Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[dergert]

Lobb's best position is as a deep forward.

 

[Struggle]

Lobb's best position is as a deep forward.

When being defended by Zaine Cordy

 

[BallaratBulldog]

I think it will be wise to rest Darcy as we go along. Maybe not to Perth vs Freo for example.

Don't run him into the ground and injure again if it’s wet like vs Sydney.

 

[dergert]

When being defended by Zaine Cordy

Don't. Just don't.

 

[doggies ftw]

Being fair, in addition to Darcy coming on quickly we probably also thought Lobb would play better.

He’s played plenty of good games and looked like someone that could contribute forward and give good support to English but he hasn’t really done either.

I’m fine with the trade, in reality the problem with Lobb is the team wasn’t competing last year when realistically we should have been. That’s not necessarily his fault and in hindsight yeah we should have saved the cash & picks, but if we were a finals team as we should have been last year then Lobb would have been very handy

 

[W W Biscuit]

Does anyone else find it a little bit odd that Bailey Smith is so far away from the club? I get that he might need a little break during rehab if he’s doing it away from the club but he was the the F1 today instead of our game or even watching it on TV.

Ordinary look, let's be honest. Does nothing to dilute the intel of a couple of posters on BF that he is 'goneski.'

Good player that Smith is, if he does leave and this nets us another promising young mid who is better by foot and can regularly hit targets, then that's a decent outcome.

 

[revo333]

Personally I’m a bit over Smith generally.

Hope he’s doing what’s best for him but if he decided to seek a trade I’d move on very quickly.

My thoughts as well

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not sure why people are writing off Lobb. Even if we keep English, and even assuming all player form remains the same, what's the guarantee that all of English, Naughton, Jamarra and Darcy are fit and available for selection each and every week?

If anything from now to the end of next year, I'd say it's more likely that not that at least 1/4 of those players doesn't play a given week. Not so say anything of his value if two of them go down. Which means I'd be surprised if Lobb doesn't still play a majority of games over the next two years. And given we recruited him on the back of having Schache and Cordy ruck for the club and try and be a forward target. I wouldn't say it's a great move given he's, well, not showing enough form to be picked, but it's not an awful downside to recruit him and keep him for next year.

 

[doggies ftw]

Not sure why people are writing off Lobb. Even if we keep English, and even assuming all player form remains the same, what's the guarantee that all of English, Naughton, Jamarra and Darcy are fit and available for selection each and every week?

If anything from now to the end of next year, I'd say it's more likely that not that at least 1/4 of those players doesn't play a given week. Not so say anything of his value if two of them go down. Which means I'd be surprised if Lobb doesn't still play a majority of games over the next two years. And given we recruited him on the back of having Schache and Cordy ruck for the club and try and be a forward target. I wouldn't say it's a great move given he's, well, not showing enough form to be picked, but it's not an awful downside to recruit him and keep him for next year.

It’s an expensive back up though, again it’s great to have but money could probably be spent better elsewhere. And frankly I think Lobb will want out if he’s just a VFL back up, he’s a bit of a mercenary type anyway and there’s plenty of spots for him at Melbourne clubs.

And I don’t think we’ll stand in his way if we can get the contract off the books and a pick or something

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It’s an expensive back up though, again it’s great to have but money could probably be spent better elsewhere. And frankly I think Lobb will want out if he’s just a VFL back up, he’s a bit of a mercenary type anyway and there’s plenty of spots for him at Melbourne clubs.

And I don’t think we’ll stand in his way if we can get the contract off the books and a pick or something

Can a player be defined as a backup though if they're still expected to play a majority of games?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've posted a few times on this thread about how a few complaints about our team largely comes from the list management side of things ie: our recruitment of older talent/or if we recruit young talent, it comes from genuine top 20 picks rather than later picks in the draft, has left some demographics of our list weak.

The other side of it is, though, we get wins like this week when the benefit of such list management decisions (with Darcy, Jamarra and Treloar, among other players) all playing well, and whether or not we had (to compare) Vandermeer role-playing vs. Gallagher upside type, the whether we picked two or one of each type, was largely irrelevant. Our best and highly recruited players played well, so the quality of the bottom 6 in the team was more or less not important.

There's going to be large variation in the future, but any team would be mad not to had recruited Jamarra and Darcy the way that we did.

Speaking purely from economics point of view, you get the advantage four ways: firstly, the right to match (we don't have to actively draft them, we can assess their value on the merits when compared to the first team to bid on them), secondly, the 20% discount on draft points, thirdly, the poor scaling of the draft points (it is clear that later picks are given points values too high to top picks), and lastly, the ability to trade off the poor scaling of the draft points in an "exchange rate arbitration" style and do trades with other clubs who are using the picks as picks and not for the points they're worth. (and a fifth, in the case of Jamarra, to use the points from the number of picks we had more than the number of open list spots, and because lists were contracting that year, from the picks where teams were literally passing over).

So while we may have lost against Melbourne, from a list management POV, because our bottom players played poorly as a mature-age type recruit when we could have picked a late 2nd/early 3rd round type developing 3rd-5th year player that just didn't exist on our list, the counterside is that Darcy for example got us the win against Gold Coast because we were able to get him for effectively 50 cents on the dollar for what his economically-inclied "worth" was at the time of the draft.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Not sure why people are writing off Lobb. Even if we keep English, and even assuming all player form remains the same, what's the guarantee that all of English, Naughton, Jamarra and Darcy are fit and available for selection each and every week?

If anything from now to the end of next year, I'd say it's more likely that not that at least 1/4 of those players doesn't play a given week. Not so say anything of his value if two of them go down. Which means I'd be surprised if Lobb doesn't still play a majority of games over the next two years. And given we recruited him on the back of having Schache and Cordy ruck for the club and try and be a forward target. I wouldn't say it's a great move given he's, well, not showing enough form to be picked, but it's not an awful downside to recruit him and keep him for next year.

The draft capital to get him has washed up to be Hugh Davies and Tew Jiath. Comes down to the contract which either runs to 2025 or 2026. If its 2025 it really isn't a big deal is he is on $500k and jumping between the first team and the 2s.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The draft capital to get him has washed up to be Hugh Davies and Tew Jiath. Comes down to the contract which either runs to 2025 or 2026. If its 2025 it really isn't a big deal is he is on $500k and jumping between the first team and the 2s.

Yep. The contract and decision to recruit him, if he's not a sure-fire best 22 starter, is obviously poor. Not going to doubt that. I'm just making the point that if he's not in our 22 for this last week, it doesn't mean we have to judge the contract against the assumption that he'll never play for the Dogs again in 2 years or whatever.

 

[doggies ftw]

Can a player be defined as a backup though if they're still expected to play a majority of games?

You can be defined as a back up if you’re literally a back up. He plays if English or Darcy miss, he might play 5 more games he might play 15 more but he’s by definition, a back up.

 

[BulldogMuscle]

StKilda showed interested in Lobb last trade season, curious to see if he requests a trade if he stops getting regular game time.

 

[doggies ftw]

I've posted a few times on this thread about how a few complaints about our team largely comes from the list management side of things ie: our recruitment of older talent/or if we recruit young talent, it comes from genuine top 20 picks rather than later picks in the draft, has left some demographics of our list weak.

The other side of it is, though, we get wins like this week when the benefit of such list management decisions (with Darcy, Jamarra and Treloar, among other players) all playing well, and whether or not we had (to compare) Vandermeer role-playing vs. Gallagher upside type, the whether we picked two or one of each type, was largely irrelevant. Our best and highly recruited players played well, so the quality of the bottom 6 in the team was more or less not important.

There's going to be large variation in the future, but any team would be mad not to had recruited Jamarra and Darcy the way that we did.

Speaking purely from economics point of view, you get the advantage four ways: firstly, the right to match (we don't have to actively draft them, we can assess their value on the merits when compared to the first team to bid on them), secondly, the 20% discount on draft points, thirdly, the poor scaling of the draft points (it is clear that later picks are given points values too high to top picks), and lastly, the ability to trade off the poor scaling of the draft points in an "exchange rate arbitration" style and do trades with other clubs who are using the picks as picks and not for the points they're worth. (and a fifth, in the case of Jamarra, to use the points from the number of picks we had more than the number of open list spots, and because lists were contracting that year, from the picks where teams were literally passing over).

So while we may have lost against Melbourne, from a list management POV, because our bottom players played poorly as a mature-age type recruit when we could have picked a late 2nd/early 3rd round type developing 3rd-5th year player that just didn't exist on our list, the counterside is that Darcy for example got us the win against Gold Coast because we were able to get him for effectively 50 cents on the dollar for what his economically-inclied "worth" was at the time of the draft.

Not a single person has suggested we shouldn’t have taken Darcy & Marra - obviously we should have and are very lucky to get them. It has hampered our list a little bit with a few extra picks but I don’t think that’s as big a deal as some think it was.

Yes when our best players play well the bottom 6 is irrelevant, everyone knows this - getting carried by our top players is nothing new, the problem is you need a good bottom 6 to make top 4 as you can’t rely on your top players to drag you across the line every week. It needs to be a consistent team effort.

Of course with the talent in our team we’re going to win more games than we don’t, the issue is when we come up against teams that match us for talent but have better, well drilled & more balanced best 22s

 

[Anja_Nees]

Not a single person has suggested we shouldn’t have taken Darcy & Marra - obviously we should have and are very lucky to get them. It has hampered our list a little bit with a few extra picks but I don’t think that’s as big a deal as some think it was.

Yes when our best players play well the bottom 6 is irrelevant, everyone knows this - getting carried by our top players is nothing new, the problem is you need a good bottom 6 to make top 4 as you can’t rely on your top players to drag you across the line every week. It needs to be a consistent team effort.

Of course with the talent in our team we’re going to win more games than we don’t, the issue is when we come up against teams that match us for talent but have better, well drilled & more balanced best 22s

We’ve generally shot the lights out with our first rounders going back quite a long way. Unfortunately we haven’t had that many second and third rounders but it may not matter much.

We probably won’t hold on to all of them but English, Richards, Naughton, Smith, Weightman, JUH and Darcy is a great group. Hopefully Busslinger, Sanders and Croft join them.

Top end talent is found in the first round so of course we had to take the chance with Darcy and JUH (Croft too).

Four years or so from now most of the players above will be around their peak years. I’d be focusing hard on supplementing that group with similar aged support players now, even at the expense of the short term.

 

[House_of_Dahl]

StKilda showed interested in Lobb last trade season, curious to see if he requests a trade if he stops getting regular game time.

He'd be a good fit for the Dees imo

 

[BulldogMuscle]

He'd be a good fit for the Dees imo

Still maintain that we should of gone for Grundy and they should of gone for Lobb.

Would fix our “English cant ruck” issue and would fix their “Lack of secondary ruck” issues. Both teams screwed up in that period.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Still maintain that we should of gone for Grundy and they should of gone for Lobb.

Would fix our “English cant ruck” issue and would fix their “Lack of secondary ruck” issues. Both teams screwed up in that period.

The problems with playing English and Grundy in the same team would have been exceptionally similar to Gawn and Grundy in the same team. Both are first rucks.

 

[Doggy]

The problems with playing English and Grundy in the same team would have been exceptionally similar to English and Grundy in the same team. Both are first rucks.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ha! Sneaky quick edit!

 

[geoffjennings79]

The problems with playing English and Grundy in the same team would have been exceptionally similar to English and Grundy in the same team. Both are first rucks.

What about Grundy and English in the same team?

(Sorry, being a smart ar5e, think there's a typo in your post?)

 

[House_of_Dahl]

The problems with playing English and Grundy in the same team would have been exceptionally similar to Gawn and Grundy in the same team. Both are first rucks.

Think English can be much better forward than Grundy. But then he's just holding Darcy out

 

[Golden_6]

Still maintain that we should of gone for Grundy and they should of gone for Lobb.

Would fix our “English cant ruck” issue and would fix their “Lack of secondary ruck” issues. Both teams screwed up in that period.

How would that help us now? Darcy is in the side so unless you're suggesting paying Grundy more than Lobb to sit in the 2's as well?