really dropped off.

I reckon Hopper is trying very hard but he is really limited by a lack of agility and Perryman is still 18 months away. Kelly is not right, he probably needs an op but we can’t afford to put him away yet.

We definitely need to be very active traders this year. It’s a good draft so even if we can get a few early 2nd rounders to add to what we have I would be comfortable for us to move on some blokes. We should really look closely at WAFL and SANFL guys as well who are ready to go and won’t cost as much.

Our depth isn’t sufficient as we don’t get enough from our “A” graders who are really more like “B” graders consistency wise.

Would we look to trade tomlinson, shiel or patton? Obviously unlikely to trade 3 big names in one period but each would hold considerable trade currency either in terms of draft picks or promising young players.

Tommo - Has endurance and flexibility but doesnt play any one position particularly well. No line-breaking pace, often gets run down with the ball. Questionable footy smarts at times.

Patton - Form-dependent player often lacking confidence. Marking when good is pretty good, but his jumping and running are big deficiencies. When not on his game, team can feel like it is playing with a man down. Questionable footy smarts (many occasions but the worst time for me was when he marked the ball in the prelim final last yr with Richmond and he passed the ball off 30m from goal and siren went).

Shiel - Agile, but now no longer uses his acceleration to break away from pack as much as he once did. For me, his downside is his inability to break tags, his poor disposals (a careless long bomb offender this year - but could be due to lack of class to distribute to on the outside) and his medical issues. His chronic shoulder problems probably mean he will always have trouble sticking tackles in fear he may exacerbate his issues. Despite having stayed loyal for so long, I do feel inside he might want to eventually return home. VIC teams will likely chase him hard looking for a bargain during free agency, so perhaps better to get the most trade-wise out of him whilst he still holds good value.

Could give us a chance to go for a mobile key tall (Ben King/Lukosius) with a high 1st rd pick trough trading, a speedy midfielder/forward (with our own 1st rd pick - Rankine/Caldwell?) as well as perhaps investing in a young ruck from another team (Preuss/Sean Darcy?). If we can get a genuine big-bodied but mobile ruckman, Lobb can go back forward (while the new forward we draft develops) and pinch hit as required.

 

[Land of the Giants]

Would we look to trade tomlinson, shiel or patton? Obviously unlikely to trade 3 big names in one period but each would hold considerable trade currency either in terms of draft picks or promising young players.

You've asked the question many wouldn't dare ask.

Patton and Tomlinson are definitely on the radar. We'll try hanging on to Shiel.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Would we look to trade tomlinson, shiel or patton? Obviously unlikely to trade 3 big names in one period but each would hold considerable trade currency either in terms of draft picks or promising young players.

Tommo - Has endurance and flexibility but doesnt play any one position particularly well. No line-breaking pace, often gets run down with the ball. Questionable footy smarts at times.

Patton - Form-dependent player often lacking confidence. Marking when good is pretty good, but his jumping and running are big deficiencies. When not on his game, team can feel like it is playing with a man down. Questionable footy smarts (many occasions but the worst time for me was when he marked the ball in the prelim final last yr with Richmond and he passed the ball off 30m from goal and siren went).

Shiel - Agile, but now no longer uses his acceleration to break away from pack as much as he once did. For me, his downside is his inability to break tags, his poor disposals (a careless long bomb offender this year - but could be due to lack of class to distribute to on the outside) and his medical issues. His chronic shoulder problems probably mean he will always have trouble sticking tackles in fear he may exacerbate his issues. Despite having stayed loyal for so long, I do feel inside he might want to eventually return home. VIC teams will likely chase him hard looking for a bargain during free agency, so perhaps better to get the most trade-wise out of him whilst he still holds good value.

Could give us a chance to go for a mobile key tall (Ben King/Lukosius) with a high 1st rd pick trough trading, a speedy midfielder/forward (with our own 1st rd pick - Rankine/Caldwell?) as well as perhaps investing in a young ruck from another team (Preuss/Sean Darcy?). If we can get a genuine big-bodied but mobile ruckman, Lobb can go back forward (while the new forward we draft develops) and pinch hit as required.

For mine the guys we have to strongly consider trading are:

Tomlinson
Patton
Perryman

Realistically we wouldn’t get much for them right now.

Guys we have to give some consideration to moving are:

Hopper
Finlayson

Hopper is a nice player but his lack of mobility make him quite limited. In the right team he could be a better player but our team needs more speed.

Love Finlayson but he is out of contract and would have currency. Don’t like robbing Peter to pay Paul but our hold on him could be tenuous.

Guys we cannot trade:
Shiel
Kelly
Coniglio
Whitfield
Lobb

Clubs will come for them even though not out of contract but they are not replaceable (even though Shiel’s hack kicking drives me mental). Lobb is more a forward than a ruck, move Patton on and let him be a forward that relief rucks. His marking is still elite.

Guys that need to come off the list:
Reid
Buckley
Keeffe

These are park players, not AFL standard. If we need cheap replacements get them from the WAFL/SANFL. They are out there.

RE the draft nobody will give up pick 1 so Lukosius is impossible to get although my scouting spies tell me attitudinally he could be a Jack Watts type. Rankine would be a more achievable target if he slips to mid first round and we can trade up. He has speed and skill and would compliment our team nicely. Oh no he’s from South Australia...oh no no no we can’t do that, they never settle. We need a good Vic metro boy, they never leave SYDNEY!!!

 

[Giant Strides]

Well, I would take a somewhat contrary view in regards 'heavy' trading. Firstly, I think trading out a lot of players in any year is the route to disaster. We have seen that in our own past - specifically 2016 - as well as clubs such as Gold Coast, who have ended up continually or repeatedly developing players but not getting near the top of the cycle. Sure, judicious trading is OK, but in areas where we have strength or redundancy at least. We saw last year that losing Wilson, Smith & (albeit through retirement) Mummy hurt us because of the lack of replacement options from the depth pool. Partly this is also about getting value - if we follow our past route of trading out for low return but paying premium prices for trade-ins (e.g. McCarthy vs Deledio) then we're frittering away our talent.

Secondly, if we see flaws in our players, then so will others, so they're not going to pay high trade value for them - especially in what's perceived as a highly talented year. Even last year, Saints alleged bid for Tommo was (supposedly) only a second round pick after he'd had probably his best year in first grade, so we can't expect an early first round pick this year. Patton's value last year - also on the back of his best year - would have been reasonable, but less this year unless he picks up in the second half. Still, I'd opine that Patton is more capable than he's shown this year, and Leon just needs to unlock how to get the best of his talent. While I love Tommo for what he's brought to GWS since 2012, I would perceive his role on field as one in which we have depth in guys like Finlayson (providing we re-sign him), Buntine and perhaps Taylor (none are exactly like-for-like, but then I'd argue Tommo has an ill-defined role in our backline).

I guess this is where some of the frustration from team selections creeps in - we've ignored or scantily tried some options such as ToJ, Cumming, Sproule, Bonar & Daniels in areas that we're hurting, while persisting with HH, Tommo for extended periods. We actually need to understand the level of potential on our current list before being too hasty about culling more guys.

So, looking at specific players, I'd probably not have too much of a problem keeping Simpson to be the NEAFL ruckman and assist in developing our junior mids - if we're confident that Lobb and Flynn are the future. As I've said elsewhere, Lobb played his best as third forward/relieving ruck, but hasn't really had a chance (due to his off-season injury & then early round injury in 2018) to establish himself - and I think there are other issues with our forward line. If Griffen, Deledio and Mohr retire this year, we need to replace them with our normal range of picks (noting we've lost our second round pick). So I actually don't think we can or should have a large additional trade-out of main list players. Keeffe I don't have in our future, but he was a cheap pickup and won't bring any return - so we'd have to replace him with a cheap pickup this year. Or do a rookie upgrade - perhaps Sproule - and use the rookie list for an overlooked WAFL/SANFL/VFL overager. Tommo is perhaps our main option to get a reasonable return, but doubt it would be much earlier than second round or late first round at best.

It's the rookie list where I think we need to be smarter and try more options. Mix of ex-academy kids who might develop with more time, ex-AFL guys discarded too early by their team (think MdB or Crameri types), or WAFL/SANFL kids. If Sproule moved up, Reid moved on and also JBuckley, DBuckley & Stein, there's definite room for our recruitment team to show that they can actually pick talent.

 

[Determinant]

For mine I think you are all looking at it arse backwards..
1. Trading out players won't improve the team
2. Players selected in the draft will typically take more than a year to begin to return on investment, assuming they stay.

If we want to improve the onfield performance next year we need better luck or management with injuries and we need to trade IN elite talent.
If trading in the talent requires us to assist other players "going home" than I have no doubt we would do it.

fwiw I believe Tommo is seen as a required player by the club, would only be traded if he asked to be.

Edit: Giant Strides post was made whilst I was typing mine, I largely agree with his commentary

 

[Andre the Giant]

Proposing 6 changes (3 of which are scraps) is hardly a rebuild.

No point keeping static blokes there for fun. What’s left of the window is shutting.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I'm with Determinant, with the proviso that we have little capacity to trade in. It seems pretty obvious the cap is seriously stretched. We could maybe trade players of similar value if it was advantageous to our list and the other clubs. Unlikely but maybe we could find another club to take picks and pay salary in a trade and gain advantage that way.

Our depth is at the point where we have to play last years DFA's in our 22 with some injuries anyway and we cant go further down the track if reducing depth to free up money for the top end.

Like it or not over the last few years the club had a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a list. The bed is made and we're lying in it. If we change direction now in midstream, it seems likely to me we'll end up doing a half-arsed job of maintaining the list.

It's not bad though, we targeted the money at the top end, the obvious risk was we could be in trouble with injuries by not prioritising depth, and it's happened.

I do worry about the teams ability to win when things aren't going well that wasn't a feature last year in similar circumstances. It's been a bad 4 weeks but the season is 22 rounds and the majority of the record of season 2018 isn't yet written.

 

[Danny88]

Jesus

We lose a few games and all of a sudden Patton is on the table! And shiel and hopper!

Ffs blokes pull ur head in. We win a couple and it’s all good

Davis mentioned the other day in an interview it’s worth remembering at 2-3 Melbourne were under the pump and getting trashed in the media.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Jesus

We lose a few games and all of a sudden Patton is on the table! And shiel and hopper!

Ffs blokes pull ur head in. We win a couple and it’s all good

Davis mentioned the other day in an interview it’s worth remembering at 2-3 Melbourne were under the pump and getting trashed in the media.

This is a forum correct? We can throw thoughts around.

Nobody at GWS is going to look at this and use it as a blueprint for the club, these are just ideas.

I think Tomlinson has some of the specs of a champion but for whatever reason we rarely see it. He was terrific in the Prelim last year and several of his games at the G have been A grade. That said he is pretty inconsistent, lacks agility and often lacks game smarts. He has trade value as someone would back themselves to unlock the key to him.

Patton has basically had his career wrecked by the two knees. He has the aggression and desire of a star, is generally a good kick for goal (although not so much this year) and is about as good a field kick for a bloke standing over 6ft5 that I’ve seen. I think sadly for him the game has evolved to a point his lack of agility is a major handicap. He can still have a nice career and can kick 30-40 goals but I think we can safely say he won’t be an A grader, and he is on pretty good money.

Perryman has some pure footballer qualities and instincts. He has had flashes where he has done some really important things but his body shape is a few years away. He lacks strength and is too slow. He can have a career but is an investment in time.

Guys like Hopper were mentioned because they have currency. He is a guy who may well just need some more coaching. Love the way he cracks in just wish he had a yard more pace.

Speed isn’t everything but it is a very important ingredient of the modern game. You can teach blokes to tackle but you can’t coach them to run faster. We need a reboot.

 

[Giant Strides]

It's a forum, so everyone can have their say. However, I'll certainly disagree with the extent to which you suggest we trade players. Hopper & Perryman have time on their side and scope to improve - speed isn't everything, and a balance in the players on the books in terms of their strengths (& weaknesses!) is good. Ward is purely in and under but lacks top speed; Cogs is a good in and under but has good breakaway speed; Shiel is a solid in and under player with better breakaway speed but tends to play less minutes & shanks some kicks; Kelly is fast, silky smooth with the ball and can play in and under but we are better when he's the transition player. I can live with Hopper and Perryman being slower if they can get the ball - yes they need to improve some, but to trade them and draft someone else is no guarantee that the next player is any better! Agree that the next players we draft need to have speed - but note that Bonar, Daniels, Shipley & Langdon were drafted with exactly that attribute! And IMHO getting rid of Hopper, Perryman, Patton, Finlayson, Tomlinson, Keeffe, Reid & Buckley on top of likely retirements is indeed too many would cause more of what we've seen this year in lack of depth (a lot of which in reality has come about with injuries this year to top players on the back of trading/retiring some important players at the end of 2017).

 

[fridgeman]

Open to suggestions but strongly disagree on some of the trades as the club has traded out so many players with games played for the club that the identity goes with them
I would be ok with one of HH or Tomlinson being traded due to the surplus of talls at the club
Sproule and Flynn need opportunities next year in the forward half
Buntine and Taylor the same in the back half
With Keefe, Simpson and Mohr I think one of them sticks around Andrew the second half of the year should decide
We absolutely need to keep Hopper and Perryman as they are the players needing more experience this year and Hopper has the body to play a crash and bash style and then Perryman can play the bench utility role similar to Reid
The club has seen enough players leave after 2/3 years any more and it will never have the depth required going forward
I would like Griffen and Deledio to play on next year but depends on how Griffen goes in the back half of the year and if Deledio has the desire
I think if they can get a pick in the 20s for HH/Tomlinson take it
At the moment we have our first and then the dockers second round and a couple of third round picks so I think keep the top 10 pick and try and move up the order with the others to try and get a high teens pick and then the rest on academy players