List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The AFL has always been cautious of allowing clubs to use multiple years of first round picks.. Hypothetically if Walker is a bust and they have forced us to use 3 years of first round picks to acquire him we would end up like West Coast.

Its no less risky if you trade the future picks into the current year and you have the extra cost of having to negotiate a trade.

Plus I'm talking about with the two pick limit.

 

[Rippa Crippa]

It does seem unfair, its gone from being a free hit to now if the rumours are factual that we will have to effectively overpay and use multiple first round picks to acquire something that previously was a gift. We have obviously committed to Cody so will get it done regardless, but in future you will have to seriously question if it is worth it or not.

Depending on where we are in Arli's year. What's the future of f/S? Not just us but any projected gun.
Looks grim

 

[Sector 7G]

It does seem unfair, its gone from being a free hit to now if the rumours are factual that we will have to effectively overpay and use multiple first round picks to acquire something that previously was a gift. We have obviously committed to Cody so will get it done regardless, but in future you will have to seriously question if it is worth it or not.

I think one of the issues is that you may end up drafting a FS who is not need for your list. If JSOS hadn't left I would have questioned the need to draft a KPD with a top 10 pick when we have more pressing need

 

[btdg]

Our issue was 2023 we got comfortable thinking that we had all the pieces and that the team would naturally evolve and improve instead of looking at our weaknesses and trying to get the list better.. we then used 2024 injuries as an excuse to not address the gaps and then in 2025 it all came crumbling down. The good teams get better every year, anyone that stands still gets passed by.

We need to have an eye on 2030 as likely our next opportunity to compete for a flag, but between now and then we should be developing a winning culture and expect to play finals every year. We were not that far off it, lost games we should never have lost ie Tigers round 1 & Dogs round 3, Swans round 10 & Roos round 15.. win these games and we finish a respectable 9th with 13 wins. We had so much go wrong for us this year, that a slice of luck in 2026 and we play finals and by 2027 should be aiming for top 4.

Graeme Wright and the board would be thinking this same way, otherwise if they thought we were pairing it back for a full rebuild there is no way they retain Voss.

Our issue was that in 2023 we had a decent list that was hitting its prime and who had just played in a preliminary final (and gone pretty damn close to beating Brisbane on the road), and we have since moved on Silvagni, Dow, O'Brien, Kennedy, De Koning, Docherty, Carroll, Plowman, Martin, Marchbank, Fisher, Cuningham, Honey, Cincotta, Owies, and potentially Curnow and McGovern too.

That's not standing still - We CHOSE to cut 15-17 core players from a competitive list (of those, only Docherty would be 30+ now) and replace them with players from the rookie list.

If we are thinking about 2030 we might as well give up. Let's not forget that in 2030 Newman will be 37, Cripps, Saad, Williams and McGovern will be 35, Hewett, Acres, Pittonet will be 34, Weitering, McKay, Curnow will be 33.

You can't on the one hand say 'well, we think we can compete in 5 years time' and simultaneously 'develop a winning culture'.

It absolutely has to be the expectation on everyone that we play finals next year, and every year (which is something you say), but also that if we are in finals anything can happen.

But that's not what they are doing - we have repeatedly, year after year, crapped out on our depth, moved away from our strengths (which was contested ball-winning) and added almost nothing of note. Are we seriously buying that Buku Khamis, Campbell Chesser and Liam Reidy are filling the gaps we have? To replace TDK, Silvagni, Docherty, Cincotta, and possibly Hollands, Curnow and McGovern AND improve a team that finished 11th?

It's an utter failure, and tbh, moves into utter catastrophe if they trade Curnow. Not just because that affects our on-field performance (because Curnow is a top 3 forward in the league) but because of the message it sends. Why would any of the top-end players stick around if we do that. TBH, why would any of them stick around given we sold them on a competitive list, then gave half of it away...

 

[DangerousD]

Like which ones? I think you’ll find it’s the opposite.

Coach B what are you disagreeing with?

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Its no less risky if you trade the future picks into the current year and you have the extra cost of having to negotiate a trade.

Plus I'm talking about with the two pick limit.

It might be a 2 pick limit, but lets say we need to have picks 5 & 11 as was reported and we finish 10th. We are going to need to trade multiple 1sts to get to 5 and then a future 1st and 2nd to get 11, so we either trade this years 1st into next years and then bundle 2025 1st & 2026 1st for pick 5 & then use 2017 1st and 2nd to get pick 11.. That is a lot to give up for an 18yo.

Its either that or we give up someone like Sam Walsh, which sets us backwards.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

It might be a 2 pick limit, but lets say we need to have picks 5 & 11 as was reported and we finish 10th. We are going to need to trade multiple 1sts to get to 5 and then a future 1st and 2nd to get 11, so we either trade this years 1st into next years and then bundle 2025 1st & 2026 1st for pick 5 & then use 2017 1st and 2nd to get pick 11.. That is a lot to give up for an 18yo.

Its either that or we give up someone like Sam Walsh, which sets us backwards.

None of that is any reason why being able to use future picks for matching would not be a practical thing to allow

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

None of that is any reason why being able to use future picks for matching would not be a practical thing to allow

I think it’s because if we won the premiership and are expected to do the same the next season than us matching Walker at 1 for example with several pick 18’s is exactly what they are trying to get away from

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It might be a 2 pick limit, but lets say we need to have picks 5 & 11 as was reported and we finish 10th. We are going to need to trade multiple 1sts to get to 5 and then a future 1st and 2nd to get 11, so we either trade this years 1st into next years and then bundle 2025 1st & 2026 1st for pick 5 & then use 2017 1st and 2nd to get pick 11.. That is a lot to give up for an 18yo.

Its either that or we give up someone like Sam Walsh, which sets us backwards.

There is a very real possibility that Walker won’t be worth the cost if these are the new rules and we do finish mid table.

 

[Stamos]

There is a very real possibility that Walker won’t be worth the cost if these are the new rules and we do finish mid table.

Yep, he needs to tank next year.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

I think it’s because if we won the premiership and are expected to do the same the next season than us matching Walker at 1 for example with several pick 18’s is exactly what they are trying to get away from

That's handled by the points. 2x 18 isn't going to match a bid at 1 regardless.

My example would be say you finish 9th and have pick 10 and need another around pick 10 to match, then you can simply use your P1 and F1 instead of having to trade your F1 into the current year.

You are using the same picks but it just removes the impost of having to involve other clubs for a trade.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Our issue was that in 2023 we had a decent list that was hitting its prime and who had just played in a preliminary final (and gone pretty damn close to beating Brisbane on the road), and we have since moved on Silvagni, Dow, O'Brien, Kennedy, De Koning, Docherty, Carroll, Plowman, Martin, Marchbank, Fisher, Cuningham, Honey, Cincotta, Owies, and potentially Curnow and McGovern too.

Which of the highlighted players deserved not to be delisted?? Dow has shown he isn't at the standard, No other club was interested in Obrien, Carroll, Plow, March, Cunners & Honey... Fisher ended the year playing VFL for North despite his big $ contract, Owies has been horrific for WCE.. Even Martin has just been meh for the Cats... Kennedy is the only one that stands out that has moved and become a player but its hard to argue that he would have been the same player for us with our midfield mix.

TDK is a huge loss, but is exceptional circumstances. Silvagni stings because of his versatility but we could not possibly have justified paying the $ the Saints ended up offering, however the club should be looking internally as to what was the reason Jack was hawing himself out on the open market in the first place..

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

None of that is any reason why being able to use future picks for matching would not be a practical thing to allow

In the past the AFL have not wanted clubs to use multiple years of first round picks in a row because it can ruin a club if it goes wrong, this was more in the trade scenario ie Tim Kelly but perhaps its seen as different for draft picks.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

That's handled by the points. 2x 18 isn't going to match a bid at 1 regardless.

My example would be say you finish 9th and have pick 10 and need another around pick 10 to match, then you can simply use your P1 and F1 instead of having to trade your F1 into the current year.

You are using the same picks but it just removes the impost of having to involve other clubs for a trade.

You don’t know what your future first is so it can’t be done

 

[swuzzlebubble]

In the past the AFL have not wanted clubs to use multiple years of first round picks in a row because it can ruin a club if it goes wrong, this was more in the trade scenario ie Tim Kelly but perhaps its seen as different for draft picks.

There's a rule about having to use two first rounders every four years. I'm not suggesting to change that.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

You don’t know what your future first is so it can’t be done

It can if you apply the points as per the current year ladder.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It can if you apply the points as per the current year ladder.

And what happens if they shoot up the ladder? Just good luck?
They are trying to get rid of the luck part.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

And what happens if they shoot up the ladder? Just good luck?
They are trying to get rid of the luck part.

Yep No different to trading future picks

 

[4thchicken]

Which of the highlighted players deserved not to be delisted?? Dow has shown he isn't at the standard, No other club was interested in Obrien, Carroll, Plow, March, Cunners & Honey... Fisher ended the year playing VFL for North despite his big $ contract, Owies has been horrific for WCE.. Even Martin has just been meh for the Cats... Kennedy is the only one that stands out that has moved and become a player but it’s hard to argue that he would have been the same player for us with our midfield mix.

TDK is a huge loss, but is exceptional circumstances. Silvagni stings because of his versatility but we could not possibly have justified paying the $ the Saints ended up offering, however the club should be looking internally as to what was the reason Jack was hawing himself out on the open market in the first place..

The value of players is more than individual infield performance in itself - it is also culture, team balance, list depth etc

So to answer your question, this really depends on where you viewed the list at the end of 2023 (a team that lost in the prelim to the lions by 16 points). I would suggest that at the time most people thought the blues were on the up and would continue to contend for the next few years.

Under the above scenario, none of the players that had contributed to getting the team into the prelim should have been delisted - particularly those under 25. The only time letting players go under such a scenario is to bring in players of equal or better quality.


Was the list good enough at the end of 23? - imo it is a clear yes

• We sat 2nd on the ladder for a large part of 2024 until injuries/lack of depth saw us drop right off - and what did we get rid of at end of 23? Depth
• we didn’t exactly lose to a bunch of scrubs at end of 23 - the Lions list that we lost to have made the past 3 GFs and won the last 2. Perhaps if we continued to build/evolve our list we would have continued to contend/won a flag?

Further, by continuing to build/contend, it gives a clear sense of direction - this has additional downstream effects -> perhaps TDK/JSOS would have signed, Curnow would not be be looking to exit etc.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Yep No different to trading future picks

Completely different because two clubs have to agree on that.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Just seen Brisbane had zero left footers in their grand final side.
It’s amazing how much we can over think things when it comes to list management

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Completely different because two clubs have to agree on that.

Doesn't matter.
If you sell shares to but a house, and the share price changes after you sell them, doesn't mean you got the house cheaper or dearer.

 

[btdg]

Which of the highlighted players deserved not to be delisted?? Dow has shown he isn't at the standard, No other club was interested in Obrien, Carroll, Plow, March, Cunners & Honey... Fisher ended the year playing VFL for North despite his big $ contract, Owies has been horrific for WCE.. Even Martin has just been meh for the Cats... Kennedy is the only one that stands out that has moved and become a player but its hard to argue that he would have been the same player for us with our midfield mix.

TDK is a huge loss, but is exceptional circumstances. Silvagni stings because of his versatility but we could not possibly have justified paying the $ the Saints ended up offering, however the club should be looking internally as to what was the reason Jack was hawing himself out on the open market in the first place..

But that's exactly the kind of 'superstars or duds' thinking that has us in this position, forever.

Good clubs look at what they have, and figure out how to make it useful. Good clubs also think in a squad mentality, expect injuries and plan backups.

Bad clubs always look at the flaws and give up on people too early and too quickly. Bad clubs think in 'best 22' terms, don't have injury cover or backups, and let players go 'to get more opportunity' rather than having the real, hard conversation (the one that starts with 'you need to get better at...)

But to be specific:

• TDK = absolutely inflated contract at St Kilda, and if we were smart we would never have let it get this far.
• SOS = completely stuffed up how we managed him; salary, position, personal management, everything. Should still be a Blue, and would be if not for gross mismanagement, and we all know it
• Kennedy = see SOS.
• Martin = just played in a grand final, so he is on the list
• Dow = was good enough to be an injury reserve for us when we made a prelim final. Hard to judge his St Kilda form because he missed this year due to an unlucky infection, but if he was at Carlton he absolutely could have played when Walsh was injured
• Fisher = likely would have played every game for us this year, given our injuries and lack of depth.
• Owies = had he just repeated his 2024 form would have been our second leading goal kicker this year. We desperately lacked goal-kickers. Struggling while adjusting to play for a 1-22 West Coast team means a lot less than what he has previously shown
• O'Brien = his numbers and stats were tracking ahead of Ed Richards until we (for no apparent reason) benched him and consigned him to oblivion. Baffling mismanagement. Subsequently lost a lot of drive and quit AFL
• Plowman = he was a serviceable, versatile club man. We should have kept him around even as an injury backup.
• Carroll = also injured this year, lets wait and see. He was fine as an injury backup
• Honey = just player churn and has been replaced by equivalents in White, Young, etc. Just seems pointless to churn rookie listers rather than building something properly.

Cuningham and Marchbank = bodies may have finally given up, which imo is all the more reason to keep the others around.

But the thing is, individually you can look at any decision here and it is justifiable, but the point of list management is not to spend 10 years waiting for a competitive team, then lose 17 players in their prime in two years, leaving your team back 'rebuilding' - aka up shit creek with a hole in your canoe, and then considering trading your paddle for something that will hopefully (but no guarantees) fill the hole.

 

[Uncle Fester]

It does seem unfair, its gone from being a free hit to now if the rumours are factual that we will have to effectively overpay and use multiple first round picks to acquire something that previously was a gift. We have obviously committed to Cody so will get it done regardless, but in future you will have to seriously question if it is worth it or not.

it will be particularly galling watching the dogs, pies and lions spending the next decade reaping the compounding benefits of the old system

 

[Blue1980]

If we play our cards right...

2025 - pick up Dean + Ison from the draft, bring in a handful of 23-28 yr olds that can fill a role.

2026 - go all out at the draft. Stockpile the picks from 2025 trade period, there's many ways to do it especially if we lose Charlie. I think we need 4 first round picks.

2027 1st + F3 -> * FOR 2026 1st
Charlie + F2 -> Swans FOR #11 + F1 + Hayward + Dattoli
#10(TDK) + #11 -> North/Demons FOR F1 + F3

There's four 1st round picks in next year's generational draft... we'll likely lose 2 for Cody unless we really luck out (say * finish 17th and WCE draft someone else without bidding, we can essentially just draft Cody there and then allowing us to pick up another 3 first rounders). But the point is, we go after that talent while we can, before the drafts are impacted by Tassie...

2027 - with Charlie gone, we will have a war chest and there will be a bunch of FAs available to chase... there's quite a few really good ones available, and there's some decent options as well. Rowell, Anderson, Serong, Coleman, SDK, Ash, Green, Day, Comben, Bergman, Georgiadis, Warner, Weightman ... all set to be RFAs end of 2027...

We also target a very good player at the trade table. The draft will be diluted thanks to Tassie for the next couple years at this point... So 2027, we offer up our 2028 1st and go after a very good player that will fill a need.

By 2030, we should be set.

Thing is we don't want a war chest if we are total dog shit as no one will want to come, then you have to pay stupid overs to get anyone in.