-
The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Back by popular demand, for those who think it's disloyal to ever say out aloud about the possible outs, it's just a discussion and you don't have to partake if you don't want to.
What was interesting last year was some peoples rolling De-Listing and trading list changed frequently, mine included. For instance, Prudden looked gone, Ayce was in and out, Minson was in, out, in, out again. Grant was a certain re-signing... I found it an interesting moving conversation and thread throughout the year. I think I was as wrong as I was right last year.
Essentially, there's just two categories to nominate names to, being: 'certain gone' and 'possible gone'.
For me, only possible names at this time of the year who need to reach or exceed expectations:
De-Listing or Retiring Possibles:
Prudden. Needs a huge leap. Murphy, Boyd, Biggs, Webb, Dale, JJ are all ahead. Can he leap them? Big call to say he does.
Minson. Just his age, if he doesn't have a big year I can't see a long time future. Nothing scandalous about his name.
Matty Boyd. Champion of the club, if he keeps fitness and form he could go again. But if the other hbfs or even Hrovat can provide the same output as he could next year, it's a tough, tough call. I saw him in December, and he looked even fitter!!
Trade Possibles:
Hrovat. Saints & Melbourne showed interest to the contracted Rat. Hopefully he's best 22, if not, then what?
Roughead. He's a jack of all trades and master of none. Left out of the leadership group. If a trade offer came in, would we look at it? Again, hopefully he's best 22, if not, then what?
Honeychurch. Same as above. If Hrovat, Dunkley and Daniel step up, he'd have some currency in the market.
The conversation we don't want to have is Clay. I hope we go cautious, and get him back to fitness even if it's by year's end. One more knee and you'd have to think that it's over. But I'm on the positivity bus on this issue, he gets back,gets into the engine room and up forward and is another gun recruit this year with Libba.
The flip side of potential trades is can we get currency to trade on some names that are uncontracted at year's end, or free up a spot and cash to raid the Essendon players classed as delisted free agents or any other free agents. I think it presents as the crucial off season list management towards a flag, being a possible gun top end kid and a free agent or two of quality. My thoughts are 4 or 5 primary list changes. But for the year I'm expecting us to have (a very successful one) it's going to be interesting to chart every now and then the names of possibles and certainties along team form and personal form, or injury.
Again, we'd all like every single player to perform 100% and never leave but the reality is 3 or more will be going. It's just a rolling barometer type thread and discussion about who they might be, and why.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Fro the VFL watchers, what is Pruddens main hurdle? Is it simply leg speed or what?
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stefoid
Fro the VFL watchers, what is Pruddens main hurdle? Is it simply leg speed or what?
Watching him at AFL level, he plays like a deer in the headlights, like a first year player not sure what to do. For this reason, he lacks intensity and his decision making with and without the ball is poor. When he isn't given time to think, he's fine, but he doesn't display any real weapons.
He always seems to be injured or in the rehab group which has deprived him of the continuity he needs to build confidence and go into a game on the front foot
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boydogs
Watching him at AFL level, he plays like a deer in the headlights, like a first year player not sure what to do. For this reason, he lacks intensity and his decision making with and without the ball is poor. When he isn't given time to think, he's fine, but he doesn't display any real weapons.
He always seems to be injured or in the rehab group which has deprived him of the continuity he needs to build confidence and go into a game on the front foot
Good summation.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I think a good place to start is to look at players who are not contracted beyond this year. In all probability, our delistings/traded players will most likely come from this group.
We have 18 players in total who fall into this category (as best as I can work out, not 100% certain though). I'd break them into 4 categories:
1. The 30somethings who are year to year propositions. All proven quality who should be back next year as long as the body or mind doesn't pack it in over the course of the year.
5 players; Bob Murphy, Dale Morris, Matthew Boyd, Will Minson, Jed Adcock.
I'd say Minson and Adcock have a little to prove to show that they are relevant to us in 2017 and beyond, the other 3 just need to stay keen and healthy and they are no brainers.
2. Required players who just need to sort out terms with the club.
7 players; Jack Redpath, Lachie Hunter, Koby Stevens, Tom Campbell, Tory Dickson, Joel Hamling, Shayne Biggs.
I'd say each of these clearly have long term roles with us, pending player and club coming to terms.
3. Yet to fully establish their positions as required players for 2017 and beyond who will need to show development in 2016 or be under real pressure/trade prospects come season's end.
4 players; Josh Prudden, Nathan Hrovat, Lin Jong, Declan Hamilton.
Some tough calls here, but a reflection of where our list is at. Looking at usual list development, it seems likely that at least 2 of these will need to be released come October.
4. Those coming back from serious injury.
2 players; Clay Smith and Roarke Smith.
Given their age both have shown enough to indicate they'll be kept on pending recovery. Should either not be back to full health come the end of the year, their position must also come under question.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I can see why Jong is in your under pressure 4 but I think he will be in the required very quickly. He adds something we don't have a lot of and when injury free he showed remarkable improvement last year. I'm convinced after he broke his finger he was playing injured with a knee issue as well and it affected his confidence. Also hurt him after Stevens went down as we lacked inside mids, I think he's better suited being let off the chain more.
He's proven that he can play well in big games and make big plays at crucial times. Yes he can make some bad disposal errors but you have to admit they have come a long way from the year prior.
I'm expecting big improvement again in Jong and i'd almost have him as a lock in the 22 round 1.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cyberdoggie
I can see why Jong is in your under pressure 4 but I think he will be in the required very quickly. He adds something we don't have a lot of and when injury free he showed remarkable improvement last year. I'm convinced after he broke his finger he was playing injured with a knee issue as well and it affected his confidence. Also hurt him after Stevens went down as we lacked inside mids, I think he's better suited being let off the chain more.
He's proven that he can play well in big games and make big plays at crucial times. Yes he can make some bad disposal errors but you have to admit they have come a long way from the year prior.
I'm expecting big improvement again in Jong and i'd almost have him as a lock in the 22 round 1.
Fair comment. I see Jong and Hrovat as 2 who are clearly good enough but have limitations they need to work on. As long as Lin can keep his body right and show more composure with the ball, I'm sure he'll be in our mix for 2017 and beyond - and may become an integral part of our team, but he still needs to do it.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
PP,
What's Redpath's contract situation? I thought he only re-signed a 1 year extension last year.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
PP,
What's Redpath's contract situation? I thought he only re-signed a 1 year extension last year.
Correct - see here
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
PP,
What's Redpath's contract situation? I thought he only re-signed a 1 year extension last year.
He did.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
PP,
What's Redpath's contract situation? I thought he only re-signed a 1 year extension last year.
Not sure now Mantis. I thought he was signed till 2017, but maybe not. He was upgraded from a Rookie in 2015 but the media release doesn't make it clear if it's a 1 year or 2 extension.
If he is up for renewal, I'd reckon he's required anyway given our lack of depth in key forwards/ruck and his seeming upside given a good pre-season and potential for improved mobility and endurance. Also seems a pretty good guy to have around the group.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeanutsPeanuts
Not sure now Mantis. I thought he was signed till 2017, but maybe not. He was upgraded from a Rookie in 2015 but the media release doesn't make it clear if it's a 1 year or 2 extension.
If he is up for renewal, I'd reckon he's required anyway given our lack of depth in key forwards/ruck and his seeming upside given a good pre-season and potential for improved mobility and endurance. Also seems a pretty good guy to have around the group.
It was only a year so he is out of contract at the end of this year.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Thanks BAD, B4L. Earlier post duly edited.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
How many do you have to reduce your list by draft night? It's 3 isn't it? I could see Prudden in the firing line if he has trouble breaking into the seniors in 2016. I could see Matt Boyd and Morris retiring at the end of the year, maybe.
Honeychurch could be good trade bait, given we have plenty of smaller players and we got him pick 60. If he gets around 6 games this year he might be attractive as a pick 35-40 trade. Mind you I like him, he's not a bad footballer at all.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'scary
How many do you have to reduce your list by draft night? It's 3 isn't it? I could see Prudden in the firing line if he has trouble breaking into the seniors in 2016. I could see Matt Boyd and Morris retiring at the end of the year, maybe.
Honeychurch could be good trade bait, given we have plenty of smaller players and we got him pick 60. If he gets around 6 games this year he might be attractive as a pick 35-40 trade. Mind you I like him, he's not a bad footballer at all.
3 is the minimum changes. But I think that's a little light on, especially if we can keep a first rounder, get a decent FA and leave open trade works. Of the older boys, I think Boyd is most likely, then Murphy or Morris. If we have another good year I'm not sure any will voluntarily walk short of winning a premiership. Morris said at a function he thinks if his body holds up from injury he's looking at another 1-2 more years after this season. The 3 older guys could be the tricky part, I don't include Minson as I think he needs to do a hell of a lot this year to be even considered past this year.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'scary
How many do you have to reduce your list by draft night? It's 3 isn't it? I could see Prudden in the firing line if he has trouble breaking into the seniors in 2016. I could see Matt Boyd and Morris retiring at the end of the year, maybe.
Honeychurch could be good trade bait, given we have plenty of smaller players and we got him pick 60. If he gets around 6 games this year he might be attractive as a pick 35-40 trade. Mind you I like him, he's not a bad footballer at all.
That's the issue at it's core I reckon F'scary - we've got a really deep list and minimum 3 have to go at year's end.
I really can't see Morris going at year's end either - this thread will be real interesting to follow through the year.
No doubt guys like Honeychurch or Hrovat look like types who have market value but may be surplus to our requirements - harsh for them but they've got this year to state their case.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
If you had to make the decision now, you would certainly not recontract Minson.
A lot would need to go Will's way for him to extend beyond 2016 and that would include a proof that Roughy or Campbell would not last beyond their current deals.
Clay Smith would also need to get back and avoid any further serious injury to be any chance of extending his career.
Of the others, I would see Prudden most at risk, but we might also be willing to trade around some of the smalls with Honeychurch and Hrovat both vulnerable.
Further changes might depend on any injuries that might crop up and the ability of the older brigade to continue.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Prudden did ok in his 4 games last year. I seem to recall that he went out of the team due to injury. He looked like a solid lockdown medium defender, a playing style we don't have a lot of imo.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'scary
Prudden did ok in his 4 games last year. I seem to recall that he went out of the team due to injury. He looked like a solid lockdown medium defender, a playing style we don't have a lot of imo.
I agree, he was very impressive in his few games on the HBF. He has mainly played midfield at VFL level, but I think given the opportunity he can make it at AFL level.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'scary
Prudden did ok in his 4 games last year. I seem to recall that he went out of the team due to injury. He looked like a solid lockdown medium defender, a playing style we don't have a lot of imo.
Agree with this. I was pretty impressed with Prudden. He was very shaky in the first half of his first game, but after that he certainly looked the part across half back.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Injuries, form and the development of players will all play a part. The usual suspects of Honeychurch, Hrovat, Prudden may well have played themselves into unassailable list positions come September and the pressure could be on some that we regard as more established players. Its nice to have competition for spots.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
As I've said previously, there's a very good reason why we've accumulated similar players with high to mid range draft picks these past few years. We can trade them for needs when we have to.
It's good to see the media finally catch up to what's been said around here for a long time.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeanutsPeanuts
Whilst the premise of the article sums up our position well, the title is rather melodramatic.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Had to get another shot at Tom Boyd in there too. Is that on the checklist whenever anyone mentions the Dogs this year?
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jeemak
As I've said previously, there's a very good reason why we've accumulated similar players with high to mid range draft picks these past few years. We can trade them for needs when we have to.
Although I agree to an extent that it can be a bit of an advantage, will we really get much from players not regularly featuring in our side? I think Hrovat has the potential to be a good player but I sincerely doubt we'll get back what we spent on him (Pick 21ish?). I look at the likes of Kennedy and McGlynn, or even Menzel, and they all went relatively cheap.
Players like Prudden and Honeychurch would cost even less.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bulldogs Bite
Although I agree to an extent that it can be a bit of an advantage, will we really get much from players not regularly featuring in our side? I think Hrovat has the potential to be a good player but I sincerely doubt we'll get back what we spent on him (Pick 21ish?). I look at the likes of Kennedy and McGlynn, or even Menzel, and they all went relatively cheap.
Players like Prudden and Honeychurch would cost even less.
I don't think it's quite fair to say fair value or par for a Hrovat (for example) is what you paid for him initially (pick 21). That's a bit like buying a car, getting 3 years of use out of it and expecting the same price to sell it. If you pick a player at 21 or so and get 10 places or so lower 3 years down the track, that is a pretty fair reflecton that the player has held good value.
As an aside, some draft picks can have a fascinating trade history. One of my favourites is Jordan MacMahon, widely considered a bit of a poor first round selection in the 2000 draft, but after 114 games we traded him for a pick that gave us Callan Ward, who gave us 60 quality games but we then lost and gained a compensation pick that netted us Jackson Macrae, who has played 55 games.
So that original pick to date has netted us 229 games of value and we still have plenty to come from a 21 year old rising superstar.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bulldogs Bite
Although I agree to an extent that it can be a bit of an advantage, will we really get much from players not regularly featuring in our side? I think Hrovat has the potential to be a good player but I sincerely doubt we'll get back what we spent on him (Pick 21ish?). I look at the likes of Kennedy and McGlynn, or even Menzel, and they all went relatively cheap.
Players like Prudden and Honeychurch would cost even less.
Have to agree with you. As supporters we tend to over estimate the trade value of our players. Look at Jarrad Grant last year, borderline best 22, played 19 games including the final - trade value = 0. As it stands Prudden has no trade value, Honeychurch maybe a little and Hrovat not a heap more.
Players not in a sides best 22 rarely fetch a high price on the trade table. Exceptions would be highly rated youngsters who want out before we have seen their best, or those that play an in demand position (key position or ruck). Small midfield types are a dime a dozen unfortunately.
The only way Hrovat for example fetches a decent pick is if he has a breakout year and establishes himself in our best 22. Then you have to evaluate whether the gain from the trade will outweigh the loss of Hrovat.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
We have a decent side players won't want to leave .
We'll lose a few, but plundered is a little dramatic .
Hawthorn and the like gather depth and get lauded, but we're getting plundered ?
Interesting
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
Have to agree with you. As supporters we tend to over estimate the trade value of our players. Look at Jarrad Grant last year, borderline best 22, played 19 games including the final - trade value = 0. As it stands Prudden has no trade value, Honeychurch maybe a little and Hrovat not a heap more.
Players not in a sides best 22 rarely fetch a high price on the trade table. Exceptions would be highly rated youngsters who want out before we have seen their best, or those that play an in demand position (key position or ruck). Small midfield types are a dime a dozen unfortunately.
The only way Hrovat for example fetches a decent pick is if he has a breakout year and establishes himself in our best 22. Then you have to evaluate whether the gain from the trade will outweigh the loss of Hrovat.
Well said . Fringe players in a good side can get overvalued as well by other clubs .
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeanutsPeanuts
I don't think it's quite fair to say fair value or par for a Hrovat (for example) is what you paid for him initially (pick 21). That's a bit like buying a car, getting 3 years of use out of it and expecting the same price to sell it. If you pick a player at 21 or so and get 10 places or so lower 3 years down the track, that is a pretty fair reflecton that the player has held good value.
I'm not convinced that Hrovat would land us a pick in the 30s, should he have another yo-yo season with us. Therefore, using 21 on Hrovat and then losing him for a low pick (40+) is a poor outcome. The criticisms of our persistence in drafting similar players are warranted and it is a myth that we can just trade them out for needs. If we are able to hold onto them and maintain our depth it's fantastic, and I think a player like Hrovat can be good value, but it's generally unrealistic even for sides like Hawthorn and Sydney who have lost good players for basically nothing over the years (Kennedy, McGlynn, Dempster, Schneider and to lesser degrees Biggs, Everitt, Hallahan in recent years).
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bulldogs Bite
I'm not convinced that Hrovat would land us a pick in the 30s, should he have another yo-yo season with us. Therefore, using 21 on Hrovat and then losing him for a low pick (40+) is a poor outcome. The criticisms of our persistence in drafting similar players are warranted and it is a myth that we can just trade them out for needs. If we are able to hold onto them and maintain our depth it's fantastic, and I think a player like Hrovat can be good value, but it's generally unrealistic even for sides like Hawthorn and Sydney who have lost good players for basically nothing over the years (Kennedy, McGlynn, Dempster, Schneider and to lesser degrees Biggs, Everitt, Hallahan in recent years).
I reckon Koby Stevens is a good example of the current approximate worth of Hrovat. Drafted at #22, after 3 years at the Eagles we traded him in for pick #44. Granted Hrovat has played more games in his first 3 years than Stevens did, but I think it's a fair comparison.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Bulldogs Bite
I'm not convinced that Hrovat would land us a pick in the 30s, should he have another yo-yo season with us. Therefore, using 21 on Hrovat and then losing him for a low pick (40+) is a poor outcome. The criticisms of our persistence in drafting similar players are warranted and it is a myth that we can just trade them out for needs. If we are able to hold onto them and maintain our depth it's fantastic, and I think a player like Hrovat can be good value, but it's generally unrealistic even for sides like Hawthorn and Sydney who have lost good players for basically nothing over the years (Kennedy, McGlynn, Dempster, Schneider and to lesser degrees Biggs, Everitt, Hallahan in recent years).
Totally agree. Players like that only appreciate in value if you win premierships. Geelong and Hawthorn showed that average fringe players can convince some clubs they just need opportunity, the rest go in a fire sale.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Ok, not naming anyone. I'm interested in Brian Lakes's comments that Hawthorn are staggering 2 retirements each year for 3 years. It seems quite a sensible thing to do. I wonder if we'd follow suit? We have Minson, Murphy, Morris & Matty (4M's). With what's being built I can't see anyone of them willingly walking away, much like Lake said he didn't want to walk away last year. Assuming injuries play no part, a) should we copy the plan 2 retirements each over the next two years b) if you said yes, which two in which year?
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bulldogtragic
Ok, not naming anyone. I'm interested in Brian Lakes's comments that Hawthorn are staggering 2 retirements each year for 3 years. It seems quite a sensible thing to do. I wonder if we'd follow suit? We have Minson, Murphy, Morris & Matty (4M's). With what's being built I can't see anyone of them willingly walking away, much like Lake said he didn't want to walk away last year. Assuming injuries play no part, a) should we copy the plan 2 retirements each over the next two years b) if you said yes, which two in which year?
YES
Minson and Morris, followed by Bob and MBoyd
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I'd say Minson and Boyd. Morris is still killing it. He's still a gun.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
I'd say Minson and Boyd. Morris is still killing it. He's still a gun.
So is Boyd. :)
The reason I said Morris is we need to give an opportunity to another tall to develop, and Morris' role is the logical one.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
So is Boyd. :)
The reason I said Morris is we need to give an opportunity to another tall to develop, and Morris' role is the logical one.
There is the opportunity for a tall to develop now.. When they are playing well enough they will be picked.
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mantis
There is the opportunity for a tall to develop now.. When they are playing well enough they will be picked.
Yes that is true, however, we are discussing the future.
Put it this way, If Morris wasn't playing this week, who would take his spot? A tall or a small?
-
Re: The Moving Rolling De-Listing/Trading Thread 2016
I have been a huge supporter of Roberts but... is he in trouble? Hard to see him getting the nod over Cordy/Collins if they both have another pre-season, and Hamling must have been close to selection too.