1 minute ago, stuie said:

To me, bringing in someone for likely just one year is the definition of a "list clogger". We're at a completely different stage now to what we were when we brought Cross in, surely.

 

While i agree the club is more advanced then when Cross came in, we're still criminally young.

Then assuming Grimes & Dawes will be off the list next year and potentially any of Dunn, Garland, Lumumba, Pedersen & Matt Jones we'd only be getting younger.

Dal Santo is still playing good football and is an elite kick still averaging 24.5 possession, 8 contested kicking at 74%. He'll finish top 10, possibly top 5 in a finalists B&F this year.

So if it's only 12 months or 2 years like Cross, i reckon he still has something to offer both on & off the football field.

Prefer Hartlett

Just now, AngryAtCasey said:

While i agree the club is more advanced then when Cross came in, we're still criminally young.

Then assuming Grimes & Dawes will be off the list next year and potentially any of Dunn, Garland, Lumumba, Pedersen & Matt Jones we'd only be getting younger.

Dal Santo is still playing good football and is an elite kick still averaging 24.5 possession, 8 contested kicking at 74%. He'll finish top 10, possibly top 5 in a finalists B&F this year.

So if it's only 12 months or 2 years like Cross, i reckon he still has something to offer both on & off the football field.

Totally agree we need some mature players, I just think "peak age" (24-28 is what we should be looking at, rather than players with only 1 (or 2 if we're lucky) years left.

Let's remember Melksham and Hibberd will replace a couple of those old guys who won't be around, and the young blokes will be older too. Grimes, Dawes, Dunn, Garland, and Lumumba barely played this year. and Jones and Pedersen aren't leaders or even best 22 next year, so it's probably not as dire as it may first seem.

Dal still has a year left, but just think the better idea is a premiership contender rather than a team trying to get experience into a group of highly talented youngsters.

 

56 minutes ago, stuie said:

Totally agree we need some mature players, I just think "peak age" (24-28 is what we should be looking at, rather than players with only 1 (or 2 if we're lucky) years left.

Let's remember Melksham and Hibberd will replace a couple of those old guys who won't be around, and the young blokes will be older too. Grimes, Dawes, Dunn, Garland, and Lumumba barely played this year. and Jones and Pedersen aren't leaders or even best 22 next year, so it's probably not as dire as it may first seem.

Dal still has a year left, but just think the better idea is a premiership contender rather than a team trying to get experience into a group of highly talented youngsters.

 

We are not speaking about getting an "average 32 year old" when we look at taking on a veteran. Rather we are looking at a formerly elite player who can still contribute on field.

The odds of us getting a similar player in the 24-28 bracket are very low and the price in both dollars and years of contract offering would be high. Hibberd and Mellksham will hopefully be good players for the club but I do ot believe anyone is expecting them to perform at a level above being a solid contributor to a regular 22.

It might be different if the likes of Grimes, Garland etc were pushing for selection but they are not in the same league as the players we are talking about

It is one position on a list and at the moment it makes sense for our list. (To make it clear I am arguing for this type of player.... it does not need to be Dal Santo...happy to leave that selection to the club).

Edited September 7, 20169 yr by Diamond_Jim

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

We are not speaking about getting an "average 32 year old" when we look at taking on a veteran. Rather we are looking at a formerly elite player who can still contribute on field.

The odds of us getting a similar player in the 24-28 bracket are very low and the price in both dollars and years of contract offering would be high.

It might be different if the likes of Grimes, Garland etc were pushing for selection but they are not in the same league as the players we are talking about

It is one position on a list and at the moment it makes sense for our list. (To make it clear I am arguing for this type of player.... it does not need to be Dal Santo...happy to leave that selection to the club).

I just think, regardless of the player, bringing in someone now for 1 year goes against the way Mahoney has talked about structuring the list. I don't see it happening, and I'd be pretty disappointed if we started going for "top ups" rather than "build ups".

 

30 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The odds of us getting a similar player in the 24-28 bracket are very low and the price in both dollars and years of contract offering would be high.

Dal Santo v Hartlett

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?playerStatus1=A&tid1=13&playerStatus2=A&tid2=14&type=A&pid1=370&pid2=3110&fid1=C&fid2=C

Yes we'd have to pay a lot more for Harlett

2 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

Yep, soft averaging a whole 0.3 contested possesions less then Vince this year. I assume you think Vince is soft also?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-melbourne-demons--bernie-vince?advv=Y

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-kangaroos--nick-dal-santo?advv=Y

I'd like to clarify that a contested possession is one where the ball is in dispute, not necessarily under physical pressure. 

 

Any time you pick up a loose bouncing ball in space, 25 m clear of any opponent, is a contested possession. 

 

Hard ball gets vs loose ball gets is a better measure of "hardness" at the contest. 

Dal Santo is an interesting one. I've had a look at his stats for 2016 and using AFL ranking points he would have been a fifth highest ranked player this year. With only Gawn, McDonald, Viney and Jones ahead oh him. Dal Santo was ranked #121. However, despite this, I'm not sure Dal Santo would fit our list. I agree Cross was an overwhelming success. But as a club, we were in a different position then. Our players are continuing to develop and with the addition of Melksham and Hibberd looking likely, I feel we'd only be robbing one of our young players from much-needed development time. I'd much rather we look at another mid in the 23-28-year-old bracket who may not necessarily be a list clogger at his current club, but rather, superfluous to the current clubs needs. 

Personally, I'd even rather look at Scotty Thompson if he was wanting to transition into a coaching role. Yes, I'm aware he is in this same age bracket, but at least we would be able to potentially gain further use out of Thompson than purely just a one-year contract. For the purposes of comparison, Thompson and Dal Santo were rather similarly ranked, #121 and #132 respectively. 

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Why would we want to bring in a player for 1 year?

 

Currently we have picks 27, 45, 63, 81.

Assuming we have 4 spots on senior list, we've already spent pick 27 on Hibberd, we use picks 45 & 63 in draft (upgraded if possible) then Del Santo comes in for what would otherwise be a pick 81 player...

That hits me as a major bargain for a player of his quality and experience... and at the "expense" of a long shot development player.

Just now, PaulRB said:

Currently we have picks 27, 45, 63, 81.

Assuming we have 4 spots on senior list, we've already spent pick 27 on Hibberd, we use picks 45 & 63 in draft (upgraded if possible) then Del Santo comes in for what would otherwise be a pick 81 player...

That hits me as a major bargain for a player of his quality and experience... and at the "expense" of a long shot development player.

We have to draft 3 players minimum.

Why would we trade anything for Dal?

 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

We have to draft 3 players minimum.

Why would we trade anything for Dal?

 

He'd make us a better team, win more football games, increase the chances of playing finals, etc ... 

Do you not think so? 

Just now, PaulRB said:

He'd make us a better team, win more football games, increase the chances of playing finals, etc ... 

Do you not think so? 

That's not the point I'm arguing right now, I'm asking why would we trade for him? Surely we could get him as a DFA?

Also, I'm not keen on him for reasons I've already explained in this thread.

 

Don't understand why we would bring him in. We've already got two experienced players in Melksham and Hibberd (Trade pending) coming in, we don't need more.

Petracca didn't even play midfield this year and Vince got relegated to the HBF, now Vince will be back into the rotation with the two aforementioned ex bombers coming in who goes out for NDS?

If we wanted experience I'd take Harvey because at least he would fill a need (Pace and quality disposal). NDS is slow and soft, Thommo is slow and surplus to our needs.

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

That's not the point I'm arguing right now, I'm asking why would we trade for him? Surely we could get him as a DFA?

Also, I'm not keen on him for reasons I've already explained in this thread.

 

Oh... agree, he's been delisted by North, why trade... 

I am keen on him, contrary to some, I like the idea of us raising the bar with players like Del Santo coming in and making it more challenging for our young mids having to learn their craft at Casey and fight for a spot in the MFC seniors team. To my mind this helps breed a culture where to play for the MFC seniors is an earned privilege that is hard to get. 

It would also moderate the highs and lows produced by a predominantly young team.

Edited September 7, 20169 yr by PaulRB

On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 at 0:58 PM, stuie said:

Why would we want to bring in a player for 1 year?

 

Considering the player we are looking at/talking AND the baited question u posted proves u actually go out of ur way just be make argumentative.

1 minute ago, thesleepinggiant said:

Considering the player we are looking at/talking AND the baited question u posted proves u actually go out of ur way just be make argumentative.

Wut?

 

3 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Oh... agree, he's been delisted by North, why trade... 

I am keen on him, contrary to some, I like the idea of us raising the bar with players like Del Santo coming in and making it more challenging for our young mids having to learn their craft at Casey and fight for a spot in the MFC seniors team. To my mind this helps breed a culture where to play for the MFC seniors is an earned privilege that is hard to get. 

It would also moderate the highs and lows produced by a predominantly young team.

Fair enough, I would just rather the competition for spots be among peers, rather than a player only around for 1 year.

 

Not that I'm huge on using SuperCoach ranking points as an analytical basis for arguments, he scored only above 100 on four occasions and was wildly erratic with his scoring. Maintained his average of 89 which he also had in 2015, but his scoring dropped remarkably from 2014 (105 down to 89). I can't see his output increasing at all and you'd have to suggest that his output will drop off. One of the only things that's attractive about him is his durability. Still, I'm lost as to how there are so many advocates of him. I personally can't see how he'd make us a better side. 

Leave the recruitment of these mature age recyclables to Richmond. They seem to have a panache for this sort of thing.  

5 minutes ago, schmuttt said:

Don't understand why we would bring him in. We've already got two experienced players in Melksham and Hibberd (Trade pending) coming in, we don't need more.

Petracca didn't even play midfield this year and Vince got relegated to the HBF, now Vince will be back into the rotation with the two aforementioned ex bombers coming in who goes out for NDS?

If we wanted experience I'd take Harvey because at least he would fill a need (Pace and quality disposal). NDS is slow and soft, Thommo is slow and surplus to our needs.

I think if you look at the 2016 season our young team were cooked by round 21. Young players, soft bodies and minds, were done 6 weeks before the GF. We need to get tougher, more experienced while continuing to develop our kids... Nicky helps do that for a year or two.

26 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Dal Santo is an interesting one. I've had a look at his stats for 2016 and using AFL ranking points he would have been a fifth highest ranked player this year. With only Gawn, McDonald, Viney and Jones ahead oh him. Dal Santo was ranked #121. However, despite this, I'm not sure Dal Santo would fit our list. I agree Cross was an overwhelming success. But as a club, we were in a different position then. Our players are continuing to develop and with the addition of Melksham and Hibberd looking likely, I feel we'd only be robbing one of our young players from much-needed development time. I'd much rather we look at another mid in the 23-28-year-old bracket who may not necessarily be a list clogger at his current club, but rather, superfluous to the current clubs needs. 

Personally, I'd even rather look at Scotty Thompson if he was wanting to transition into a coaching role. Yes, I'm aware he is in this same age bracket, but at least we would be able to potentially gain further use out of Thompson than purely just a one-year contract. For the purposes of comparison, Thompson and Dal Santo were rather similarly ranked, #121 and #132 respectively. 

As stated earlier in the thread. Looks like Thomo is staying at Radelaide, so Dal Santo will be instead of, including moving into the assistant coaching gig.

Edited September 7, 20169 yr by AngryAtCasey
Ass Coach

2 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I think if you look at the 2016 season our young team were cooked by round 21. Young players, soft bodies and minds, were done 6 weeks before the GF. We need to get tougher, more experienced while continuing to develop our kids... Nicky helps do that for a year or two.

And how did North go in the second half of the year?

 

2 minutes ago, BLWNBA said:

Not that I'm huge on using SuperCoach ranking points as an analytical basis for arguments, he scored only above 100 on four occasions and was wildly erratic with his scoring. Maintained his average of 89 which he also had in 2015, but his scoring dropped remarkably from 2014 (105 down to 89). I can't see his output increasing at all and you'd have to suggest that his output will drop off. One of the only things that's attractive about him is his durability. Still, I'm lost as to how there are so many advocates of him. I personally can't see how he'd make us a better side. 

Leave the recruitment of these mature age recyclables to Richmond. They seem to have a panache for this sort of thing.  

Do you recall the standard of our I50's v West Coast? That's just one example of how he"d help.

Just now, stuie said:

And how did North go in the second half of the year?

 

Do you mean when they stopped playing bottom 8 teams and started playing top 8 teams? predictably badly, given they are a mid table team.

Are you trying to infer it was a result of Del Santo?

Really

 

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

Do you mean when they stopped playing bottom 8 teams and started playing top 8 teams? predictably badly, given they are a mid table team.

Are you trying to infer it was a result of Del Santo?

Really

 

Are you trying to infer our young team wouldn't have tired if we had had the 32 year old Dal Santo in our 22?

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Are you trying to infer our young team wouldn't have tired if we had had the 32 year old Dal Santo in our 22?

 

You've lost me.