What would you have done?

[Burzum]

I'm quite happy we weren't that active. It seems like some supporters just want us to make a trade for the sake of making a trade. There weren't any trades out there that really could have benefited us.

 

[sheller891]

I'm quite happy we weren't that active. It seems like some supporters just want us to make a trade for the sake of making a trade. There weren't any trades out there that really could have benefited us.

spot on

the same supporters who complain we dont trade are the ones that complain why the **** did we trade for him.

 

[ant555]

For memory Hird was pick 72, Simon Black was also late. As for this year's draft, perhaps most of them are late bloomers, it just so happens that the '06 draft they were more advanced comparative to their age, maybe?

What would be your suggestions? How can we manage the list to our advantage and/or in preparation of next year's draft?

Im not saying that this years draft wont produce good players late but it will be very hit and miss. There are about 30 or so mids that played TAC Cup this year that are very similar. Average pace, reasonable skills, average height. It is going to be a bit of an art to sort out the ones who will improve most compared to other years. I base what i say on the fact that i have seen the TAC Cup sides play at least 6 games each (some sides even more). It is well known that this years draft is down a little on depth. It had nothing to do with players being more advanced for their age. Last years crop where simply better . This is the same for next season. A number of the under age kids at each TAC Cup club have performed better than the kids elagable to be drafted this year.If you look at Kyle Reimers for example .In last years draft he was considered an outside chance to be drafted but if you put him in this years draft he would be consided to be in the pick 20 to 35 range. Collier is another one. Not taken last year as an underage player. Expected to go somewhere in the top 30 this year.

As far as managing the list for next years draft it isnt that hard.
First you dont take too many junk picks this year that ties you into having players on two year deals. Yes you can delist them but it is not the best way to go having to delist 2 or 3 players and pay out their contracts.
Secondly with another year of experience we have more trade possabilities with the young players. Players will have completed their second,third and fouurth years and one or two of them are likely to be much better trade bait than what we offered this year.Knights will have had a season to groom the list a little as well. He will have a better idea of who will fit in the plan he has. Like he said when he was appointed , he wasnt going to try and change 25 things in the first year. You get the set up and get the playing plan moving in the first year and then you evaluate which players could well be surplus to your ideas.
Finally you dont sign up or trade for too many middle of the road players. Now i know Dyson has just signed and i belive that was a mistake and it goes against my rule here but no club gets it 100% corect all of the time. If Dyson is the worst singing we do then siging one player i dont rate i can live with. At least it is not going to extend past two. There are a number of guys under pressure next year. Johns and Lee to start with. They will more than likely go unless they have a big turn around.Hille and Laycock are out of contract at the end of 2008. Lonergan only has a one year deal. Mal might retire after next year. Jason Johnson will retire , he has already said it will be his last year of footy.All of last years draftee's will be out of contract. I think there will be more options for trades and plenty enough room for drafting given we have not filled the list with 2 or 3 extra speculative draft picks from this years draft.

 

[VanDerHaar]

Im not saying that this years draft wont produce good players late but it will be very hit and miss. There are about 30 or so mids that played TAC Cup this year that are very similar. Average pace, reasonable skills, average height. It is going to be a bit of an art to sort out the ones who will improve most compared to other years. I base what i say on the fact that i have seen the TAC Cup sides play at least 6 games each (some sides even more). It is well known that this years draft is down a little on depth. It had nothing to do with players being more advanced for their age. Last years crop where simply better . This is the same for next season. A number of the under age kids at each TAC Cup club have performed better than the kids elagable to be drafted this year.If you look at Kyle Reimers for example .In last years draft he was considered an outside chance to be drafted but if you put him in this years draft he would be consided to be in the pick 20 to 35 range. Collier is another one. Not taken last year as an underage player. Expected to go somewhere in the top 30 this year.

As far as managing the list for next years draft it isnt that hard.
First you dont take too many junk picks this year that ties you into having players on two year deals. Yes you can delist them but it is not the best way to go having to delist 2 or 3 players and pay out their contracts.
Secondly with another year of experience we have more trade possabilities with the young players. Players will have completed their second,third and fouurth years and one or two of them are likely to be much better trade bait than what we offered this year.Knights will have had a season to groom the list a little as well. He will have a better idea of who will fit in the plan he has. Like he said when he was appointed , he wasnt going to try and change 25 things in the first year. You get the set up and get the playing plan moving in the first year and then you evaluate which players could well be surplus to your ideas.
Finally you dont sign up or trade for too many middle of the road players. Now i know Dyson has just signed and i belive that was a mistake and it goes against my rule here but no club gets it 100% corect all of the time. If Dyson is the worst singing we do then siging one player i dont rate i can live with. At least it is not going to extend past two. There are a number of guys under pressure next year. Johns and Lee to start with. They will more than likely go unless they have a big turn around.Hille and Laycock are out of contract at the end of 2008. Lonergan only has a one year deal. Mal might retire after next year. Jason Johnson will retire , he has already said it will be his last year of footy.All of last years draftee's will be out of contract. I think there will be more options for trades and plenty enough room for drafting given we have not filled the list with 2 or 3 extra speculative draft picks from this years draft.

Nice to see you back in form Ant with some reasonably insightful statements......

 

[Daytripper]

ant555,
I'm with you here.

For too often, the club has appeared to me to be only looking at the upcoming years draft and have been guilty of not planning ahead in regards to drafts to come.

Its telling, I think how many clubs have traded their 2nd and 3rd round selections this year. To me, thats saying that clubs don't have that much confidence in any picks from 25 plus.

So far we have lost :
Hird, Heff, Campo, Cole and Bolton

And have gained
Rama, Hocking and Daniher

Personally I would be quite happy to only use picks 6 and 23 in the National Draft and thats it.

If we can get Brennan in the PSD that would be great which would mean delisting one more player (Mark Johnson unfortunately) but if not leave the squad as is.

With a bumper draft next year we will most probably lose Mal, Lee, Pev, JJ, and one/two of most likely Rama, Hocking, Houli, Lonergan or Bradley.

That gives us lots of room to manouver.

I'm happy with what we've done.

 

[Longy413]

For memory Hird was pick 72, Simon Black was also late. As for this year's draft, perhaps most of them are late bloomers, it just so happens that the '06 draft they were more advanced comparative to their age, maybe?

Hird went pick 79 in 1990.

17 years ago. That doesn't happen anymore.

Simon Black was late 20's.
27 I think.

 

[DaSawx]

Black was 31 I think, but close enough

 

[rines]

The only thing i'm not happy with is the dyson contract. But I am not alone on that front. I don't think there were any trades we could do. if you look at our list. Our top proven guys are too old and are untradable(lloyd, lucas, fletch etc), our young guys can't be traded until we sort out which ones we need and are going to make it etc. our big problem is that we have nothing in between (the absent drafts of 98-2005 as discussed on various threads). that is why we have nothing decent to offer. Bradley has been offered for the last 3 years, no one wants him because he sucks, that is why we don't want him!! If you look at the players that get traded its because they want to go home, don't suit the game plan or there isn't enough room on the list for them anymore, e.g King. MJ+JJ are too old and if we were an opposition club would you want to face the supporters and explain why you wasted a draft pick on a guy who is old, slow and patchy at best?

I would have been happy if we could have done something to secure brennan or hadley but i think brisbane is still smarting over the mal issue and that might simmer for a few years yet. I think if we had put gumbleton on the table then we would have seen some offers, but WE wouldn't be happy and thats the point. to get something in this world you have to give something away and truth is we are a bottom four side for the last 3 years and we have nothing we want or can give away...

 

[NathanS]

I have to agree... I'm not happy with Dyson getting a 2 year contract. While I agree that he'd be better then a late draft pick, and shouldn't be traded, holding on to him for just 1 year would be more sensible.

I was kind of hoping Bradley would be traded. That's the only way I could see him kicking to an Essendon player

In the current situation, I'd give Bradley a 1 year contract (Knights hopefully knows him well enough to play him up forward). If Bradley, Johns, Lee or Dyson don't come good in the next year then we have a better draft to replace them with.

 

[Guss06]

I have to agree... I'm not happy with Dyson getting a 2 year contract. While I agree that he'd be better then a late draft pick, and shouldn't be traded, holding on to him for just 1 year would be more sensible.

I was kind of hoping Bradley would be traded. That's the only way I could see him kicking to an Essendon player

In the current situation, I'd give Bradley a 1 year contract (Knights hopefully knows him well enough to play him up forward). If Bradley, Johns, Lee or Dyson don't come good in the next year then we have a better draft to replace them with.

i am extreamly happy that we ,kept dyson with a 2 year contract he is a good player had limited opportunities in the midfield and was going on and off the bench. i would have been very disapointed to see him get traded