Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 2 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[BRWB]

Nope. Each alternative scenario that has been put to me has involved a significant aspect being left out or forgotten or a significant departure from the reality of what actually happened.

i.e. the example given of trading 32 and 37 for pick 24, when GWS actually gave up 28 and Carlton's future 2nd for it. What were we adding to 32 and 37 (or our 2nd next year) to top that?

I could do this for every scenario that has been given so far. Hopefully someone will come up with something that doesn't have a huge hole in it.

Retaining even an unmotivated Dahlhaus is surely better than what we did with his comp.

And thats assuming that our elite coaching panel couldnt have turned one of our most durable player's form around.

Paying in salary what Geelong did to keep Dahl is hardly overpaying either.

And its not as though this concern about losing the Dahl comp to West wasnt forseeable.

Given a choice its a no brainer. Keep Dahl or faff about with his comp to get injury prone longshots and future third rd picks.

 

[TiAn_]

Retaining even an unmotivated Dahlhaus is surely better than what we did with his comp.

And thats assuming that our elite coaching panel couldnt have turned one of our most durable player's form around.

Paying in salary what Geelong did to keep Dahl is hardly overpaying either.

And its not as though this concern about losing the Dahl comp to West wasnt forseeable.

Given a choice its a no brainer. Keep Dahl or faff about with his comp to get injury prone longshots and future third rd picks.

The decision not to give Dahl the contract he wanted is a completely different discussion and entirely irrelevant to this one re strategy with the picks we had at the draft.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Retaining even an unmotivated Dahlhaus is surely better than what we did with his comp.

Don't agree. His output was below average this year bar one game against Geelong, and it was noticeable how much better we played in the last month of 2018 when he wasn't in our midfield.

 

[BRWB]

The decision not to give Dahl the contract he wanted is a completely different discussion and entirely irrelevant to this one re strategy with the picks we had at the draft.

Not irrelevant at all.

I completely get what you are saying in that it was difficult to trade the Dahl comp to be better off.

I just dont think we should ever have been in that situation. And it was pointed out at the time the problem we would have in effectively using the Dahl comp.

Choice - Dahl or vandermeer and a future 3rd rd

There is your alternative scenario.

Keep Dahl.

Not even close.

 

[ScragCity]

Dahl's form over multiple year did not warrant a four year contract. Severely limited player. Good decision Dogs.

 

[cecil]

Not irrelevant at all.

I completely get what you are saying in that it was difficult to trade the Dahl comp to be better off.

I just dont think we should ever have been in that situation. And it was pointed out at the time the problem we would have in effectively using the Dahl comp.

Choice - Dahl or vandermeer and a future 3rd rd

There is your alternative scenario.

Keep Dahl.

Not even close.

You're disregarding the 400k/yr extra the Dahl option is.

Would you have signed Dahl to a 3 or 4 year reasonable money deal if you believed he wouldn't be best 22 by 2020? Because I'd say that's what Beveridge and Power were thinking...

2020 best 22:

FB: Wood, Cordy, Crozier
HB: JJ, Naughton, Richards
C: Hunter, Libba, Suckling
HF: Smith, Schache, Wallis
FF: Gowers, Boyd, Greene
R: English, Bont, Macrae
Int: Maclean, Williams, Dunkley, Daniel

Lipinski and West could definitely be best 22 by then too. Trengove, Dale, Lynch, Duryea, Cavarra, Lloyd, Hayes etc on the fringe.

2016 Dahl would be in this team, 2018 Dahl wouldn't. A call had to be made, and they obviously felt guys like Greene, Lipinski and Gowers were going to go ahead of him as outside/forwards. Libba, Wallis and Dunkley are all already ahead of him as an inside mid, with West, Bailey Williams and Bailey Smith lurking too.

I'm not the biggest fan of what we did with the compo (although happy we didnt get into some insane bidding war like a lot of clubs did), but letting Dahl go was the right move.

 

[BRWB]

You're disregarding the 400k/yr extra the Dahl option is.

Would you have signed Dahl to a 3 or 4 year reasonable money deal if you believed he wouldn't be best 22 by 2020? Because I'd say that's what Beveridge and Power were thinking...

2020 best 22:

FB: Wood, Cordy, Crozier
HB: JJ, Naughton, Richards
C: Hunter, Libba, Suckling
HF: Smith, Schache, Wallis
FF: Gowers, Boyd, Greene
R: English, Bont, Macrae
Int: Maclean, Williams, Dunkley, Daniel

Lipinski and West could definitely be best 22 by then too. Trengove, Dale, Lynch, Duryea, Cavarra, Lloyd, Hayes etc on the fringe.

2016 Dahl would be in this team, 2018 Dahl wouldn't. A call had to be made, and they obviously felt guys like Greene, Lipinski and Gowers were going to go ahead of him as outside/forwards. Libba, Wallis and Dunkley are all already ahead of him as an inside mid, with West, Bailey Williams and Bailey Smith lurking too.

I'm not the biggest fan of what we did with the compo (although happy we didnt get into some insane bidding war like a lot of clubs did), but letting Dahl go was the right move.

The fact that comp was always at risk of being wasted surely impacts the decision to retain Dahl.

Even 2018 Dahl is better than a future third and vandermeeer. And who is to say 2016 Dahl couldnt have come back.

It just seems very lopsided to say Power is not at fault for not maximising the Dahl comp when that issue was totally forseeable and could have been averted by retaining Dahl - a decision also on Power.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Even 2018 Dahl is better than a future third and vandermeeer. And who is to say 2016 Dahl couldnt have come back.

2018 Dahlhaus was not good. There was a reason he wasn't pursued by multiple clubs during free agency.

Would be interesting to revisit this in 2 years time and see how Dahlhaus and Vandermeer and whatever we get for the future pick are looking like then. I disagree with your stance and think we will be looking better for the path that Sam Power has taken.

 

[BRWB]

Would be interesting to revisit this in 2 years time and see how Dahlhaus and Vandermeer and whatever we get for the future pick are looking like then. I think we will be looking better for the path that Sam Power has taken.

As the internet flogs say...bookmark it....a true sliding doors

One thing is sure we are worse off next next yr and triply so if 2016 Dahl returns.

 

[cecil]

The fact that comp was always at risk of being wasted surely impacts the decision to retain Dahl.

Even 2018 Dahl is better than a future third and vandermeeer. And who is to say 2016 Dahl couldnt have come back.

It just seems very lopsided to say Power is not at fault for not maximising the Dahl comp when that issue was totally forseeable and could have been averted by retaining Dahl - a decision also on Power.

It does, but I do think Dahl would have been in the VFL by the end of his contract. 400k is a long way to securing a quality free agent in the future. If Dahl wanted 2 years I'd have been okay with it, but not 4. In saying that I am huge on Bailey Williams and Josh Dunkley and think they have basically shunted Dahl out of the midfield rotation.

With the compo I'd have preferred to trade it out for a 2019 second (probably with our 3rd). We don't really know what was the right decision until Vandermeer has played though. I also think the original plan was to bundle up the pick with Pick 6 for Wingard, but Hawthorn missing on Shiel changed things.

 

[BRWB]

It does, but I do think Dahl would have been in the VFL by the end of his contract. 400k is a long way to securing a quality free agent in the future. If Dahl wanted 2 years I'd have been okay with it, but not 4. In saying that I am huge on Bailey Williams and Josh Dunkley and think they have basically shunted Dahl out of the midfield rotation.

With the compo I'd have preferred to trade it out for a 2019 second (probably with our 3rd). We don't really know what was the right decision until Vandermeer has played though. I also think the original plan was to bundle up the pick with Pick 6 for Wingard, but Hawthorn missing on Shiel changed things.

Fair enough i guess we can agree to blame Dodo for stealing Shiel. And JMac for trading him....blaming the same guys as last yr all over again.

I'm bigger on Dahl than others. Always loved his tenacity and pressure acts. When up and about he is borderline elite. Haven't seen that from the other guys you mentioned.

Who knows maybe Vandermeer becomes the next big thing...not bolding my breath though.

 

[TiAn_]

Not irrelevant at all.

I completely get what you are saying in that it was difficult to trade the Dahl comp to be better off.

I just dont think we should ever have been in that situation. And it was pointed out at the time the problem we would have in effectively using the Dahl comp.

Choice - Dahl or vandermeer and a future 3rd rd

There is your alternative scenario.

Keep Dahl.

Not even close.

It’s totally irrelevant to what I’m discussing, I.e. strategy with the picks we had at the draft. You probably didn’t need to reply to my post to make your comment.

Re what you’re talking about, we let Dahl go for reasons including his off field behavior, which he emphasized by making a tit of himself publicly shortly after being let go. I’ve discussed his onfield contribution elsewhere and as much as I loved his heart I simply wasn’t a fan of his work this year and didn’t see a place for both he and Wallis in our team by the end of the season.

Dahl became pick 32, which became 34 and 41, which became West, Vandermeer, Cavarra and allowed us to trade 46 for the Saints 3rd next year.

If you’re going to bring Dahl into it then you have to factor in we may have let Wallis go, plus a raft of other random outcomes. It’s a slippery slope; a far broader discussion that just obfuscates the topic I’m discussing, I.e. that all of the alternative scenarios proposed for draft day thus far have been severely lacking/poor by comparison.

As far as you know, the alternative scenarios are Dahl, West, Cavarra v West, Vandermeer, Wallis and a further 3rd. “Not even close”, aside from being debatable at best, is just hyperbole and the sort of vague assertion that gives me the shits when trying to discuss something like this.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The fact that comp was always at risk of being wasted surely impacts the decision to retain Dahl.

Even 2018 Dahl is better than a future third and vandermeeer. And who is to say 2016 Dahl couldnt have come back.

It just seems very lopsided to say Power is not at fault for not maximising the Dahl comp when that issue was totally forseeable and could have been averted by retaining Dahl - a decision also on Power.

Wouldn't the salary cap room in not retaining Dahl be the bigger difference?
Someone has to get squeezed out by Boyd and now Bont's new contracts.
Trengrove we paid overs for for a FA, but I'd still rather him on equivalent money for the next three years than Dahl, in that I think he's going to be the better player over the next three years, before you consider the bonus of the compensation pick.

 

[cecil]

Fair enough i guess we can agree to blame Dodo for stealing Shiel. And JMac for trading him....blaming the same guys as last yr all over again.

I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but this comes across as sanctimonious. Hawthorn were after Shiel and then turned their attention to Wingard. It's what happened? Explaining your POV and saying what you think was the reasoning behind moving on Dahl isn't blaming. If you're referring to the decision to move on Stringer, our rookie pick matched his output this year.

Dahl was great don't get me wrong, but he hasn't been that player for two years now. We were crying out for a pressure forward this year, and he kicked a total of 2 goals even though he played forward 50% of the time. Williams has that hint of explosion while playing in the middle, and has a touch of c*nt about him in which we are severely lacking. Dunkley is very good over head, and a better forward than Dahl. Both are better with ball in hand too (although Dunkley still not great).

 

[Munnez]

Not irrelevant at all.

I completely get what you are saying in that it was difficult to trade the Dahl comp to be better off.

I just dont think we should ever have been in that situation. And it was pointed out at the time the problem we would have in effectively using the Dahl comp.

Choice - Dahl or vandermeer and a future 3rd rd

There is your alternative scenario.

Keep Dahl.

Not even close.

Injury prone is a stretch, kid sustained a broken collar bone in a sling tackle. Don't know but allegedly has good speed. And well kicking wasn't Dal's strong suit which apparently this kid is a good kick.
Definition of insanity is to keep doinf the same thing and expect a different result

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Cool. Let’s do it properly then. We lost a premiership player in Biggs and redpath as well. But added Hayes and khamis.

Happy?

Pretty sure both Redpath and Biggs were VFL when they joined us.

Go Dogs!!!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[wian]

Not irrelevant at all.

I completely get what you are saying in that it was difficult to trade the Dahl comp to be better off.

I just dont think we should ever have been in that situation. And it was pointed out at the time the problem we would have in effectively using the Dahl comp.

Choice - Dahl or vandermeer and a future 3rd rd

There is your alternative scenario.

Keep Dahl.

Not even close.

Dahl is past his best. Cannot kick either. Going inside 50, he is an expert at kicking hospital balls.

 

[Cadillac]

Knightmare who knows a hell of a lot more about the prospects than most of us gave us an A+. Some people on here will shot on the club at at every opportunity. Comical.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Pretty sure both Redpath and Biggs were VFL when they joined us.

Go Dogs!!!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Biggs came from Sydney Swans.

 

[scooter600x]

The club did absolutely the right thing with Dahlhaus, the worst kick in the league, he's done.

 

[bobby2]

Who knows maybe Vandermeer becomes the next big thing...not bolding my breath though.

Don't worry, I've done it for you.

 

[Dogs Rule]

The fact that comp was always at risk of being wasted surely impacts the decision to retain Dahl.

Even 2018 Dahl is better than a future third and vandermeeer. And who is to say 2016 Dahl couldnt have come back.

It just seems very lopsided to say Power is not at fault for not maximising the Dahl comp when that issue was totally forseeable and could have been averted by retaining Dahl - a decision also on Power.

First of all, you have no idea how good Vandermeer is or could be or how good the 2019 third rounder could be.

Second of all, I love how some of us put on our rose coloured glasses about a player when they go. We're talking about a midfielder who kicked two goals this year.

A midfielder that kicked two goals for the season. Think about that for a second.

Personally, I think you've just got Power in your sights and he could have somehow landed Lukosius with the Dahl compo and you would have still found a reason to stick the boots in.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Biggs came from Sydney Swans.

Yes I know but the comment was VFL standard which is what I meant


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dogs Rule]

As the internet flogs say...bookmark it....a true sliding doors

One thing is sure we are worse off next next yr and triply so if 2016 Dahl returns.

There's your key word. What makes you think a 27-year old player is going to recapture their form of three years ago?

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Lol writing people off already a day after the draft