Why would we be giving Bags a 3 year deal? He's 28. I don't think too many other clubs will be trying to pinch him. Let alone giving Stants - he's 29 - only 1. Giving a player who's given us 2 good years a 3 year deal, but a guy who's given us 9 or 10 only 1 year doesn't sit right with me.
Sorry did not realise Bags was 28. 2 year deal then
Why would we be giving Bags a 3 year deal? He’s 28. I don’t think too many other clubs will be trying to pinch him.
Let alone giving Stants - he’s 29 - only 1. Giving a player who’s given us 2 good years a 3 year deal, but a guy who’s given us 9 or 10 only 1 year doesn’t sit right with me.
Mark Baguley- 3 year deal
Tom Bellchambers- 2 year deal but if he gets a big offer let him go
Alex Browne- Delist
Jake C- 2 years
Paul Chapman- Retire
Lachlan Dalgliesh- 2 year deal
Joe Daniher- 5 year deal
Courteney Dempsey- let go as a FA
Orazio Fantasia- 2 year deal
Dustin Fletcher- Retire
James Gwilt- 1 year deal
Will Hams- 1 year/Delist
Elliott Kavanagh- 1 year/ Delist
Jake Melksham- 2 year/ trade bait
NO’B- Delist
Jason Wnderlich- Retire
Brent Stanton- 1 year deal
Long- keep
Smack- upgrade
Aylett- Delist
Steinberg-Delist
4 years for 3 games - O'Brien 4 years for 7 games - Kav 5 years for 8 games - Browne 3 years for 3 games - DalWe are a medicore club because we accept this. All those players mentioned there are 22 or older. Which means if they make the senior team by years end, and play every game for the next 2 seasons the will all be around 25 and not have played 50 games.
I’m not saying every player we draft has to be a 200+ game player but if you are not on track to be even a 100 game player, you are not good enough, simple as that.
The great teams of the last decade use this very metric to work out who they flip.
We don’t hence our list is mediocre
benfti, I agree with what you’re saying.
But based on all of this logic, Aylett should be delisted as well. I know it’s only his second year on our list, but he’s also had 2 on GWS’ list. He’s shown no more than the 4 you’ve listed.I’d be interested to hear your reasoning for keeping him, considering you have a background of some sort with him.
He took a pay cut to free up a list spot for us this year. Rookies cost not much, turn him into a tagger.
4 years for 3 games - O'Brien 4 years for 7 games - Kav 5 years for 8 games - Browne 3 years for 3 games - DalWe are a medicore club because we accept this. All those players mentioned there are 22 or older. Which means if they make the senior team by years end, and play every game for the next 2 seasons the will all be around 25 and not have played 50 games.
I’m not saying every player we draft has to be a 200+ game player but if you are not on track to be even a 100 game player, you are not good enough, simple as that.
The great teams of the last decade use this very metric to work out who they flip.
We don’t hence our list is mediocre
benfti, I agree with what you’re saying.
But based on all of this logic, Aylett should be delisted as well. I know it’s only his second year on our list, but he’s also had 2 on GWS’ list. He’s shown no more than the 4 you’ve listed.
I’d be interested to hear your reasoning for keeping him, considering you have a background of some sort with him.
Dalgliesh missed one year for injury, and prior to that was a rookie and which limited him from getting games. 3 years / 3 games maybe, but in consideration he shouldn’t be grouped with the other 3
If we're going to take 5 picks into the draft we going to need to trade to improve our position in draft. Our fifth pick would be somewhere in the 70s or 80s, how did our last picks that low go... Sean Gregory... Michael Ross....? Don't see the value in cleaning house to get more blokes that we'll delist in 2 years from now, we'd need higher picks like the Bulldogs and St Kilda have done recently, and that's only done by giving up a player or two that other clubs want.
Firstly one of the late picks will be used to upgrade Smack, and probably father son Wallis and possibly Daniher.
Second you are right TBC and pick 45 and 63 for pick 18 seems a lot sweeter than tbc for 28
I remember doing something like this last year around round 8 or so. I said Colyer just wasn't showing enough. Pretty glad he proved me wrong, but at that point he didn't even have good VFL form behind him. Some of those youngsters do.I wouldn’t be surprised if a group of them get 1 year or rookie list spots even if they don’t show too much. Just to smooth the delistings over the next two years, and to reduce the number of rookies taken in a terrible draft year.
We’ve demoted 5 guys to the rookie list over the last 5 years, and haven’t redrafted any of them yet (2 still might I suppose). We’ve promoted 4 of the (only) 9 proper rookies we’ve taken in the same time. Why not take rookies in a terrible draft year and hope?
4 years for 3 games - O'Brien 4 years for 7 games - Kav 5 years for 8 games - Browne 3 years for 3 games - DalWe are a medicore club because we accept this. All those players mentioned there are 22 or older. Which means if they make the senior team by years end, and play every game for the next 2 seasons the will all be around 25 and not have played 50 games.
I’m not saying every player we draft has to be a 200+ game player but if you are not on track to be even a 100 game player, you are not good enough, simple as that.
The great teams of the last decade use this very metric to work out who they flip.
We don’t hence our list is mediocre
You are right that the chances of these guys succeeding is lessens the longer they don’t play. That being said, you have to at least partly rate them on where they are currently at, not just on how long it took to get there. The game requires such all encompassing fanaticism that a lot of young players just can’t reach the required dedication until they mature a bit. Mark Baguley basically started his AFL career at 25 and he wouldn’t look out of place in a premiership side.
By comparison
2 years for 31 games - Z.Merrett
2 years for 5 games - Fanta
3 years for 19 games - Gleeson
3 years for 36 games - Daniher
All these players look like AFL players, decent players, and due to their age look likely to have hit the 50 game mark well before they are 25.
These are good players, that’s how you build your list.
Those other guys are either not durable or still have the same issues as when they came in the door
I remember doing something like this last year around round 8 or so. I said Colyer just wasn’t showing enough. Pretty glad he proved me wrong, but at that point he didn’t even have good VFL form behind him. Some of those youngsters do.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a group of them get 1 year or rookie list spots even if they don’t show too much. Just to smooth the delistings over the next two years, and to reduce the number of rookies taken in a terrible draft year.
4 years for 3 games - O’Brien
4 years for 7 games - Kav
5 years for 8 games - Browne
3 years for 3 games - Dal
We are a medicore club because we accept this. All those players mentioned there are 22 or older. Which means if they make the senior team by years end, and play every game for the next 2 seasons the will all be around 25 and not have played 50 games.
I’m not saying every player we draft has to be a 200+ game player but if you are not on track to be even a 100 game player, you are not good enough, simple as that.
The great teams of the last decade use this very metric to work out who they flip.
We don’t hence our list is mediocre
If we’re going to take 5 picks into the draft we going to need to trade to improve our position in draft. Our fifth pick would be somewhere in the 70s or 80s, how did our last picks that low go… Sean Gregory… Michael Ross…? Don’t see the value in cleaning house to get more blokes that we’ll delist in 2 years from now, we’d need higher picks like the Bulldogs and St Kilda have done recently, and that’s only done by giving up a player or two that other clubs want.
I reckon Qwilt will stay on. He’s been fine in the 1s, and Fletch may not go another season.
Melksham should get another go. Midfield depth, fringe starter, can turn it on.
Man I hope Browne gets a go soon. Clock is ticking.
Fletcher Chappy and Winderlich should retire this week.
Does anyone seriously think that the club will look to trade Melksham, especially given what Hird has said about playing guys under 50 games. He is the prime example of a player being rushed to 50+ games as quick as they could even though his form may not have warranted it at various times. It would seem that if the club the went to trade him, that all the time and effort went to zilch.Agree that at times you have to admit a mistake and cut your losses, but I doubt whether the club will be prepared to do that with Melksham at this stage of his development and where our list is at.
The thing is you can forgive a 50 gamer for inconsistencies. He’s been on the list now for 6 years and in that time been given every opportunity.
Time to make the tough calls.
Does anyone seriously think that the club will look to trade Melksham, especially given what Hird has said about playing guys under 50 games. He is the prime example of a player being rushed to 50+ games as quick as they could even though his form may not have warranted it at various times.
It would seem that if the club the went to trade him, that all the time and effort went to zilch.
Agree that at times you have to admit a mistake and cut your losses, but I doubt whether the club will be prepared to do that with Melksham at this stage of his development and where our list is at.
We have a lot of young players out of contract this year in Aylett, Browne, Dalgleish, Fantasia, Hams, Kavanagh, and O’Brien. Obviously my first hope is that some time between now and the end of the year they all pull a Colyer and we have the core of our next premiership team sorted. That aside, I think most of that list have what it takes to be solid AFL players, but I’m not convinced any of them are likely to become really good AFL players.
There are times in list management where building a group of solid AFL players is important (it’s the bit Carlton forgot to do), but I don’t think that’s where we’re at. We have quite a lot of solid players in the 23-28 age bracket, what we need is more really good players. When rattling off our top tier under 23s it’s currently Zach Merrett, Joe Daniher, two or three guys who’ve shown glimpses and a bunch of “maybes”. Expecting every player to be Merrett or Heppell is ridiculous of course, but so is expecting every player to transform when they reach 23 like Colyer or Watson.
I think, for where we are right now, I’d cut the “maybes” who don’t show themselves to be “probablys” this year.
I have set up a website to help educate people discussing trading Dempsey. It can be found at http://dempsey.isafreeagent.comYou might also find the related website http://bellchambers.isafreeagent.com useful.
Handy. Thanks.
Was too subtle for me…
I don’t think any of those younger guys should be ruled out at this point - NOB, Kav, Raz, Browne, Dal, Aylett.
If any of them plays most games til the end of the year - and they’re all in decent nick in the 2s, so it’s not out of the question - they absolutely deserve another year.
What would hurt us would be giving them all (or most of them) 2 year deals.