List Mgmt. 2016 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

[coniglio_number1]

Back 10 group competing for spots for the next 5 years:
Davis
Marchbank
Finlayson
Haynes
Buntine
Wilson
Williams
Kennedy
Heater (for a couple)
Macreadie

Can add Connor Byrne to that list if your including Macreadie

 

[Malifice]

Pick 1 doesn't help us land academy players and the club is moving away from interstaters for the next 2 years while we still own the Riverina. As good as SPS is he will still sit on our list waiting for a game like Ahern, hopper, Kennedy, Pickett, Barrett etc.

But youre picking up those academy boys regardless. Grabbing pick 1 lets you still get those four plus also add a cream player like SPS (Rioli lite) or Ainsworth (a gifted small forward to rove your plethora of talls).

The only sticking point is going to be where Collingwoods pick winds up and where Macreadie is predicted to be bid on. Most phantoms have him going top 5 at this early stage. If you blokes are confident he wont be bid on before Collingwoods pick goes live, then you'll probably want to hold onto that pick as well (seeing as you get to use it on whomever you want, before academy players start kicking in).

The advantage of having pick 1 or 2 for you guys is you get that free hit at the draft at pick 1 or 2 (before any bids are entered on your academy boys), plus you still get the exact same 4 academy blokes (Setterfield and Macreadie, possibly Highmore and Sproule).

Can see Gold Coast being keen for your pick but the pies pick will be very high at this stage and we don't need more currency for this year at this stage

You blokes have more than enough points to pay for your Academy boys. The issue is going to be would you prefer (the 4 academy blokes) plus (best available player with the points left after they've been paid for) of the exact same 4 academy blokes plus (pick 1 or 2 - likely SPS or Ainsworth).

The addition of Sproule and Macreadie will also put more pressure on Tomlinson and Marchbank to stick around. If it was me, I'd back the first two as long term players for your club (as academy selections theyve known theyre off to GWS for years) over the latter (Tomo tried to leave for us last year already, and there are some rumblings about Marchbank who's out of contract this year).

A lot of water to go under the bridge yet however.

 

[coniglio_number1]

All depends if the Victorians have their way and the points are reduced on late picks. If that's the case then I can see us hoarding our first rounders as all 3 of Macreadie, Sproule and Setterfield will be first round bids

 

[Malifice]

All depends if the Victorians have their way and the points are reduced on late picks. If that's the case then I can see us hoarding our first rounders as all 3 of Macreadie, Sproule and Setterfield will be first round bids

Exactly. What you want is a pick before any of those three are bid on. If they get bid on early in the first round, your picks get pushed back down the draft order meaning youll get all three players, but then the next player picked will be late in the second round.

Getting an early pick (before any bids are made) lets you pick up a top three player in addition to grabbing all three of those blokes.

 

[Giant Pete]

Can add Connor Byrne to that list if your including Macreadie

You got any info on him? What about Sproule and Setterfield?

 

[combaning]

I would rather pick 3-7 than pick 1. They usually end up better players than picks 1&2. Less pressure on them.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Exactly. What you want is a pick before any of those three are bid on. If they get bid on early in the first round, your picks get pushed back down the draft order meaning youll get all three players, but then the next player picked will be late in the second round.

Getting an early pick (before any bids are made) lets you pick up a top three player in addition to grabbing all three of those blokes.

But list management wise we won't want to take on 6 players this year. In fact we may not take all 5 boys as our list is chockablock. We don't need to take another non academy kid just because you want our first rounders

 

[coniglio_number1]

You got any info on him? What about Sproule and Setterfield?

Byrne is a very pacy midfielder that projects as a Wilson clone. I imagine he may not attract a bid until the 30s

Setterfield is class. Excellent disposal and vision. He will attract a bid around 14

Sproule is competing with battle for the mantle of best key forward in the draft and had a recent growth spurt to take him to 197cm. Could easily grow to the 200cm mark at this rate

More detailed write ups on page 1 though mate.

 

[Malifice]

But list management wise we won't want to take on 6 players this year. In fact we may not take all 5 boys as our list is chockablock. We don't need to take another non academy kid just because you want our first rounders

Yeah - this is taken from the D+T board:

At this stage you'd be expecting bids rolling in for Macredie and Setterfield around the 3 mark.

I'd assume you would take the 4 academy boys + 1 player (you wont want more than 5 this year). Meaning with your picks as they are (assuming Collingwood nets you pick 5) after paying for the above academy blokes at the above bid locations, your 5th player would come in at around pick 30 odd.

Trading a few of your first rounders out for pick 1 doesnt affect your ability to draft those same 4 academy boys (as long as you retain enough points to pay for them of course, and you should have no problem doing so thanks to retaining Geelongs 1st rounder, getting our second rounder and the Bulldogs, having your own 2nd and third, plus whatever Freo give you for Maccarthy). It just means you swap pick 30 odd for a free hit at the draft at pick 1 (using all your later picks to pay for the 4 academy boys).

Either way you're getting picks 3, 4, 14 and 19 (assuming bids pop up here, and you match them). It really boils down to whether you want pick 1 on top of these picks, or pick 30.

 

[Giant Strides]

Certainly an interesting discussion on how GWS should approach this over the next few years. I support choosing academy kids, but also believe that if we're not getting the specific needs from them, we do need to consider using a live draft pick on the best player available - or of course trading a high pick for an established young player. I understand what Malifice is saying here - we could get a really high draft pick and still get the academy kids we want. On the other hand, is this the year to use the pick? And more so, do we want to trade up to do so? Carlton would be happy to sell us pick 2 or 3, in exchange for a couple of our first round picks, and maybe a player or two, because that suits their rebuild requirements. But we need to make sure that such a trade suits our needs.

GWS still has a lot of talent stacked up, so getting SPS would see him compete with guys like Steele, Hopper, Kennedy and Ahern. That sets up a possible loss of one or two of those guys looking for opportunity, so it really wastes picks. And there's the flight risk of an interstate kid. Which again would waste the pick.

GWS still has to lose an extra 4 players between now and 2019, plus of course losing the same number of players that we take onto the list. That's not too bad, and we do have some likely retirements during that time, but the days of GWS taking a lot of players is over in my view. We took 4 last year, I can't see more than 4 this year, and perhaps even only 3 depending on how highly rated. Only if we have an excessive number of departures (which will generally bring trade picks in return anyway) would I expect to take more. Essentially the choice becomes one of SPS or Ainsworth or similar versus taking the 3rd or 4th local kid: Mutch or Sproule based on the above rating board. Depends on the club's view of risk and long term planning.

So, I can see GWS exclusively taking academy kids and trading out a couple of the first round picks for future picks again this year. Carlton might get the picks, but suspect not how their fans are postulating right now. The year(s) we have a few retirements and don't get much trade return we will need to use those picks!

 

[_GT_]

Certainly an interesting discussion on how GWS should approach this over the next few years. I support choosing academy kids, but also believe that if we're not getting the specific needs from them, we do need to consider using a live draft pick on the best player available - or of course trading a high pick for an established young player. I understand what Malifice is saying here - we could get a really high draft pick and still get the academy kids we want. On the other hand, is this the year to use the pick? And more so, do we want to trade up to do so? Carlton would be happy to sell us pick 2 or 3, in exchange for a couple of our first round picks, and maybe a player or two, because that suits their rebuild requirements. But we need to make sure that such a trade suits our needs.

GWS still has a lot of talent stacked up, so getting SPS would see him compete with guys like Steele, Hopper, Kennedy and Ahern. That sets up a possible loss of one or two of those guys looking for opportunity, so it really wastes picks. And there's the flight risk of an interstate kid. Which again would waste the pick.

GWS still has to lose an extra 4 players between now and 2019, plus of course losing the same number of players that we take onto the list. That's not too bad, and we do have some likely retirements during that time, but the days of GWS taking a lot of players is over in my view. We took 4 last year, I can't see more than 4 this year, and perhaps even only 3 depending on how highly rated. Only if we have an excessive number of departures (which will generally bring trade picks in return anyway) would I expect to take more. Essentially the choice becomes one of SPS or Ainsworth or similar versus taking the 3rd or 4th local kid: Mutch or Sproule based on the above rating board. Depends on the club's view of risk and long term planning.

So, I can see GWS exclusively taking academy kids and trading out a couple of the first round picks for future picks again this year. Carlton might get the picks, but suspect not how their fans are postulating right now. The year(s) we have a few retirements and don't get much trade return we will need to use those picks!

Well argued mate. I reckon you are spot on wrt the strategy GWS has in mind going fwd.

 

[PhatHQ]

Certainly an interesting discussion on how GWS should approach this over the next few years. I support choosing academy kids, but also believe that if we're not getting the specific needs from them, we do need to consider using a live draft pick on the best player available - or of course trading a high pick for an established young player. I understand what Malifice is saying here - we could get a really high draft pick and still get the academy kids we want. On the other hand, is this the year to use the pick? And more so, do we want to trade up to do so? Carlton would be happy to sell us pick 2 or 3, in exchange for a couple of our first round picks, and maybe a player or two, because that suits their rebuild requirements. But we need to make sure that such a trade suits our needs.

GWS still has a lot of talent stacked up, so getting SPS would see him compete with guys like Steele, Hopper, Kennedy and Ahern. That sets up a possible loss of one or two of those guys looking for opportunity, so it really wastes picks. And there's the flight risk of an interstate kid. Which again would waste the pick.

GWS still has to lose an extra 4 players between now and 2019, plus of course losing the same number of players that we take onto the list. That's not too bad, and we do have some likely retirements during that time, but the days of GWS taking a lot of players is over in my view. We took 4 last year, I can't see more than 4 this year, and perhaps even only 3 depending on how highly rated. Only if we have an excessive number of departures (which will generally bring trade picks in return anyway) would I expect to take more. Essentially the choice becomes one of SPS or Ainsworth or similar versus taking the 3rd or 4th local kid: Mutch or Sproule based on the above rating board. Depends on the club's view of risk and long term planning.

So, I can see GWS exclusively taking academy kids and trading out a couple of the first round picks for future picks again this year. Carlton might get the picks, but suspect not how their fans are postulating right now. The year(s) we have a few retirements and don't get much trade return we will need to use those picks!

Nice analysis! If there are first rd picks on offer I wouldn't be surprised if the Hawks traded in 1 of yours for a 2018 pick/s for you to clear out your list & have a good platform to trade when you have a standard list size.
It would be the icing on the cake for the Hawks to net another high pick to regenerate the list with targeted players ( JOM, McDonald, Heppell ect ) & continue the trend of "see a need fill a need" recruiting while delving deeper into the draft for guys like Hardwick.

* I did have Hopper as the only "must have" for Hawthorn prior to the draft. There's no chance of him not getting games... Surly.
Lol & I've been beating the drum on the Hawks board about Tommo & Marchbank with a few starting to bite

 

[coniglio_number1]

Well I imagine the club will basically have Macreadie, Sproule and Setterfield and the absolute must haves. Macreadie and Sproule in paticular would allow the club to move on Tomlinson and McCarthy with minimal hit to our depth. Setterfield is just too good to overlook.

Mutch and Byrne is where things get into the tiziani/Cornell side of things. Mutch has the greater upside in my view but how many wingman should a club carry? Byrne is a nice prospect but do we overlook him with a view for 2017s academy crop?

Owen-Auburn and highmore I don't think will be giants at all unless the club takes OA in the rookie draft.

This is all dependent on the sort of players we move on at the end of the year but 4 would probably be the maximum we take.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Well I imagine the club will basically have Macreadie, Sproule and Setterfield and the absolute must haves. Macreadie and Sproule in paticular would allow the club to move on Tomlinson and McCarthy with minimal hit to our depth. Setterfield is just too good to overlook.

Mutch and Byrne is where things get into the tiziani/Cornell side of things. Mutch has the greater upside in my view but how many wingman should a club carry? Byrne is a nice prospect but do we overlook him with a view for 2017s academy crop?

Owen-Auburn and highmore I don't think will be giants at all unless the club takes OA in the rookie draft.

This is all dependent on the sort of players we move on at the end of the year but 4 would probably be the maximum we take.

I'd really like to see us at least rookie list Owen-Auburn - he'd be the first Western Sydney kid on the list (not counting Dylan Addison or Setanta O'hAilpin)

 

[Giant Strides]

So, just analysing Malifice's proposal:
Assume finishing places as below, with commensurate picks (ignore effect of any academy picks that subsequently reshuffle the order) the situation with points sits:

• Carlton finish last & get pick #1 (for the record, I doubt that Carlton will finish last; more likely 2nd or 3rd last)
• Collingwood finish 15th = pick#4 = 2034 pts
• GWS finish 8th = #11 = 1329 pts
• Geelong finish 4th = #15 = 1112 pts
• GWS 2nd round pick #29 = 653 pts
• Adelaide finish 5th = (2nd round) pick #32 = 584 pts
• GWS 3rd round #47 = 316 pts
• GWS 4th round #65 = 90 pts
• Total available points = 6118

Trading Tomlinson, Marchbank, #4 & #11 for Carlton's #1 & #19 trades 3363 points plus 2 players for 3948 points. (As an aside, that equates Tomlinson & Marchbank together as 585 points, or pick 32 for both!) If they want to leave, though, not a totally bad result. And I would say that a points value can't really provide an equivalent for pick one - but it's only worth it if it gets you a star for the long haul.

So, this gives GWS an increased points available of 6703, but less 3000 spent on the #1 draft pick, is 3703 pts for academy guys.

Assume then (using the player placement in the previous power rankings):

• Macreadie @ #3 (2234 pts reduced with academy discount to 1787 pts)
• Setterfield @ #4 (2034 reduced to 1627)
• Mutch @ #14 (1161 reduced to 929)
• Sproule @ #19 (948 reduced to 758)
• Total points required for all 4 = 5101; for first 3 = 4343; for first 2 = 3414 plus 289 pts (equates to #49)
• (This ignores any return for McCarthy or any other player who might be traded out.)
• In summary, we get pick #1, Macreadie, Setterfield & #49 (which would get Byrne), so 4 players total, 3 of whom are academy, but misses Sproule if we've ranked him highly. (Note: We could take highest ranked forward, who's not a NSW kid and hence higher flight risk, in place of Sproule. We also downgrade from Mutch to Byrne; and burn all of our 2016 draft picks.) Not a bad result by any means though.

Alternatively, we trade Tomlinson & Marchbank (assuming they actually want to leave) singly. Maybe Tommo to Carlton for #20, and Marchbank to Hawthorn or North Melbourne for around pick # 16. This adds around 1979 pts to the piggybank, totalling 8097. Trade some of those into future first & second round picks before the draft of course, but essentially the cost of the 4 academy kids still leaves 2996 pts in future picks. i.e. almost round 1 in 2017. We don't have a superstar #1 pick, but we don't risk losing someone like Hopper, Steele or Kennedy.

Everyone will have their own perspective, and really, there's no right or wrong, just a preference. I note the Carlton board are arguing over Malifice's proposal split between the 'pro-trade down to multiple first round picks' camp versus 'hold the #1 pick for best selection' camp: this is exactly the same discussion for us plus the question of whether we also retain future picks for more NSW talent next year.

I know which way I'd jump, others will view it differently. We will see how GWS jumps at end of year - but as has been said, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge throughout this year that will impact on trading and drafting strategy, so it might look different come November.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

That's a hell of a lot of work for a hypothetical 8 months out.

 

[Malifice]

So, just analysing Malifice's proposal:
Assume finishing places as below, with commensurate picks (ignore effect of any academy picks that subsequently reshuffle the order) the situation with points sits:

• Carlton finish last & get pick #1 (for the record, I doubt that Carlton will finish last; more likely 2nd or 3rd last)
• Collingwood finish 15th = pick#4 = 2034 pts
• GWS finish 8th = #11 = 1329 pts
• Geelong finish 4th = #15 = 1112 pts
• GWS 2nd round pick #29 = 653 pts
• Adelaide finish 5th = (2nd round) pick #32 = 584 pts
• GWS 3rd round #47 = 316 pts
• GWS 4th round #65 = 90 pts
• Total available points = 6118

Trading Tomlinson, Marchbank, #4 & #11 for Carlton's #1 & #19 trades 3363 points plus 2 players for 3948 points. (As an aside, that equates Tomlinson & Marchbank together as 585 points, or pick 32 for both!) If they want to leave, though, not a totally bad result. And I would say that a points value can't really provide an equivalent for pick one - but it's only worth it if it gets you a star for the long haul.

So, this gives GWS an increased points available of 6703, but less 3000 spent on the #1 draft pick, is 3703 pts for academy guys.

Assume then (using the player placement in the previous power rankings):

• Macreadie @ #3 (2234 pts reduced with academy discount to 1787 pts)
• Setterfield @ #4 (2034 reduced to 1627)
• Mutch @ #14 (1161 reduced to 929)
• Sproule @ #19 (948 reduced to 758)
• Total points required for all 4 = 5101; for first 3 = 4343; for first 2 = 3414 plus 289 pts (equates to #49)
• (This ignores any return for McCarthy or any other player who might be traded out.)
• In summary, we get pick #1, Macreadie, Setterfield & #49 (which would get Byrne), so 4 players total, 3 of whom are academy, but misses Sproule if we've ranked him highly. (Note: We could take highest ranked forward, who's not a NSW kid and hence higher flight risk, in place of Sproule. We also downgrade from Mutch to Byrne; and burn all of our 2016 draft picks.) Not a bad result by any means though.

Alternatively, we trade Tomlinson & Marchbank (assuming they actually want to leave) singly. Maybe Tommo to Carlton for #20, and Marchbank to Hawthorn or North Melbourne for around pick # 16. This adds around 1979 pts to the piggybank, totalling 8097. Trade some of those into future first & second round picks before the draft of course, but essentially the cost of the 4 academy kids still leaves 2996 pts in future picks. i.e. almost round 1 in 2017. We don't have a superstar #1 pick, but we don't risk losing someone like Hopper, Steele or Kennedy.

Everyone will have their own perspective, and really, there's no right or wrong, just a preference. I note the Carlton board are arguing over Malifice's proposal split between the 'pro-trade down to multiple first round picks' camp versus 'hold the #1 pick for best selection' camp: this is exactly the same discussion for us plus the question of whether we also retain future picks for more NSW talent next year.

I know which way I'd jump, others will view it differently. We will see how GWS jumps at end of year - but as has been said, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge throughout this year that will impact on trading and drafting strategy, so it might look different come November.

We've got a third round pick we could hand over as well to help with points. As long as you blokes have enough to draft the blokes you want from the academy, and can also use pick 1 on whomever you guys want.

There is some talk we may try and trade Gibbs this year also but we're getting into super speculative territory there.

I kind of see it as a win-win. We need depth and you blokes need elite talent, having very good players running around in the magoos while also having to reduce the list size over the next few years.

The other big variable is you might be looking to forgo trading for pick 1 and instead use some of your surplus picks this year to trade for future picks next year (to pay for academy players in 18).

A lot of water to go under the bridge of course, but (given our recent trading history with you blokes, our stated interest in the players mentioned and a few rumours being circulated) it looks like something that might be getting looked at.

 

[grouse mate]

We dont need guys like Gibbs, would be on huge $$$ and the likes of Shiel need to be paid their market value, if established players come in they need to be on low contracts.

 

[Colonial]

The only players should accept is A grade stars or top picks.

We have a magoo team for of 1st rounders and our 1st team is coming into its own.

Bringing in also rans and avg players wont help the club.

 

[peters17]

There are more academy boys who are possible draft selections this year:
Tom Highmore
Harry Perryman
(Who are highly regarded in some people's point of view)
Max Lynch
Toby Marshall
(Much like tiziani/ Cornell who are most likely not going to be selected)

 

[TigerTime88]

What is Steele worth?

 

[Jaffa Fan]

What is Steele worth?

$US68.70 per tonne.

 

[combaning]

IF we got pick 1, we would on-trade it for 2 lower-mid first round picks or + best 22 player. Unless an academy boy is bona fide pick 1, then there is no point having it. If we use pick 1 on an academy kid then we don't get point refund because we think he is really pick 5. Depending on how many best 25 players want out this year, and how many we trade in (assuming none), I would be happy to draft the minimum 3 best academy boys and then an extra for each best 25 that goes. And stop in the end of second round.

We have so much talent waiting in the wings that we don't need to haemorrhage talent by making silly draft decisions. If we think we have too many points we will simply trade another team for a future draft pick I think.

 

[AndrewVadermk2]

Can someone tell SOS there are 16 other teams to trade with other than GWS!

 

[AndrewVadermk2]

$US68.70 per tonne.

gold