Axis of Bob

There will be several who will maintain that this is a bad deal because changing your opinion based on new information makes you feel like less of a man! 😁

The Brisbane midfield has Dunkley, Geelong has Atkins, etc. Quality defensive midfielders like Steele are important in teams no matter what style they play.

Because we're not going to win or lose a flag due to the play of Jack Steele, just as we didn't win a flag due to the play of Daniel Cross. We did, however, win a flag with the players on the team that played with Daniel Cross, just as we hope to do the same with the players that play with Jack Steele. Those players will be better for being in a team and club with Jack Steele.

👍

This fundamentally misunderstands how AFL trades work under the system that they operate in. It also is not what actually happened. @Slartibartfast , you were right about this guy. 👎

How could we have framed it differently to put us into a position where we had leverage?

‘King-ball’ TM: Axis of Bob (2025) In all honesty, I think the style will be quite different to what we’re used to and ‘King-ball’ feels like a good way to describe it. Like Bazball but less insufferable.

But even if we said that we value him and we’ll only trade him for a great price, we would be lying and everyone would know. Nobody was knocking the door down to get him and we wanted him gone. The price we’re going to get is reflective of his lack of value as a club employee/player and his very large contract. We could have said anything … they’re just words.

The CJ acquisition is interesting as it is one of the first real ‘King’ moves that might tell us a bit about what we’re trying to do. CJ is an agent of chaos that runs hard, creates space and thinks about what to do with it later. It’s the sort of early tenure trade a new coach can make because you absolutely know that he’s going to encourage the style of play that you want, even if he isn’t perfect. I like the move because it can be so hard to break the habit of the old team, so having someone come out to create that sort of chaos with a coach’s license can be the sort of thing that makes it feel ok for established players to do something different. Given the conservative habits we’ve built over a long, successful period under Goodwin, it can be real hard to abandon those habits. Whatever the case, King-ball looks like it is going to be a much looser and chaotic style than the Goodwin wall.

That makes a lot of sense.

No you didn't.

A trade is made for the excess value that a player has beyond the contract that he's on. That is, how much extra are you willing to pay for a player than if you were able to get him right now as a free agent. Oliver is on a contract that is underwater. That means he's on a contract that is significantly better than what he would get if he were a free agent with the choice of every club in the league. This is a combination of contract size, length and the quality of his expected play for the remainder of that contract (including his off field risks). Because of this, if we were to get rid of him without paying any salary, we'd have to pay additional picks/players just to get GWS to take him on. Instead we can add value by paying an amount of that contract to get it back to a neutral contract. If we pay an amount of the contract to get it back to par value (ie, letting GWS pay the same amount as the market would offer Oliver as a free agent) then you would expect to get nothing back from them. We'll have to receive something, as the AFL won't let it happen otherwise, but that's how the trade will work. However that 'something' could be a future 4th round pick. If we're getting more than that it's because we're contributing more money to increase the value of the contract to GWS. It's not pretty but the issue is that Clarry no longer plays football at a level that is worth the contract he has. It happens in a lot of sports. Just look at baseball trades for high salary players and a lot of them just become untradeable or get traded alongside their best prospects just to get the salary off the books. This is a version of that.

We don’t need to trade him. This year he’s a gun with 4 years on his contract and next year he’s a gun with 3 years on his contract. He may not have a fun year this year but we can easily trade him next year for better value than that in a better draft. Then we’ll have $1m+ salary relief for 3 years (not 4). Plus we get the bonus if having a top 20 player in the AFL play for us for a year … or even have him discover that playing for Steven King is great and he wants to stay. There’s no need for a panic sale with him this year.

Like the Max Heath trade that had ‘hit a snag’ about an hour before he was traded for a late future future pick? Your trolling is lame.

Someone had to go top 10 in that draft, I suppose.

I'm a huge fan. Have been for a long time. I wouldn't call him Petracca, because he moves in a different way, but I can see why some would do that. If I were to have a go at a comparison in style, it's much more de Goey. Petracca plays his power game more like a basketballer, whilst Humphrey uses his power more like a meat cleaver. He's not spinning around, he's just hitting the ball at speed, busting people out of the way, grabbing it first time and moving it on. He's a pretty straightforward footballer, but in the best way. Less razzle dazzle and more 'big boy' football. The thing I like the most about him is his hands. He's so clean with players around him that he only needs one touch. It's just good, simple footy that does really difficult things pretty regularly in a way that doesn't look that difficult. Nightmare forward matchup with his ability overhead and one on one. I'd do Petracca for Humphrey straight up in a heartbeat. The only thing stopping me adding a future first is the thought that we could be very early last year, but I certainly wouldn't rule the possibility out. He's one of my favourite players in the AFL.

Your posting history indicates that you have some strong, personal opinions about players that may be a little closer to home than most. Unfortunately Oliver is going for the same reason, albeit expressed in a completely different way, to Petracca. That may be difficult to hear but they are both leaving for cultural reasons that are intended to create an environment where our young players can thrive. Clarry is a talented player but his behaviour, whether intended or not, has contributed to a bad environment within the club and the new coach is well within his rights to cut that out and send it off. If Clarry had held up his end of the contract then he’d bee playing for us until he retired. But he didn’t. Nobody wanted this but it’s Oliver’s actions that are the problem.

** taps sign **

Yep. Some real loser vibes in here. It's a bit sad that some people are so afraid of hope and happiness. It's their comfort blanket.

I think it's more that Melbourne have shaken loose the possibility of him being traded and other clubs have seen this and done whatever they can to give themselves a chance to get him. He's an absolute jet and it would be silly not to speak with him if there was a chance he'd move clubs. I think we are uniquely placed to have him shake loose, with a situation and carrot for GC that other teams just can't match, but I'd hope we'd make the call too if the roles were switched around. That is, GC won't move him for another team and he's contracted until 2028, so the point is pretty moot.

Yep. I think the difference is that having those players makes your club more brittle, less resilient. Everything is fine when you're winning at every club. When you hit a bit of a bump in the road then some clubs can deal with it whilst others can't and I think that is a lot to do with the internal trust and faith that the team/club has with each other. If something goes wrong but you believe in your team mates to do the right thing then you just keep your nose to the grindstone and get through it. If you've got some problems bubbling away under the surface when something goes wrong, that's when those issues pop up as a reason for the problems and the internal divisions happen. Bailey Smith's issues started being an issue before and after the GF that they lost. Those issues are now sitting just below the surface and, if anything goes wrong in the future, team mates are going to link Smith's behaviour and the GF loss pretty closely. I agree that Maynard and Zorko are very different in terms of their effects on team culture.

Judd’s strength is his ability with the play in front of him, particularly one on one. His weakness is his ability to influence the game when the play is around him (ie, 360 degree chaos), like you see in the midfield. He struggled with this in juniors too, when he just couldn’t get involved in the play further up the field and ended up getting through to the rookie draft. We did well to identify a role for that type of player, where the game could be much simpler for him and let his strengths work well. He works in straight lines, unlike Bowey and Salem, which is why they were preferred as rebounders. McVee has a shot up the field in the midfield but simply couldn’t get near the footy at all. It’s played away from his strengths and leant in to his weaknesses. Freo tends to tell returning players exactly what they want to hear (eg, you can be a high possession player!) because they know that the trick is getting them to make the initial move back ‘home’. Once they’ve done that they can play them however they want since they’re unlikely to leave and it’s only a two team town. I hope that’s not the case for Judd as well but I don’t hope that as strongly as I used to.

You’re lost, champ. BigFooty ForumFremantlePurple is the new black - The Fremantle Football Club - The Dockers

Clayton Oliver, as a premiership winning, 4 times B&F winner, twice Coaches Association MVP and 3 times All Australian, is most definitely a Melbourne legend. Denying that is stupidity. That's not to say that moving him on is the wrong thing, nor that he has not been a negative influence on the club for the past few years.