Strategy List Management 101

[Kirkswan]

I get all that B52. But he is gone. It is no more than a poor rewrite of history to suggest that ANY team when confronted with the choice we had, would have chosen Mitchell over any of our other mids at the time he left. It is not like we didn't make an effort to keep him. Sure, you can argue that it might have been a token effort or more should have been done. Hearing Mitchell speak this week leaves no doubt, at least in my mind, why he had a problem at the Swans.
As Julia Gillard would say...moving forward...
How do we avoid that kind of scenario in the future? Is it even possible to avoid that kind of scenario in the future?

If you look at the make up of our list, we are staring down the barrel of another Mitchell like scenario in the not too distant future. The problem, as I see it, is that we are going to have a host of players potentially heading up the pay ladder at the same time.
In many ways it is not a bad problem to have, but it also highlights, IMO, why letting Mitchell go under the circumstances we faced, was a smart decision.
If you make decisions for the right reasons, as I believe we did with Mitchell, then if s**t happens as a result, then s**t happens.

In line with that...IMO paying Lloyd 500k+ was the wrong decision, notwithstanding that he earned the right to a considerable pay rise, I totes agree with SF51, paying HBFs big money is poor list management. There is not enough money in the salary cap to pay big money to HBFs.

Let me first say, I've loved (and agree) this whole discussion... thanks!

Is there any evidence to back that Lloyd is receiving $500k+? Or is that just a guestimate? If it's a guestimate, can you explain how you arrived at that figure please?

 

[Number37]

Let me first say, I've loved (and agree) this whole discussion... thanks!

Is there any evidence to back that Lloyd is receiving $500k+? Or is that just a guestimate? If it's a guestimate, can you explain how you arrived at that figure please?

Salary Cap = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 ....Cn

Cn-10-Cn=10% <------we can work out this value because the AFLPA tells us Rookies get 75k, 1st Round draft picks get 95k , 3rd year players get 105k
C1-C10= 60% <-------we can calculate the probability that a player earns X amount, We are assisted by information from the AFLPA. That information tells us that there are 8 players in the AFL earning more than 800k. On the assumption that Buddy is one we can calculate the probability of the other 9 contracts for each value up to 800k.
C11-Cn-10= 30% <-------again, we can calculate the probability that a player earns X amount.

The 60-30-10 values are educated assumptions. In order to construct a pay scale that incentivizes most organisations work on the basis of a 60-30-10 model. I read somewhere ( can't find the link) where the AFLPA stated this was in fact the case in the AFL.
In any event, the 10 is straight forward maths.

We know Lloyd is in the C11-C30 group. We know there was outside interest. That invariably bumps up the price. Which narrows down the range of values.

If you know 1 or 2 values it makes the calculation far easier. Saucers

 

[Tuco]

Salary Cap = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 ....Cn

Cn-10-Cn=10% <------we can work out this value because the AFLPA tells us Rookies get 75k, 1st Round draft picks get 95k , 3rd year players get 105k
C1-C10= 60% <-------we can calculate the probability that a player earns X amount, We are assisted by information from the AFLPA. That information tells us that there are 8 players in the AFL earning more than 800k. On the assumption that Buddy is one we can calculate the probability of the other 9 contracts for each value up to 800k.
C11-Cn-10= 30% <-------again, we can calculate the probability that a player earns X amount.

The 60-30-10 values are educated assumptions. In order to construct a pay scale that incentivizes most organisations work on the basis of a 60-30-10 model. I read somewhere ( can't find the link) where the AFLPA stated this was in fact the case in the AFL.
In any event, the 10 is straight forward maths.

We know Lloyd is in the C11-C30 group. We know there was outside interest. That invariably bumps up the price. Which narrows down the range of values.

If you know 1 or 2 values it makes the calculation far easier. Saucers

In this model, what percentage of cap space would be reserved as dead cap. Ie: money back ended to non-contributers such as Tippo, and Brayshaw, Mattner previouly etc?

 

[Number37]

In this model, what percentage of cap space would be reserved as dead cap. Ie: money back ended to non-contributers such as Tippo, and Brayshaw, Mattner previouly etc?

0.

It is easier to look at it in blocks of 5 years rather than a single year. Over a 5 year period those sorts of variables wouldn't change the analysis to any significant degree and can be put aside.
IMO the AFL tells porkies about how much is or isn't counted in the cap whenever those scenarios happen. I suspect that none of those amounts are counted in the cap.

 

[Tuco]

swansfan51

What do you reckon about our delistings?

Looks like Towers falls into that category you had Robinson in in your example?

 

[swansfan51]

swansfan51

What do you reckon about our delistings?

Looks like Towers falls into that category you had Robinson in in your example?

All 4 were good calls as I'd have them firmly <10% chance of becoming above average AFL players, the most concerning thing was some of the players that were not delisted.

Dean Towers was the best of them, I quite like Dean, but even his best efforts saw him as a bottom 10 player in our 22

 

[Kapanis]

All 4 were good calls as I'd have them firmly <10% chance of becoming above average AFL players, the most concerning thing was some of the players that were not delisted.

Dean Towers was the best of them, I quite like Dean, but even his best efforts saw him as a bottom 10 player in our 22

According to Harley there's more cuts to come

 

[swansfan51]

According to Harley there's more cuts to come

I expected Harley was very smart, nice to see him proving it again

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

So, the Pinkster and Rose? Anyone else? Maibaum?

Wonder if other players will be shipped around? ...Jack, Smith to the GoCo to provide leadership and get two year contracts? Jones in a swap with Vandenberg.? Would be surprised if Cameron has not attracted interest.

Thought Robbo may have saved his career in the last few games.

 

[TheMase]

So, the Pinkster and Rose? Anyone else? Maibaum?

Wonder if other players will be shipped around? ...Jack, Smith to the GoCo to provide leadership and get two year contracts? Jones in a swap with Vandenberg.? Would be surprised if Cameron has not attracted interest.

Thought Robbo may have saved his career in the last few games.

Still on the list but off contract this year:
Daniel Robinson
Harrison Marsh
Jack Maibaum
James Rose
Nic Newman
Robbie Fox (r)
James Bell (r)
Tony Pink (r)

With Tippett retired, Hannebery, Rohan and Newman likely traded and Towers, Foote, Johnson (r) and Jake Brown (r) delisted together with the Ronke promotion we currently have available:
5 senior list spots (*one will be Blakey)
3 rookie list spots

I can see Marsh getting some interest, maybe Rose on his late season form. Maibaum potentially retained for depth/development. Don’t know if there would be a huge amount of interest in Robinson or Fox. Bell I would expect to be retained and assume Pink will as you’d think he would have been cut in the first round otherwise.

I’d also expect Cameron to have had interest.

Edit: Fox is also a rookie

 

[Number37]

Still on the list but off contract this year:
Daniel Robinson
Harrison Marsh
Jack Maibaum
James Rose
Nic Newman
Robbie Fox
James Bell (r)
Tony Pink (r)

With Tippett retired, Hannebery, Rohan and Newman likely traded and Towers, Foote, Johnson (r) and Jake Brown (r) delisted together with the Ronke promotion we currently have available:
5 senior list spots (*one will be Blakey)
3 rookie list spots

I can see Marsh getting some interest, maybe Rose on his late season form. Maibaum potentially retained for depth/development. Don’t know if there would be a huge amount of interest in Robinson or Fox. Bell I would expect to be retained and assume Pink will as you’d think he would have been cut in the first round otherwise.

I’d also expect Cameron to have had interest.

Marsh would be a good fit for the Suns.

 

[TheMase]

I remember a rule previously (I think) where a club can only have one third year rookie. Is that (or was it ever) correct? I know there was some kind of restriction in place?

If so we will have to either promote one of Fox and Pink to the senior list or delist one of them if they are the rules.

Not sure.

 

[6yearsold]

I remember a rule previously (I think) where a club can only have one third year rookie. Is that (or was it ever) correct? I know there was some kind of restriction in place?

If so we will have to either promote one of Fox and Pink to the senior list or delist one of them if they are the rules.

Not sure.

there is no way pinky makes it out of wolf tone's basement in time for pre-season. on that basis alone he should be delisted.

 

[Big Blood]

How is James Rose still a thing? 9 games in four years. Hayward, Papley, Jack and Florent all ahead of him as small/medium fowards/mids.

Unless we work up some funky points/future pick combos it looks like we're back to the pre-Buddy era of trading in roughies. Not necessarily a bad thing - see 2012. Ryan Clarke and Aaron VandenBerg both look handy.

Can we move all the Mitchell talk to the 'Tom Mitchell Retrospective Trade Thread'?

 

[caesar88]

How is James Rose still a thing? 9 games in four years. Hayward, Papley, Jack and Florent all ahead of him as small/medium fowards/mids.

Unless we work up some funky points/future pick combos it looks like we're back to the pre-Buddy era of trading in roughies. Not necessarily a bad thing - see 2012. Ryan Clarke and Aaron VandenBerg both look handy.

Can we move all the Mitchell talk to the 'Tom Mitchell Retrospective Trade Thread'?

I'm not a fan at all. Way too much FIGJAM for a player of such little impact

 

[bungwahl]

How is James Rose still a thing? 9 games in four years. Hayward, Papley, Jack and Florent all ahead of him as small/medium fowards/mids.

Unless we work up some funky points/future pick combos it looks like we're back to the pre-Buddy era of trading in roughies. Not necessarily a bad thing - see 2012. Ryan Clarke and Aaron VandenBerg both look handy.

Can we move all the Mitchell talk to the 'Tom Mitchell Retrospective Trade Thread'?

Had a big finish to the NEAFL season so perhaps he’s been kept around as trade bait, though he wouldn’t be worth too much. Possibly a later delisting if there’s no trade interest.

Or we just think there’s too much list turnover already this year and we’re keeping him for another year as cover.

 

[RobbieK]

How is James Rose still a thing? 9 games in four years. Hayward, Papley, Jack and Florent all ahead of him as small/medium fowards/mids.

Unless we work up some funky points/future pick combos it looks like we're back to the pre-Buddy era of trading in roughies. Not necessarily a bad thing - see 2012. Ryan Clarke and Aaron VandenBerg both look handy.

Can we move all the Mitchell talk to the 'Tom Mitchell Retrospective Trade Thread'?

I suspect we still havea few more delistings to come, and Rose will almost definitely be among them. I am surprised that Rose and Pink were not delisted ahead of Towers.

 

[swansfan51]

It has been a long time between drinks. Any requests for the next episode?

 

[Kennedy Parker]

It has been a long time between drinks. Any requests for the next episode?

Maybe a case study into recent rebuilds? Including the ones that succeed in getting the team back into contention vs the ones that face plant.

 

[RW]

What list management strategy should Sydney adopt without the COLA.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

Maybe a case study into recent rebuilds? Including the ones that succeed in getting the team back into contention vs the ones that face plant.

Err...the official line is ‘rejuvenation’.

 

[The King!]

maybe the life cycle of a coach and odds of success post say 200 games

 

[Kennedy Parker]

Err...the official line is ‘rejuvenation’.

At least it beats an “aggressive reset”.

 

[Mick Oxlong]

At least it beats an “aggressive reset”.

Who said that?

 

[robbieando]

Who said that?

Norf!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-24/fiveyear-focus-forced-norths-reset

"From the board down to the footy department, all we said is 'where are we going from here? What do the next five years look like?' And I think we needed a pretty aggressive reset to give our club the best chance of playing in and winning its fifth premiership," Brayshaw said.