I am as well, Cameron was a disaster at Richmond.
List Mgmt. 2016 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy
- Thread starter coniglio_number1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I am as well, Cameron was a disaster at Richmond.
If any of you guys are watching the Crows/Eagles game geez the Eagles defender Tom Barass is an impressive player.
If something needs to be done with them he should be in discussions.
If something needs to be done with them he should be in discussions.
coniglio_number1
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #903
Something Barrass that reminds me of SOS.
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,862
- 17,576
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #905
So, have been mulling over what the change to academy bidding does to us this year and next.
We currently have 42 main list players. Next year our list size requirement is 40-44, I assume that we'll drop to the bottom rung again. Assuming we bring in 4 academy or other draftees, then we have to release/trade 6 players (without trading anyone in). However, we have the benefit of the extended list size, so once we drop to 36 players on main list during the trade period, we'll have 8 picks (i.e. up to 44 list size) to play with. Based on the round 22 ladder, those picks would be: 7, 14, 16, 32, 25, 50, 68 & 104. Five of those are first & second rounders, & the last has no value. Room to upgrade some picks and/or to bring in 2 to 3 higher value picks. That would easily be enough to draft Perryman, Setterfield, Macreadie & Sproule, even if all bid on relatively high (although not if bid on ridiculously high).
Looking forward to the next year, our list requirement would be 38-42, with my assumption again that we would take the bottom rung. So, again I'd expect to release/retire (and that year we'll surely have at least 2 retirements in Patfull & Johnson) 6 to take on 4 draftees - which would again allow 8 picks to be used. We would have less traded players with the retirements, so less incoming draft picks. Which means that we'd want to minimise the numbers leaving this year or get future picks for some of them.
Therefore, the crunch comes in the following year (unless AFL changes the rules in between) when we assume the normal list size. Ergo, we have two years to make hay while the sun shines on academy prospects. But we need to ensure that we use our picks wisely and select the best players that take us forward as a club.
I still don't have a great sense of who's going to leave and stay. Much 'leaving' chat about Marchbank & Steele of the uncontracted players, and WHE, Tommo (although that seems to have declined a little recently) of the contracted players. Anything about Lobb I take at the moment as speculative. Less chat about Downie, Barrett, Finlayson, Stewart, Mohr & McKenna who are all out of contract. Obviously players are waiting until end of season before revealing decisions is one aspect, I'd guess salary cap is another for us (so perhaps the move to exclude Phil Scully's $ from the cap is a desire to throw some increased contracts at a couple of kids).
If GWS decides to 'have a go' at getting Todd Marshall, it does change the trading approach for us next year. I can't see Essendon or Brisbane going for him at pick 1 & 2 (presuming they retain those picks), but Freo at 3, Carlton at 5 and Richmond at 6 could all pick him. Equally, any of those plus Suns at 4 could force our hand by picking either Setterfield or Perryman and see if we match. The problem is that two clubs could easily bid on both of them and force our hand. Therefore, if GWS wants Marshall (even though I don't rate him anywhere nearly that high) we most likely have to trade up (I'd suggest to pick 3). The problem will be doing so without appearing desperate nor giving away too much. And convincing the other club to trade down. In this year's even draft that is a possibility, except if a club has its mind set on a particular player and even a 2 or 4 pick drop could cost them getting him.
I'd also think that GWS want to trade into at least an extra 2017 first round pick in this year's trade period, given the number of academy kids we have looking good at this early stage (Brander as a KPF, Spargo as a small forward, Jack Powell as another mid, and Nathan Richards as a strong ruckman). There would be clubs keen to get more picks in 2016 (suggest Collingwood, Richmond & Norths to start with), but no-one will really want to give up a first round pick in the supposedly strong 2017 draft. Second round picks are less value and more speculative in respect of where a team could end up on the ladder, but might be all that GWS can swing in some trades.
So, really can't afford any of the 'GWS4 to Carlton' type of trades this year. Wouldn't have thought them on the cards given the difference in quality, but there's enough opposition BF posters think they're a cert. Would be very, very disappointed in the club management if they did. I can see some trades that we might look at as 'unders', if they get us in a better position. For example, upgrading pick 7 to pick 5 with Carlton involving a Marchbank trade (presumably something else coming to GWS, but not a full first round value that we'd expect) if it got us a better shot at Marshall. The problem is, as we saw last year, that other clubs don't want an academy club to have a free swing and so they're likely to throw a bid on early but not unreasonably so, hence my view that we might need to get to 3 to have best chance. Which might then involve trading, another example, McCarthy for peanuts (pick 5 to pick 3 - only 350 points and pick third round value) to have that shot.
Strap in for an interesting ride, especially with Gold Coast's woes WRT Prestia & O'Meara, Norths, Collingwood and Richmond's poor finishes this year. But I think the bidding system change is a relatively small impact on our strategy for the next couple of years.
We currently have 42 main list players. Next year our list size requirement is 40-44, I assume that we'll drop to the bottom rung again. Assuming we bring in 4 academy or other draftees, then we have to release/trade 6 players (without trading anyone in). However, we have the benefit of the extended list size, so once we drop to 36 players on main list during the trade period, we'll have 8 picks (i.e. up to 44 list size) to play with. Based on the round 22 ladder, those picks would be: 7, 14, 16, 32, 25, 50, 68 & 104. Five of those are first & second rounders, & the last has no value. Room to upgrade some picks and/or to bring in 2 to 3 higher value picks. That would easily be enough to draft Perryman, Setterfield, Macreadie & Sproule, even if all bid on relatively high (although not if bid on ridiculously high).
Looking forward to the next year, our list requirement would be 38-42, with my assumption again that we would take the bottom rung. So, again I'd expect to release/retire (and that year we'll surely have at least 2 retirements in Patfull & Johnson) 6 to take on 4 draftees - which would again allow 8 picks to be used. We would have less traded players with the retirements, so less incoming draft picks. Which means that we'd want to minimise the numbers leaving this year or get future picks for some of them.
Therefore, the crunch comes in the following year (unless AFL changes the rules in between) when we assume the normal list size. Ergo, we have two years to make hay while the sun shines on academy prospects. But we need to ensure that we use our picks wisely and select the best players that take us forward as a club.
I still don't have a great sense of who's going to leave and stay. Much 'leaving' chat about Marchbank & Steele of the uncontracted players, and WHE, Tommo (although that seems to have declined a little recently) of the contracted players. Anything about Lobb I take at the moment as speculative. Less chat about Downie, Barrett, Finlayson, Stewart, Mohr & McKenna who are all out of contract. Obviously players are waiting until end of season before revealing decisions is one aspect, I'd guess salary cap is another for us (so perhaps the move to exclude Phil Scully's $ from the cap is a desire to throw some increased contracts at a couple of kids).
If GWS decides to 'have a go' at getting Todd Marshall, it does change the trading approach for us next year. I can't see Essendon or Brisbane going for him at pick 1 & 2 (presuming they retain those picks), but Freo at 3, Carlton at 5 and Richmond at 6 could all pick him. Equally, any of those plus Suns at 4 could force our hand by picking either Setterfield or Perryman and see if we match. The problem is that two clubs could easily bid on both of them and force our hand. Therefore, if GWS wants Marshall (even though I don't rate him anywhere nearly that high) we most likely have to trade up (I'd suggest to pick 3). The problem will be doing so without appearing desperate nor giving away too much. And convincing the other club to trade down. In this year's even draft that is a possibility, except if a club has its mind set on a particular player and even a 2 or 4 pick drop could cost them getting him.
I'd also think that GWS want to trade into at least an extra 2017 first round pick in this year's trade period, given the number of academy kids we have looking good at this early stage (Brander as a KPF, Spargo as a small forward, Jack Powell as another mid, and Nathan Richards as a strong ruckman). There would be clubs keen to get more picks in 2016 (suggest Collingwood, Richmond & Norths to start with), but no-one will really want to give up a first round pick in the supposedly strong 2017 draft. Second round picks are less value and more speculative in respect of where a team could end up on the ladder, but might be all that GWS can swing in some trades.
So, really can't afford any of the 'GWS4 to Carlton' type of trades this year. Wouldn't have thought them on the cards given the difference in quality, but there's enough opposition BF posters think they're a cert. Would be very, very disappointed in the club management if they did. I can see some trades that we might look at as 'unders', if they get us in a better position. For example, upgrading pick 7 to pick 5 with Carlton involving a Marchbank trade (presumably something else coming to GWS, but not a full first round value that we'd expect) if it got us a better shot at Marshall. The problem is, as we saw last year, that other clubs don't want an academy club to have a free swing and so they're likely to throw a bid on early but not unreasonably so, hence my view that we might need to get to 3 to have best chance. Which might then involve trading, another example, McCarthy for peanuts (pick 5 to pick 3 - only 350 points and pick third round value) to have that shot.
Strap in for an interesting ride, especially with Gold Coast's woes WRT Prestia & O'Meara, Norths, Collingwood and Richmond's poor finishes this year. But I think the bidding system change is a relatively small impact on our strategy for the next couple of years.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 52,399
- 81,190
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #906
I can't see us going all out for Marshall. Us fans like the idea because "* them for interfering with our academy" but he's surplus to needs and is going to be overdrafted simply because he's a KPF, same as McCartin and Day were. Let him go to Freo and then play the go home card in two years. 
- Jan 17, 2013
- 7,599
- 8,294
- AFL Club
- GWS
I think the only non nsw player we should try and draft is Ainsworth.
coniglio_number1
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #910
I'd pass on Marshall and take brander next year
- Nov 23, 2015
- 11,862
- 17,576
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Moderator
- #911
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating chasing Marshall for the exact reasons you've stated. But a few things here and there that have been said (yes I know you can't believe a word in the media - mostly) makes me wonder. However, not sure 'surplus to needs' will adequately describe our position after trade week. Of our current KPFs, we could lose McCarthy, Stewart & Tomlinson. Finlayson, Himmelberg and Tomlinson (if he stays) all seem to have gone to the backs. So we could be left with just Jezza, Patton & Lobb. While we could try HH & Finlayson forward, and next year we would be looking at Brander, I would expect we are actually looking at a KPF this year. Would have been Sproule until Marshall came on the scene. Nothing definitive though. we know that Marshall will take years to develop, though, so the club could be looking at long term development. Again, I'm not a Marshall fan, just speculating.I can't see us going all out for Marshall. Us fans like the idea because "**** them for interfering with our academy" but he's surplus to needs and is going to be overdrafted simply because he's a KPF, same as McCartin and Day were. Let him go to Freo and then play the go home card in two years.
Well, that doesn't exclude Marshall then, since he's from NSW! I agree that Ainsworth is a talent in an area we are a bit short. Conversely, Charlie Spargo is a NSW kid who is highly rated in next year's draft as a small forward, and we have Pickett still on the list in the same role, who hasn't had a chance to show his wares. If we did go for Ainsworth, Pickett really becomes surplus to needs. I guess if GWS were to trade Pickett it would flag interest in Ainsworth.
injury Bear
Debutant
- Aug 25, 2016
- 127
- 111
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #912
McCartin will be a cat before too long.
#trustme
#trustme
coniglio_number1
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #913
- Sep 23, 2012
- 1,979
- 1,396
- AFL Club
- GWS
Obviously there will be some three way trade where we lose half our list because we need to reduce it and home sickness mass exodus blah blah same old rubbish reasons. /sarcasm
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,107
- AFL Club
- GWS
Dont forget our cap issues. We will be giving em away
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
injury Bear
Debutant
- Aug 25, 2016
- 127
- 111
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #917
Hahaha absolutely none whatsoever.
I posted in the wrong thread. Drunk posting isn't a great thing in hindsight.
Sorry!
Bokonon
Cancelled
- May 3, 2016
- 4,376
- 2,703
- AFL Club
- GWS
All good I was drunk when I read it. Made perfect sense to me
List Manager
Club Legend
Hi all and sorry to intrude but was hoping that someone may be able to shed some light on Caleb Marchbank's future. Is it still popular opinion that he will return to Victoria at seasons end? If so, which clubs have been linked to him? He's one kid I'd pay slight overs for at the trade table pending where we sit in the race for O'Meara.
Who are the likely omissions from your senior list at seasons end?
Again, pardon the intrusion.
Who are the likely omissions from your senior list at seasons end?
Again, pardon the intrusion.
Have a look thru this thread we set up for questions like yours
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-hypotheticals-opposition-posters-post-here.1130081/
List Manager
Club Legend
Cheers, completely missed that thread. Enjoy September guys!
We all knew it was coming just hope we get decent value in return
- Apr 12, 2012
- 46,261
- 42,107
- AFL Club
- GWS
Stark difference in tone from the O'Meara statement from the Coast.
"We'll do what we can to benefit the club and wish him the best" vs
"He can G&GF"
I took a bit of a dislike to Marchbank from the first game I saw him in - he did go some way to redeeming himself a bit with his later performances, but to be frankly honest, I don't really care one way or the other. So he's going... See ya later - good luck and all that, but really... meh.
