List Mgmt. 2019 Draft Thread

The_Snake26

Team Captain
Sep 25, 2013
569
2,060
AFL Club
St Kilda
If GC get a priority pick this year it will be an absolute farce.
Out of curiosity i looked at the win loss for us, blues and suns since their debut year. I’ve taken off the first 2 seasons as they were pretty much full of 18 year old kids with zero experience and were never going to succeed in those years.
Since 2013:
St Kilda wins 42
Carlton wins 37
GC wins 38

Draft picks aren’t going to help them. Building culture and development is the only thing that can save them. Cause the kids will just keep walking out the door.

The draft needs to be addressed by the AFL cause as it stands it doesn’t work. Rooey made a good point the other day: the only thing that separates the bottom team and top team is a pick 17 places apart. A player makes up 5% of a team. Hardly enough to turn a bottom side into a contender. If you want to trade for a superstar it costs 2 first rounders.
Compared to basketetball, Zion Williamson this years no1 makes up 20%. Enough to make a huge impact on the success of the team.
The first 20 picks should go to the bottom 10 sides. 18th gets pick 1 and 11 and so on. The top 8 begin picks at 21, with first place getting 28.
The draft then goes in order from 29 onwards as normal.
This would fast track the rebuild of struggling clubs either by draft or trading their picks for A graders.

Our last 3 drafts would look like this:
2016 10 Bowes, 20 Cumming and 38 Sean Darcy
2017 8 Coffield, 18 Starcevich and 36 Constable
2018 3 King, 13 Quaynor and 31 Foley
The above takes only into consideration who was drafted at that pick and disregards academy or father son. Also Rankine went pick 3 but i think we would’ve gone King anyway. Also doesn’t take into traded picks.
Our future would look a lot rosier with those 9 names than it does at the moment
 
The Suns delisted a 26 year old Jarryd Lyons who has immediately played 16 games for a top 4 team. Rated top 10 for tackles and total tackles inside forward 50...


The crazy thing is last year he was one of their best players as well. I mentioned we should chase him and someone suggested he was a bit one way, seems to be exactly what they said about Rocky. We seem to be allergic to mids who like to get the ball.
 
Given to them.
Charlie Dixon. Gave them 5 seasons then a first round pick ( Callum Ah Chee ).
Tom Hickey. gave them pick 13 - Jesse Lonergan, for their 2nd rounder.
Zac Smith. after 4 years, bent over for late picks from Geelong.
Rory Thompson. ( Still there ).
Matera . Traded to Freo for 2018 pick ( Charlie Ballard ).
Trent McKenzie ( Delisted ).
Tom Nichols ( Still there ).
Matt Shaw ( Delisted )
Mav Weller (Delisted , still on an AFL list ).
Steven May -- traded with Kolajashnij (spelling) for pick 6 Ben King

Given to them.
Gary Abblett, Nathan Bock , Jared Brennan ( Still there ), Campbell Brown, Nathan Kraquour , Michael Rischetelli ( still there ) Josh Fraser.
After their service some retired but they still got a pick good enough to get Bytel for Ablett . ( packaged up in one of those stupid deals ).



2010:
Swallow : Still there.
Bennel :5 years. Didn't look after him as much as he needed. Went to W.A. ( Fremantle ). ( improved first rounder + pick 35 - ended up getting Pierce Hanley ).
Day : Still there, some injuries, important key player.
( missed Pollec, Conka , Gaff ).
Caddy : 2 years Poached back to the Cats in exchange for the Ablett pick. -- O'Meara --- to Hawks,...Jack Bowes and traded forward for McLennon Pick.
Prestia : 6 years. Went to Richmond pick 6 , Scrimshaw. -- Hawks - 3rd round pick.
Gorringe : 5 years ,delisted, then to Carlton.
Lynch : 8 Seasons, went to Richmond , first round compo ( Rankine )
Seb Tape : Played for 6 seasons. ( Spud ).


They have 7 players from that startup draft in 2010 and before.
Since then they've had 12 top ten round picks.

StKilda have 3 players that were on our list in 2010. 2 of them may never play another AFL game.
 

bergholt

Good Ordinary Player
Mar 14, 2007
10,917
27,575
Brunswick
AFL Club
St Kilda
This is the problem we look at some kid that could fall to us at 3 and it becomes 4 or 5 due to FA or a priority pick , it feeds all the way down the chain.
Hurts us badly because we only have one pick in the first 2 rounds.

It's our fault we've only got one pick in the first two rounds though.
 

bergholt

Good Ordinary Player
Mar 14, 2007
10,917
27,575
Brunswick
AFL Club
St Kilda
The thing with GC is there are only two options: shut them down; or keep helping them out. It's the worst of both worlds if they're anchored to the bottom for another 10 years.

The AFL needs to think a bit smarter about equalisation.

Draft picks aren't enough. I think the right way to do it is to give teams more list spots the lower down the ladder they are.

I'd give the bottom side 10 extra list spots, down to 1 extra list spot in 9th. They can fill them the same way everyone else does, it just means they can take more shots. The Michael Jordan quote: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - well, at the moment, the poor sides take just as many shots as everyone else. Give them a lot more shots and see what might happen.

This is good for a few reasons:

- It gives them more chances of a great player, lucking into a Rohan Marshall.
- It reduces the opportunity cost of each list spot, so they can take more speculative players and maybe get a Sydney Stack.
- It makes them less exposed to injuries - for instance, we could have had one more ruck running around this year just in case.
- It gives them more depth; if we had (say) Michael Barlow, Sam Gibson, Matty Wright, Alex Silvagni, Mitch Hibberd running around at Sandy, that would be a much more professional environment for kids to learn in.
- It leads to a bunch more player churn each year, because Brisbane at the end of this year would have their list shrink by 8 or so, they'd have to let go of some potentially decent players and other clubs could grab them.
- It adds 50 more list spots each year so that's 50 more players that get a chance of an AFL dream.

What about cash? The salary cap should increase by $100k per extra list spot used, and the AFL should fully fund that as part of equalisation. The quid pro quo is that the clubs have to use the spots.
 

ScrappyDo

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 29, 2018
8,402
25,393
Omnipotent
AFL Club
St Kilda
The thing with GC is there are only two options: shut them down; or keep helping them out. It's the worst of both worlds if they're anchored to the bottom for another 10 years.

The AFL needs to think a bit smarter about equalisation.

Draft picks aren't enough. I think the right way to do it is to give teams more list spots the lower down the ladder they are.

I'd give the bottom side 10 extra list spots, down to 1 extra list spot in 9th. They can fill them the same way everyone else does, it just means they can take more shots. The Michael Jordan quote: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - well, at the moment, the poor sides take just as many shots as everyone else. Give them a lot more shots and see what might happen.

This is good for a few reasons:

- It gives them more chances of a great player, lucking into a Rohan Marshall.
- It reduces the opportunity cost of each list spot, so they can take more speculative players and maybe get a Sydney Stack.
- It makes them less exposed to injuries - for instance, we could have had one more ruck running around this year just in case.
- It gives them more depth; if we had (say) Michael Barlow, Sam Gibson, Matty Wright, Alex Silvagni, Mitch Hibberd running around at Sandy, that would be a much more professional environment for kids to learn in.
- It leads to a bunch more player churn each year, because Brisbane at the end of this year would have their list shrink by 8 or so, they'd have to let go of some potentially decent players and other clubs could grab them.
- It adds 50 more list spots each year so that's 50 more players that get a chance of an AFL dream.

What about cash? The salary cap should increase by $100k per extra list spot used, and the AFL should fully fund that as part of equalisation. The quid pro quo is that the clubs have to use the spots.
The main issue that never gets much air is that the goldie is just a crummy place to live for a youngster. Outside of the beach and the drug scene there's just nothing happening. It's cultureless and crass, and if you're a Melbourne lad the contrast couldn't be more stark. You can't make people want to live there so the good players that can get good coin elsewhere will always leave.
A bad idea, poorly executed.
 
The thing with GC is there are only two options: shut them down; or keep helping them out. It's the worst of both worlds if they're anchored to the bottom for another 10 years.

The AFL needs to think a bit smarter about equalisation.

Draft picks aren't enough. I think the right way to do it is to give teams more list spots the lower down the ladder they are.

I'd give the bottom side 10 extra list spots, down to 1 extra list spot in 9th. They can fill them the same way everyone else does, it just means they can take more shots. The Michael Jordan quote: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - well, at the moment, the poor sides take just as many shots as everyone else. Give them a lot more shots and see what might happen.

This is good for a few reasons:

- It gives them more chances of a great player, lucking into a Rohan Marshall.
- It reduces the opportunity cost of each list spot, so they can take more speculative players and maybe get a Sydney Stack.
- It makes them less exposed to injuries - for instance, we could have had one more ruck running around this year just in case.
- It gives them more depth; if we had (say) Michael Barlow, Sam Gibson, Matty Wright, Alex Silvagni, Mitch Hibberd running around at Sandy, that would be a much more professional environment for kids to learn in.
- It leads to a bunch more player churn each year, because Brisbane at the end of this year would have their list shrink by 8 or so, they'd have to let go of some potentially decent players and other clubs could grab them.
- It adds 50 more list spots each year so that's 50 more players that get a chance of an AFL dream.

What about cash? The salary cap should increase by $100k per extra list spot used, and the AFL should fully fund that as part of equalisation. The quid pro quo is that the clubs have to use the spots.

Haven’t heard this idea before and think it’s quite a good one. Whilst it, theoretically, won’t be as successful as priority picks since you should net better players with those picks than by extending the list and filling it out, it’s certainly won’t go unnoticed. As you said, could find a Marshall type or, at the very least, allow some state level players to come in as bigger bodies. The important thing is that it doesn’t really affect other sides, unlike priority picks.
 
The thing with GC is there are only two options: shut them down; or keep helping them out. It's the worst of both worlds if they're anchored to the bottom for another 10 years.

The AFL needs to think a bit smarter about equalisation.

Draft picks aren't enough. I think the right way to do it is to give teams more list spots the lower down the ladder they are.

I'd give the bottom side 10 extra list spots, down to 1 extra list spot in 9th. They can fill them the same way everyone else does, it just means they can take more shots. The Michael Jordan quote: "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - well, at the moment, the poor sides take just as many shots as everyone else. Give them a lot more shots and see what might happen.

This is good for a few reasons:

- It gives them more chances of a great player, lucking into a Rohan Marshall.
- It reduces the opportunity cost of each list spot, so they can take more speculative players and maybe get a Sydney Stack.
- It makes them less exposed to injuries - for instance, we could have had one more ruck running around this year just in case.
- It gives them more depth; if we had (say) Michael Barlow, Sam Gibson, Matty Wright, Alex Silvagni, Mitch Hibberd running around at Sandy, that would be a much more professional environment for kids to learn in.
- It leads to a bunch more player churn each year, because Brisbane at the end of this year would have their list shrink by 8 or so, they'd have to let go of some potentially decent players and other clubs could grab them.
- It adds 50 more list spots each year so that's 50 more players that get a chance of an AFL dream.

What about cash? The salary cap should increase by $100k per extra list spot used, and the AFL should fully fund that as part of equalisation. The quid pro quo is that the clubs have to use the spots.

Some of the trades have been pretty ordinary for them, the AFL could step in and make sure that players like Caddy don't go for peanuts. Bennel was cheap too, but he was sort of damaged goods. Most of the trades have been good for them.
 

St Neil

Premiership Player
Aug 14, 2016
3,040
11,099
Aspendale Gardens
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Blackpool
Channel 9 has just reported that Saints are considering asking the AFL for a priority pick in this year’s draft due to ‘unforeseen injuries’.

When they mentioned it in the story there was a shot of Simon Lethlean sitting in the Saints grandstand.

Why not ask. All that can happen is that the AFL say no.
 

Groater

Club Legend
Jul 29, 2006
1,271
2,186
Bayside
AFL Club
St Kilda
Channel 9 has just reported that Saints are considering asking the AFL for a priority pick in this year’s draft due to ‘unforeseen injuries’.

When they mentioned it in the story there was a shot of Simon Lethlean sitting in the Saints grandstand.

Why not ask. All that can happen is that the AFL say no.
Carlton won two games last year and have been shithouse for eons before that - priority pick denied. Got first access to state league players instead. Very slim chance.
 

St Neil

Premiership Player
Aug 14, 2016
3,040
11,099
Aspendale Gardens
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Blackpool
Carlton won two games last year and have been s**thouse for eons before that - priority pick denied. Got first access to state league players instead. Very slim chance.

Maybe the club thinks it could lobby for other types of assistance, such as a one-off relaxation of father-son eligibility or a temporary relaxation in access to academy players.

Or maybe they think they could actually get a priority pick. Looks like they are going to ask. Fair enough.
 

Keg on legs

Cancelled
10k Posts St Kilda - Doulton Langlands Player Sponsor 2020 St Kilda - Robbie Young Player Sponsor 2019 St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2017
Oct 5, 2014
16,352
59,148
The beer fridge
AFL Club
St Kilda
Carlton won two games last year and have been s**thouse for eons before that - priority pick denied. Got first access to state league players instead. Very slim chance.

I think the difference is Carlton found themselves in that position solely due to poor list management decisions whereas ours is impacted largely by injuries that nobody could have forseen. To lose up to 5 or 6 players (including some of our best players) off the list within 2 years would cripple any list. I think a PP is reasonable
 
I think the AFL know we have the second worst list in the AFL too, Stuv, Carlisle and a few mid career guys go we could legit be bottom 2 for another 3 years. They do reviews and they would be very concerned at how bad we look on paper. Our two best players are very possibly gone next year, our second best from a few years back has heart issues, number one pick probably retires or sees out his contract not playing etc. We almost look worse of the GC because they have a pile of highly rated juniors to develop around.

Our number one pick last year can't get on the park as well, new recruit from Sydney broken down etc. I think we should definitely be considered even without the injury excuse. I think the club want to sell hope and ask at the same time so pride is holding them back.
 

ScrappyDo

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 29, 2018
8,402
25,393
Omnipotent
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think the AFL know we have the second worst list in the AFL too, Stuv, Carlisle and a few mid career guys go we could legit be bottom 2 for another 3 years. They do reviews and they would be very concerned at how bad we look on paper. Our two best players are very possibly gone next year, our second best from a few years back has heart issues, number one pick probably retires or sees out his contract not playing etc. We almost look worse of the GC because they have a pile of highly rated juniors to develop around.

Our number one pick last year can't get on the park as well, new recruit from Sydney broken down etc. I think we should definitely be considered even without the injury excuse. I think the club want to sell hope and ask at the same time so pride is holding them back.
We'll ask... It's being filtered into the media now for a reason you'd think, and with GC openly campaigning for it the door was opened already.
 

bergholt

Good Ordinary Player
Mar 14, 2007
10,917
27,575
Brunswick
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think the difference is Carlton found themselves in that position solely due to poor list management decisions whereas ours is impacted largely by injuries that nobody could have forseen. To lose up to 5 or 6 players (including some of our best players) off the list within 2 years would cripple any list. I think a PP is reasonable

Agreed. If Stuv asks for a trade for mental health reasons then the AFL would want us to give it to him. Just as they'd want us to be very conservative with the concussions of Stevens, McCartin, Pierce, Longer, and the heart issue of Roberton. Probably worth mentioning Dempster as well - still only a couple of years ago.

All of those are duty of care issues which no amount of foresight on our part could have avoided. Seems reasonable for some compensation to be applied.

That said, if Stuv plays again, and Robbo and Paddy hang on, the case is harder to make.
 
Sep 14, 2008
9,000
31,408
L2 A30
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls
I reckon the only way the GC is fixed is by removing players’ rights to agree where they are traded.

Controversial move that will most likely never happen but that’s the only way they get the quality senior players that they need.

That would offset the debacle of free agency for the smaller clubs too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oct 18, 2011
10,548
28,823
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
St Kilda, Ocean Grove Collendina Cobras
Agreed. If Stuv asks for a trade for mental health reasons then the AFL would want us to give it to him. Just as they'd want us to be very conservative with the concussions of Stevens, McCartin, Pierce, Longer, and the heart issue of Roberton. Probably worth mentioning Dempster as well - still only a couple of years ago.

All of those are duty of care issues which no amount of foresight on our part could have avoided. Seems reasonable for some compensation to be applied.

That said, if Stuv plays again, and Robbo and Paddy hang on, the case is harder to make.
Koby Stevens was actually a big loss in 2018, if you then unfortunately add Stuv, Robbo, Paddy, Longer & Pierce all in one year you'd argue we deserve more than 1 priority pick.
 
Nov 1, 2013
1,573
2,424
AFL Club
St Kilda
Anderson will be bid on at no later than pick 2, which needs 2014 points to match. Pick 4 (which we currently hold) is 2034 points, which means it turns into pick 72. Sure, we get Anderson, but given our lack of second and third rounders, maybe we could do more at the trade and draft table with the extra priority pick - we could have pick 4 and 5 or more likely pick 4 and 11 or 20.

Although as I reflect on it, if we were given that access, the above reasoning means that we'd be better off trading pick 4 for a gun player, or for a several lower picks - say GWS' two first rounders (as they have access to Green so want to move up to a pick above where he'd be bid). The maths on that depends whether those picks would similarly get wiped out by an Anderson bid.

Still, Anderson and a big trade in for pick 4 would be a nice haul.
 
Back