Axis of Bob

Woodend isn't exactly Dimboola though. The point is that, no matter what position he plays, he still requires much more time to develop. The issue with this is twofold for a struggling WA club: 1) This time being in a development phase makes it more difficult to integrate with the club and increases the possibility of homesickness. If you're across the country by yourself playing WAFL in front of a small crowd then the other thoughts are more likely to creep in than when you're in a packed stadium living your dream, or getting limited time in the seniors. It also makes the siren's call of competitors much more alluring when they can offer a better role than he's played (because he'll be a better player by then!) and also closer to home. 2) The value for WC's investment won't be realised until much later, which means that the return they'd get on their investment (both draft and development) will likely be much lower than it would be for, say, Duursma or Reid. That wouldn't mean that picking him would be the wrong thing to do, but it would make it riskier and possibly make West Coast more willing to do a trade if given an attractive enough deal. The other possibility would be if they can draft WA talent, like they showed they were willing to do in the first round with Harley Reid being the only non-WA first rounder they've taken since Chesser in 2021 (Nixon, Reid, Ginbey, Hewett). In fact the only Vic Metro player on their list that they've taken earlier than the mid-30s was Liam Duggan back in 2014.

I think a deal for 2 is the most likely for all the teams with dual to 10 picks. I just don’t see West Coast being super interested in a Melbourne raised pseudo-ruck/utility (Duff-Tytler), given the time needed to develop him in combination with the Vic Metro go-home factor they have tried to avoid. Playing WAFL in Perth for long periods or getting limited roles in AFL makes him ripe for Victorian overtures promising him expanded roles and money just after WC do the developmental work. I think Richmond would only be interested in a big overpay from someone and Essendon would rather trade up. So WC pick 2 would be the target, if that’s something we desperately want to do. Otherwise 7 and 8 are valuable in themselves.

I’d be surprised if White got through to the rookie draft, based on the small amount I’ve seen. He showed enough in a third of that VFL game alone to be worth a pick, particularly in a shallow draft. He’s 200cm with proper athleticism and coordination. There are plenty of paths to success for young players with those attributes.

Must be a confusing time for you after spending the week calling for his head based on your feelings about rumours, only to find that everyone is actually quite happy with his work once the facts presented themselves after the deals got done.

As far as ‘good riddance’ statements by a club go, that’s a pretty strong one.

That is already the case. Both parties can choose to terminate a contract by mutual agreement. But why would Oliver do that when he has a giant contract that needs to be honoured? Because he feels guilty about being paid millions of dollars? Even in a world where contract law didn't exist and moving clubs voided the contract, it would just mean that Oliver would never agree to be traded. His options are "$1.5m a year to play 5 years at Melbourne or $500,000 a year to play 2 years at GWS?" He'd just stay at Melbourne, do the bare minimum and be paid a truckload play VFL.

Yes, it did because of the tone of voice that was going on in my head when I was writing it! But, in all seriousness, it was a conscious stylistic choice because I thought the gendering made my point more humourous by tying it to a stereotypically misguided concept of masculinity, rather than to the typically human concept of confirmation bias. I imagine that explaining it like this will make that little joke even funnier ...... 😐

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.