Generally, on the 2015 season I don’t think we need to or should be tanking. The second half of the season the draw is a lot easier, with key midfielders coming back our performance may improve, and we might see what this team can do. Be more daring with selections and play more kids, yes. But don’t weight development over wins yet. I am still lid off.
BUT, if we do continue as we are, losing to all the mid-tier teams except one or two wins, and struggling against the bottom 4 sides, then I think a rebuild has to be on the cards. In response to SplitRound’s very good OP:
Could we Tank
I absolutely agree that the aggressive rebuild is a lot less effective than it once was. I wouldn’t necessarily call coming out of it a fast climb - the only teams that came out fast were ones who mostly went down for injuries (e.g. Collingwood). Most of the successful ones (St Kilda, Bulldogs, Geelong (accidentally), Hawthorn) took 3-5 years to do it. But with FA, removing priority picks and the general reduction in players trade value it has made it more difficult. And of course, we’re not getting good value for money on players who do leave.
Would we Tank
Agree totally that EFC don’t have the balls. I made no secret of the fact that I thought key older players such as Hille, Lucas, JJ should have been traded out in 2006/2007 and other spots made open for youngsters. Instead, we went for the slow steady rebuild which means 8 years later we may have to start again with nothing to show for it. If a board could be so delusional they hire a coach in 2007 on the basis we didn’t need to rebuild, well lets just hope that this board has its eyes open more. Its clear we have been pushing for a premiership with our recruitment the last few years, so it would be a 180 degree turn.
Should we Tank
This one is trickier. As I said above, I don’t think so in 2015 because I don’t think we’re as bad as we currently look. But if over the next 12 weeks that is proven to be optimistic and wildly off the mark, it needs to be considered. The thing is - if we’re that bad, we have to rebuild regardless. The question then becomes, what can you do to speed up that process? I would argue that the steps we could take are:
- Wherever we have older players on the fringe of the best 22, trade or delist. To give youngsters opportunity. So Dempsey, Howlett, Gwilt should all go as they don't fit the age profile to be playing in the next GF.
- If we can move on senior players to clubs which might give them success, and us something back, do it. Especially if by using our salary cap we can get a good trade. So like Lake to Hawthorn - win, win, win. I'm thinking Stanton, Bags, Hibberd, maybe even Jobe. Guys who I would love to see have a premiership medal and if they can't do it for us, having given everything, and we got good value, let them go. Obviously a balance must be made as you need good seniors to guide the youngsters, so you wouldn't trade them all out. And only if they wanted to do it - if they want to stay here without success, fine. But consider it. Goddard might also be considered tradeable.
- Look hard at the mid-age tier of Myers, Hocking, Zaha and Melksham. Decide if they are up to it, what they are worth. Ideally, this group would be still around to be the senior statesman and the non-champion core of the next push. But if any won't make it, maybe trade now while they have currency.
- If we have a surplus anywhere, trade out. Yes, I'm looking at the Carlisle/Hooker/Hurley dilemma. We don't need 3 tall KP backs. If there is a decision he can't play forward (and I personally disagree with that) or that he won't play forward (only coaches & he would know) then one of the talls should go. Why have a best in the league #3 tall defender (if that occurs) when instead you could have Stein and two good draft picks? Having a great #3 tall back is just not valuable enough to do it.
- I would probably let Belly go, as trading for rucks when you're closer to the window is quite common. Trade Belly now, use McKernan/Giles and recruit some youngsters, and recognise we'll lose the ruck for a few years.
- Be more aggressive with who gets cut. Players like Kommer can't get 3 year deals. Pears should have been on the rookie list two years ago. If you're keeping a player like NOB around, give them some games.
- All the moves above will give a lot of salary cap space. Use that by either packaging it with players traded for better deals, and target FA's who are in the 26 age zone and good. They should still be around for a premiership tilt.
- Target GWS. A number of teams have done brilliantly with deals for guys on their fringe who can't get games. Hopefully Edwards is such a steal for us. If we get picks from the above moves, look hard at giving them to GWS (or the players themselves if they want them) for youngsters.
- Don't be afraid to cut hard, and then give a group of mature aged players 1 year deals to ease the transition from this year to next. Nobody's tried it, let's do a mature age player PSD fight off! :)
The target should be to keep the core of the team who are 26/27 and under, and be trying to get value elsewhere. If we can keep Zaha, Myers, Hocking, Melksham, Heppell, Hooker, Hurley, JD, Gleeson, Colyer, Carlisle, Zerrett, then that gives us a pretty solid core, especially if other youngsters on the list (Laverde, Langford, McKenna, Dalgiesh, Jerrett, Kav, Edwards, Fantasia, Ashby) can develop as we hope.
Of course, there are risks. 2015 could be a terrible draft to be trading into (our issue in 2002 & 2003). We just lost a lot of picks due to the Saga (directly & indirectly), which makes things harder. We may be contracted to keep players like Gwilt, Cooney and Goddard around. Doing this might gut the group, obviously we need to manage that. But there are risks around slowly rebuilding over 8 years too.
On the saga, the AFL have already punished us. I don’t believe they will be doing anything else. The last thing they want is for us to be in a position where they need to be considering giving us priority picks. That would be a headache for them as much as us. The bigger problem is perception. If we did start trading out like I suggested above, journalists who said there is an “exodus” might feel vindicated. And they might argue we’re cleaning shop. These are just things we would need to deal with. The alternative is another 8 years of mediocrity.