Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 4 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex Rance?
 
Personally I'd go the opposite direction. Games limit should go up to 150, if not 200. Some of these guys qualifying for father son, especially at other clubs, have me googling to find out who on earth their dads were.

Names like West, Darcy, Daicos, etc. are great to see continuing their fathers' legacy. On the other hand, I'd never heard of the fathers of Sam Simpson and Bailey Rice.

Even just considering Bulldogs players, Darcy and West would belong in my idea of the father son rule, while the Cordy brothers wouldn't.

The Cordys (the original 4 brothers in the 70s/80s) were a Traralgon/Footscray family - both Neil and Brian played over 100 games for us, can't agree with you there, though I take your point to a degree about the number of games. Also Dean Rice had 3 knee recos over his career yet still played 100+ games at 2 clubs over 15 years, so while you might not have heard of him, was a fair footballer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Alex Rance?

Yeah, tough one, Murray played 2 seasons with us, then went back to WA and captained West Coast. Also had an extensive career at Swan Districts either side of his AFL career. On balance, West Coast should probably have had first dibs at Alex - if he'd been able to nominate as a f/s.
 
The Cordys (the original 4 brothers in the 70s/80s) were a Traralgon/Footscray family - both Neil and Brian played over 100 games for us, can't agree with you there, though I take your point to a degree about the number of games. Also Dean Rice had 3 knee recos over his career yet still played 100+ games at 2 clubs over 15 years, so while you might not have heard of him, was a fair footballer.
They have the family history, but that's more a "gut feel" approach than any objective metric. I meant it more to emphasize the fact I feel we should have missed out as Brian didn't have the history on his own. Neil Cordy is the bigger name, but shouldn't have any influence on Zaine or Ayces eligibility.

Father son is an inherently unfair system, but is relatively unique to our sport so I wouldn't go as far as saying it should be removed. I just think it should be heavily restricted, and not something we're seeing come up multiple times per year. It's the kind of thing a club should see once in a decade or generation, not once every couple of years.
 
Yeah, sorry Mofra, was just having fun with a long-running 'joke' (and remembering the third Cloke was the best of the lot!). Other than the Cats back in the Ablett, Scarlett days (with Blake and Woolnough and Callan diluting the strike-rate a little), has any other club produced highly draftable off-spring to the degree we are seeing come through now, even with our relative 'misses' like Ayce?
As you say, what a time to be a Bulldog!
We've got at least a decade of great football to look forward to!
 
They have the family history, but that's more a "gut feel" approach than any objective metric. I meant it more to emphasize the fact I feel we should have missed out as Brian didn't have the history on his own. Neil Cordy is the bigger name, but shouldn't have any influence on Zaine or Ayces eligibility.

Father son is an inherently unfair system, but is relatively unique to our sport so I wouldn't go as far as saying it should be removed. I just think it should be heavily restricted, and not something we're seeing come up multiple times per year. It's the kind of thing a club should see once in a decade or generation, not once every couple of years.
In the next two years it absolutely should not exceed 186 games ;)
 
GWS apparently interested in trading pick 13 for a future first.
I wonder if we could trade them our future first and say Geelong's future second (traded for 23) for pick 13 contingent on them not bidding.
 
GWS apparently interested in trading pick 13 for a future first.
I wonder if we could trade them our future first and say Geelong's future second (traded for 23) for pick 13 contingent on them not bidding.

Next years draft looks pretty solid early. I’d rather hold our pick tbh.
 
Next years draft looks pretty solid early. I’d rather hold our pick tbh.
Don't see Sam P trading out a 1st Rnder for pick 13 too many variables and limits options for next year. And don't see a player at 13 that would be enough of a difference maker to warrant giving up the future 1st
 
Next years draft looks pretty solid early. I’d rather hold our pick tbh.
Knowing our luck, Jordan Croft (who I believe just sneaks into eligibility by a week or two) does a Darcy and goes from middle of the pack prospect to a first round prospect on the back of ridiculous early season form.
It would be worth it for the AFL community meltdown

Note: There's even an Eagleton next year, then another Darcy the year after
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Keep in mind that many of our best players are out of contract next year and quite possibly we could lose one or two to other clubs' big offers. The loss/es would be compensated by a stronger hand in what is expected to be a strong draft.
 
Keep in mind that many of our best players are out of contract next year and quite possibly we could lose one or two to other clubs' big offers. The loss/es would be compensated by a stronger hand in what is expected to be a strong draft.
JJ's $600k deal expires so there's some cash freed up.
2 x Baileys (Smith & Dale) will be due for decent paydays, and Tim English is another priority signature. I imagine Schache and Keath will stay.
Dunks and Daniel also need to be re-signed.
 
I hope there’s a deal brewing to get GWS not to bid. It’s too grey to be draft tampering imo, just using the rules available to you. Adelaide bid on Marra last year because they knew it would give them a better chance of drafting Jimmy Rowe by knocking out our later picks, does that count as tampering?

Anyway we still come out massive winners even with a bid at 2.
 
Knowing our luck, Jordan Croft (who I believe just sneaks into eligibility by a week or two) does a Darcy and goes from middle of the pack prospect to a first round prospect on the back of ridiculous early season form.
It would be worth it for the AFL community meltdown

Note: There's even an Eagleton next year, then another Darcy the year after

i could live with being suddenly forced to bid on pick 1 again 😂
 
I hope there’s a deal brewing to get GWS not to bid. It’s too grey to be draft tampering imo, just using the rules available to you. Adelaide bid on Marra last year because they knew it would give them a better chance of drafting Jimmy Rowe by knocking out our later picks, does that count as tampering?

Anyway we still come out massive winners even with a bid at 2.
 
Not sure if it was you, but someone on here has suggested several times there should be no game limit (i.e. one game is enough) on father-son (as there now is for father-daughter for different reasons) to ensure the romance of the scenario. Lots of qualifications to that playing out, but not sure 100 is the perfect number.
100 games seems good to me. establishes them as a 5-6 year player at a club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top