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

[captainMyCaptain]

So according to Wayne Campbell on Sen we will go with a list size of 40 next year from our current size of 42, so you would think we would move 6 guys this year and then bring in 4 draftees

 

[Julia#13]

You seem to have a lot of trade rumours around players in your team and i was just interested in knowing your thoughts about the following players, whether you think they'll leave or stay.

Barrett
Hoskin Elliot
Marchbank
Ahern
Pickett
McCarthy
Steele
Stewart
Tomlinson

 

[Giant Strides]

You seem to have a lot of trade rumours around players in your team and i was just interested in knowing your thoughts about the following players, whether you think they'll leave or stay.

Always trade rumours about GWS players because of the situation of the club in larger list size and having to reduce etc. Captainmycaptain noted the comments above from the list manager, & with Patfull & Stevie J likely to play on next year, I'd guess at 6 or 7 players moving out over the trade period. Personal view (no inside info whatsoever, so take it as you like):

Barrett - a good chance to move for better opportunity, although with a deep draft I think he's a chance to remain as an inexpensive backup option
Hoskin Elliot - allegedly his girlfriend was happy in Sydney last trade period, hence he resigned, so think he's a chance to stay, unless she's changed her/his mind
Marchbank - good as gone I think from the homesickness rumours; a damn shame for GWS as he projects to be a gun defender
Ahern - only minor homesickness rumours & contracted until 2017, reckon he'll stay
Pickett - only feedback is that he's happy with the club, although our list manager has talked about getting a defensive forward so not beyond the realms of possibility that he could be included in a McCarthy swap to Freo to sweeten that deal; my view is he'll stay though
McCarthy - good as gone, just looking for a deal with a modicum of reasonability
Steele - think he'll stay in the end, but if a club offers him good $ and a greater guarantee of first grade time he might be tempted (understand Port are a little keen)
Stewart - I'd actually like to keep him (especially if GWS trade out McCarthy & Tomlinson) as inexpensive KPF backup, but reckon he's a good chance to move on for greater opportunity
Tomlinson - most likely gone to whoever will promise him more first grade time

 

[Gigantic]

You seem to have a lot of trade rumours around players in your team and i was just interested in knowing your thoughts about the following players, whether you think they'll leave or stay.

Barrett
Hoskin Elliot
Marchbank
Ahern
Pickett
McCarthy
Steele
Stewart
Tomlinson

Stay: Hoskin-Elliot, Ahern, Pickett
Out: Marchbank, McCarthy, Tomlinson
On the fence: Barrett, Stewart, Steele

 

[BEEG]

Couple rumours on the Pies board about WHE apparently keen to get to Collingwood.

What is he worth and is he considered best 22 for next year?

Amazing the talent you blokes have going to be around the top 4 for a long time.

 

[Turbocat]

Back to 2016 list management ... I was thinking that the current push to merge the rookie list and main list presumably could have implications for GWS if instituted. Some favourable, some could lose flexibility, but nothing that I would lose sleep or complain about.

Our main list size is a range, reducing until 2019 when it is normal. Currently 42-46 plus rookies (let's call it 6 standard rookies), of which we have 42 + 2. This being the same total size of the normal squads (38 + 6), if AFL merged the squads GWS would be instantly compliant. Now, doing so wouldn't automatically restrict GWS - AFL could carry the same range over and make it a 'total squad size' range: e.g. 2016 would be 48 to 52, 2017 46 to 50, etc. But I wouldn't be surprised, given how well GWS are doing and other clubs' murmurings, that in making any change they said GWS meets the revised list size and abolish the variably-sized list. If this were to happen, although it would lose the club some flexibility, I'd hope they would just go 'Yep, no problem.'

Specifically the implication for GWS is in respect of the number of players in totality needed to be cut over the next 3 years. Instead of needing to cut a net total of 4 (i.e. 42 to 38 on the main list), the revised figure is zero. So, we would just need to cut the same number as brought on the list over that time. Hence, all the opposition BF posters' low-balling of trades 'because GWS has to reduce its list size' would be reduced. (I wouldn't say gone completely, simply because our list is younger and sprinkled with higher talent and less near-retirees than most lists, and I've no doubt posters would simply apply the same principle to the annual 'cut 3'.)

Ergo, for 2015 where I've previously advocated losing 5 and only taking 3 draftees, that would go out the window. If we moved on 5 then we should take on 5, and so on in the future. The 'so what' is WRT TPP and, of course, draft picks. If we trade for future picks, there's still flexibility in the GWS selection approach. Otherwise, we would need to keep live choices (which is easily done, although would reduce ability to trade for future picks) or could choose to take what would be the equivalent of a rookie selection using a pick sent to the end of the list. So, as an example, if we exhausted our early picks on Macreadie, Setterfield, Perryman and Sproule and didn't want to go into debt for Mutch, we could use an end pick on a (for example) Connor Owen-Auburn, presuming he's passed over by other clubs.

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is on the lists issue, and then how GWS react.

GS... has there been any recent change to the original schedule to regress your list ? There was a comment on our board that it may have changed from 2019 to 2017 recently? .. there was a schedule that was given to me on here a while ago , is this still current ? The inference was GWS may have Cap issues because of a change ..it would seem a bit harsh if a change to the schedule causes your club cap problems and departures.

Our restrictions are below;
2014 - 44-50 senior list, nine rookies with $640,000 - $1m TPP extra allowance;
2015 - 44-48 senior list, nine rookies with $640k - $880k TPP extra allowance;
2016 - 42-46 senior list, nine rookies with $520k - $760k TPP extra allowance;
2017 - 40-44 senior list, nine rookies with $400k - $640k TPP extra allowance;
2018 - 38-42 senior list, nine rookies with $200k - $520k TPP extra allowance;
2019 - 38 senior list, nine rookies in line with other AFL clubs.

 

[dlanod]

GS... has there been any recent change to the original schedule to regress your list ? There was a comment on our board that it may have changed from 2019 to 2017 recently? .. there was a schedule that was given to me on here a while ago , is this still current ? The inference was GWS may have Cap issues because of a change ..it would seem a bit harsh if a change to the schedule causes your club cap problems and departures.

Our restrictions are below;
2014 - 44-50 senior list, nine rookies with $640,000 - $1m TPP extra allowance;
2015 - 44-48 senior list, nine rookies with $640k - $880k TPP extra allowance;
2016 - 42-46 senior list, nine rookies with $520k - $760k TPP extra allowance;
2017 - 40-44 senior list, nine rookies with $400k - $640k TPP extra allowance;
2018 - 38-42 senior list, nine rookies with $200k - $520k TPP extra allowance;
2019 - 38 senior list, nine rookies in line with other AFL clubs.

No change. There was speculation that a move to get rid of the rookie list might affect us specifically but nothing is known or confirmed at this stage.

 

[Turbocat]

No change. There was speculation that a move to get rid of the rookie list might affect us specifically but nothing is known or confirmed at this stage.

Thanks dlanod.


So any reduction to your list down to 40 will be done of GWS choice and perhaps to relieve cap pressure.

 

[_GT_]

Thanks dlanod.


So any reduction to your list down to 40 will be done of GWS choice and perhaps to relieve cap pressure.

This is correct. There is no point holding on to extras with a relatively healthy list, talent and injury wise. Best to put salary into the core of our list.

And, for Giants supporters, I did touch wood in typing we have a relatively healthy list...

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

This is correct. There is no point holding on to extras with a relatively healthy list, talent and injury wise. Best to put salary into the core of our list.

And, for Giants supporters, I did touch wood in typing we have a relatively healthy list...

If Damian Barrett has logged in instead of you...

That said, I agree. There's limited value in having WHE and Tommo spend 2/3rds of the season playing NEAFL if we can use the extra money to clear some cap space. And I don't want to lose either of them.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

GS... has there been any recent change to the original schedule to regress your list ? There was a comment on our board that it may have changed from 2019 to 2017 recently? .. there was a schedule that was given to me on here a while ago , is this still current ? The inference was GWS may have Cap issues because of a change ..it would seem a bit harsh if a change to the schedule causes your club cap problems and departures.

Our restrictions are below;
2014 - 44-50 senior list, nine rookies with $640,000 - $1m TPP extra allowance;
2015 - 44-48 senior list, nine rookies with $640k - $880k TPP extra allowance;
2016 - 42-46 senior list, nine rookies with $520k - $760k TPP extra allowance;
2017 - 40-44 senior list, nine rookies with $400k - $640k TPP extra allowance;
2018 - 38-42 senior list, nine rookies with $200k - $520k TPP extra allowance;
2019 - 38 senior list, nine rookies in line with other AFL clubs.

As they said, it hasn't changed, but we've always been under anyway by 2-3 players each year. We've never filled out complete allotment (bit like the second year of access to uncontracted players, which we never used. And I think the most rookies we've ever had is three - so absolutely nowhere near our allotment.

People winge about our start up concessions being overly generous - and maybe they were, there are reasons, but we've actually not used or benefited greatly from much of what was actually on offer. Could you imagine the howls if we had.

So, so far the rules on list reduction haven't changed, but I would have no problem if they did, as it actually would affect as much as you might think.

This, for mine, is the only really significant concession we got over the Gold Coast - they had to reduce their list a lot quicker and consequently don't have as much depth to cover injuries as we do.

 

[Turbocat]

As they said, it hasn't changed, but we've always been under anyway by 2-3 players each year. We've never filled out complete allotment (bit like the second year of access to uncontracted players, which we never used. And I think the most rookies we've ever had is three - so absolutely nowhere near our allotment.

People winge about our start up concessions being overly generous - and maybe they were, there are reasons, but we've actually not used or benefited greatly from much of what was actually on offer. Could you imagine the howls if we had.

So, so far the rules on list reduction haven't changed, but I would have no problem if they did, as it actually would affect as much as you might think.

This, for mine, is the only really significant concession we got over the Gold Coast - they had to reduce their list a lot quicker and consequently don't have as much depth to cover injuries as we do.

Thanks IN..
would not ?

I have not heard the interview but one of our posters thought Campbell say it was an AFL change?

In comparison to GC... has anyone ever done a real exacting study on the two lots of concessions... say as point or something else? I thought the u17 picks were significant.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Thanks IN..
would not ?

I have not heard the interview but one of our posters thought Campbell say it was an AFL change?

In comparison to GC... has anyone ever done a real exacting study on the two lots of concessions... say as point or something else? I thought the u17 picks were significant.

There's been a few comprehensive examinations of the benefits (and otherwise) of the two sets of concessions - trouble is they're usually a single post 8 pages into one of the hundreds of "GWS - BE VERY SCARED!!!!!" Threads that populate the back pages of the main board.

I'd be interested to read one again too.

 

[dlanod]

In comparison to GC... has anyone ever done a real exacting study on the two lots of concessions... say as point or something else? I thought the u17 picks were significant.

I try to counter the theory that GWS had more concessions than GC when it comes up, so here's my most researched effort:

The mini draft picks were designed to balance out GC having an actually productive zone, which it basically did.

Hickey, Smith, Dixon and Thompson came from GC's Qld zone. By comparison the mini draft gave GWS access to Will Hoskin-Elliott, O'Rourke, Sumner, Plowman and Corr (plus a pick 19 that was traded to Carlton in one of the package deals), of which only two remain on GWS's list and one of those barely plays due to injuries. I don't know that GWS has any NSW zoned players on their list from their start-up concessions (Williams came through the rookie zone concessions later that all northern clubs have, and the rest are academy players), and only Bruce really looks like kicking on from the zone.

The main benefit GWS got, draft-wise, was being introduced the year after GC and got to take high picks in three straight drafts as a result of being a year less developed and an alternatively targeted or necessitated (as GC got all the mature players likely to swap clubs) recruiting plan.

I should mention that GC got O'Meara and Martin out of the mini draft, so when people do comparisons of the two imagine a hypothetical universe where GWS got O'Meara and Martin or Hogan (picking 1st in their draft years) and GC got Hoskin-Elliott and O'Rourke instead.

Basically it's a wash between the mini-drafts and GC zone access. There were further concessions given to GWS but they're almost all unused - an extra year for uncontracted players (unused), extra years for NT zone access (unused), extra years for NSW zone access (Barrett, so not quite unused) and extra years of list size (largely unused - if we moved frequently injured players to our rookie list like most other clubs did we wouldn't need the extra size at all).

 

[Turbocat]

I try to counter the theory that GWS had more concessions than GC when it comes up, so here's my most researched effort:

The mini draft picks were designed to balance out GC having an actually productive zone, which it basically did.

Hickey, Smith, Dixon and Thompson came from GC's Qld zone. By comparison the mini draft gave GWS access to Will Hoskin-Elliott, O'Rourke, Sumner, Plowman and Corr (plus a pick 19 that was traded to Carlton in one of the package deals), of which only two remain on GWS's list and one of those barely plays due to injuries. I don't know that GWS has any NSW zoned players on their list from their start-up concessions (Williams came through the rookie zone concessions later that all northern clubs have, and the rest are academy players), and only Bruce really looks like kicking on from the zone.

The main benefit GWS got, draft-wise, was being introduced the year after GC and got to take high picks in three straight drafts as a result of being a year less developed and an alternatively targeted or necessitated (as GC got all the mature players likely to swap clubs) recruiting plan.

I should mention that GC got O'Meara and Martin out of the mini draft, so when people do comparisons of the two imagine a hypothetical universe where GWS got O'Meara and Martin or Hogan (picking 1st in their draft years) and GC got Hoskin-Elliott and O'Rourke instead.

Basically it's a wash between the mini-drafts and GC zone access. There were further concessions given to GWS but they're almost all unused - an extra year for uncontracted players (unused), extra years for NT zone access (unused), extra years for NSW zone access (Barrett, so not quite unused) and extra years of list size (largely unused - if we moved frequently injured players to our rookie list like most other clubs did we wouldn't need the extra size at all).

Personally without an intimate knowledge of what they could expect from their zone , its hard to compare that to the 4 u17's..which is basically worth the 4 best kids in those drafts , and GWS were very smart in there use ...I think the original thought from afl was the GWS would get mature players from other clubs ..but they did not stipulate and GWS brought in picks ( which picks again?)..

Yes GC traded for the picks the question I guess is what they gave up for them and what players you got for them.

I have said before that both clubs have more than enough picks to have set up good lists..as it stands GC looks close to having to do it again.. and GWS look very strong. Pick V Pick.. Concession v Concession it look like GWS had a better handle on how long it would take.
For example Ablett V Scully... no player could have given more for 4 odd years , but for that to have not been wasted they should have been in contention in his first contract.. they nearly made finals when he got injured. Scully on the other hand almost looked like a bust for a while but as the side matured his worth has become more and more obvious , and his age meant his second contract would probably be when his worth would kick in.

Was it simply the strength of their draft years? We all know that P1 are worth 3000 points each year but we also know that P1's each year are not at the same level. No Weitering this year for example. Has Swallow , Bennell and Day lived up to 1,2,3? Perhaps the type.. it seemed that GWS brought in more hard nosed inside contested ball types but again maybe that is draft year relevant to a degree. Should they have gone hard using some of those picks for young in system kids? Was it culture ... was it something else?

 

[dlanod]

Personally without an intimate knowledge of what they could expect from their zone , its hard to compare that to the 4 u17's..which is basically worth the 4 best kids in those drafts , and GWS were very smart in there use ...I think the original thought from afl was the GWS would get mature players from other clubs ..but they did not stipulate and GWS brought in picks ( which picks again?)..

The AFL didn't stipulate anything.

GWS tried to get mature players. They offered the picks around plenty of times for mature players. However every other club would only give up fringe or crap players, which is fair enough from their POV - trade out some popular or good player at the club and it's a huge risk to backfire in the risk-adverse AFL world. Trading out a good player can get an administration fired. So GWS took picks instead, which clubs were much more willing to offer.

Yes GC traded for the picks the question I guess is what they gave up for them and what players you got for them.

Martin and O'Meara v WHE and O'Rourke.

I'd take their two, hands down.

Was it simply the strength of their draft years? We all know that P1 are worth 3000 points each year but we also know that P1's each year are not at the same level. No Weitering this year for example. Has Swallow , Bennell and Day lived up to 1,2,3? Perhaps the type.. it seemed that GWS brought in more hard nosed inside contested ball types but again maybe that is draft year relevant to a degree. Should they have gone hard using some of those picks for young in system kids? Was it culture ... was it something else?

As mentioned, GWS got the pick of three drafts. GC got one. That makes a pretty significant difference. GC has also had heaps of injuries.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

I don't know that GWS has any NSW zoned players on their list from their start-up concessions (Williams came through the rookie zone concessions later that all northern clubs have, and the rest are academy players), and only Bruce really looks like kicking on from the zone.

All our NSW zone selections from start-up are gone.

Wasn't Anthony Miles a NSW zone selection? He and Bruce are the only ones getting regular senior game time.

 

[dlanod]

All our NSW zone selections from start-up are gone.

Wasn't Anthony Miles a NSW zone selection? He and Bruce are the only ones getting regular senior game time.

Jake Barrett was a zone selection - we got the zone concessions from 2010-2013 and he joined us in the last year of the concessions.

 

[fridgeman]

Interested in other posters thoughts regarding the 3 senior small forwards and who is likely to be on the list on 2017
Steve Johnson
Rhys Palmer
Sam Reid
At the beginning of the year I would have had Palmer but i am now leaning towards Johnson and Reid to stay on as a rookie. Outcome is obviously dependant on other trades and salary cap and other questions like if Palmer can get back in the team, Reid performing well and Johnson doing his thing and not getting injured

 

[_GT_]

Interested in other posters thoughts regarding the 3 senior small forwards and who is likely to be on the list on 2017
Steve Johnson
Rhys Palmer
Sam Reid
At the beginning of the year I would have had Palmer but i am now leaning towards Johnson and Reid to stay on as a rookie. Outcome is obviously dependant on other trades and salary cap and other questions like if Palmer can get back in the team, Reid performing well and Johnson doing his thing and not getting injured

I can see all three at the club next year and playing. SJ seniors, Palmer fringe and Reid a coin toss on rookie vs main list. Reids next couple of games critical for him.

 

[peters17]

Go to the Essendon board and look at all their fans posts about pick 1 and GWS. It is sure to make you chuckle.

 

[peters17]

Trade (a combination of) Barrett, WHE, Steele, Stewart and Tomlinson to a team such as Carlton for a 1st round pick (If Steele not included trade him for a first round pick to a club like St Kilda). Trade 2 of our 4 1st rounders for Pick 1. Draft Todd Marshall (or another elite top end talent), then match bids for Setterfield, Macreadie and Perryman. Possibly match bids for Mutch and Sproule (if not drafted then rookie them). And possibly rookie Ryan Garthwaite and Max Lynch. Possibly get more first round picks for Spargo, Brander and Richards in 2017. DO NOT trade Machbank, Finlayson, Ahern or Pickett. Get SJ, Simpson, Mohr and Patfull on 1 year deals. McKenna a possible delist. Trade McCarthy for a 2nd Round pick in 2017 from Fremantle or WCE. If they want to stay we should re-sign Tom Downie, Daniel Lloyd, Sam Reid.

How about this off-season? I put wrote this in the survey on the AFL website (Survey can be completed here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-04/youre-the-list-manager-who-stays-and-goes-at-your-club ) Would love to hear other supporters thoughts and views about the upcoming off-season.
Also my dream trade was Alex Rance for Steele, Tommo and a First Round Pick. Would love to hear back from you guys.

 

[gee whiz giant]

How about this off-season?

Since HH's emergence, is Marchbank of less priority? We'll have Patfull, HH, Haynes, Bunts and maybe Macreadie for 2 spots + cover for injury insurance.
There'll be Davis/ Mohr/ Corr for the big guys. Shaw/ Willo/ Williams/ Kenners for rebound & the smalls.

Personally, would like to see Jack Steele sign up for another year, see what consistency does for his game.
Realistically, with 1-2 new midfielders coming in the draft, one of Steele/ Hopper/ Bam-Bam may go.

 

[Giant Pete]

Since HH's emergence, is Marchbank of less priority? We'll have Patfull, HH, Haynes, Bunts and maybe Macreadie for 2 spots + cover for injury insurance.
There'll be Davis/ Mohr/ Corr for the big guys. Shaw/ Willo/ Williams/ Kenners for rebound & the smalls.

Personally, would like to see Jack Steele sign up for another year, see what consistency does for his game.
Realistically, with 1-2 new midfielders coming in the draft, one of Steele/ Hopper/ Bam-Bam may go.

Corr shouldn't be playing on the bigger forwards.

 

[combaning]

Since HH's emergence, is Marchbank of less priority? We'll have Patfull, HH, Haynes, Bunts and maybe Macreadie for 2 spots + cover for injury insurance.
There'll be Davis/ Mohr/ Corr for the big guys. Shaw/ Willo/ Williams/ Kenners for rebound & the smalls.

Personally, would like to see Jack Steele sign up for another year, see what consistency does for his game.
Realistically, with 1-2 new midfielders coming in the draft, one of Steele/ Hopper/ Bam-Bam may go.

Throw Finlayson into that mix too.