This is excellent news for me personally as I will not have to make another change to the Demonland Banner.

Demonland will once again be proudly sponsoring Josh and Jayden Hunt in 2017.

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Not sure why you keep talking about "risk" when the club has seen enough of him to know what we've got.

 

every list management decision has risk attached to it Stuie, i don't think it's unrealistic to suggest Josh may really struggle to get regular games, and if he does it begs the question if he was just as much value on the rookie list for another year, rather than re-signing him for 2 years now, we'd still have had him for another year as very handy depth and able to play if required, now we have taken the "risk" that we may have to carry him for 2 years if as i suggested he can't crack a regular game, potentially taking the valuable list spot away from someone else who might have been able to press more strongly more senior selection in the 2018 season. 

I just feel that he's behind a large group of players so unless we get decimated by injuries or his form is amazing he isn't going to be a regular in the AFL side, if at all, so keeping him as a rookie and re-assessing next year to me seemed more sensible, 

i wouldn't have been bothered if he was upgraded on a 1 year contract rather than 2

but as i said i am extremely happy for Josh and trust the club to make the right call, i just don't agree with this particular one.

 

2 minutes ago, Abe said:

every list management decision has risk attached to it Stuie, i don't think it's unrealistic to suggest Josh may really struggle to get regular games, and if he does it begs the question if he was just as much value on the rookie list for another year, rather than re-signing him for 2 years now, we'd still have had him for another year as very handy depth and able to play if required, now we have taken the "risk" that we may have to carry him for 2 years if as i suggested he can't crack a regular game, potentially taking the valuable list spot away from someone else who might have been able to press more strongly more senior selection in the 2018 season. 

I just feel that he's behind a large group of players so unless we get decimated by injuries or his form is amazing he isn't going to be a regular in the AFL side, if at all, so keeping him as a rookie and re-assessing next year to me seemed more sensible, 

i wouldn't have been bothered if he was upgraded on a 1 year contract rather than 2

but as i said i am extremely happy for Josh and trust the club to make the right call, i just don't agree with this particular one.

 

As I said earlier, there will likely be 20 players who will struggle to get regular games, it doesn't mean that don't have a valuable place on our list.

You do know that whomever we picked with 84 would have been given a minimum of 2 years?

I don't understand why people are complaining or questioning this. Firstly, it's a much safer proposition taking someone we've had in the club for a year already than a very late pick 18 year old. Secondly, the people you're backing to pull off a miracle with pick 84 are the same people who have made the decision about Wagner.

 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

As I said earlier, there will likely be 20 players who will struggle to get regular games, it doesn't mean that don't have a valuable place on our list.

You do know that whomever we picked with 84 would have been given a minimum of 2 years?

I don't understand why people are complaining or questioning this. Firstly, it's a much safer proposition taking someone we've had in the club for a year already than a very late pick 18 year old. Secondly, the people you're backing to pull off a miracle with pick 84 are the same people who have made the decision about Wagner.

 

Because it is Demonland........think he is being rewarded for really good first season, spoke to him towards the end of the year, he had just run out of petrol, McCartney has good wraps on him, that will do me, I want at least 2 guys vying for each position each week

21 minutes ago, Abe said:

But he'd have a spot either way, he'd either be a rookie or on the senior list, so he'd be on the list. 

to me the risk is re-signing him for two years because though he's rated highly internally i am fairly confident he's not rated more highly than Vince, Jetta, Hibberd, Hunt, Melksham and Salem who right off the bat play that position, so the risk being we might have re-contracted a guy who isn't going to get a game when we really didn't need to take any action and he could have been in the same position, at Casey putting pressure on and providing good depth. 

I get that you have 40 odd players on the list so not everyone you recruit is going to be best 22 on paper or whatever and i understand this is the club saying he's more likely to play than the player we would have grabbed at pick 84 or whatever, i guess i am just a little surprised, given we would have had him either way, and where i rate him personally within that group of half back/wing players

all this is irrelevant now though because the decision has been made and i am very happy for him.

I'd have Trengove, Lumumba, Pedersen, Spencer, Vince (retired), JKH, ANB (traded), Garland (retired/paid out) all ahead of Wagner to not be retained on the senior list next year.

That's 8 already and there's a few more other options.

I can see the point of not upgrading Wagner, especially if Smith or White come on. But I also think Wagner is good enough to be around the mark at AFL level for a while and by upgrading him we get a number of advantages:

1. He can play without restriction
2. We rookie a kid instead of giving a 2 year deal to a pick 80+
3. We can front load his new contract to spend more salary next year and save salary in 2018.
4. Josh gets financial security and peace of mind to develop. He doesn't have to overtrain or play injured, be shunted around positions or thrown in to the side late in the year to see if he's up to it. We believe culture is important and clubs believing in players is surely a big part of that.

I am sure that Josh Wagner will grab the chance with both hands and become a regular player in the squad. People do need to get used to the idea that you have to rotate your best 22 so that your optimum 22 stay fresh, especially if you are playing finals. Look at how Hawthorn have regularly rested Rioli just before finals. It is players like Wagner who can fill those positions and play for 6-10 First Team games a year, more if they play really well.

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

As I said earlier, there will likely be 20 players who will struggle to get regular games, it doesn't mean that don't have a valuable place on our list.

You do know that whomever we picked with 84 would have been given a minimum of 2 years?

I don't understand why people are complaining or questioning this. Firstly, it's a much safer proposition taking someone we've had in the club for a year already than a very late pick 18 year old. Secondly, the people you're backing to pull off a miracle with pick 84 are the same people who have made the decision about Wagner.

 

Absolutely, and if you read my posts you will see that i am not questioning his place on the list, but rather the need to re-sign him right now. 

He'd still be on the list and able to play if required, but it has to be acknowledged that he's a long way down the pecking order and no certainty to play much if at all in those two years, and given he is a mature age player and not an 18 year old, time isn't on his side quite as much.

 

24 minutes ago, Abe said:

But he'd have a spot either way, he'd either be a rookie or on the senior list, so he'd be on the list. 

to me the risk is re-signing him for two years because though he's rated highly internally i am fairly confident he's not rated more highly than Vince, Jetta, Hibberd, Hunt, Melksham and Salem who right off the bat play that position, so the risk being we might have re-contracted a guy who isn't going to get a game when we really didn't need to take any action and he could have been in the same position, at Casey putting pressure on and providing good depth. 

I get that you have 40 odd players on the list so not everyone you recruit is going to be best 22 on paper or whatever and i understand this is the club saying he's more likely to play than the player we would have grabbed at pick 84 or whatever, i guess i am just a little surprised, given we would have had him either way, and where i rate him personally within that group of half back/wing players

all this is irrelevant now though because the decision has been made and i am very happy for him.

After the Doggies improvement over the last few years and obviously winning the big one this year, I think the half-back position is now seen as just about the most important driver of an attacking team. So they way I look at it, that can be up to 4 spots on the ground at any time (allowing for 2 KPD the majority of the time), so even with those players mentioned, plus I'd add in Lumumba, that gives us around 8 - 10 players who can fill those spots, and in the case of Vince, Melksham, Hunt and Salem can also push into the middle or the wings. I also like that Frost and the Macs also take the game on more so than other stay at home defenders. 

I know you clarify that your happy to trust the FD, but even though he's not my first picked in that position, he is a guy that'll come in and play an attacking defenders role if one of the others goes down or moves into the middle.   

Just now, Abe said:

Absolutely, and if you read my posts you will see that i am not questioning his place on the list, but rather the need to re-sign him right now. 

He'd still be on the list and able to play if required, but it has to be acknowledged that he's a long way down the pecking order and no certainty to play much if at all in those two years, and given he is a mature age player and not an 18 year old, time isn't on his side quite as much.

 

Same thing. You are questioning his place on the list. That's exactly what you're doing by definition.

You seem to still be missing my point that the very people you trust with our drafting have decided he is a better option than anything that will be available at pick 84.

And again, for the third time, the list management team would understand we have more than 22 players on our list, so the old "he's not best 22" cliche that gets thrown around is pointless and void.

 

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'd have Trengove, Lumumba, Pedersen, Spencer, Vince (retired), JKH, ANB (traded), Garland (retired/paid out) all ahead of Wagner to not be retained on the senior list next year.

That's 8 already and there's a few more other options.

I can see the point of not upgrading Wagner, especially if Smith or White come on. But I also think Wagner is good enough to be around the mark at AFL level for a while and by upgrading him we get a number of advantages:

1. He can play without restriction
2. We rookie a kid instead of giving a 2 year deal to a pick 80+
3. We can front load his new contract to spend more salary next year and save salary in 2018.
4. Josh gets financial security and peace of mind to develop. He doesn't have to overtrain or play injured, be shunted around positions or thrown in to the side late in the year to see if he's up to it. We believe culture is important and clubs believing in players is surely a big part of that.

See his aim is to play senior footy, and to be upgraded suggests that's what the club wants from him, as a mature age player. 

he's currently battling with Hibberd, Salem, Stretch, Melksham, Jetta, Hunt and Vince, and any mids who rotate through that position, and that's not including guys like Lumumba who i'd consider good enough to take a spot if they find form, so he's up against it. 

but time will tell, and i obviously very much welcome being proven wrong in this case.

stick to your guns abe. your opinion is as valid as anyones.

Just now, Abe said:

See his aim is to play senior footy, and to be upgraded suggests that's what the club wants from him, as a mature age player. 

he's currently battling with Hibberd, Salem, Stretch, Melksham, Jetta, Hunt and Vince, and any mids who rotate through that position, and that's not including guys like Lumumba who i'd consider good enough to take a spot if they find form, so he's up against it. 

but time will tell, and i obviously very much welcome being proven wrong in this case.

If you list it in terms of position he's down the order, but list it in terms of quality on the list as I did and he's ahead of plenty.

If we do have too many good players at half back and weaknesses elsewhere I think we are better off moving players to different spots instead of leaving good players on the rookie list. 

Stretch is a wingman. Salem can easily play forward/mid. Melksham and Hunt can go to a wing. Vince can play midfield. I'd love to try Jetta as a defensive forward. And Wagner can play as the third tall defender for the right match up.

Lumumba is done.

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

Same thing. You are questioning his place on the list. That's exactly what you're doing by definition.

You seem to still be missing my point that the very people you trust with our drafting have decided he is a better option than anything that will be available at pick 84.

And again, for the third time, the list management team would understand we have more than 22 players on our list, so the old "he's not best 22" cliche that gets thrown around is pointless and void.

 

No Stuie, not missing the point at all, here is a quote from post number 24

"I get that you have 40 odd players on the list so not everyone you recruit is going to be best 22 on paper or whatever and i understand this is the club saying he's more likely to play than the player we would have grabbed at pick 84 or whatever"

please read my posts before you accuse me of missing the point. 

i am saying i don't see the need to promote someone that is going to struggle to play senior footy, he'd have been ready and able to play if required anyway, and pick 84 while speculative could have been used to address a need, for example a mature age ruckman from the state leagues to provide some depth in that area, and we'd have still had Wagner.

but in any case my point has been well and truely argued, so i am out, have a good night guys.

2 minutes ago, Abe said:

No Stuie, not missing the point at all, here is a quote from post number 24

"I get that you have 40 odd players on the list so not everyone you recruit is going to be best 22 on paper or whatever and i understand this is the club saying he's more likely to play than the player we would have grabbed at pick 84 or whatever"

please read my posts before you accuse me of missing the point. 

i am saying i don't see the need to promote someone that is going to struggle to play senior footy, he'd have been ready and able to play if required anyway, and pick 84 while speculative could have been used to address a need, for example a mature age ruckman from the state leagues to provide some depth in that area, and we'd have still had Wagner.

It is your opinion he is going to struggle, as we are still 6 months away from the start of the season, not sure you can make that call, you are assuming he doesn't develop over the pre season and actually pass some of those supposedly ahead of him, a la Jayden Hunt The FD would not have done this if we were still looking for a mature age ruckman, the only people who think we need one are on here

 

10 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Stretch is a wingman. Salem can easily play forward/mid. Melksham and Hunt can go to a wing. Vince can play midfield. I'd love to try Jetta as defensive forward. And Wagner can play as the third tall defender for the right match up.

Lumumba is done.

Agree with the above except I don't think Nev would agree with you, sees himself exactly where he plays now, but I suppose if he lost his spot and meant he would regain spot, would probably try it

As for Lumumba, want to see what he looks like at end of pre season

2 hours ago, hemingway said:

Agreed, loved his attack on the ball and desperation. Joins a list of real goers.  A bit behind Hunt but this boy could be good. 

I liked his first year but I would say this is the area of weakness as well as hitting targets. Different views I guess....

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

I'm surprised; I didn't see the hurry as I see his position as one in very tight competition next year.

Congratulations to him though. It's a good reward for a promising debut season, and the club obviously rate him.

The club are right to rate him...... And right to promote him. He is a player with a heap of upside and will be an excellent player in our future, especially learning his craft from the likes of Hibberd. 

This guy has a fair bit of poise and alot of endeavour. 

Sure, we now have a few guys in his position but we're yet to see whether Hibberd or Melksham will provide anything after a year off and 22 is still young.

I'm happy enough with this signing.

Bring on 2017!

58 minutes ago, Abe said:

every list management decision has risk attached to it Stuie, i don't think it's unrealistic to suggest Josh may really struggle to get regular games, and if he does it begs the question if he was just as much value on the rookie list for another year, rather than re-signing him for 2 years now, we'd still have had him for another year as very handy depth and able to play if required, now we have taken the "risk" that we may have to carry him for 2 years if as i suggested he can't crack a regular game, potentially taking the valuable list spot away from someone else who might have been able to press more strongly more senior selection in the 2018 season. 

I just feel that he's behind a large group of players so unless we get decimated by injuries or his form is amazing he isn't going to be a regular in the AFL side, if at all, so keeping him as a rookie and re-assessing next year to me seemed more sensible, 

i wouldn't have been bothered if he was upgraded on a 1 year contract rather than 2

but as i said i am extremely happy for Josh and trust the club to make the right call, i just don't agree with this particular one.

 

Clearly, and I mean clearly, your view of Wagner is very different from the clubs.

I'm with Abe and Nasher on this one.

 

I didn't see the attack on the ball that some did, and he looked lost at times, although mainly as the season faded.

Congrats to him, and good luck.

26 minutes ago, Abe said:

 

i am saying i don't see the need to promote someone that is going to struggle to play senior footy, he'd have been ready and able to play if required anyway, and pick 84 while speculative could have been used to address a need, for example a mature age ruckman from the state leagues to provide some depth in that area, and we'd have still had Wagner.

 

I'm thinking that the decision was made as we probably won't go that deep in the draft and happy with the depth until around 70 and thinking that most of our prospects will be taken. 

 

Much like the McKenna trade from GWS. 

Wagner after playing half the season in his first year and injury concerns a 2 year extension is reasonable. A

47 minutes ago, Abe said:

 

i am saying i don't see the need to promote someone that is going to struggle to play senior footy, he'd have been ready and able to play if required anyway, and pick 84 while speculative could have been used to address a need, for example a mature age ruckman from the state leagues to provide some depth in that area, and we'd have still had Wagner.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but we will have different issues going forward than we did a couple of years ago.  The pendulum is swinging over from development the list to consolidating the list.

Top clubs have issues keeping AFL standard players on their list due to a lack of opportunity and then the issue becomes depth.  

Wagner is considered AFL standard.  The club saw a chance to sign up a player of AFL standard for bottom dollar and took it.  It's a reasonable thing to do if you believe that you are on the cusp of success.

It signals our thoughts for the draft.

We dont rate pick 86 enough to give them 2 years on the primary list.

Wagner deserves at least another 2 years. 

It means our rookie picks will be the smokiest of the smokey. 1 year to impress or they are out.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

stick to your guns abe. your opinion is as valid as anyones.

You may notice that Abe and I are able to disagree and have robust discussion without hurling personal insults.

Hint hint...

 

1 hour ago, Abe said:

No Stuie, not missing the point at all, here is a quote from post number 24

"I get that you have 40 odd players on the list so not everyone you recruit is going to be best 22 on paper or whatever and i understand this is the club saying he's more likely to play than the player we would have grabbed at pick 84 or whatever"

please read my posts before you accuse me of missing the point. 

i am saying i don't see the need to promote someone that is going to struggle to play senior footy, he'd have been ready and able to play if required anyway, and pick 84 while speculative could have been used to address a need, for example a mature age ruckman from the state leagues to provide some depth in that area, and we'd have still had Wagner.

but in any case my point has been well and truely argued, so i am out, have a good night guys.

Apologies for missing that, I mixed a few messages in my post to you that were directed at other posters also.

I still say though, we will have 20 players who will struggle to play senior footy, that's just the reality of AFL lists. I also think we'll rookie a mature age ruckman, that's what the rookie list is generally for anyway. I take it as a good sign of the strength of our list that we're not going to use pick 84.

 

Congrats Josh and well earned promotion. IMO opinion Josh offers a lot of half back and whilst he may not have the run of other candidates he is excellent overhead and I found a feature of his game early on was his intercept marking and he goes hard.