Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

[chef]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

I've got a bad feeling Bate is going to be our first target come the end of the season.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

I doubt Dangerfield would want to go to a club that's window of success has gone by so recently. Additionally, other clubs would likely beat us to him, considering you would probably pay overs for him. Who else is out of contract and can we look at?
A list of players who are up for free agency here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/who-is-up-for-free-agency/story-e6frf9jf-1226278832964

Players I would have: Sewell - we have plenty of power in the mid, but he would make a great player anywhere on the ground IMO
David Wojcinski if he doesn't retire.
Scarlett! imagine him and Lake in the backline...^_^ probably going to retire but who knows?
anyone know anything about Jordan Russel from Carlton?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

In light of our interest in Cloke, I thought it would be worthwhile to list a few names that would perhaps suit our list.

- Chris Knights
- Jed Adcock
- Jordan Russell
- Danyle Pearce

There's some talent in this list, albeit with an element of risk. Knights is a forward who was electric a few years ago but has struggled with injury and form since. Adcock is a running defender who has struggled with injury, Russell was very good for Carlton a year or two ago but has slipped down the order and Pearce is a good outside player in a very average side.

Personally I think we should look at one or two of these and continue to use early draft picks to rebuild our list, rather than go 'all in' for Cloke.

[Bornadog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

In light of our interest in Cloke, I thought it would be worthwhile to list a few names that would perhaps suit our list.

- Chris Knights
- Jed Adcock
- Jordan Russell
- Danyle Pearce

There's some talent in this list, albeit with an element of risk. Knights is a forward who was electric a few years ago but has struggled with injury and form since. Adcock is a running defender who has struggled with injury, Russell was very good for Carlton a year or two ago but has slipped down the order and Pearce is a good outside player in a very average side.

Personally I think we should look at one or two of these and continue to use early draft picks to rebuild our list, rather than go 'all in' for Cloke.

Prefer Cloke, and how is it all in? We can still build our list, especially at the end of this year. I don't like any on the list you have there.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Prefer Cloke, and how is it all in? We can still build our list, especially at the end of this year. I don't like any on the list you have there.

See my post in the other thread.

He'll elevate us up the ladder, but we won't challenge nor be in a position to use early draft picks. No man's land IMO.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

See my post in the other thread.

He'll elevate us up the ladder, but we won't challenge nor be in a position to use early draft picks. No man's land IMO.

Hi TBB, not a bad point but i think your diagnosis is slightly off. Our list is unbalanced because of crap drafting a few years back which has meant that we have a bunch of fantastic veterans, a bunch of good kids, but no real players - other than a couple of clear exceptions - in the 23 to 26 year old bracket who would now be the core of the side and commanding most of our salary cap. Our vets were also the core of a side good enough to seriously challenge for 3 flags, so should not be sneezed at or wasted. If we just keep going for early draft picks this wont address the imbalance.. we'll just have more kids a la Melbourne.

We have plenty of kids on the books, and more coming in our big draft this year, but if we wait for all of them to mature we throw away the careers of Lake et al, which is a mistake in my book. They are still good enough to contribute to a huge challenge.

Topping up with some established guns in the 23 to 26 year old range means two things:
1. We balance up our list and pay everyone their correct value. Now that we have no established players in the middle bracket we run the real risk of having our older or younger players commanding more than they should just because we have the cap room. Its not overs either to pay for guns in that middle brqcket because if we had drafted well WE WOULD BE PAYING THAT ANYWAY, except to in house stars. Since we dont have them, we may as well import some and pay them what we would have paid our own guns if we had any.
2. When our vets retire in 2 to 3 years we're not left with a list of kids. If we get in good 23 to 26 year olds now, in 2 to 3 years they will still be important contributors while our younger players start taking over. A balanced list needs great contributors across all age groups.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Finally, a club doesnt have to stay on the bottom long to bounce back..see west coast, essendon etc conversely,staying down too long is a real risk.. see melboure, richmond...

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Finally, a club doesnt have to stay on the bottom long to bounce back..see west coast, essendon etc conversely,staying down too long is a real risk.. see melboure, richmond...

Yes it is encouraging. Because let's face it, the draw is not even right?
Even a developing team, given a long break against a team who had a short break, or has injuries, played a blockbuster the week before, should have a chance of knocking over an opposition that's better on paper. It makes for a more interesting comp if there are less of these long dips in form.

I'm not a Port fan, but I don't mind them as a club - with some traditional basis as a team. It's woeful how bad they are and bad for the comp all round, to have them being so poor for so long.

[comrade]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

I'm not a Port fan, but I don't mind them as a club - with some traditional basis as a team. It's woeful how bad they are and bad for the comp all round, to have them being so poor for so long.

They won a flag 8 years ago.

If I saw a Bulldogs premiership, I wouldn't care if they didn't win a thing for the next 50+ years.

Oh, wait...

[1eyedog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Hi TBB, not a bad point but i think your diagnosis is slightly off. Our list is unbalanced because of crap drafting a few years back which has meant that we have a bunch of fantastic veterans, a bunch of good kids, but no real players - other than a couple of clear exceptions - in the 23 to 26 year old bracket who would now be the core of the side and commanding most of our salary cap. Our vets were also the core of a side good enough to seriously challenge for 3 flags, so should not be sneezed at or wasted. If we just keep going for early draft picks this wont address the imbalance.. we'll just have more kids a la Melbourne.

We have plenty of kids on the books, and more coming in our big draft this year, but if we wait for all of them to mature we throw away the careers of Lake et al, which is a mistake in my book. They are still good enough to contribute to a huge challenge.

Topping up with some established guns in the 23 to 26 year old range means two things:
1. We balance up our list and pay everyone their correct value. Now that we have no established players in the middle bracket we run the real risk of having our older or younger players commanding more than they should just because we have the cap room. Its not overs either to pay for guns in that middle brqcket because if we had drafted well WE WOULD BE PAYING THAT ANYWAY, except to in house stars. Since we dont have them, we may as well import some and pay them what we would have paid our own guns if we had any.
2. When our vets retire in 2 to 3 years we're not left with a list of kids. If we get in good 23 to 26 year olds now, in 2 to 3 years they will still be important contributors while our younger players start taking over. A balanced list needs great contributors across all age groups.

It's pretty hard to draft well with solid numbers when you have a level of success over a number of years. We played the Elimination Final in 2006, since then we have only missed out on finals once in 2007 (off the top of my head). So we have been a fair way down the pecking order. Everitt was a terrible selection at 11 granted but we have not exactly been blessed with top 10 picks over the past five years. I know that picks between 20-40 have not been great but there is a greater element of risk here. If we had just played a bit crapper bewteen 2006-2010 we'd probably have a good blend now, certainly a number of good players in the 23-24 age bracket.

[1eyedog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

They won a flag 8 years ago.

If I saw a Bulldogs premiership, I wouldn't care if they didn't win a thing for the next 50+ years.Oh, wait...

This.

Oh, wait...

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Hi TBB, not a bad point but i think your diagnosis is slightly off. Our list is unbalanced because of crap drafting a few years back which has meant that we have a bunch of fantastic veterans, a bunch of good kids, but no real players - other than a couple of clear exceptions - in the 23 to 26 year old bracket who would now be the core of the side and commanding most of our salary cap. Our vets were also the core of a side good enough to seriously challenge for 3 flags, so should not be sneezed at or wasted. If we just keep going for early draft picks this wont address the imbalance.. we'll just have more kids a la Melbourne.

We have plenty of kids on the books, and more coming in our big draft this year, but if we wait for all of them to mature we throw away the careers of Lake et al, which is a mistake in my book. They are still good enough to contribute to a huge challenge.

Topping up with some established guns in the 23 to 26 year old range means two things:
1. We balance up our list and pay everyone their correct value. Now that we have no established players in the middle bracket we run the real risk of having our older or younger players commanding more than they should just because we have the cap room. Its not overs either to pay for guns in that middle brqcket because if we had drafted well WE WOULD BE PAYING THAT ANYWAY, except to in house stars. Since we dont have them, we may as well import some and pay them what we would have paid our own guns if we had any.
2. When our vets retire in 2 to 3 years we're not left with a list of kids. If we get in good 23 to 26 year olds now, in 2 to 3 years they will still be important contributors while our younger players start taking over. A balanced list needs great contributors across all age groups.

It's a good post Lantern and I do agree with a lot of it.

I suppose the end question is how much quality football do we think is left in Lake, Murphy and Hargrave particularly? Morris/Cooney too -- maybe. Most of that stems from our back half.

I really think Morris and Cooney are going to struggle to ever meaningfully contribute again. Gia has played really well the last few weeks, but his body looks to be giving way.

It kinda reminds me of 2010 when we recruited Hall. Unfortunately by that stage, a few of our older players were finished (Johnson, Akermanis, Eagleton). If it wasn't for Hall, we would have fallen in 2012, and we would have completely capitulated last year. I fear this time it could be worse.

Definitely not disappointed that we are looking at Cloke, though.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

It's a good post Lantern and I do agree with a lot of it.

I suppose the end question is how much quality football do we think is left in Lake, Murphy and Hargrave particularly? Morris/Cooney too -- maybe. Most of that stems from our back half.

I really think Morris and Cooney are going to struggle to ever meaningfully contribute again. Gia has played really well the last few weeks, but his body looks to be giving way.

It kinda reminds me of 2010 when we recruited Hall. Unfortunately by that stage, a few of our older players were finished (Johnson, Akermanis, Eagleton). If it wasn't for Hall, we would have fallen in 2012, and we would have completely capitulated last year. I fear this time it could be worse.

Definitely not disappointed that we are looking at Cloke, though.

Getting Travis Cloke would be an enormous fillip for the Club. A class key forward is an absolute for us going forward.
I cannot recall the last time we recruited a top line player at their peak. Hall and Akermanis were not highly sought after players compared to a Cloke. I would find it hard to imagine that Cloke would be serious about leaving Collingwood. I can see someone like Cloke being more attracted to an Essendon or a Carlton, given their image. Recruiting a Cloke would be a huge incentive to boost memberships and be a great confidence booster for our younger players in particular. You can imagine how Chris Judd would lift his lesser known Carlton team mates. There would be a big upsize IMO to recruit Cloke, to make other clubs realize that we are the real deal when it comes to free agency.
Come on David Smorgan and Sue Alberti by doing a Richard Pratt/ Chris Judd type deal.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Getting Travis Cloke would be an enormous fillip for the Club. A class key forward is an absolute for us going forward.
I cannot recall the last time we recruited a top line player at their peak. Hall and Akermanis were not highly sought after players compared to a Cloke. I would find it hard to imagine that Cloke would be serious about leaving Collingwood. I can see someone like Cloke being more attracted to an Essendon or a Carlton, given their image. Recruiting a Cloke would be a huge incentive to boost memberships and be a great confidence booster for our younger players in particular. You can imagine how Chris Judd would lift his lesser known Carlton team mates. There would be a big upsize IMO to recruit Cloke, to make other clubs realize that we are the real deal when it comes to free agency.
Come on David Smorgan and Sue Alberti by doing a Richard Pratt/ Chris Judd type deal.

To get that done, I think they'd have to do a Christopher Skase-type deal.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Would we could we? Free Agency Ponderings #239

Watching Cloke tonight. Very good contested mark but selfish and wasteful also.
Gives away frees and 50s, misses shots when he could go an inside player. Abuses umpires. 50/50