Traded #42: Massimoe D'Ambrosioe - Thank you for your service

[TheFrenchCut]

His kicking is good but not to the level often spoken about. Across 15m-35m it's superb, but struggles beyond that. He's certainly not a Daniel Rich

10

Daniel Rich

Age

33

Ht

183cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

430.3

5star

D

14.9

4star

K

13.1

5star

HB

1.8

1star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

MG

384.3

5star

D

16.2

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

5.8

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

5.2

5star

or Hurn level kick.

I think he should have been given more chances considering who we played instead; but ultimately as a defender he has always looked like a midfielder who has suddenly been swung back. Never seemed to have any clue.

 

[ydc55]

The thing that bothers me a little about Massimo is he has had one preseason at the club.
He would be in the top 5 kicks at the club and offering him one year puts little faith in our own ability to develop players and make them better in areas they are deficient.
Scott said this would be a massive emphasis at our club moving forward.
lastly I took my son to trading and Massimo was by far one of the best and popular players with the kids.
i just think he showed enough to offer two years on what would be fairly low coin.

 

[MiguelM]

The thing that bothers me a little about Massimo is he has had one preseason at the club.
He would be in the top 5 kicks at the club and offering him one year puts little faith in our own ability to develop players and make them better in areas they are deficient.
Scott said this would be a massive emphasis at our club moving forward.
lastly I took my son to trading and Massimo was by far one of the best and popular players with the kids.
i just think he showed enough to offer two years on what would be fairly low coin.

For me, I look at it slightly different.

He is a player that has lots of deficiencies apart from his kicking who at times didn't set the world on fire in the VFL. I like it that the club offered 1 year, he hasn't earned 2, plus, we have no idea what triggers were offered.

Finally we are not gifting extra years to players because they are "good around the club". For too long fringe players were too comfortable IMO and shorter contracts put the onus of improvement on the player a little more, makes for a hungrier list.

 

[Lore]

The thing that bothers me a little about Massimo is he has had one preseason at the club.
He would be in the top 5 kicks at the club and offering him one year puts little faith in our own ability to develop players and make them better in areas they are deficient.
Scott said this would be a massive emphasis at our club moving forward.
lastly I took my son to trading and Massimo was by far one of the best and popular players with the kids.
i just think he showed enough to offer two years on what would be fairly low coin.

I think one year extensions are standard for the rookie list, if we gave him longer we would be committing to upgrading him in 2025

 

[BrunoV]

The thing that bothers me a little about Massimo is he has had one preseason at the club.
He would be in the top 5 kicks at the club and offering him one year puts little faith in our own ability to develop players and make them better in areas they are deficient.
Scott said this would be a massive emphasis at our club moving forward.
lastly I took my son to trading and Massimo was by far one of the best and popular players with the kids.
i just think he showed enough to offer two years on what would be fairly low coin.

Re the little faith developing.

I started following the VFL side in 2012.

I can barely think of 1 small or medium player we have developed in the VFL side for an extended period. A rough diamond, because he was express pace and had good skills or an endurance animal and hard ball gun or a tricky small forward who had limitations, who was cut and polished over time. The one player is probably Fantasia.

Almost all development happens in the AFL team.

There are Gleeson and Ridley who were third talls, basically talls. Ridley barely developed anyway. He came into the side a defensively poor intercept defender and played as a key defender out of necessity in the AFL side.

Redman spent half a season at half back and then got serious injuries in 2018 and 2019 playing AFL. That's why he hasn't played a lot, not because he did an extensive apprenticeship.

We tried to develop Langford as an inside midfielder and that didn't work. He then got shifted to the wing for the 2019 or 2020 season.

We have spent a lot of time on a lot of players we never gave an opportunity to. We seem to just be cutting the same players more aggressively now to replace them with the next group to be cut.

The issue is always dismissed because 'he was x pick later than the second round, it doesn't matter'.

Problem is, if we only use late picks to take the express pace half back (Dalgleish), the sublime kick (Massimo), the meat axe midfielder (Hibberd), a hard ball all rounder (Mynott), the tricky winger/half back with speed (Long) or the meat axe half forward to add some realy 2000 era / Barnard like aggression (Voss), a pure athlete (Jok) and we keep cutting the players the side will never have these characteristics. It doesn't have these characteristics to anywhere near the degree required. It is a huge problem.

It is clear that recruiting has been a problem. There has not been enough thought put into characteristics that can be moulded into an AFL player which compliment the side. Taking Cahill and Lachlan Johson, small slow players, is the high point in this regard. Purely wasted selections. There has not been enough focus on substance early in drafts.

I don't believe the inability to develop players bears anywhere near the level of responsibility attributed to it.

We have developed a number of high quality talls during this time, even moreso if we stretch the period back to 2007. There has been no consistent theme in this regard. Many different senior, assistant and development coaches. As I see it, we can develop tall players because it is a simple process even if it takes time. You know who will make it because of the commitment. It's a forced process that happens at set times which is why groups of talls tend to come through together because they tend to get recruited in clumps. It's self-fulfilling. Almost all of this is.

This discussion about D'Ambrosio highlights the issue as I see it. He's not sound defensively. That's true but why can other side play players who are not sound defensively take advantage of kicking ability or pace? We can't 'develop' these players because we can't play them. We can't play them because at no point in the last 20 years have we had a balanced side that is suited to playing good football.

 

[owen87]

This

This is the type of deal that most other clubs would get done on day 1 or day 2 of trade period for a token 4th round selection.

Knowing us, we're asking for pick 30 from Hawforn

We don't really need to melt about a scenario that hasn't happened though, do we?

 

[owen87]

For me, I look at it slightly different.

He is a player that has lots of deficiencies apart from his kicking who at times didn't set the world on fire in the VFL. I like it that the club offered 1 year, he hasn't earned 2, plus, we have no idea what triggers were offered.

Finally we are not gifting extra years to players because they are "good around the club". For too long fringe players were too comfortable IMO and shorter contracts put the onus of improvement on the player a little more, makes for a hungrier list.

People wanted us to stop holding on to fringe players for too long, the club starts offering 1 year contracts to fringe players in order to avoid being locked in to holding them too long, people get upset.

 

[DERO]

Re the little faith developing.

I started following the VFL side in 2012.

I can barely think of 1 small or medium player we have developed in the VFL side for an extended period. A rough diamond, because he was express pace and had good skills or an endurance animal and hard ball gun or a tricky small forward who had limitations, who was cut and polished over time. The one player is probably Fantasia.

Almost all development happens in the AFL team.

There are Gleeson and Ridley who were third talls, basically talls. Ridley barely developed anyway. He came into the side a defensively poor intercept defender and played as a key defender out of necessity in the AFL side.

Redman spent half a season at half back and then got serious injuries in 2018 and 2019 playing AFL. That's why he hasn't played a lot, not because he did an extensive apprenticeship.

We tried to develop Langford as an inside midfielder and that didn't work. He then got shifted to the wing for the 2019 or 2020 season.

We have spent a lot of time on a lot of players we never gave an opportunity to. We seem to just be cutting the same players more aggressively now to replace them with the next group to be cut.

The issue is always dismissed because 'he was x pick later than the second round, it doesn't matter'.

Problem is, if we only use late picks to take the express pace half back (Dalgleish), the sublime kick (Massimo), the meat axe midfielder (Hibberd), a hard ball all rounder (Mynott), the tricky winger/half back with speed (Long) or the meat axe half forward to add some realy 2000 era / Barnard like aggression (Voss), a pure athlete (Jok) and we keep cutting the players the side will never have these characteristics. It doesn't have these characteristics to anywhere near the degree required. It is a huge problem.

It is clear that recruiting has been a problem. There has not been enough thought put into characteristics that can be moulded into an AFL player which compliment the side. Taking Cahill and Lachlan Johson, small slow players, is the high point in this regard. Purely wasted selections. There has not been enough focus on substance early in drafts.

I don't believe the inability to develop players bears anywhere near the level of responsibility attributed to it.

We have developed a number of high quality talls during this time, even moreso if we stretch the period back to 2007. There has been no consistent theme in this regard. Many different senior, assistant and development coaches. As I see it, we can develop tall players because it is a simple process even if it takes time. You know who will make it because of the commitment. It's a forced process that happens at set times which is why groups of talls tend to come through together because they tend to get recruited in clumps. It's self-fulfilling. Almost all of this is.

This discussion about D'Ambrosio highlights the issue as I see it. He's not sound defensively. That's true but why can other side play players who are not sound defensively take advantage of kicking ability or pace? We can't 'develop' these players because we can't play them. We can't play them because at no point in the last 20 years have we had a balanced side that is suited to playing good football.

I don’t see the point of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. If Massimo goes on to have a solid career then we got it wrong, if not, it is good list management yeah?

 

[ant555]

Re the little faith developing.

I started following the VFL side in 2012.

I can barely think of 1 small or medium player we have developed in the VFL side for an extended period. A rough diamond, because he was express pace and had good skills or an endurance animal and hard ball gun or a tricky small forward who had limitations, who was cut and polished over time. The one player is probably Fantasia.

Almost all development happens in the AFL team.

There are Gleeson and Ridley who were third talls, basically talls. Ridley barely developed anyway. He came into the side a defensively poor intercept defender and played as a key defender out of necessity in the AFL side.

Redman spent half a season at half back and then got serious injuries in 2018 and 2019 playing AFL. That's why he hasn't played a lot, not because he did an extensive apprenticeship.

We tried to develop Langford as an inside midfielder and that didn't work. He then got shifted to the wing for the 2019 or 2020 season.

We have spent a lot of time on a lot of players we never gave an opportunity to. We seem to just be cutting the same players more aggressively now to replace them with the next group to be cut.

The issue is always dismissed because 'he was x pick later than the second round, it doesn't matter'.

Problem is, if we only use late picks to take the express pace half back (Dalgleish), the sublime kick (Massimo), the meat axe midfielder (Hibberd), a hard ball all rounder (Mynott), the tricky winger/half back with speed (Long) or the meat axe half forward to add some realy 2000 era / Barnard like aggression (Voss), a pure athlete (Jok) and we keep cutting the players the side will never have these characteristics. It doesn't have these characteristics to anywhere near the degree required. It is a huge problem.

It is clear that recruiting has been a problem. There has not been enough thought put into characteristics that can be moulded into an AFL player which compliment the side. Taking Cahill and Lachlan Johson, small slow players, is the high point in this regard. Purely wasted selections. There has not been enough focus on substance early in drafts.

I don't believe the inability to develop players bears anywhere near the level of responsibility attributed to it.

We have developed a number of high quality talls during this time, even moreso if we stretch the period back to 2007. There has been no consistent theme in this regard. Many different senior, assistant and development coaches. As I see it, we can develop tall players because it is a simple process even if it takes time. You know who will make it because of the commitment. It's a forced process that happens at set times which is why groups of talls tend to come through together because they tend to get recruited in clumps. It's self-fulfilling. Almost all of this is.

This discussion about D'Ambrosio highlights the issue as I see it. He's not sound defensively. That's true but why can other side play players who are not sound defensively take advantage of kicking ability or pace? We can't 'develop' these players because we can't play them. We can't play them because at no point in the last 20 years have we had a balanced side that is suited to playing good football.

AMT.

As for other sides being able to play someone like mass and we can't . Well I would say that some sides can because their leadership and team defense can cover it .

 

[Duckworth]

Tom Morris reporting that 2nd Year Rookies who get offered another rookie contract, can reject it and become a DFA.
Has previously happened here: here is the article: Rebuilding Roos set to poach Bulldogs defender

I have 2 questions.
1. D'Ambrosio was a MSD, so is technically only a 1.5 year rookie. Does this effect he rules?
2. Are we able to do what Bulldogs did, and quickly offer him a main list spot, and thus negate the DFA thing?

In the end, D'Ambrosio isn't worth much, but would be good to have some clarity on the AFL rules.

 

[eth-dog]

Tom Morris reporting that 2nd Year Rookies who get offered another rookie contract, can reject it and become a DFA.
Has previously happened here: here is the article: Rebuilding Roos set to poach Bulldogs defender

I have 2 questions.
1. D'Ambrosio was a MSD, so is technically only a 1.5 year rookie. Does this effect he rules?
2. Are we able to do what Bulldogs did, and quickly offer him a main list spot, and thus negate the DFA thing?

In the end, D'Ambrosio isn't worth much, but would be good to have some clarity on the AFL rules.

1. No
2. I think the Dogs were planning on upgrading anyway.

 

[Vindicater]

What a s**t show.

 

[BrunoV]

Nice work by the Prince.

 

[Lore]

Big pile of meh. Imagine having your entire trade period revolve around a third round pick and a mid season rookie with one good foot and one good trick

 

[Yoda_]

Re the little faith developing.

I started following the VFL side in 2012.

I can barely think of 1 small or medium player we have developed in the VFL side for an extended period. A rough diamond, because he was express pace and had good skills or an endurance animal and hard ball gun or a tricky small forward who had limitations, who was cut and polished over time. The one player is probably Fantasia.

Almost all development happens in the AFL team.

There are Gleeson and Ridley who were third talls, basically talls. Ridley barely developed anyway. He came into the side a defensively poor intercept defender and played as a key defender out of necessity in the AFL side.

Redman spent half a season at half back and then got serious injuries in 2018 and 2019 playing AFL. That's why he hasn't played a lot, not because he did an extensive apprenticeship.

We tried to develop Langford as an inside midfielder and that didn't work. He then got shifted to the wing for the 2019 or 2020 season.

We have spent a lot of time on a lot of players we never gave an opportunity to. We seem to just be cutting the same players more aggressively now to replace them with the next group to be cut.

The issue is always dismissed because 'he was x pick later than the second round, it doesn't matter'.

Problem is, if we only use late picks to take the express pace half back (Dalgleish), the sublime kick (Massimo), the meat axe midfielder (Hibberd), a hard ball all rounder (Mynott), the tricky winger/half back with speed (Long) or the meat axe half forward to add some realy 2000 era / Barnard like aggression (Voss), a pure athlete (Jok) and we keep cutting the players the side will never have these characteristics. It doesn't have these characteristics to anywhere near the degree required. It is a huge problem.

It is clear that recruiting has been a problem. There has not been enough thought put into characteristics that can be moulded into an AFL player which compliment the side. Taking Cahill and Lachlan Johson, small slow players, is the high point in this regard. Purely wasted selections. There has not been enough focus on substance early in drafts.

I don't believe the inability to develop players bears anywhere near the level of responsibility attributed to it.

We have developed a number of high quality talls during this time, even moreso if we stretch the period back to 2007. There has been no consistent theme in this regard. Many different senior, assistant and development coaches. As I see it, we can develop tall players because it is a simple process even if it takes time. You know who will make it because of the commitment. It's a forced process that happens at set times which is why groups of talls tend to come through together because they tend to get recruited in clumps. It's self-fulfilling. Almost all of this is.

This discussion about D'Ambrosio highlights the issue as I see it. He's not sound defensively. That's true but why can other side play players who are not sound defensively take advantage of kicking ability or pace? We can't 'develop' these players because we can't play them. We can't play them because at no point in the last 20 years have we had a balanced side that is suited to playing good football.

I completely missed this but Lore can you put this as a post of the year contender. Genuinely hits the nail on the head in a number of areas.


PRobably best to move to a more suitable thread but where do we really need to improve?

(i) recruiting and list management
(ii) development
(iii) strength and conditioning as we always seem to have long term injuries to players who cant over come them


I started following about the same time and the inability to get attributes into the system is what annoys me. We have always gone for recycled guys or mature angers instead of loading up on kids in the rookie draft and actually try to identify them. Who was the last U18 player to play 100 games from the rookie list?

 

[owen87]

Who was the last U18 player to play 100 games from the rookie list?

That's weirdly specific, given the rookie list is often used (by all clubs) for guys that don't fit that category.

Draper is on track to play 100 games as a rookie, AMT was a rookie who'd come from our VFL side that played 133, McKenna was a Cat B rookie and is up to 79, Ambrose played 88 off the rookie list, Baguely was a rookie and played 134, Howlett was a rookie and played 124, Bellchambers was a pre-season draft pickup that played 136. Plus we've got guys like Snelling, Durham and Martin who've all provided meaningful contributions (or better) as rookies.

People just have a really, really poor concept of how often draft picks actually 'make' it.

Only 1 in 5 rookie players taken in the first 10 picks actually make it to 100 games, half of rookie players don't play a single AFL game.

Take a look here sometime, it's worthwhile reading. Less than half the players selected between picks 11 and 20 make it to 100 AFL games. That's the back half of the first round let alone later picks.

AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[Yoda_]

That's weirdly specific, given the rookie list is often used (by all clubs) for guys that don't fit that category.

Draper is on track to play 100 games as a rookie, AMT was a rookie who'd come from our VFL side that played 133, McKenna was a Cat B rookie and is up to 79, Ambrose played 88 off the rookie list, Baguely was a rookie and played 134, Howlett was a rookie and played 124, Bellchambers was a pre-season draft pickup that played 136. Plus we've got guys like Snelling, Durham and Martin who've all provided meaningful contributions (or better) as rookies.

People just have a really, really poor concept of how often draft picks actually 'make' it.

Only 1 in 5 rookie players taken in the first 10 picks actually make it to 100 games, half of rookie players don't play a single AFL game.

Take a look here sometime, it's worthwhile reading. Less than half the players selected between picks 11 and 20 make it to 100 AFL games. That's the back half of the first round let alone later picks.

AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

The idea was U18 as they have had none or very limited exposure to adult or semi - professional standards etc.

Sounds like we have not developed an U18 kid from a long way back in decades

 

[eth-dog]

The idea was U18 as they have had none or very limited exposure to adult or semi - professional standards etc.

Sounds like we have not developed an U18 kid from a long way back in decades

I don't think you'd find many 18 year olds taken in the rookie draft make it to 100 games, period. The last is probably Liam Baker.

 

[The Donners]

This is worth the egg on Dodoro’s smug face if it goes down as reported. Campaigner.

 

[cAsEy_18]

This is worth the egg on Dodoro’s smug face if it goes down as reported. Campaigner.

Is it?

D'ambrosio is worth almost nothing. And there's literally no point in us accepting Pick 63 for him, as we won't use that pick.

This is us just kinda hoping we might get at least something that we might actually use (eg: a future pick). And if not...so be it.

 

[eth-dog]

This is worth the egg on Dodoro’s smug face if it goes down as reported. Campaigner.

End of the day, 63 is pretty meaningless and we probably lose the pick anyway. Letting him walk and become a DFA is actually better for Mass anyway as he becomes a free agent for life anyway.

There's a negligible difference between trading him for that and letting him go.

 

[Runk]

Gee whiz, imagine what we could've got for (checks notes) pick 63.........

Who really cares about this? He's suits zero need for us. Can't defend. Is the definition of 'list clogger.'
He can head off to the PSD and all the best to him and Hawks. Let him sit on their list doing SFA.

 

[owen87]

The idea was U18 as they have had none or very limited exposure to adult or semi - professional standards etc.

Sounds like we have not developed an U18 kid from a long way back in decades

I refer back to my previous comments;

That's weirdly specific, given the rookie list is often used (by all clubs) for guys that don't fit that category.

People just have a really, really poor concept of how often draft picks actually 'make' it.

 

[JT_the_Man]

I'm really not fussed. If we get something, cool. If not it's also cool as I'm not convinced he ever would have made it with us anyway.

 

[The Donners]

End of the day, 63 is pretty meaningless and we probably lose the pick anyway. Letting him walk and become a DFA is actually better for Mass anyway as he becomes a free agent for life anyway.

There's a negligible difference between trading him for that and letting him go.

It’s for the lols. Not worried about the pick!

I wish Mass all the best. Seems like a ripping kid.