List Mgmt. 2019 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

[Danny88]

Look if we want to really bigfooty this thread...

Why not throw a decent pick at Isaac smith and have the hawks cover some
Of his salary?

Experience, outside pace. Winger.

All needed attributes

 

[HeHateMe]

I reckon we're going to swap 11 for 12.

Helps you guys without impacting us at all.

 

[Danny88]

I a

I reckon we're going to swap 11 for 12.

Helps you guys without impacting us at all.

ssume you mean for Patton?

 

[HeHateMe]

Maybe, Maybe not. Might be a draft night thing.

 

[Orange Agent]

Ellis gets pick 39 compo. We are screwed on Tomo then, won't get any higher than that.

 

[dlanod]

Ellis gets pick 39 compo. We are screwed on Tomo then, won't get any higher than that.

Depends what Melbourne is offering. Ellis only got $600k a year and the AFL is claiming "it's just under what's needed for a first round pick". Tomlinson cracks $650k a year and we probably get pick 20.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Depends what Melbourne is offering. Ellis only got $600k a year and the AFL is claiming "it's just under what's needed for a first round pick". Tomlinson cracks $650k a year and we probably get pick 20.

Except reports are $500k for four years

 

[Determinant]

Except reports are $500k for four years

That's what I've seen around too, but really who knows until the deal is done

 

[dlanod]

Except reports are $500k for four years

Then anyone who thought we'd be getting better than a second round pick after seeing that figure needs to investigate their crack dealer's returns policy, because it was a bad batch. Fair chance it's an end of second round or worse.

 

[Orange Agent]

The thing is last year Lycett got WCE and end of first for the same money as Ellis.

 

[dlanod]

The thing is last year Lycett got WCE and end of first for the same money as Ellis.

Lycett was reported as being $50k pa more, and the free agency bands go up each year because the star players get paid more.

 

[Danny88]

We are regularly linked to Robertson from the lions in these trade articles that do the rounds. Certainly the lions board feel that trade will happen

What’s the consensus? Doubt he costs much in terms of picks and wage but what does he bring other than tagging options?

 

[Giant Strides]

IIRC a more recent afl.com.au article had 2 Victorian clubs only as suitors and didn't include. Can't say I'm unhappy if that is the case - as I was never sure he would really give us any improvement, even if he wouldn't cost too much.

Knightmare's ESPN article that GWS's list priorities should be (1) ruckman (2) small forward (3) key defender, but apart from ruck being first priority, I would put a speedy winger/HBF with good decision-making skills as next need. I don't think that Nick Robertson really would provide that. He's cheap depth, but we have de Boer and Sam Reid who can tag, so I wouldn't think we'd need a third. Otherwise, I'd prefer to go to the draft for the skills that we're missing.

I have said for several years that I wanted GWS to have a small list turnover, but it may just be that this year that does occur. At the moment the known moves (off the main list) are the 2 retirements and two departures (Patton & Tommo), with Sam Jacobs coming in. That puts our main list at 36. 4 spots open, with 2 picks inbound & picks 12, 18 & 59 in the kitty - renders 59 nugatory. We also have the two rookies Jake Stein & Zach Sproule needing to be either delisted and re-rookied, or upgraded to the main list, so I'd say that there's a bit of a squeeze in regards main list places/picks. That may be the reason that we are (seemingly) content with keeping Mummy, who will sit on the rookie list rather than have him retire and likely have to find another main list spot for his replacement. Providing Sam Jacobs remains durable, Briggs does the majority of NEAFL rucking to help his development, and Mummy does some judicious first grade and NEAFL games to stay in shape but not detract from the other two. We may yet delist Tommy Sheridan (possibly re-taking him via the rookie list, where we created space by delisting Dylan Buckley).

If we make a play to move up the order, that will consolidate multiple lower picks into an early pick - which would open up the situation a touch. There's also the rumour around Bonar potentially leaving, and there are slight rumours around Jackson Hately being homesick which also play into the list spot/pick situation.

I must admit, this year is one where I'm really unsure both of what we'll do and what is the best course of action for us. On one hand, I would like to move into the early draft to get ahead of the likely early Green bid (Ash or Young being the target - speedy defenders/wingers with good decision-making) but am concerned at the price likely to be paid, so the converse would be to consolidate around the late first round/early second round to get a Jeremy Sharp type of player with a bit more risk but less cost. Either way, I'd prefer to go to the draft (even in what appear's to be a weaker year) than recycle another club's C-grade cast-offs.

 

[Danny88]

IIRC a more recent afl.com.au article had 2 Victorian clubs only as suitors and didn't include. Can't say I'm unhappy if that is the case - as I was never sure he would really give us any improvement, even if he wouldn't cost too much.

Knightmare's ESPN article that GWS's list priorities should be (1) ruckman (2) small forward (3) key defender, but apart from ruck being first priority, I would put a speedy winger/HBF with good decision-making skills as next need. I don't think that Nick Robertson really would provide that. He's cheap depth, but we have de Boer and Sam Reid who can tag, so I wouldn't think we'd need a third. Otherwise, I'd prefer to go to the draft for the skills that we're missing.

I have said for several years that I wanted GWS to have a small list turnover, but it may just be that this year that does occur. At the moment the known moves (off the main list) are the 2 retirements and two departures (Patton & Tommo), with Sam Jacobs coming in. That puts our main list at 36. 4 spots open, with 2 picks inbound & picks 12, 18 & 59 in the kitty - renders 59 nugatory. We also have the two rookies Jake Stein & Zach Sproule needing to be either delisted and re-rookied, or upgraded to the main list, so I'd say that there's a bit of a squeeze in regards main list places/picks. That may be the reason that we are (seemingly) content with keeping Mummy, who will sit on the rookie list rather than have him retire and likely have to find another main list spot for his replacement. Providing Sam Jacobs remains durable, Briggs does the majority of NEAFL rucking to help his development, and Mummy does some judicious first grade and NEAFL games to stay in shape but not detract from the other two. We may yet delist Tommy Sheridan (possibly re-taking him via the rookie list, where we created space by delisting Dylan Buckley).

If we make a play to move up the order, that will consolidate multiple lower picks into an early pick - which would open up the situation a touch. There's also the rumour around Bonar potentially leaving, and there are slight rumours around Jackson Hately being homesick which also play into the list spot/pick situation.

I must admit, this year is one where I'm really unsure both of what we'll do and what is the best course of action for us. On one hand, I would like to move into the early draft to get ahead of the likely early Green bid (Ash or Young being the target - speedy defenders/wingers with good decision-making) but am concerned at the price likely to be paid, so the converse would be to consolidate around the late first round/early second round to get a Jeremy Sharp type of player with a bit more risk but less cost. Either way, I'd prefer to go to the draft (even in what appear's to be a weaker year) than recycle another club's C-grade cast-offs.

I agree with most of that

My only concern is that we need experienced replacements should injury occur and older bodies provide that. I would be happy with some older heads if they are cheap. I floated a pick for Isaac smith earlier on in the week which would be a great addition

 

[Giant Strides]

My only concern is that we need experienced replacements should injury occur and older bodies provide that. I would be happy with some older heads if they are cheap. I floated a pick for Isaac smith earlier on in the week which would be a great addition

I understand the rationale, and in the past I certainly believe we have suffered from not having those more mature-bodied (and headed) backups. However, I'd opine that our early draftees have now hit that 'mature' stage, plus we've just seen a couple of youngsters step up in the absence of senior players, such that our balance is generally tilted towards continuing to dip into the draft iMHO.

If we look at each line of the list:

• KPD (5): Cameron, HH, Finlayson, Sproule(R), JBuckley(R) - Probably one line that would benefit from an experienced head in the wake of Patton's departure. JBuckley I don't rate- as much for his frail body as his lack of output. I'd keep Sproule, dump Buckley and add someone in his place such as Matt Hammelmann to the rookie list, but that's still one tall short IMHO. Who would you look at? What about Josh Jenkins - not that I'd think he would come due to perceived lack of opportunity, but as a third tall/relief ruck he would provide the depth that you're talking about. Problem would be his trade cost plus contract $ so I doubt he's realistic. If he's a no, then I'm not sure who else could fit the bill but would be happy to get a mature player if cheap.

• Small/medium forwards (6): Greene, Daniels, Langdon, Hill, Lloyd, Brown(R) - With Dyl Buckley's departure, this line is one short (based on my rule of thumb of 7), but given that we roll midfielders through this role that's no issue. And this line is the best balanced in respect of age IMHO. Our normal team setup only requires 2-3 of these, but we have fully 5 guys of varying experience jostling for spots including a balance of goal kickers, defensive forwards, x-factor. No need for experienced heads here - nor indeed from the draft either (where I disagree with Knightmare).

• KPF (6): Davis, Corr, Taylor, Haynes, Keeffe, Stein(R) - From my rule of thumb I'd opine that we are one KPD short, although the age balance is OK (especially given how well Taylor is playing). I don't rate Keeffe too highly (although I salute him for a couple of really good games this year) and would have preferred an alternative experienced forward (perhaps Michael Hartley from Essendon or Josh Walker from Brisbane). While you could get one of those two to fill that 7th position on the list, I'd prefer to go to the draft and look longer term. We could look at Nick Murray or Liam Delahunty from our academy, or otherwise look at the wider draft. I'd be happy to look at one of those academy kids this year; we'll need to go back to the draft in 2 years to replace Keeffe when he ages out.

• Small/medium defender (7): Shaw, Williams, Kennedy, Buntine, Cumming, Idun, Reid(R) - This is our oldest line already so I wouldn't advocate getting another mature player. We kept Matt Buntine - he's the older, experienced head here; and also have Sam Reid. Nick Robertson at 24 might be OK - not too old, but not pure youth - but I'm unsure his skills are at that level. Sam Murray we've been linked to - 2 years younger but certainly has the pace that I'd value; just not sure the rest of his game is up to it. Shaw surely has just the one year left, so this is where I'd like to grab Lachlan Ash or Hayden Young as speedsters with good skills and decision-making; Jeremy Sharp being the alternative if we can't get ahead of the Tom Green bid.

• Midfielders (14): Ward, Coniglio, Hopper, Taranto, Kelly, Whitfield, de Boer, Bonar, Perryman, Shipley, Caldwell, Hately, O'Halloran, Sheridan - We'll add Tom Green to this group, which will make us canted a little too much towards an inside group IMHO.We need someone like O'Halloran who has both burst speed and endurance to break into the first grade team. I think that we've suffered from losing Scully's outside run, with Tommo not really filling that role this year with enough skill or burst speed; so I would agree that someone such as (specifically) Isaac Smith would be a good get in terms of skills. I just think that Hawks would ask too much in trade cost. Good idea, but if the cost is too high then I'd prefer to turn to youth - so looking at Ash or Young who could run a wing this year and then roll into defence when Shaw moves on.

Of course, you can debate some of the above categorisation (e.g. Perryman a mid versus defender). I agree - some can be seen to fit into a secondary category, or have utility value - it's just a method I use to look at the team and consider needs.

I think that once Ward & Cogs come back in first grade, potentially Lloyd and Reid will drop back into NEAFL at some point next year; add in Keeffe, Buntine, Mumford, Sheridan (about one quarter to one third of the team before injuries), plus the extra year development on kids such as Shipley, Perryman, Hately then I think the backup situation is pretty well situated. Sure one guy in Smith would be handy; just whether the cost would be optimal for us. Certainly open for discussion and different opinions.

 

[Danny88]

I understand the rationale, and in the past I certainly believe we have suffered from not having those more mature-bodied (and headed) backups. However, I'd opine that our early draftees have now hit that 'mature' stage, plus we've just seen a couple of youngsters step up in the absence of senior players, such that our balance is generally tilted towards continuing to dip into the draft iMHO.

If we look at each line of the list:

• KPD (5): Cameron, HH, Finlayson, Sproule(R), JBuckley(R) - Probably one line that would benefit from an experienced head in the wake of Patton's departure. JBuckley I don't rate- as much for his frail body as his lack of output. I'd keep Sproule, dump Buckley and add someone in his place such as Matt Hammelmann to the rookie list, but that's still one tall short IMHO. Who would you look at? What about Josh Jenkins - not that I'd think he would come due to perceived lack of opportunity, but as a third tall/relief ruck he would provide the depth that you're talking about. Problem would be his trade cost plus contract $ so I doubt he's realistic. If he's a no, then I'm not sure who else could fit the bill but would be happy to get a mature player if cheap.

• Small/medium forwards (6): Greene, Daniels, Langdon, Hill, Lloyd, Brown(R) - With Dyl Buckley's departure, this line is one short (based on my rule of thumb of 7), but given that we roll midfielders through this role that's no issue. And this line is the best balanced in respect of age IMHO. Our normal team setup only requires 2-3 of these, but we have fully 5 guys of varying experience jostling for spots including a balance of goal kickers, defensive forwards, x-factor. No need for experienced heads here - nor indeed from the draft either (where I disagree with Knightmare).

• KPF (6): Davis, Corr, Taylor, Haynes, Keeffe, Stein(R) - From my rule of thumb I'd opine that we are one KPD short, although the age balance is OK (especially given how well Taylor is playing). I don't rate Keeffe too highly (although I salute him for a couple of really good games this year) and would have preferred an alternative experienced forward (perhaps Michael Hartley from Essendon or Josh Walker from Brisbane). While you could get one of those two to fill that 7th position on the list, I'd prefer to go to the draft and look longer term. We could look at Nick Murray or Liam Delahunty from our academy, or otherwise look at the wider draft. I'd be happy to look at one of those academy kids this year; we'll need to go back to the draft in 2 years to replace Keeffe when he ages out.

• Small/medium defender (7): Shaw, Williams, Kennedy, Buntine, Cumming, Idun, Reid(R) - This is our oldest line already so I wouldn't advocate getting another mature player. We kept Matt Buntine - he's the older, experienced head here; and also have Sam Reid. Nick Robertson at 24 might be OK - not too old, but not pure youth - but I'm unsure his skills are at that level. Sam Murray we've been linked to - 2 years younger but certainly has the pace that I'd value; just not sure the rest of his game is up to it. Shaw surely has just the one year left, so this is where I'd like to grab Lachlan Ash or Hayden Young as speedsters with good skills and decision-making; Jeremy Sharp being the alternative if we can't get ahead of the Tom Green bid.

• Midfielders (14): Ward, Coniglio, Hopper, Taranto, Kelly, Whitfield, de Boer, Bonar, Perryman, Shipley, Caldwell, Hately, O'Halloran, Sheridan - We'll add Tom Green to this group, which will make us canted a little too much towards an inside group IMHO.We need someone like O'Halloran who has both burst speed and endurance to break into the first grade team. I think that we've suffered from losing Scully's outside run, with Tommo not really filling that role this year with enough skill or burst speed; so I would agree that someone such as (specifically) Isaac Smith would be a good get in terms of skills. I just think that Hawks would ask too much in trade cost. Good idea, but if the cost is too high then I'd prefer to turn to youth - so looking at Ash or Young who could run a wing this year and then roll into defence when Shaw moves on.

Of course, you can debate some of the above categorisation (e.g. Perryman a mid versus defender). I agree - some can be seen to fit into a secondary category, or have utility value - it's just a method I use to look at the team and consider needs.

I think that once Ward & Cogs come back in first grade, potentially Lloyd and Reid will drop back into NEAFL at some point next year; add in Keeffe, Buntine, Mumford, Sheridan (about one quarter to one third of the team before injuries), plus the extra year development on kids such as Shipley, Perryman, Hately then I think the backup situation is pretty well situated. Sure one guy in Smith would be handy; just whether the cost would be optimal for us. Certainly open for discussion and different opinions.

Great analysis

I think the new guys will come in once we identify who they players are that we want to keep. It has been widely reported now that we rarely loose who we want to keep. Players like bonar might be on the way out as we identify higher priorities like Caldwell or green as the young talent we want to prioritize

I’m interested in who we identify as the talent worthy of being let go

 

[Andre the Giant]

 

[Danny88]

Pick 40 seems low

 

[gee whiz giant]

Thanks Tommo, you have been a significant contributor to the cause.

 

[Colonial]

Pick 40 seems low

That's because it is.

 

[Colonial]

A bit about Jezza.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I think Thommo’s papers were essentially stamped when we drafted Sam Taylor. Thommo was always difficult to find a place for in the team. He spent time forward, on the wing as a link man, a chop out in the ruck and a bit of time down back. He never really settled into a single role - that was until he moved permanently into the backline a few years ago - and statistically for over half a season, was the best one-on-one lock down defenders in the league. He really found his home down back.

Then we got Taylor (who I was surprised to find is 2cm taller) and who isn’t as versatile. With Taylor in that lock-down spot that Thommo was in, Thommo was once again left without an established set position. We have forwards who are better, we have wingers/linkmen who are better, we have chop-out rucks who are as adequate.

We also have others who are heart and soul / great clubmen.

I also found it interesting that although he played all but one game this year, I’m not sure he even cracked the top 20 in the Sheedy. He certainly didn’t appear in the top 5 in any round I can remember.

I love Thommo, and really wanted to keep him, but I’m just not sure where he would play, week to week.

I wish him all the very best in his new home.

10 games short of being a Life Member, he’ll always be a Giant.

 

[Giant Strides]

A pick around there was expected, but it makes it harder for us to get a pick ahead of the expected Tom Green pick. You'd think that only Gold Coast is likely not to bid (and they could bid at pick #2 just to force a match and then choose Anderson anyway, but they'd look stupid asking for the compensation pick and not getting Anderson to go with his mate Matt Rowell if we chose not to match). I wouldn't expect Melbourne to bid on an inside mid when their needs are elsewhere (but could anyway as 'best available'). However, every club after the Demons IMHO is likely to bid due to their list needs - Adelaide, Sydney, Essendon if they take the Swans' pick, St Kilda but more likely Freo with 2 chances to bid.

So we'd need to get pick #4 as a minimum to be likely to get ahead - but then still have to pay for Green. You would think we'd have to use picks 12 & 18 at a minimum for #4 (which I don't actually think is enough alone, and think it definitely wouldn't get us #3 from Melbourne if we wanted to play safe) but even if it did, the remaining picks 40, 50 (if that's the price for Patton) and 60 are less than half the price of matching for Green, so we'd be dipping into next year's first round pick to finalise the match.

So realistically, we'd have to put next year's first into play - in which case we'd have to weigh up whether this year's target is better than a likely target next year. Or, we'd have to sacrifice a player to get that early. Pick #12 and a player for pick #3 or #4, just to keep pick #18 and the lower picks to match. So, it would be who would Melbourne or Adelaide value to do such a deal. Bonar could be one, although I'm not sure that does it for Melbourne. Caldwell would be more likely, but I certainly wouldn't want to lose him. For Adelaide, you'd think with their rebuild that Jackson Hately would be their only target - again someone we don't really want to lose. Looking at it another way, trading a player for an early second round pick, then trying to bundle that up for a mid first round, and then bundling that up for the Melbourne or Adelaide pick is just a convoluted process and has potential to lose value at any point throughout the multiple transactions so a greater risk.

All in all, I'm not really seeing how we get ahead of the Green bid without losing a substantial player. The next 9 days are going to be interesting on that account for us. At least this year other clubs have major dramas - the Kelly, Daniher and Hill trades primarily!

 

[dlanod]

Pick 40 seems low

It was going to come down to 37 (after our second round pick) or 40 (end of second round). I'm not losing sleep over three picks.

 

[Danny88]

A pick around there was expected, but it makes it harder for us to get a pick ahead of the expected Tom Green pick. You'd think that only Gold Coast is likely not to bid (and they could bid at pick #2 just to force a match and then choose Anderson anyway, but they'd look stupid asking for the compensation pick and not getting Anderson to go with his mate Matt Rowell if we chose not to match). I wouldn't expect Melbourne to bid on an inside mid when their needs are elsewhere (but could anyway as 'best available'). However, every club after the Demons IMHO is likely to bid due to their list needs - Adelaide, Sydney, Essendon if they take the Swans' pick, St Kilda but more likely Freo with 2 chances to bid.

So we'd need to get pick #4 as a minimum to be likely to get ahead - but then still have to pay for Green. You would think we'd have to use picks 12 & 18 at a minimum for #4 (which I don't actually think is enough alone, and think it definitely wouldn't get us #3 from Melbourne if we wanted to play safe) but even if it did, the remaining picks 40, 50 (if that's the price for Patton) and 60 are less than half the price of matching for Green, so we'd be dipping into next year's first round pick to finalise the match.

So realistically, we'd have to put next year's first into play - in which case we'd have to weigh up whether this year's target is better than a likely target next year. Or, we'd have to sacrifice a player to get that early. Pick #12 and a player for pick #3 or #4, just to keep pick #18 and the lower picks to match. So, it would be who would Melbourne or Adelaide value to do such a deal. Bonar could be one, although I'm not sure that does it for Melbourne. Caldwell would be more likely, but I certainly wouldn't want to lose him. For Adelaide, you'd think with their rebuild that Jackson Hately would be their only target - again someone we don't really want to lose. Looking at it another way, trading a player for an early second round pick, then trying to bundle that up for a mid first round, and then bundling that up for the Melbourne or Adelaide pick is just a convoluted process and has potential to lose value at any point throughout the multiple transactions so a greater risk.

All in all, I'm not really seeing how we get ahead of the Green bid without losing a substantial player. The next 9 days are going to be interesting on that account for us. At least this year other clubs have major dramas - the Kelly, Daniher and Hill trades primarily!

Away with the logic!!!!


I want to dream....