The Roos philosophy: trading and list building

[Beats 190]

Discussion on this has filtered through other threads, but I was interested in what people thought of two key aspects to the Roos philosophy, as reiterated in his latest interview on the club website:

1. "Every player is tradeable and every pick is tradeable"

Roos has made this known from an early stage and has also made it known to the player group that they are all tradeable. I'm sure some coaches share this philosophy, but I can't recall one who has been quite as vocal.

Is this reasonable/realistic? Is Nathan Jones tradeable? Is Jesse Hogan tradeable? Is it sending a destabilising message to the players, or is this just part and parcel with professional sport?

2. "Melbourne fans won't cop another rebuild.."

This relates to Roos' desire to top up the list with experience to make an immediate impact on the win/loss column. Prima facie this seems a wise move, particularly when contrasted with the Bailey approach of kids, kids and more kids. Fundamentally, Roos needs to "fix" the list to fill the void left by several years of ill-conceived draft picks and senior players that have moved on.

But is a priority given to older players, particularly if they are acquired with high picks, a temporary fix? Is there enough raw talent in the youth ranks to take the club towards the ultimate, or does this potentially set the club on a path to mediocrity? Is Roos getting the mix of experience and youth correct?

Point one - as others have said, 'for the right price' has been omitted from that sentence. Most players would be aware of how the club valued them and would be prepared for what may come.

Thinking about the situation we will have 5-6 'live' spots we will need to fill on the list (after stretch f/s and Jetta upgrade). I'd be thinking the dream scenario would be to get in 3-4 experienced players and 2-3 picks in the top 25 or so. Would think the players we bring in would be similar age brackets to last year - an ex a-grade player at the end of his career (Cross), a B to B+ player in the twilight of his career (Vince), a young player with talent (tyson) and speculative picks on youngish players who can't crack in to their current teams (Riley/ Michie).

Is the Giants activated end of round compensation pick tradeable? If so I'd expect we'll do a bit of trading with the Giants.

2+3+sweetener could net us Cameron+end of 1st round compo+GWS 2nd round. That deal is in our favour (depending on the sweetener), but the giants list is contracting, so I think it would be unlikely they take more than 3-4 picks in the draft, picks 2+3+4 would be tempting for them and would mean it would be unlikely they would use the end of first round and 2nd round pick (especially if the sweetener was someone who would play regular football - Howe type).

Add to that Clark for Lamumba, a late pick for a player at the end of their career chasing $$ and Blease for a speculative player (think Riley/ Michie) or a pick that can be used on a speculative player (somewhere in the 3rd round).

In: Cameron, Lamumba, speculative player - leaves us with picks 20, 23, 24, 40 (stretch), 58, 76 (Jetta).

Point two - I'd think this is board driven/ looking medium-long term. We've been utterly unsuccessful for 8 years. We simply can't sustain another 3-4 years of that. The people who post on here are typically the most rusted on supporters and a good percentage of them have lost interest in the game. If that's the reaction of those rusted on, just think of the fair weather supporters and young kids. If we keep losing with an un-attractive game style there is very little to get them through the gates. We need to win games to keep fans attending and the club alive.

As for some of the other items raised under point two - Priority will be given to getting the best players on the park in 2015, whether that be kids or established players, we need to win.

I wouldn't think we will trade high picks for an 'older player', picks 2 and 3 won't be spent on players with less than 5-6 years left. Our 2nd rounder may be used for someone with 2-4 good years left (a la Bernie).

Is there enough raw talent on the list? Yes. However over recent years our high end youngsters have been particularly unlucky with major (and potentially career limiting) injuries - broken legs, broken naviculars, ACL's etc. We need a better run of luck for them to be able to push for the ultimate.

[Beats 190]

More misses than hits in my opinion. Sellar and Gillies were a waste of time. Rodan was just OK. Pedersen just gets a tick, given he's had half a season of good form out of two completed ones. But I think I understood what Neeld was trying to do - get more bigger bodied players in the side to help our grossly, physically under-developed playing list.

Edited for spelling.

Remember that Neeld also brought in Hogan via the mini-draft. His trades were hit and miss, but when he had something of value he got something decent in return ($$$ for Clark, picks for Hogan).

The difference between Neeld and Roos is that the Roos name is a selling point - he is renowned as a great coach, Mark Neeld simply didn't have that pulling power. He had the right idea in bringing in established players to balance the list, but unfortunately we didn’t have the money (paying 95% of the cap) or the trading chips to bring in enough quality players.

[demon-4-life 467]

I have every faith in Paul Roos and his strategy. His past record speaks for itself for trades/preseason draft

2005 - Ted Richards (recycled),

2006 - Peter Everitt

2007 - Marty Mattner

2008 - Rhyce Shaw

2009 - Shane Mumford, Ben McGlynn, Josh Kennedy, Daniel Bradshaw

2010 - None

2013 - Viv Miche, Dom Tyson, Bernie Vince, Aiden Riley

Of each of those, I would say Daniel Bradshaw wasn't a success and Riley/Michie, the verdict is still out.

[Scoop Junior 3,435]

I don't think it's necessarily correct that Melbourne fans won't cop another rebuild.

I can cop a rebuild because that's exactly what you need to do with a list that is not good enough. I can cop losing if I see a wave of talented players coming through who are improving and the team as a whole is improving as well. At the end of the day it's about hope and you get that hope by seeing a talented team improving all the time.

What I cannot cop is atrocious drafting and trading away valuable picks for players that are past their best. We have seen this too often at Melbourne in recent times (particularly the former).

I have no problem getting some more experience but it has to be done in certain clever ways that doesn't cost you much - pretty much as Roos did last year with replacing Sylvia with Vince and picking up Cross as a delisted free agent.

At the end of the day we need to aim for a premiership - not to be a mid-table club without the talent to push its way further up the ladder. I can cop short-term pain if the long-term is looking bright - but I cannot accept sacrificing the long-term just to be a more competitive team in the short-term.

Roos showed last year that brining in talented youth and valuable experience are not mutually exclusive - hopefully we can do that again.

[Demon3 2,541]

Add Daniel Cross to that List Demon-4-life.

[Webber 10,454]

"Moneyball" is the act of 1) discovering which statistics correlate positively with victory; and then 2) recruiting players who measure up well in those categories, relative to their price.

That's all it means.

Which is entirely what Paul Roos and the recruiting staff are doing, recruiting players who are more likely to correlate with winning, and for what the club can afford. No?

[chook fowler 19,447]

I have confidence that this football dept do their homework and have a plan in contrast to the last lot who seemed to just rolled the dice without thinking.

[poita 3,898]

My only concern with all of this is whether Roos' ego allows him to make decisions for the long term good of the club. I'm all for investing in midfielders and key position players, because theseare what decent sides are built on, but utility types are a dime a dozen.Yes players like Lumumba and Malceski may help us to be more competitive for the next year or two, thereby helping cushion Roos' record from the almighty beating it took this year, but they bring us no nearer to a finals berth. The last flanker we paid overs for was Byron "Lard Arse" Pickett, and we all remember how that ended up for coach, player and club.

[P-man 13,366]

My only concern with all of this is whether Roos' ego allows him to make decisions for the long term good of the club. I'm all for investing in midfielders and key position players, because theseare what decent sides are built on, but utility types are a dime a dozen.Yes players like Lumumba and Malceski may help us to be more competitive for the next year or two, thereby helping cushion Roos' record from the almighty beating it took this year, but they bring us no nearer to a finals berth. The last flanker we paid overs for was Byron "Lard Arse" Pickett, and we all remember how that ended up for coach, player and club.

This gets to the heart of the discussion on the second point, which alot of posters have addressed.

Personally I think the goal should always be creating a side that can eventually win you a flag, cause otherwise, what are we actually here for?

But in saying that, I appreciate the logic to getting this side competitive now, for several reasons, not least of which is the commercial need.

Edited September 12, 2014 by P-man

[Sir Why You Little 37,010]

Bottom line is Roos uses the draft the right way.

Sydney have proved that.

Recruit what a list needs to challenge for a Flag every year.

It can be done as long as you are prepared to trade name players who have not fullfilled their promise.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,710]

I have confidence that this football dept do their homework and have a plan in contrast to the last lot who seemed to just rolled the dice without thinking.

I think both Bailey and Neeld had plans. Bailey's just seemed to be out of date and Neeld's lacked quality of execution. For example, it seemed clear to me that Bailey wanted to play what has subsequently been called "bruise free football" by using speed and running the ball through the corridor. Neeld wanted fitter and physically stronger players (ie, Sellar) to enable a contested game style. Both may have failed but I believe each had a plan.

[deanox 9,903]

When I said it is not about building for a flag what I meant was:

Good teams trying win a flag can afford to try and buy a star player, or can often afford to be patient developing a high rated skilled young draft pick which has high risk and high reward.

Teams trying to win flags might not be interested in a Harry O or a Gwilt, and instead would only look for a Goddard. But players like that may improve us cheaply.

If we can build from "utterly non competitive rubbish with rubbish culture" to "regularly competitive with good culture" across 3 years, we might not have a the poor talent to win a flag but we will have build the foundations on which to build for one.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

When I said it is not about building for a flag what I meant was:

Good teams trying win a flag can afford to try and buy a star player, or can often afford to be patient developing a high rated skilled young draft pick which has high risk and high reward.

Teams trying to win flags might not be interested in a Harry O or a Gwilt, and instead would only look for a Goddard. But players like that may improve us cheaply.

If we can build from "utterly non competitive rubbish with rubbish culture" to "regularly competitive with good culture" across 3 years, we might not have a the poor talent to win a flag but we will have build the foundations on which to build for one.

I think it's also about making your worst player better, even more so when you have no bonafide match winners.

Our worst players happen to be worse that most. We need to prop up the bottom half of the list with actual AFL standard players and we need to do this cheaply. Hopefully the match winners will materialise through the draft or high end trades.

[Machsy 2,858]

My fear is that it might become a Junior McDonald over-correction policy.

I'd be happy if we pursued something similar to last year:

• an early draft pick for a top young player (Tyson deal)
• a couple of experienced campaigners (Cross and Vince)
• a couple of fundamentally untried players on senior lists for a couple of years (Michie and Riley)

Not every trade is likely to be immediately successful but I think last year had far more ticks than crosses.

I don't think Roos cares about correcting for past indiscretions re: McDonald, and there is no real danger of overcorrection.

This is Roos running the coaching dept, not a longtime MFC supporter.

[Yossarian 1,820]

It makes more sense in the current footy climate to get your team competitive so you can be a realistic proposition for free agents. If we go for a long term rebuild for a premiership then all the senior players are just going to keep jumping ship looking for more premiership success and we'll be stuck with a bunch of kids with potential. We also won't be able to offer top dollar because we won't have the extra money kicking around from putting on a reasonably entertaining Friday night performance. It makes a lot more sense becoming a mid-tier team first than it used to.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

It makes more sense in the current footy climate to get your team competitive so you can be a realistic proposition for free agents. If we go for a long term rebuild for a premiership then all the senior players are just going to keep jumping ship looking for more premiership success and we'll be stuck with a bunch of kids with potential. We also won't be able to offer top dollar because we won't have the extra money kicking around from putting on a reasonably entertaining Friday night performance. It makes a lot more sense becoming a mid-tier team first than it used to.

Bingo.

[Whispering_Jack 29,855]

I think it's all about balance. Being positioned where we are likely to be in this draft, we have the opportunity to recruit both youth and seasoned players with experience. Our recruiting in the Daniher/Bailey era was fixed almost entirely on the draft and by the time Neeld came along, he was hampered by the fact that so many of those early draft picks were either not up to it or worse still, unmitigated disasters. Roos is attempting to right the ship. We desperately need what he's doing to work.

I was told by someone at the Bluey night (and I don't know if he speaks with any authority) that we can expect a list turnover of about 10 players with as many as six from other clubs. That sounds like the sort of change we need if we're to improve (along with the internal improvement of the many young players who remain on our list, a number of who, for various reasons, played little role in our 2014 campaign).

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

I personally have a problem and a slight paranoia with Paul Roos dictating our recruiting agenda. I don't see how a coach who has stated he isn't going to be there in two year's time should be directing traffic in this area and I would be hoping Todd Viney and or Josh Mahoney are providing checks and balances to ensure that we aren't too focused on performance in the next two years. Rumours of Gwilt and Clint Jones send shivers down my spine. The most precious materials on our list are Jesse Hogan and Dom Tyson. If Hogan lives up to his billing he will be hitting his straps in 2017 and Dom Tyson will be 24 and he has the potential to be an A-grade midfielder by then. I think all the decisions should be made to be building to something good then. If we get multiple 27-28 year old players this year that. to me. will be ridiculous. Why would you put a 28 year old on the list when you could recruit a kid who might be able to help you when Hogan and Tyson start to peak. I think Melbourne fans can cop anything be it a rebuild, be it trading established players, what they can't cop is bad decision making and all these rumours of scattergun Blease for Hunt trades and the St Kilda rejects is all scarily pointless for me.

[TRIGON 4,783]

Goodoil my understanding of what Peter Jackson has been saying (publicly) is that Roos will have a role with the club after his coaching tenure expires.

[rjay 24,902]

I personally have a problem and a slight paranoia with Paul Roos dictating our recruiting agenda. I don't see how a coach who has stated he isn't going to be there in two year's time should be directing traffic in this area and I would be hoping Todd Viney and or Josh Mahoney are providing checks and balances to ensure that we aren't too focused on performance in the next two years. Rumours of Gwilt and Clint Jones send shivers down my spine. The most precious materials on our list are Jesse Hogan and Dom Tyson. If Hogan lives up to his billing he will be hitting his straps in 2017 and Dom Tyson will be 24 and he has the potential to be an A-grade midfielder by then. I think all the decisions should be made to be building to something good then. If we get multiple 27-28 year old players this year that. to me. will be ridiculous. Why would you put a 28 year old on the list when you could recruit a kid who might be able to help you when Hogan and Tyson start to peak. I think Melbourne fans can cop anything be it a rebuild, be it trading established players, what they can't cop is bad decision making and all these rumours of scattergun Blease for Hunt trades and the St Kilda rejects is all scarily pointless for me.

I wouldn't take all the rumours as gospel 'good oil', I think you will find we are talking to every player available and probably a lot more not considered to be available. Remember bomber Thompson was still unhappy with Roos grabbing Mummy from under the Cats noses.

For all the talk of Roos philosophy what most are missing is that he has a history of trading in players in their early 20's, Tyson is a good example. If you look at the Sydney list, most of the trade ins were around this age when recruited. What most see now is the finished list, they didn't start at 28.

Frost looks an ideal for the Roos model if the past is anything to go on, if we want to predict we should be looking for players on the edge of getting a game or getting a game but not being well looked after. Forget Malceski, who is the next Malceski, who is the next Shaw, who is the next Kennedy (Tyson), who is the next Richards, who is the next mummy...

[Bonkers 994]

1) every player is tradeable if it improves the list, I think it is exactly that scenario.

2) the price paid for acquisition of a player will not be detrimental to the long term future. Older players being brought in for now will be low value picks or trades. We aren't losing in that scenario. As long as the price being paid is at market or below market trade price for these players I see no issue.

[Pirlo 813]

It's really just Jones, Tyson, Hogan, Viney and Salem who I would be dead against trading.