List Mgmt. 2025 List Management

[serial_thrilla]

 

[2big2strom]

No related to anything at all, but does anyone know how many years North gave Tucker?

apropos of nothing (not including McVees face)

 

[freo_leo29]

I don't think you know what bonkers means.

Wild/crazy

 

[Ge3ks]

Wild/crazy

Then you are aware that you are being hyperbolic.

It's a pretty run of the mill contract for an established player in his age bracket. And you have no idea how much money he is on. And you say he is just a role player like that means he is less important than a what... a non-role player? WTF. Every player has a role.

 

[Lach72]

A trade like this one for Curnow (two players and two firsts rounds) should really have the capacity to **** Sydney sideways when/if Curnow blows a knee or similar.

But they’ve got a couple of Academy kids coming through to cushion the blow.

I honestly hope losing Hayward and Florent drives a wedge down the middle of the group, because **** those guys

 

[freo_leo29]

I don't see how anyone can claim they are being reasonable if they don't at least sort of admit it suggests the value was close to market. It's definatley not the opposite. Claiming the opposite is just being obtuse. The difference in value between 12 and 33 for 19 and 23 v 15 for 25 and 26 is nothing material.

Again, the unexplained part of the trade is 44 and 50 for 46. Of course once the draft is over and we haven't go anything for what we gave up for nothing (the eqivelent of an mid third rounder from giving up a late third plus some points) then my eyebrows will be waggling. Untill then I'd let it pass, just like the media have.

??

We moved down for less points

Gc will be moving down for more points, I 100% guarantee it


It works against our trade yet again

 

[freo_leo29]

Then you are aware that you are being hyperbolic.

It's a pretty run of the mill contract for an established player in his age bracket. And you have no idea how much money he is on. And you say he is just a role player like that means he is less important than a what... a non-role player? WTF. Every player has a role.

It's a bonkers contract for a role player

I'm assuming he has been given extra years at less money though, should atleast be under 500k per year

 

[s_wd6]

It's a bonkers contract for a role player

I'm assuming he has been given extra years at less money though, should atleast be under 500k per year

You don't lure players over on under 500k a year. Not when their own club has been trying to get them to sign on for 18 months and keep revising their offers to him.

 

[Superkoops]

I'd rather have kept 34 like we should have. Watch the mathematical magic.

Dogs/GWS trade
View attachment 2455099
Rumoured GC/North trade
View attachment 2455101

Allen compo adjusted Freo Pick Swap Trade
View attachment 2455095

Freo pick swap trade TAKING out pick 33...
View attachment 2455094

I agree with your point but a few draft picks out for Freo. Pick 24 not 27, 45 not 44 and 47 not 44


Your point is valid. In reality I’d be happy with keeping 45 and giving them 34 because 45 and 47 combined could get up the draft board a bit.

 

[pavstar]

What a terrifying trade period the Power have produced. Wehr, Durdin, Brodie. An all time scary lineup of recruits.

We can talk shit about Port and how they’re taking cast offs but I’ll wait to start flaming and laughing at Port until we actually overtake them in terms of success…

Fremantle haven’t really lit up the trading floor in terms of quality trading moves in our 30 year history….

 

[freo_leo29]

You don't lure players over on under 500k a year. Not when their own club has been trying to get them to sign on for 18 months and keep revising their offers to him.

Last I heard they had only offered him 2 years


Reckon he has taken the security over here but should still be cheap

He's an honest player, quite shocking to see 5 years tbh

 

[Eski3]

I'd rather have kept 34 like we should have. Watch the mathematical magic.

Dogs/GWS trade
View attachment 2455099
Rumoured GC/North trade
View attachment 2455101

Allen compo adjusted Freo Pick Swap Trade
View attachment 2455095

Freo pick swap trade TAKING out pick 33...
View attachment 2455094

But at the end of all that - what's the highest draft pick we could end up with and getting an early 20s pick with McVee? Cos from a net stand point, if we're taking Whan with our second pick that's all that really matters. We weren't upgrading 12, so the only question is how far back are we sliding

 

[s_wd6]

Last I heard they had only offered him 2 years


Reckon he has taken the security over here but should still be cheap

He's an honest player, quite shocking to see 5 years tbh

Their list manager was talking about how they tried renegotiating his contract for 18 months to get him to sign.

The word among the Melbourne boards is that they initially offered him four but he turned it down for two.

 

[Ge3ks]

We gave a 20yo Jordan Clark

6

Jordan Clark

Age

25

Ht

185cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.7

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

4.3

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.6

4star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.5

3star

K

8.5

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

2star

MG

172.0

3star

D

12.2

3star

K

10.4

4star

HB

1.8

2star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.4

4star

a 4 year contract.
5 years for an unarguably more established 22yo Judd McVee is neither shocking or bonkers. Melbourne desperately wanted to keep him. They offered him multiple years and the head of Steven May

1

Steven May

Age

33

Ht

193cm

Wt

101kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

10.5

4star

HB

4.2

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

307.3

4star

D

15.5

4star

K

12.1

5star

HB

3.4

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

0.5

1star

MG

378.4

5star

D

12.4

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.8

4star

.

 

[Vintage]

Imagine what it must do to one’s self esteem to only be valued at pick 103

To be fair hopefully he looks at it that they gave up their 3rd selection in the draft.


(After they had traded away higher selections earlier)

 

[King Huskii]

Welcome to the Banners family

Have we delisted that yet?

 

[Kapow!!!]

A trade like this one for Curnow (two players and two firsts rounds) should really have the capacity to **** Sydney sideways when/if Curnow blows a knee or similar.

But they’ve got a couple of Academy kids coming through to cushion the blow.

I honestly hope losing Hayward and Florent drives a wedge down the middle of the group, because **** those guys

Really makes keeping Warner long term perhaps their biggest priority for the next 5 years.

 

[DQ 4EVER]

I don't think you know what bonkers means.

The name of the dog who bit Garp's ear in the greatest novel ever, IMO

 

[millsy]

But at the end of all that - what's the highest draft pick we could end up with and getting an early 20s pick with McVee? Cos from a net stand point, if we're taking Whan with our second pick that's all that really matters. We weren't upgrading 12, so the only question is how far back are we sliding

Im with you (I think).

We get what we need out of the three way trade with WC and Brisbane, give up a bit of what we dont need. Trade collateral enables what appears to be McVee at a good price.

The points argument is fair but needs to then allow for WC and Brisbane deal not including us if we dont give value, and the comparative costs to us then finding the alternatives.

 

[freo_leo29]

But at the end of all that - what's the highest draft pick we could end up with and getting an early 20s pick with McVee? Cos from a net stand point, if we're taking Whan with our second pick that's all that really matters. We weren't upgrading 12, so the only question is how far back are we sliding

12 for 25/26

25 for Mcvee (Dees took 24 so I'd be absolutely stunned if they wouldn't take 25)


26, 34, 51 = equiv of pick 15 (we still hold 44 in this scenario)

gets us close to GC pick 15, would almost certainly get us 18 in which case we end up with a pick 2 spots higher in both the first round and the 3rd round (44 never moves down to 46 in this scenario)

Alternatively 44 goes in with it and we get pick 15, as I reckon we are only taking 1x live pick this draft


Thats just going off the possible GC/North trade from the AFL, its without even delving into Brissy/Blues/Bombers possibilities


Basically we should have held points to allow us to trade up because there are gonna be multiple clubs willing to trade down for points

quick edit: FWIW I reckon we can do much better than 25/26 but this is just showing we can start off in a bad position and still come out on top of what we actually did, if only we held the other picks to trade up with points.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Wildcard trade move: Could Collingwood star Jordan De Goey be on the table?

Collingwood match-winner Jordan De Goey shapes as a wildcard trade possibility in the 48 hours before Wednesday’s AFL trades deadline.

www.theage.com.au

Any takers?

 

[mattis117]

12 should've been 19 and 23 by itself

We also should be working the other way, trading up to gc mid 20s picks

There's no such thing as should have been since you are unaware of the agreed value of the picks.

Evidence all week long has suggested picks have lower value than normal this year.

Just whinging for the sake of it all this claiming that it could have been done without the later picks. Clearly, it could not have.

Classic saying, garbage in = garbage out. Everyone trying to pass judgement on value is doing so with incorrect input assumptions, hence the trade seems nonsensical.

Sydney are being forced to trade a good player for a good player because Carlton know their picks are junk this year. Evidence is mounting yet many still ignore what is right there.

 

[freo_leo29]

There's no such thing as should have been since you are unaware of the agreed value of the picks.

Evidence all week long has suggested picks have lower value than normal this year.

Just whinging for the sake of it all this claiming that it could have been done without the later picks. Clearly, it could not have.

Classic saying, garbage in = garbage out. Everyone trying to pass judgement on value is doing so with incorrect input assumptions, hence the trade seems nonsensical.

Sydney are being forced to trade a good player for a good player because Carlton know their picks are junk this year. Evidence is mounting yet many still ignore what is right there.

I'm sorry but you're once again showing you don't quite understand the draft process

Carlton have academy players for the next two seasons, any picks will get eaten up in that


I know you don't actually agree with what you are saying as you have openly said you are being the counterpoint for the sake of it, so whats the point of going on with it lol

 

[Retzlaff]

I want to see a trade target pull out of negotiations with a rival club after being unimpressed with the tour of their facilities

 

[mattis117]

12 for 25/26

25 for Mcvee (Dees took 24 so I'd be absolutely stunned if they wouldn't take 25)


26, 34, 51 = equiv of pick 15 (we still hold 44 in this scenario)

gets us close to GC pick 15, would almost certainly get us 18 in which case we end up with a pick 2 spots higher in both the first round and the 3rd round (44 never moves down to 46 in this scenario)

Alternatively 44 goes in with it and we get pick 15, as I reckon we are only taking 1x live pick this draft


Thats just going off the possible GC/North trade from the AFL, its without even delving into Brissy/Blues/Bombers possibilities


Basically we should have held points to allow us to trade up because there are gonna be multiple clubs willing to trade down for points

quick edit: FWIW I reckon we can do much better than 25/26 but this is just showing we can start off in a bad position and still come out on top of what we actually did, if only we held the other picks to trade up with points.

Dude this is worthless analysis. We're in the business of picking actually good players, not maximising the points we take to the draft.

Do you need an extreme example to understand? What if the draft contained 20 Murphy Reids and 45 Devon Robertsons? Your two picks in the 20s are total garbage.

It blows my mind people are still talking points in terms of OUR drafting. The draft contains groups of players and there can be large cliffs between groups.

The only argument that can be made against is we gave away points to other clubs that need them for free. From our perspective, it looks like we only want one pick and have decided that there is someone worth drafting at our first one, then we get Whan. End of draft. Everything else is just noise.

Your arguing for a scenario where we have worse picks and have more picks than we need.

 

[mattis117]

I'm sorry but you're once again showing you don't quite understand the draft process

Carlton have academy players for the next two seasons, any picks will get eaten up in that


I know you don't actually agree with what you are saying as you have openly said you are being the counterpoint for the sake of it, so whats the point of going on with it lol

Lol.