List build - where are we going in the next 10,000 posts?

I’ll save you the trouble; crap question - cliché answer, crap question - cliché answer, we’re taking a MSD draft pick, crap question - cliché answer, crap question - cliché answer. Rosa gets a T-Shirt. The end.

8 Likes

I dont mind our list manager being boring and pragmatic at this stage considering the stooge he is replacing.

2 Likes

What do you want Rosa to say? Who we are recruiting? How much we put on the table for Caldwell and Perkins?

At least if Dodoro was interviewed the Blitz responses would be interesting

STRINGER TALKS PROGRESSING

ESSENDON’S new list boss Matt Rosa says talks are “progressing well” on an extension for game-breaker Jake Stringer, who is coming to the end of his deal with the club.

Stringer last signed a three-year contract in 2021 through to the end of 2024, which is his seventh season at the club since crossing from the Western Bulldogs as a premiership player.

The 2015 All-Australian is in strong form, playing every game this season and kicking 17 goals so far, second to only Kyle Langford at the club.

Jake Stringer celebrates a goal for Essendon against GWS in R9, 2024. Picture: AFL Photos

Rosa, who has been in his first few months as the Bombers’ AFL talent and operations manager, said dialogue had opened on a Stringer contract.

“It’s another one where we’re in conversations with Jake’s management team. We’re just really pleased with the way Jake’s playing but also the headspace he’s in and the work he’s putting in off-field. He’s a much-loved player at Essendon and Jake loves the club also so those talks are progressing well,” Rosa told AFL.com.au’s trade and draft show Gettable.

The Bombers have several other contract priorities as the club enjoys a strong start to this season, with emerging midfield pair Archie Perkins and Jye Caldwell also out of contract and in discussions.

Gettable reported last month the pair are looking more likely to pen two-year extensions, with Rosa saying discussions were headed in the right way.

“We’re constantly speaking with their managers and all indications are they’re really happy at the club and they’re important members of our squad. It’s good that they’re playing really good footy, they’re important players, and we’re comfortable with how they’re progressing,” Rosa said. – Callum Twomey

1 Like

Replying in the right place

On Hill, I don’t know that I’d say having a player approach us halfway through the trade period really constitutes proactively looking for a small forward, but you’re right that we offered what turned out to be a top 30 pick for him. Rosas we don’t really know either way what we offered him or what we would have offered the suns. If we thought we could get a sneaky good player the suns didn’t rate for a future third rounder, then that doesn’t change my argument. If we were offering five years and our future first was on the table, then that would be one for yours.

What draft currency did we offer up for Stengle? I know we were interested a few years back, but he was a delisted free agent, it would have been free. Have we been interested since? Because picking up a twice delisted rookie pick with 16 games under his belt is exactly the sort of resource outlay I’m talking about.

Probably the only easy one, in the sense that it doesn’t require imagining us doing anything other than what’s served up to us or guessing that a late second round pick would become an overnight superstar, would be take the trade richmond offered in 2021 to get Hobbs. Would have given us the ability to take two picks in the top 30, one of which could have been Jesse Motlop. He’s been injured this year, and could still go either way, but I think he’s shown a decent amount for the position.

But of course then we wouldn’t have Hobbs and Hobbs was too good to pass up because he slid to us and you just have to take best available in that situation and inside mids like that are so valuable and exactly, that’s how you never seem to get the opportunity to get the player types you don’t rate highly, because there’s always something better that you can’t possibly afford to pass up.

Edit: and I will say, I guess if our list management team just doesn’t rate the position as important, that’s fine. They don’t have to. Same as any other list management team valuing any other position particularly high or low, it’s a fine opinion if you’re proven right. If they do think it’s important to find a dangerous crumbing forward but are loathe to spend a top 30 pick on one, that’s what I would have a problem with.

This is more of a theory than fact, but I feel we generally go best available in the national draft and go with needs via trades. Obviously some pros to this approach, but some cons too.

It is interesting to note that we seemingly have rarely used high draft picks on small forwards at all.

1 Like

Best available is a nebulous term I think. It makes a general sort of sense, but it gets very fuzzy on the particulars. Might be the best player in the league but could easily be a bust, almost certainly going to be at least a solid player but probably won’t be star, will probably only be decent but key forwards are hard to find, what exactly entails “best” is quite difficult to pin down. On top of which, “available” is also increasingly ambiguous. Caddy wouldn’t have been available if we didn’t make him available. Half of the top 20 last year were traded picks, many of which were pick swaps during the trade period or on the night.

1 Like

You ignored our play for Rankine and assume we rated Motlop (or didn’t think he’d still be there).

We offered a second rounder for Hill. If we don’t rate the position/player we don’t do that.

We made a play for Rankine, point conceded.

And we bid on the Brisbane guy.

Tried to get Rosas from GC also

Who?

I’d say we that we’ve had a fairly narrow mindset on where particular positions are best found at the draft, we have been on record saying that KPF at the top end and early on in a build, ie Lloyd, Lucas, Gumbleton, Daniher*, Carlisle, Ryder, Hurley, Francis, Jones and Caddy. with the occasional exception this is accurate.

KPD we are comfortable taking in every which way, are strike rate with late picks is very good.

Small forwards we seem to think, outdatedly, that they are found later on in the draft, so much that Mosquito is the earliest we’ve invested, before then it was Long, before then Jetta.

We did have some good fortune with Fantasia and Walla which has probably reinforced the notion that you don’t need first round small forwards but obviously our succession plan for Walla failed with numerous busts like Mozzie, Eades, etc

We’ve never taken a small forward in the first round, maybe should have taken Cyril, who we rated in the second round. Maybe we should have learned from that lesson 15 years ago.

I’d say the small forward and the Power midfielder are the too common themes in the best sides of late and also to areas we have tended to not target in the draft