Past #26: Tarryn Thomas - Roo until end '24

[SpiderBurton22]

Watch Blakeys space. Kid could definetly be at roos next year.

No he won't. Unless it's the 2018 draft.

 

[ripperpart]

No he won't. Unless it's the 2018 draft.

thats what I meant

 

[shinboner magic]

thats what I meant

Are you just playing with our emotions - not cool if you are

 

[ripperpart]

He hasnt given up on the kangaroos like everyone is suggesting. He isnt a lock for sydney.

 

[John Wick]

He hasnt given up on the kangaroos like everyone is suggesting. He isnt a lock for sydney.

Source?

 

[Snake_Baker]

It might be beneficial for us to look at trading away surplus players this year for future 2nd/3rd/4th round picks, elevate our rookies with garbage picks and try and get a fist full of s**t picks to pay for the players without going into deficit.

Picks is one thing, cap space is another.

Who is going to get us these picks?

What if we don't land 2 x big fish this season with our "war chest"? What if we only land Kelly alone in 2017?

We would need to keep some players on the list on one year deals to allow for cap space next season to have another crack at RFA/UFA's in 2018.

Aaron Mullett
Ben Jacobs
Cameron Zurhaar
Corey Wagner
Daniel Nielson
Declan Mountford
Jarrad Waite
Lachlan Hansen
Matthew Taylor
Mitchell Hibberd
Oscar Junker
Ryan Clarke
Sam Gibson
Scott Thompson
Will Fordham

I expect that Mullet, Jacobs, Neilsen, Mountford, Hibberd and Clarke would be automatically re-signed.

Thompson deserves another season, is an RFA and has little trade value due to his age.

Gibson will likely get another year and has no trade value.

Likewise Lachie, he is a UFA, so trades would be out of the question.

Money is not really an issue in re-signing these blokes.

I can't see where this "surplus" is coming from.

I think Gibson, Thompson & Hansen are more valuable as blokes that are capable AFL players who we can retain on 1 year contracts and utilise as a million plus dollars of freed up cap space to grab a gun in next seasons trading period, than as trade bait.

 

[Kimbo]

Picks is one thing, cap space is another.

Who is going to get us these picks?

What if we don't land 2 x big fish this season with our "war chest"? What if we only land Kelly alone in 2017?

We would need to keep some players on the list on one year deals to allow for cap space next season to have another crack at RFA/UFA's in 2018.

Aaron Mullett
Ben Jacobs
Cameron Zurhaar
Corey Wagner
Daniel Nielson
Declan Mountford
Jarrad Waite
Lachlan Hansen
Matthew Taylor
Mitchell Hibberd
Oscar Junker
Ryan Clarke
Sam Gibson
Scott Thompson
Will Fordham

I expect that Mullet, Jacobs, Neilsen, Mountford, Hibberd and Clarke would be automatically re-signed.

Thompson deserves another season, is an RFA and has little trade value due to his age.
Gibson will likely get another year and has no trade value.
Likewise Lachie, he is a UFA, so trades would be out of the question.

Money is not really an issue in re-signing these blokes. I can't see where this "surplus" is coming from.

I think Gibson, Thompson & Hansen are more valuable as blokes that are capable AFL players who we can retain on 1 year contracts and utilise as a million plus dollars of freed up cap space to grab a gun in next seasons trading period, than as trade bait.

I thought the issue with Mountford, thus far, is that he hasn't signed, not that we haven't signed him according to someone here. If he didn't re-sign and does want to go back to WA, then we should be looking for a future pick (2018).

Hibberd and Clarke are both signed until the end of 2018.

Agree with you re Gibson, Thompson and Hansen. We don't know what points value any compensation picks might be for Thompson and Hansen in any case. Assuming we don't get all our 2017 targets, to meet 2018 minimum salary cap requirements, the notion of decent one year deals makes sense. We then have them off the books for the next reload.

Tas' point is valid. That is, trading away surplus players this year for future 2nd/3rd/4th round picks (points) and elevate rookies with garbage picks to avoid going into points deficit, or at least to reduce any deficit.

That doesn't mean only those who haven't be re-signed as you've highlighted. It could also be argued it isn't only 'surplus' players in the narrowest sense. It could be players whose ceiling we don't rate as highly as the likes of Tarryn Thomas or Nick Blakey in the longer term, or for the sake of future list management decisions. Would we consider 'off-loading' Atley, Dumont or Durdin if the price was right? (Don't get hung up on the names; more a case of 'middle rung' or unfulfilled potential.) In this case, they might bag us enough points value to claim TT and Father-Sons in 2018 who are the equivalent of long awaited top draft picks and, in the meantime, we fill required picks/positions with lower end rookie upgrade picks. The old, "you've got to give up something to get something."

 

[King Corey]

St kilda have just increased their offer too 1.3mill over 10 years plus a handshake and selfie with Warnie. Kids gone guys, we cant compete with that.

I actually think josh looks better in a st kilda jumper.

(Blakey) hasnt given up on the kangaroos like everyone is suggesting. He isnt a lock for sydney.

Dont worry we will get him(Whitfield)

Quite a body of work you're assembling.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Tas' point is valid. That is, trading away surplus players this year for future 2nd/3rd/4th round picks (points) and elevate rookies with garbage picks to avoid going into points deficit, or at least to reduce any deficit.

That doesn't mean only those who haven't be re-signed as you've highlighted. It could also be argued it isn't only 'surplus' players in the narrowest sense. It could be players whose ceiling we don't rate as highly as the likes of Tarryn Thomas or Nick Blakey in the longer term, or for the sake of future list management decisions. Would we consider 'off-loading' Atley, Dumont or Durdin if the price was right? (Don't get hung up on the names; more a case of 'middle rung' or unfulfilled potential.) In this case, they might bag us enough points value to claim TT and Father-Sons in 2018 who are the equivalent of long awaited top draft picks and, in the meantime, we fill required picks/positions with lower end rookie upgrade picks. The old, "you've got to give up something to get something."

Remember, I frame my trade thoughts under the clubs banner of "aggressive reset". Lot's coming in and little going out. I also happen to agree that this is the best current policy.

A lot of what I deem as "surplus" isn't trade-able.

With this in mind, I see trading (with picks) superseding drafting for the next couple of years. Perhaps a Goldstein, Hansen, Mullet or Daw might fall by the wayside to facilitate a Kelly trade, but that's about it.

 

[Kimbo]

Remember, I frame my trade thoughts under the clubs banner of "aggressive reset". Lot's coming in and little going out. I also happen to agree that this is the best current policy.

A lot of what I deem as "surplus" isn't trade-able.

With this in mind, I see trading superseding drafting for the next couple of years.

By "isn't trade-able" you believe the club would never consider. For example, a Ziebell? (I'm not suggesting you see him as surplus, but I'm assuming he's an example what you mean by "isn't tradeable", yes?

If we picked up Kelly, Martin + another, such as Pittard, and managed to recruit the likes of TT and pick up the Father-Son of our choice in 2018, while only losing 'surplus' players through trades, I'd call that a pretty good and aggressive reset across three trade eons.

Year one (2016): 'Delist' veterans, front load contracts of required players, and bank the money. Bring in some youngish talent around the same age as others (Marley, Hrovat). Keep first round pick, and nail it with Simpkin!

Year two (2017): Attract top end proven talent with 'war chest' to fill key list management need (elite mids).

Year three (2018): Maintain ongoing strategy of 'sustainable success' by recruiting what will otherwise be high end draft picks by ensuring we can match the points required to pay for them.​

Across years two and three, if necessary, identify surplus and tradeable players who enable us to achieve year three objectives without unduly compromising our year three (and year four) objectives.

The only questions here then become:

i) How much, if any, points might we need to obtain to achieve our 2018 drafting requirements?, and;
ii) Assuming we do need to trade players to obtain necessary points, what specific players might end up being surplus and tradeable, and valuable enough?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Kimbo, I will take your post to a more appropriate thread.

Edit:

Fixing the Roos: North's list under the microscope

 

[ripperpart]

Quite a body of work you're assembling.

Thank You, Thank you very much

 

[shinboner magic]

Thank You, Thank you very much

I reckon you're a saints man but that might be the conspiracy theorist in me.

 

[Arathrawn]

Thank You, Thank you very much

Not sure it was a compliment. Starting to sound a bit suss to me.

 

[ripperpart]

I reckon you're a saints man but that might be the conspiracy theorist in me.

Nope, I just think josh looks better in a saints jumper. I also think Dusty looks better in our jumper.

 

[ripperpart]

Not sure it was a compliment. Starting to sound a bit suss to me.

yeah no s**t sherlock. You guys are so paranoid. Im a 4th generation north fan who loves his club but Im not afraid to say what I think. I also like to joke around! geeez shoot me.

 

[Arathrawn]

yeah no s**t sherlock. You guys are so paranoid. Im a 4th generation north fan who loves his club but Im not afraid to say what I think. I also like to joke around! geeez shoot me.

Not the right thread for this conversation but i think you're trolling.

 

[Tas]

Picks is one thing, cap space is another.

Who is going to get us these picks?

What if we don't land 2 x big fish this season with our "war chest"? What if we only land Kelly alone in 2017?

We would need to keep some players on the list on one year deals to allow for cap space next season to have another crack at RFA/UFA's in 2018.

Aaron Mullett
Ben Jacobs
Cameron Zurhaar
Corey Wagner
Daniel Nielson
Declan Mountford
Jarrad Waite
Lachlan Hansen
Matthew Taylor
Mitchell Hibberd
Oscar Junker
Ryan Clarke
Sam Gibson
Scott Thompson
Will Fordham

I expect that Mullet, Jacobs, Neilsen, Mountford, Hibberd and Clarke would be automatically re-signed.

Thompson deserves another season, is an RFA and has little trade value due to his age.

Gibson will likely get another year and has no trade value.

Likewise Lachie, he is a UFA, so trades would be out of the question.

Money is not really an issue in re-signing these blokes.

I can't see where this "surplus" is coming from.

I think Gibson, Thompson & Hansen are more valuable as blokes that are capable AFL players who we can retain on 1 year contracts and utilise as a million plus dollars of freed up cap space to grab a gun in next seasons trading period, than as trade bait.

Well, if you are going to re-sign everyone and want to just let go of just the trash then you obviously can't employ the strategy I suggested that was an option. What I suggested was an option to let go of people with some value at present for future lower end picks.

Guys like Atley, Mullett, Macmillan, Jacobs, Anderson, Nielsen, Wright, Daw, etc could possibly drag in picks that are usable for academy/father-son selection payment as long as the opposition bids are not too excessive.

If we don't want to let anyone go of any currency at all then that isn't a route we would go.

I am not suggesting players in that ball park aren't of any value to the club, and the club is less likely to attempt it with certain players like Macmillan for example who are rated at the club far higher than his on-field output on most occasions. Just saying that it is an option if you want to pay for a high valued potential inclusions without blowing high value picks.

Our inability to control the hype around McDonald cost us pick 8, it wouldn't have required a Herculean effort from everyone involved to bring that cost down to a second round pick but we are pretty poor when it comes to strategic thinking.

It wouldn't surprise me if we did nothing and paid through the nose, but the option is still there. We have a lot of players who are fairly inconsistent and do not seem to have significant room for improvement, it would make sense to cash out some of those chips to pay for prospects with a higher ceiling.

We simply do not have enough high end talent around the park, we have a lot of triers but it is difficult to win a flag with a bunch of battlers, you would have to get lucky to some extent like the Dogs did last year. Hoping for luck isn't a strategy, it is the consequence of failing to apply one.

 

[ripperpart]

Well, if you are going to re-sign everyone and want to just let go of just the trash then you obviously can't employ the strategy I suggested that was an option. What I suggested was an option to let go of people with some value at present for future lower end picks.

Guys like Atley, Mullett, Macmillan, Jacobs, Anderson, Nielsen, Wright, Daw, etc could possibly drag in picks that are usable for academy/father-son selection payment as long as the opposition bids are not too excessive.

If we don't want to let anyone go of any currency at all then that isn't a route we would go.

I am not suggesting players in that ball park aren't of any value to the club, and the club is less likely to attempt it with certain players like Macmillan for example who are rated at the club far higher than his on-field output on most occasions. Just saying that it is an option if you want to pay for a high valued potential inclusions without blowing high value picks.

Our inability to control the hype around McDonald cost us pick 8, it wouldn't have required a Herculean effort from everyone involved to bring that cost down to a second round pick but we are pretty poor when it comes to strategic thinking.

It wouldn't surprise me if we did nothing and paid through the nose, but the option is still there. We have a lot of players who are fairly inconsistent and do not seem to have significant room for improvement, it would make sense to cash out some of those chips to pay for prospects with a higher ceiling.

We simply do not have enough high end talent around the park, we have a lot of triers but it is difficult to win a flag with a bunch of battlers, you would have to get lucky to some extent like the Dogs did last year. Hoping for luck isn't a strategy, it is the consequence of failing to apply one.

I trust our list managment.

 

[Tas]

then again, if blakey junior nominates the swans, most likely his old man steps down.....not easy for a young bloke making his way if the old boy has a role. Don stepped down from head of footy dept for Luke, Ryan Pagan didn't exactly work out with his old man as coach, in banking circles I know blokes who've got their sons gigs at other banks via contacts rather than hire them themselves. Young blokes want to be out of their old man's shadow. If JB is happy to step aside from his role then all well and good, other wise I wouldn't be surprised to see the young pup nominate us or lions. Really depends on what JB wants to do. I for one think he would be an excellent senior coach. Maybe something opens up for him at another club.

Swans would probably push John in front of a bus if Nick was prepared to join the Swans.

 

[Tas]

I trust our list managment.

Trust? To do what?

Have you trusted them before? We haven't got the job done to date, we have a lot of players with mediocre skills, many can't kick a footy, as was obvious from our last attempt at football.

I trust they will do their best, that doesn't mean they will make the right calls.

 

[ripperpart]

Trust? To do what?

Have you trusted them before? We haven't got the job done to date, we have a lot of players with mediocre skills, many can't kick a footy, as was obvious from our last attempt at football.

I trust they will do their best, that doesn't mean they will make the right calls.

They will be trying to improve our list in every way possible. Id rather be last with the group of boys we have now, then first with the turkeys we had for 10+ years before.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well, if you are going to re-sign everyone and want to just let go of just the trash then you obviously can't employ the strategy I suggested that was an option. What I suggested was an option to let go of people with some value at present for future lower end picks.

Guys like Atley, Mullett, Macmillan, Jacobs, Anderson, Nielsen, Wright, Daw, etc could possibly drag in picks that are usable for academy/father-son selection payment as long as the opposition bids are not too excessive.

If we don't want to let anyone go of any currency at all then that isn't a route we would go.

I am not suggesting players in that ball park aren't of any value to the club, and the club is less likely to attempt it with certain players like Macmillan for example who are rated at the club far higher than his on-field output on most occasions. Just saying that it is an option if you want to pay for a high valued potential inclusions without blowing high value picks.

Our inability to control the hype around McDonald cost us pick 8, it wouldn't have required a Herculean effort from everyone involved to bring that cost down to a second round pick but we are pretty poor when it comes to strategic thinking.

It wouldn't surprise me if we did nothing and paid through the nose, but the option is still there. We have a lot of players who are fairly inconsistent and do not seem to have significant room for improvement, it would make sense to cash out some of those chips to pay for prospects with a higher ceiling.

We simply do not have enough high end talent around the park, we have a lot of triers but it is difficult to win a flag with a bunch of battlers, you would have to get lucky to some extent like the Dogs did last year. Hoping for luck isn't a strategy, it is the consequence of failing to apply one.

That's kinda my point Tas.

I outlined my reasoning here:

Fixing the Roos: North's list under the microscope

 

[LT Smash]

He hasnt given up on the kangaroos like everyone is suggesting. He isnt a lock for sydney.

The big question is, if Nick Blakey chooses Sydney, where will John Blakey move to once he is forced to quit his job due to conflict of interest?

 

[Tas]

That's kinda my point Tas.

I outlined my reasoning here:

Fixing the Roos: North's list under the microscope

Well, I don't think some of the players mentioned are or should be considered secure. We have recruited too many people with similar strengths and similar deficiencies, if we do not move some of them on while they have value they will eventually have little to no value as we eventually have to persist with some and neglect others.

We need to inject class into the side, it is going to dislodge players who previously have been considered best 22. There is only so much you can juggle positions, eventually you have to excel at one or the team and club suffers, as does the player individually as their career comes to a premature end.

If our best 22 doesn't change dramatically over the next 3 years then we are just going to manufacture more of the same from the Laidley/Scott era.

If the club gets in Kelly and Martin for example, you would need to make a significant change to the midfield structure, if you plan for Ahern, etc to come into the side where are all the current players going to go? You can either dump the excess into the VFL until they are valueless or you can cash some in while they have some currency.