List Mgmt. List planning 2015 and onwards

[Powerage]

Yeah many clubs do the delist & redraft on a regular basis. We've done it with Basset, Willits, M Westhoff, T Carr, RFK, Dawson, Renouf, Logan and now Mitchell.

Famously Kingsley, more as motivation to lose some weight and get his s**t together. Also we drafted him back to the main list. Worked in that case.

 

[Hellgood]

Comfortable for providing guidance to our crop of players in the SANFL to be considered as one of the reasons to re-rookie guys like Mitchell, Logan and Stewart but should never be the primary reason. Most heavily weighted criteria must remain as to what use they can be to the AFL list. I think both Logan and Mitchell's AFL form is/was worth 'break glass in case of emergency' status.

 

[Macca19]

Famously Kingsley, more as motivation to lose some weight and get his s**t together. Also we drafted him back to the main list. Worked in that case.

Kingsley was never delisted. He was threatened with it but it never actually happened

 

[Lockhart Road]

I sort of agree with this, but I think the counter argument is that a strong SANFL side, and strong depth in our training squad benefits the AFL and means that the levels of development for our key youngsters are far quicker because they play in a successful team and they constantly train against quality.

Whereas if you fill your rookie list with a bunch of kids basically taken between pick 80 and 150 of the draft you're not getting quality depth, you're bound to let 90% of them go in 2 years if not earlier and you aren't helping the Maggies or even the AFL side because that training quality drops and the environment our kids develop in at the Maggies is nowhere near as good as it could be. Some sides can take up to 9-10 kids around 18 years old which is almost a quarter of a list and that isn't healthy for any list.

For mine we should be maintaining our depth as much as possible and managing how many kids we bring in, maintaining a great environment to develop the 3-6 kids we are bringing in each year.

Tom Logan was rookie listed to provide guidance and motivation to the young players developing in our sanfl side. He was never an AFL option.

Comfortable for providing guidance to our crop of players in the SANFL to be considered as one of the reasons to re-rookie guys like Mitchell, Logan and Stewart but should never be the primary reason. Most heavily weighted criteria must remain as to what use they can be to the AFL list. I think both Logan and Mitchell's AFL form is/was worth 'break glass in case of emergency' status.

A flag for the Magpies in 2016 is a priority: straight from the chairman's mouth. There are sponsors at SANFL level to consider. Don't forget EnergyAustralia (extended) and Renault also appear on the Magpies' guernsey. Don't overlook One Club either.

 

[Doctor Feel]

A flag for the Magpies in 2016 is a priority: straight from the chairman's mouth. There are sponsors at SANFL level to consider. Don't forget EnergyAustralia (extended) and Renault also appear on the Magpies' guernsey. Don't overlook One Club either.

A flag for the Magpies in 2016 is a priority*

*Unless there is a conflict of interest between the AFL side and the SANFL side, then all priorities go with the AFL side.

What else was he ever going to say though, really?

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

A flag for the Magpies in 2016 is a priority*

*Unless there is a conflict of interest between the AFL side and the SANFL side, then all priorities go with the AFL side.

What else was he ever going to say though, really?

Don't start mate lol remember the last time

 

[Doctor Feel]

Don't start mate lol remember the last time

Yes.

 

[Hong-Kong Phooey]

Because of the restrictions we have on the Maggie's, all of our rookies have to be senior players.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Don't disagree really, but do you think we are better off with another Sam Russell on our rookie list or Kane Mitchell?

Sam Russell. At least we didn't waste 5-10 AFL games on Sam Russell every year. And at least Sam Russell is young enough that you never know what he could turn into if we persisted with him long enough. Kane Mitchell will be 26 before the end of the year.

Kane Mitchell isn't soft

Apart from Amon in that Collingwood game he pulls out of contests more than anyone else on our list. He's not Nathan Lonie bad, but he's far from a 'role model' when it comes to attack on the ball.

 

[Hellgood]

A flag for the Magpies in 2016 is a priority: straight from the chairman's mouth. There are sponsors at SANFL level to consider. Don't forget EnergyAustralia (extended) and Renault also appear on the Magpies' guernsey. Don't overlook One Club either.

Saying it is a priority is one thing and I have no problem with Chad Cornes and all involved at the Magpies doing their best each and every game to win. But it won't be impacting our AFL list decisions. Could you seriously imagine someone sitting in front of any senior coach and saying with a straight face 'oh player x won't be going anywhere/we're going to draft player y, we want our ressie boys to have a shot at the flag this year'? Would pay to see Alistair Clarkson's reaction to that.

The thinking behind the decision would be along the lines of: 'yeah look, Kane/Tom are looking like they're falling away from our best 22 with the additions to the list we've made, however I have implicit trust in them to come in and perform their respective roles in my gameplan if required so a demotion to the rookie list is the pragmatic and appropriate course of action'.

'fair enough Ken, we also know that they are of good character so they won't drop their head at the news and will continue to model the behaviours that we are trying to instill in our players'

'yep - will have a chat to Chad later and will let him know that he'll have them around next year and discuss ways to maximise their influence upon the young fellas there because we want that kind of ethos to be permeating through our future players'

Every single AFL list decision is made considering the maximum benefit for the AFL side. If it isn't about immediately improving the best 22, then it's about improving the future best 22. If the reserves become a stronger side in the process, then great, but it's a fringe benefit.

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Danny Stanley as depth?

 

[x_les_x]

Danny Stanley as depth?

I was thinking about this also; we were interested in him a couple of trade periods back. Though would it be poisonous to unite him with dixon?

 

[Hellgood]

I was thinking about this also; we were interested in him a couple of trade periods back. Though would it be poisonous to unite him with dixon?

Poisonous

I rate Stanley, but we don't have a hole in our side that he'd fit. Monfries plays same role to a higher standard and we have high hopes for Palmer with him coming into frame for selection late in the year.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

Robbie and Trav will soon be entering the twighlight of their careers. What's people thoughts on when we should seriously trade for another gun midfielder? Is the answer already on our list? E.g Jarman Impey or will it more likely be a trade/draft scenario?

 

[raman]

um what

 

[Sewer de Lance]

um what

Obviously I'm projecting a more long term view, and not next season.

 

[Visenfest]

Obviously I'm projecting a more long term view, and not next season.

That doesn't make the idea any better.

 

[Coobk001]

Robbie and Trav will soon be entering the twighlight of their careers. What's people thoughts on when we should seriously trade for another gun midfielder? Is the answer already on our list? E.g Jarman Impey or will it more likely be a trade/draft scenario?

There's definitely a 5-7 year cliff developing, but I think we still have a fair bit of time to address it. Over the next 4-5 years a new KPF and a couple gun mids would be enough to complement Wingard, Wines and Polec.

P.S. I did not read your post as trading Robbie or Boak, just trading a pick or similar to try and bring in a gun.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

Trade Robbie or Trav? Yeah righto.

Who's talking about trading them?

 

[Sewer de Lance]

There's definitely a 5-7 year cliff developing, but I think we still have a fair bit of time to address it. Over the next 4-5 years a new KPF and a couple gun mids would be enough to complement Wingard, Wines and Polec.

P.S. I did not read your post as trading Robbie or Boak, just trading a pick or similar to try and bring in a gun.

Thanks. I didn't think I worded it that way.
Polec will be interesting coming of a navicular injury. I wonder if this injury will force him into a restricted program where his training load will have to be tightly managed, and how that might effect his minutes in the midfield. Kids a dead set gun.

 

[Port01]

a ******* cliff in 6 years?
for *s sake lets win a flag before worrying about a ******* 2020 cliff. ******* programmable robots might be the no 1 pick by then

 

[Chachi]

Tom Logan was rookie listed to provide guidance and motivation to the young players developing in our sanfl side. He was never an AFL option.

The thing was with Tommy if we had a high injury count he could come in a do the job. I agree he was there for the reasons you mention but as depth as well.

 

[PJ Power]

Who's talking about trading them?

There have been a few misinterpreted posts in recent times. Off-season and people are only reading half the post or using half their brain to interpret it, before passing comment.

 

[importexport1]

I was thinking about this also; we were interested in him a couple of trade periods back. Though would it be poisonous to unite him with dixon?

Simpkin as depth, reliable inside mid, well more reliable than Young

 

[longdonkey]

Simpkin as depth, reliable inside mid, well more reliable than Young

I'm pretty sure we will draft in midfielders in this draft and maybe a young ruck if we don't get the Orange (which I don't think we will). I think the Crows have more use for the Simpkins of this world. (Can kick the ball though).