1 minute ago, chookrat said:

Adding to this we've also built a reputation of identifying players we want to target early and being good to deal with and focussing on our overall trade period, rather than trying to win every trade.  This approach helps in players nominating us because they know we will be fair in deaping eith their existing club and will make the deal happen. 

Absolutely.

We might have stunk it up on field this year, but off field we've been terrific in this regard for a while now.

23 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

What part of retaining players allows you to totally overlook the fact that, apart from Hogan (who had a desire to go home anyway), we have signed up every other player who is crucial to our list?  I love how you focus on Hogan but ignore how we've signed Gawn, Tom Mac, Viney, Oliver, Petracca, Gus, Salem etc to contracts while still being able to recruit the players we want.

To me, Mahoney has done a stellar job and Hogan was a different one.  He indicated a desire to go home and, when the Steven May opportunity presented itself, we went for it.  Nothing wrong with that.

Don't kid yourself, we showed Hogan the door. If we genuinely wanted to keep him he would still be here.

You appear to have ignored the part where I stated Mahoney said we couldn't take May if we had Hogan. Clearly our cap isn't really being managed that well. Yet, Richmond can go out and pick up Tom Lynch on a fat contract coming off a dominant season.

2 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Don't kid yourself, we showed Hogan the door. If we genuinely wanted to keep him he would still be here.

You appear to have ignored the part where I stated Mahoney said we couldn't take May if we had Hogan. Clearly our cap isn't really being managed that well. Yet, Richmond can go out and pick up Tom Lynch on a fat contract coming off a dominant season.

Why?  Because we showed one player the door to get another?  You can't see far enough ahead to understand that the recruitment of May, and the loss of Hogan, would have been looked at from a long term point of view, not just from one salary cap in 2019.

We also picked up Jake Lever on a 'fat' contract and didn't lose anyone doing it either, just like Lynch.

You're kidding yourself here.  The fact we've signed up all the players we wanted to in the past 3-4 years, and that we can also now recruit further players to the list, is proof of good salary cap management.

14 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Why?  Because we showed one player the door to get another?  You can't see far enough ahead to understand that the recruitment of May, and the loss of Hogan, would have been looked at from a long term point of view, not just from one salary cap in 2019.

We also picked up Jake Lever on a 'fat' contract and didn't lose anyone doing it either, just like Lynch.

You're kidding yourself here.  The fact we've signed up all the players we wanted to in the past 3-4 years, and that we can also now recruit further players to the list, is proof of good salary cap management.

Have we really signed up all the players we wanted? I recall Hill only last week saying he doesn’t want to come to the Dees so I wouldn’t pat ourself on the back in that regard.

Also being able to recruit further players to the list is a mandatory requirement of his job, I wouldn’t go having parties about someone doing the bare minimum of their job. Jesus imagine he couldn’t even do that aspect of it, we wouldn’t even have players to field a team.

Recruiting injury prone players who struggle to even get on the field but consume a chunk of our cap is NOT good list management.  Our forward line is now desolate with Jones our clubs leading goal kicker.

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by olisik

1 minute ago, olisik said:

Have we really signed up all the players we wanted? I recall Hill only last week saying he doesn’t want to come to the Dees so I wouldn’t pat ourself on the back in that regard.

Also being able to recruit further players to the list is a mandatory requirement of his job, I wouldn’t go having parties about someone doing the bare minimum of their job. Jesus imagine he couldn’t even do that aspect of it, we wouldn’t even have players to field a team.

Recruiting injury prone players who struggle to even get on the field but consume a chunk of our cap is NOT good list management.

I'm talking about signing the players we currently have.  Having room to get others has been a bonus.

And the argument isn't list management.  It's how we've used the salary cap, which we've done well when you consider the fact that all our younger and important players have signed on with minimal fuss over the last few years.  That's just simple fact.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

I'm talking about signing the players we currently have.  Having room to get others has been a bonus.

And the argument isn't list management.  It's how we've used the salary cap, which we've done well when you consider the fact that all our younger and important players have signed on with minimal fuss over the last few years.  That's just simple fact.

We need to get other players, who else is going to replace delisting/players traded out if we don’t trade players in?

Also using our cap on a list that gets us to 17th on the ladder obviously isn’t good use of the cap. It means we are overpaying underperforming players.

1 minute ago, olisik said:

We need to get other players, who else is going to replace delisting/players traded out if we don’t trade players in?

Also using our cap on a list that gets us to 17th on the ladder obviously isn’t good use of the cap. It means we are overpaying underperforming players.

So managing the cap to help us re-sign Oliver, Brayshaw, Gawn, Salem, Melksham, Tom Mac, Petracca etc isn't good use of the cap?

Poor use of the cap would be signing up these 'underperforming' players to 4-5 year deals, like the Blues did years ago.  We haven't done any of that.  If players don't perform to the correct levels then we have the flexibility to move them on sooner rather than later.  It would also be poor use of the cap if we had to move someone like Oliver on because we didn't have the cap room to do so, because of the other reason I've mentioned above.  We've done neither.

Not every player can perform well or to expectations at all times, and we both know that we had a large amount of injuries to contend with as well that played a role in use finishing 17th (but not the only reason of course).

15 minutes ago, olisik said:

I wouldn’t go having parties about someone doing the bare minimum of their job. 

Lol. 

It's what the happy-go-luckies do best. 

I was waiting for the post season thread labelled, "at least they ran through the banner this year". 

 

Why do people get so hung up on player payments? I read an article recently on how Collingwood have managed there’s. I’m going back a few years but as an example, Luke Ball signed for three years and was paid 550k a year for two years and then base wage (85k) for the third. I wouldn’t be too concerned about what the reported figure is to get Langdon over. 

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by Ethan Tremblay

8 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Lol. 

It's what the happy-go-luckies do best. 

I was waiting for the post season thread labelled, "at least they ran through the banner this year". 

 

I wonder how many times you can say 'happy go luckies' over the course of the off season? 

You'll probably do it more times than you actually engage in worthwhile discussion.

21 minutes ago, olisik said:

We need to get other players, who else is going to replace delisting/players traded out if we don’t trade players in?

Also using our cap on a list that gets us to 17th on the ladder obviously isn’t good use of the cap. It means we are overpaying underperforming players.

When did American style Free Agency come in again?

 

23 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

So managing the cap to help us re-sign Oliver, Brayshaw, Gawn, Salem, Melksham, Tom Mac, Petracca etc isn't good use of the cap?

Poor use of the cap would be signing up these 'underperforming' players to 4-5 year deals, like the Blues did years ago.  We haven't done any of that.  If players don't perform to the correct levels then we have the flexibility to move them on sooner rather than later.  It would also be poor use of the cap if we had to move someone like Oliver on because we didn't have the cap room to do so, because of the other reason I've mentioned above.  We've done neither.

Not every player can perform well or to expectations at all times, and we both know that we had a large amount of injuries to contend with as well that played a role in use finishing 17th (but not the only reason of course).

We gave Vanderberg 3 years and he can’t even get on the field.

40 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Don't kid yourself, we showed Hogan the door. If we genuinely wanted to keep him he would still be here.

You appear to have ignored the part where I stated Mahoney said we couldn't take May if we had Hogan. Clearly our cap isn't really being managed that well. Yet, Richmond can go out and pick up Tom Lynch on a fat contract coming off a dominant season.

Richmond gave up their best depth in Lloyd, Ellis, Miles and Stengle to get Lynch, it's only because their recruiting in Soldo, Stack, Ross and Bolton in particular was so good that they weathered injuries this year.

If there was a big name free agent out there for us this year or last year I think we could've also rolled the dice on depth and have made some moves. God knows we have far too many depth players as it is.

For example if Hogan was staying we could've signed him to a long term deal (the lack of long term certainly surely was a huge part of why were happy to show him out) and traded out Weideman and one of Frost/Oscar and moved on someone like Stretch, JKH etc. As far as I know we haven't messed around with front and back loading deals like the Pies have and I believe like the Tigers have too. Hogan and May on long term deals - and McDonald, Brayshaw etc would've given us more flexibility.

We might be the best in the business but I do think there's competency

37 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Lol. 

It's what the happy-go-luckies do best. 

I was waiting for the post season thread labelled, "at least they ran through the banner this year". 

 

And we're waiting for you to post something that isn't based upon pot shots at others.

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by Moonshadow

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Richmond gave up their best depth in Lloyd, Ellis, Miles and Stengle to get Lynch, it's only because their recruiting in Soldo, Stack, Ross and Bolton in particular was so good that they weathered injuries this year.

If there was a big name free agent out there for us this year or last year I think we could've also rolled the dice on depth and have made some moves. God knows we have far too many depth players as it is.

For example if Hogan was staying we could've signed him to a long term deal (the lack of long term certainly surely was a huge part of why were happy to show him out) and traded out Weideman and one of Frost/Oscar and moved on someone like Stretch, JKH etc. As far as I know we haven't messed around with front and back loading deals like the Pies have and I believe like the Tigers have too. Hogan and May on long term deals - and McDonald, Brayshaw etc would've given us more flexibility.

We might be the best in the business but I do think there's competency

Miles and Ellis would have been delisted regardless, they were clogging Richmond's list. Stengle is a stretch to call depth considering he played 2 games in 2 seasons. Lloyd and Conca were the only ones of note who they let go, hardly the same calibre of player as Hogan.

What do you mean for us? Lynch, Coniglio are not good enough for us?

49 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Miles and Ellis would have been delisted regardless, they were clogging Richmond's list. Stengle is a stretch to call depth considering he played 2 games in 2 seasons. Lloyd and Conca were the only ones of note who they let go, hardly the same calibre of player as Hogan.

What do you mean for us? Lynch, Coniglio are not good enough for us?

With Collingwood and Richmond offering Lynch over 1 mil a season what were we meant to do, go to massive money? That wasn't happening. We'd have to have moved 2 of McDonald/Hogan/Weideman and tipped our hand at doing that just to create an opening. Same with Coniglio, Hawthorn got rejected and Carlton got knocked back at 1.4 a season. What's the sell? We'll trade Viney and/or Brayshaw, open room for you and pay you crazy cash even though you've been banged up a fair bit in your career?

There's no point being North Melbourne and getting a reputation for failed trade attempts.

If Brad Hill was currently a free agent I'd expect we'd have a big offer on the table. If Josh Kelly opts out of his contract and becomes a free agent at the end of 2021 we should have a deal on the table - assuming the list stays the same. Whitfield etc etc.

33 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

With Collingwood and Richmond offering Lynch over 1 mil a season what were we meant to do, go to massive money? That wasn't happening. We'd have to have moved 2 of McDonald/Hogan/Weideman and tipped our hand at doing that just to create an opening. Same with Coniglio, Hawthorn got rejected and Carlton got knocked back at 1.4 a season. What's the sell? We'll trade Viney and/or Brayshaw, open room for you and pay you crazy cash even though you've been banged up a fair bit in your career?

There's no point being North Melbourne and getting a reputation for failed trade attempts.

If Brad Hill was currently a free agent I'd expect we'd have a big offer on the table. If Josh Kelly opts out of his contract and becomes a free agent at the end of 2021 we should have a deal on the table - assuming the list stays the same. Whitfield etc etc.

This is exactly my point. How can Richmond and Collingwood have that kind of money and we don't when you compare lists? They certainly have more a graders than we do. So have we tied up too much money paying b and c graders?

1 hour ago, Watts the matter said:

This is exactly my point. How can Richmond and Collingwood have that kind of money and we don't when you compare lists? They certainly have more a graders than we do. So have we tied up too much money paying b and c graders?

Collingwood would've had to give up good players, they nearly lost Tom Langdon last year. Richmond gave up depth and moved money around. But they both went hard at Lynch because he was a need and they are bigger and better clubs than we are, to get in the conversation we'd have to have blown them out of the water. Which with McDonald and Weideman we didn't feel like doing.

We should have the money on hand for a bid at a player that makes list sense. Only then will we find out just how well they've managed the cap.

10 hours ago, olisik said:

We need to get other players, who else is going to replace delisting/players traded out if we don’t trade players in?

Also using our cap on a list that gets us to 17th on the ladder obviously isn’t good use of the cap. It means we are overpaying underperforming players.

This is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said, which is something. 

Every club has to use their cap. Someone has to finish 17th (and 18th). You don’t get to tie payments to ladder position.

10 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Lol. 

It's what the happy-go-luckies do best. 

I was waiting for the post season thread labelled, "at least they ran through the banner this year". 

Remember when I said I enjoy your actual posts about football but forget when they’ve ever existed because all you do these days is post these sorts of snide remarks?

Hmm.. back on topic.... Ed has come out and said ‘Victoria, not necessarily Demons’....

31 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Hmm.. back on topic.... Ed has come out and said ‘Victoria, not necessarily Demons’....

It’s being reported that he’ll join us. 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/fremantle-midfielder-ed-langdon-settles-on-melbourne-as-his-club-of-choice-ahead-of-trade-move/news-story/d82f71166d16bbf7f025104ba6d7a9b4

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by Ethan Tremblay

39 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Hmm.. back on topic.... Ed has come out and said ‘Victoria, not necessarily Demons’....

Where did you hear this? Nothing, and I mean nothing has been reported as such. In fact, it's the exact opposite...

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by AshleyH30

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

This is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said, which is something. 

Every club has to use their cap. Someone has to finish 17th (and 18th). You don’t get to tie payments to ladder position.

Remember when I said I enjoy your actual posts about football but forget when they’ve ever existed because all you do these days is post these sorts of snide remarks?

How is it stupid? It’s a fact mate, we are 2nd worse at utilising our cap right now to deliver on-field performance. Labelling something as ‘stupid’ because you don’t get it or don’t agree is just lazy posting.

Our cap is there to provide us with the most best performing list possible, right now we are 2nd last which means we are right down there when it comes to list management. Lever and May injury prone defenders, Vandenberg on a 3 year deal, Preuss on a 4 year deal, trying to give Jones a farewell year when we know he is past it, the poor decisions go on, yet some people on here think that calling this out is ‘stupid’. Yeah ok mate, no [censored] someone has to use there cap and finish 17th, that’s just hard evidence of how badly we are using it and managing our list.  

Edited August 28, 20195 yr by olisik

41 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

Where did you hear this? Nothing, and I mean nothing has been reported as such. In fact, it's the exact opposite...

While it is not 100% guaranteed - John Ralph is reporting a head of agreement has been signed, meaning a contract has been agreed to by Langdon and the MFC. Players (or anyone) don't sign a heads of agreement if they are not certain of where they want to go.

The only thing holding it up from being official is the trade happening.

In saying that I have no idea if it's true or not and am relying on what has been reported by Ralph.

9 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

While it is not 100% guaranteed - John Ralph is reporting a head of agreement has been signed, meaning a contract has been agreed to by Langdon and the MFC. Players (or anyone) don't sign a heads of agreement if they are not certain of where they want to go.

The only thing holding it up from being official is the trade happening.

In saying that I have no idea if it's true or not and am relying on what has been reported by Ralph.

buck_nekkid was saying that Langdon had come out and said it himself that he wanted to return to Victoria, not necessarily the demons, which I can't find anywhere. I know it's not guaranteed, but as reports would suggest a commital agreement has been signed to get him to Melbourne, which would mean he's most likely to join us. If he came out and said that now, after all the reports, it would be huge news and be all over the place.