List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[BlueJet]

Absolutely more than comfortable that they've all been moved on or getting moved on. Its a great thing for the club.

Yep. The argument is that we could have flipped them for a greater/any, return if we had been more ruthless.
Holding onto them when we knew they weren't the difference makers we'd hoped is just screams of hoarding talent with the slim hope that it clicks which is a very low percentage play.

 

[BlueJet]

Yep, 100% . He's a mature, versatile player who is a key part of our group. We should have had him locked away last year.

Instead, we did this:

‘I’ll get a call’: Jack Silvagni yet to open contract talks as Blue reborn after 600-day return

‘I’ll get a call’: Free agent’s waiting game as Blue blood reborn after 600-day return

www.foxsports.com.au

Option 1 (above): "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL and moving to a new position that you haven't played before, but we can't offer you a contract yet. We have to wait and see whether TDK wants to sign for a million dollars a year first, and then we might be able to fit you in. But as soon as he lets us know, we can maybe have a chat. We know you'll sign because you are a Silvagni, and you don't really have a position and you have been injured, so just hang around and we'll probably come back and sign you. Or not, if you get injured again, as happened with your mates (DC and Marchy and Martin). But we probably will, just don't go anywhere, right"

vs

Option 2: "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL, but we want you to know that we value you and see you as a long-term part of this club and future. This is probably your last big deal so we're going to give you a fair offer for four years, that will take you through until you are 32, and get this sorted before the season starts so you can focus on getting your body right, learning a new position, and being part of this club forever".

Let's face it, we treated him the way a high school quarterback treats the bookish, nerdy girl who lives next door - like a second choice. He then showed up at the ball looking pretty damn fine and Collingwood and others showed a genuine interest in him for the player he is, and of course he took that offer.

Meanwhile, we can barely put out 23 players next year, let alone the 35-odd we need in the squad to compete. But hey, Liam Reidy, come on down!

It is either incompetence or ego but it is ruining the club. Can't wait for another 10 year rebuild to start...

He was a peripheral player coming out of contract at a time when more important players, requiring bigger deals were OOC.
This happens most years at just about every club, it's only problematic in this instance because to some of you, the Silvagni name is more important than the club & overlook the obvious.

Despite the squealing, he's been very well looked after by SOS but it does nuke most of the self-victimising chat that has come from the Silvagni clan post SOS' dismissal..

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

This time next year if we need to trade up to get 2 x top 12 picks to secure Walker or.. we can do the exact same thing to get Zac Butters, what is the better list management decision?

 

[ctwenty1]

This time next year if we need to trade up to get 2 x top 12 picks to secure Walker or.. we can do the exact same thing to get Zac Butters, what is the better list management decision?

and two years ago we couldve done both because cody woudl not have cost two first rounders

this is teh infuriating part

AFL are crap at administering the game

 

[The Bighouse]

Then why wouldn’t clubs holding those high picks just trade them for those two firsts?

Personally I’d just say match with two picks and any deficit comes with a 100% tax.
The advantage Brisbane has got, Collingwood had and GC will has resulted in clubs winning premierships and keeping them up the ladder way past they would naturally be (unless they have Geelong type ability) it’s just too big to ignore

Just don’t give a shout.
F/S’s, rack ‘em up when it’s your turn. Luck of the draw.
Was happy with the previous rules.
Could handle the revised rules for this year but yet to actually see in action. The new rules planned are OTT & too restrictive.

Brisbane shouldn’t be allowed their Academy access. Same with Sydney.
Collingwood Nick Daicos as their only top-end pick + Moore a while ago.

GCFC Academy is serving its purpose. Needs to be refined now, which did have restrictions in place on their finishing position initially.

 

[blueblooded]

and two years ago we couldve done both because cody woudl not have cost two first rounders

this is teh infuriating part

AFL are crap at administering the game

The more infuriating part is that Collingwood, Brisbane and Geelong have benefited from F/S this century and remain at the pointy end of the ladder year on year.

Carlton and Essendon are perennial under achievers this century and in the coming years have generational father sons in Walker and Bewick and the AFL is changing the rules, both of these clubs will lose out on the advantages the former 3 have received in list management. Further entrenching the gulf between the clubs. It makes no sense.

 

[ctwenty1]

The more infuriating part is that Collingwood, Brisbane and Geelong have benefited from F/S this century and remain at the pointy end of the ladder year on year.

Carlton and Essendon are perennial under achievers this century and in the coming years have generational father sons in Walker and Bewick and the AFL is changing the rules, both of these clubs will lose out on the advantages the former 3 have received in list management. Further entrenching the gulf between the clubs. It makes no sense.

I accept there are winners and losers when changes are made

If this is the sustainable solution longer term then so be it

But i have no confidence in teh AFL not changing the rules again in the future to something looser because "the current rules are too tight"

 

[Blue_Fusion]

With the AFL releasing Tassie draft concessions, I'd be surprised if they don't try and poach Cowan from us...

I wouldn't want to lose him, really like the way he's progressing and will be important for our future.

But if they offer up pick 5 or 7 for him I think we'd consider it...

 

[blueblooded]

I accept there are winners and losers when changes are made

If this is the sustainable solution longer term then so be it

But i have no confidence in teh AFL not changing the rules again in the future to something looser because "the current rules are too tight"

The rules will change as soon as the expansion clubs start seeing father sons on the horizon. Give it to 2030 or so when a few kids of GWS players start showing some pedigree at 14/15 years of age… the rules will change real quick

 

[Pinnell]

With the AFL releasing Tassie draft concessions, I'd be surprised if they don't try and poach Cowan from us...

I wouldn't want to lose him, really like the way he's progressing and will be important for our future.

But if they offer up pick 5 or 7 for him I think we'd consider it...

DO we actually get to consider it?

 

[Sector 7G]

The more infuriating part is that Collingwood, Brisbane and Geelong have benefited from F/S this century and remain at the pointy end of the ladder year on year.

Carlton and Essendon are perennial under achievers this century and in the coming years have generational father sons in Walker and Bewick and the AFL is changing the rules, both of these clubs will lose out on the advantages the former 3 have received in list management. Further entrenching the gulf between the clubs. It makes no sense.

It will be funny if * can't get the 2 1st round picks necessary for Bewick because Tassie have 6 picks in the top 11 and they can't get the points

 

[Magruder]

The answer is to give all clubs an academy access pathway but limit the numbers.

Invest in very early talent identification

 

[ctwenty1]

It will be funny if * can't get the 2 1st round picks necessary for Bewick because Tassie have 6 picks in the top 11 and they can't get the points

Not really

Smacks of AFL incompetence and ****ing it up for foundational clubs

as much as I despise Essendon, there needs to be recognition of the importance of clubs like us and Essendon to the competition

Not saying we need special treatment, but also dont introduce rules that **** us over or favour others

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Just don’t give a shout.
F/S’s, rack ‘em up when it’s your turn. Luck of the draw.
Was happy with the previous rules.
Could handle the revised rules for this year but yet to actually see in action. The new rules planned are OTT & too restrictive.

Brisbane shouldn’t be allowed their Academy access. Same with Sydney.
Collingwood Nick Daicos as their only top-end pick + Moore a while ago.

GCFC Academy is serving its purpose. Needs to be refined now, which did have restrictions in place on their finishing position initially.

Yeh I’d prefer a proper competition.

Collingwood don’t win anything without Daicos (or Moore) that’s literally the cost of FS and academies. It’s embarrassing for the competition.
It’s like Sydney, without their academy players their list is shocking. Success shouldn’t come down to luck.

I really don’t understand why people care if clubs have to pay atleast full price for FS. How does that affect anyone negatively? When it is obvious getting players on the cheap affects the entire competition.

 

[marcmurphy3]

The thing with Collingwood and Nick Daicos is they actually finished 2nd last that year. If they hadn't already traded out their pick the previous year for points, they actually finished low enough to take Daicos with their natural selection.

Darcy Moore

30

Darcy Moore

Age

29

Ht

203cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.1

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

169.1

3star

D

13.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

0.7

1star

MG

182.0

3star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.2

2star

HB

2.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

87.4

2star

they used a top 10 pick on under a different system. Didnt really get a discount on him at all.

Josh Daicos

7

Josh Daicos

Age

27

Ht

178cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.6

4star

K

8.3

3star

HB

7.3

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.6

5star

MG

230.5

4star

D

16.2

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.5

4star

MG

230.5

4star

D

13.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

4.2

5star

they took with a pick in the 50s. If anyone bid on him below 30 highly doubt they match. Clubs had their chance. He just happens to have worked out really well.

So the whole unfair father son rules helped pies win a flag is garbage. A lot of luck and good timing yes. But if you really look at it they haven't been given that much of a legup.

Regarding Will Ashcroft I have no issue with Lions being able to get him while on top of the ladder. The issue is they shouldn't have had enough currency for Dunkley and Fletcher too. Will should have wiped them from 2 drafts. Would still be unders but fine with that. Him being at the Lions is good for the game.

 

[Crippa#9]

I accept there are winners and losers when changes are made

If this is the sustainable solution longer term then so be it

But i have no confidence in teh AFL not changing the rules again in the future to something looser because "the current rules are too tight"

One would hope the clubs - Carlton & Essendon in particular - are lobbying the AFL for a more mellow 'phase in' of these hyper strict rule adjustments to F/S.

For example in 26' & 27' you will need TWO x First Round picks to match a Top 5 bid if played Finals that year. (Can be wherever in the first round)

From 28' onwards you will need the equivalent of DVI points using a maximum of two picks to match a Top 5 bid.

 

[marcmurphy3]

DO we actually get to consider it?

Yes, in their first year because Cowan in under contract. No in their 2nd year. He can walk to them as a free agent. No chance can we let him get out of contract. Still time on our side but we either need to get him under contract for both years they can recruit free agents or trade him that first year for picks.

 

[The Bighouse]

One would hope the clubs - Carlton & Essendon in particular - are lobbying the AFL for a more mellow 'phase in' of these hyper strict rule adjustments to F/S.

For example in 26' & 27' you will need TWO x First Round picks to match a Top 5 bid if played Finals that year. (Can be wherever in the first round)

From 28' onwards you will need the equivalent of DVI points using a maximum of two picks to match a Top 5 bid.

It’s too botched to race changes in for the next draft.
Should at least be a MIN of 2yrs for implementation or rule changes.
Announced in ‘25, applies for the draft in ‘28. Future draft picks can be swapped & list management is a futures business.

 

[marcmurphy3]

It’s too botched to race changes in for the next draft.
Should at least be a MIN of 2yrs for implementation or rule changes.
Announced in ‘25, applies for the draft in ‘28. Future draft picks can be swapped & list management is a futures business.

Really should wait till after the Tassie draft. The tough changes they are reportedly proposing become much much tougher when you factor in the dilution of 2027 picks.

Although a part of me wonders if they are rushing these changes in because that's what they want. Tassis to get some top talent that would otherwise have already been linked to clubs.

 

[Bluebag13]

The thing with Collingwood and Nick Daicos is they actually finished 2nd last that year. If they hadn't already traded out their pick the previous year for points, they actually finished low enough to take Daicos with their natural selection.

Darcy Moore they used a top 10 pick on under a different system. Didnt really get a discount on him at all.

Josh Daicos they took with a pick in the 50s. If anyone bid on him below 30 highly doubt they match. Clubs had their chance. He just happens to have worked out really well.

So the whole unfair father son rules helped pies win a flag is garbage. A lot of luck and good timing yes. But if you really look at it they haven't been given that much of a legup.

Regarding Will Ashcroft I have no issue with Lions being able to get him while on top of the ladder. The issue is they shouldn't have had enough currency for Dunkley and Fletcher too. Will should have wiped them from 2 drafts. Would still be unders but fine with that. Him being at the Lions is good for the game.

Agree with all of this.

The fact we are getting walker regardless of where we finish and what we need to pay (within reason of course) is much more likely to make us than break us.

We can't get everything in the world, but we are getting something bloody good and something other teams wish they could get.

Let's just enjoy that.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

For example in 26' & 27' you will need TWO x First Round picks to match a Top 5 bid if played Finals that year. (Can be wherever in the first round)

Can match 5 with 6 & 51 - with 5% discount for 5-8 finish

 

[No1Suspect]

Can match 5 with 6 & 51 - with 5% discount for 5-8 finish

With matching bids i agree with the above, if you can match with a first and really late pick that doesn't affect your next pick, that would be the sweet spot for this 2 pick formula theyve come up with. Needing to somehow trade in 2 top 15 or so picks to match bids at 1 or 2 is a bit heavy i feel.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I assume it's because other teams have been able to get their highly rated father-sons and academy prospects for picks in the 30s and 40s.

Nick Daicos cost picks 38, 40, 42, 44 and Sam Darcy cost 34, 42, 43, 44, 45 - while we are being asked to trade assets to cover cody

just because it was too far one way in the past doesnt mean it should become a father and son tax

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Should be a discount based on ladder position, ie finish bottom 4 get a 50% discount, 14th - 9th 25% discount, 8th - 5th 15% and top 4 no discount.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I accept there are winners and losers when changes are made

If this is the sustainable solution longer term then so be it

But i have no confidence in teh AFL not changing the rules again in the future to something looser because "the current rules are too tight"

melbourne says hi re Mac Andrew

that said - im a member of "the only academies which should be allowed are Gold Coast and GWS - and the minute they take a father son - the academy is gone" school