List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[StandByyourMan]

Kennedy is the answer. Just watch.

 

[Jeremias]

If you want a small forward buzzing with energy around the contest, find a Puopolo type. Not going to cost you an arm and a leg. I personally want us to target Ian Hill. He has elite disposal, speed and a knack for finding goals too.

Hill is an option sure, but he's not exactly an established footballer at the top level. All things being equal we'd be mad to prioritise him over Papley when we're in the market for A grade players.

Give me Papley any day over Hill whilst we continue to develop the small forwards we've got on the list already.

Keep in mind that when Walsh, Stocker, Kemp and a few others come off their rookie contracts, we'll need to allocate cap space for them too.

Sure, but linking this to bringing in Papley is drawing a very, very long bow.

I guess we shouldn't go after any A grade player (regardless of position) because our kids will need new contracts at some stage down the track?

Stocker has played 5 games of senior footy. Kemp has not made his debut yet. And yet they're going to be looking for big $$ with their next contracts?

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all.

Bringing in Papley won't impact our ability to sign these guys anywhere near as much as you seem to be suggesting.

Yes, he's a great player, but he's a moments player. We have Martin, McGovern, Cuningham and Fisher (when playing up forward) to be moments guys. If we have a stronger midfield and better ball movers in our back half, the output of these players will increase as the quality of supply improves. People here automatically say we need a better small forward to kick more goals. What I'm saying is that we can potentially solve this issue by rectifying the problem at the source, being the supply and ball movement between defense to attack.

We potentially can, but what I'm saying is if a player of the calibre of Tom Papley is available and keen to come across, a club in our position would be completely foolish not to seriously explore the opportunity.

If he's not the best small forward in the game he's certainly in the discussion. If he wants out of the Swans we'll be up to our eyeballs in this one and rightly so.

When I'm talking about output, I want consistent output that keeps you in games for 4 quarters. 2nd and 3rd quarters tonight you barely noticed Papley was on the ground.

Had a poor third quarter, sure. I'm not sure that's at all relevant to whether or not we should bring him in.

Even the best players in the game have quiet patches.

He had a quiet quarter yet was still BOG. Why focus on the quiet quarter and not the massive impact he had in the remaining three?

I can deduce his output will be lower should he come to us. Like I said, he's playing as a primary target for the Swans in the absence of Franklin, Heeney and Reid. He will not be a primary target in our team. With reduced supply, you'd expect his output to drop.

Expectation vs reality.

I haven't looked into it in great depth, but there were a fair few games last season alone - with Franklin there alongside - where he kicked a bag.

There is absolutely no reason why he can't be a weapon up front for us alongside our three tall forwards, and the obsession with finding minutiae to be critical of is a bit absurd.

 

[Iwishicouldplay4themoney]

Logical play is to offload a couple of talls for some pace. Pretty obvious what we need and what we have to much of.

What talks.

 

[StandByyourMan]

We need to trade in a small forward and a Kade Simpson replacement, then draft a mature age big bodied midfielder from WA. Papley and Williams are obvious. I would go after Williams and money ball the small forward if a first rounder and change isn't enough to get papley done.

 

[Jeremias]

That's my point. He has been a good player for a long period of time.

His value has skyrocketed in recent times in the absence of Franklin, which coincides with the time period of Papley being their #1 target. No one can deny they've kicked it to Papley more than any other forward since Franklin has been injured.

I'm not against getting him, but only if he comes at the right price because I know he isn't going to have the same impact for us as what he's having for them right now given the way we structure up forward.

Based on what though? A feeling? The vibe?

Certainly not reality.

Papley kicked 5 goals once in 2019. Franklin was right there beside him.

 

[Gethelred]

If I had to choose one midfielder from the Pies, it would be Treloar. Easily in my top 30 players.

Really?

It depends on when you get em, I suppose. I'd still take 2-3 years of Pendlebury over almost everyone on our list; he'd be worth his weight in gold to us in terms of leadership and he's not a fitness/athleticism player. His thing is reading the game, and picking the right option, and possessing a forcefield that prevents people tackling him.

If you only could get 1-2 out of Pendlebury, I'd pick Adams over Treloar.

 

[StandByyourMan]

Look at trading casboult or plowman too if there is value. Maybe bring in keays from Adelaide.

 

[CaressMyBlues]

Look at trading casboult or plowman too if there is value. Maybe bring in keays from Adelaide.

Can't trade Big Levi and you'd be mad to get rid of Plowman, does something really dumb things but he is a good player.

 

[Gethelred]

Hill is an option sure, but he's not exactly an established footballer at the top level. All things being equal we'd be mad to prioritise him over Papley when we're in the market for A grade players.

Give me Papley any day over Hill whilst we continue to develop the small forwards we've got on the list already.

This argument looks awfully familiar...

Wait a second; I've seen this discussion before. We had it about Shai Bolton, when he was on the edges of Richmond's side and couldn't get a game. People said exactly what you've said right here about him. Fast forward to now - and Ian Hill is a near identical proposition to Bolton, as both are small forwards with outside midfield chops - and Bolton is a fixture in Richmond's midfield rotation, and the chance is gone.

We need to maximise our chances of getting it right; we do not do this by just trading for Papley. I like building from within - it's a basis for why I think we need to be conservative with contract size and trade price - but we need to look at multiple avenues to supplement not just Papley, but the young smalls already on our list.

 

[Jeremias]

Look at trading casboult or plowman too if there is value. Maybe bring in keays from Adelaide.

One is a free agent; the other we've re-signed and is an integral member of our defense.

I think it's fair to say we're not trading either.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Hill is an option sure, but he's not exactly an established footballer at the top level. All things being equal we'd be mad to prioritise him over Papley when we're in the market for A grade players.

Give me Papley any day over Hill whilst we continue to develop the small forwards we've got on the list already.



Sure, but linking this to bringing in Papley is drawing a very, very long bow.

I guess we shouldn't go after any A grade player (regardless of position) because our kids will need new contracts at some stage down the track?

Stocker has played 5 games of senior footy. Kemp has not made his debut yet. And yet they're going to be looking for big $$ with their next contracts?

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all.

Bringing in Papley won't impact our ability to sign these guys anywhere near as much as you seem to be suggesting.



We potentially can, but what I'm saying is if a player of the calibre of Tom Papley is available and keen to come across, a club in our position would be completely foolish not to seriously explore the opportunity.

If he's not the best small forward in the game he's certainly in the discussion. If he wants out of the Swans we'll be up to our eyeballs in this one and rightly so.



Had a poor third quarter, sure. I'm not sure that's at all relevant to whether or not we should bring him in.

Even the best players in the game have quiet patches.

He had a quiet quarter yet was still BOG. Why focus on the quiet quarter and not the massive impact he had in the remaining three?



Expectation vs reality.

I haven't looked into it in great depth, but there were a fair few games last season alone - with Franklin there alongside - where he kicked a bag.

There is absolutely no reason why he can't be a weapon up front for us alongside our three tall forwards, and the obsession with finding minutiae to be critical of is a bit absurd.

There's clearly arguments for both cases and I like the fact your giving logical reasons for selecting Papley. I'm still in the no camp though.

Of course, if you're picking a small forward for tomorrow, Papley over Hill every day of the week, however, you can't have the best player in every position and currency (both salary and draft picks) needs to be considered. All I'm doing is prioritising other areas of the ground, which forms the basis of my argument to pass on Papley. Not interested in Papley if we get pillaged at the draft table.

What do draftees earn in their first 2 seasons? 80-100k per year? My understanding is that after their 2nd year, players get off their rookie contracts and their extensions kick in. It seems that most first rounders get a pay bump of around 200-300k, putting their salary in the range of 300-400k per season.

We added 2 x first round draft picks in 2019, so that technically adds another 600k to your cap through extensions. There's 600k we probably didn't factor into our salary cap calculations, as it's fair to assume we would not have been expecting to hold those selections with deals for Martin and Papley going through.

Yes, trading for big fish is exciting and a big coup for a club, however, I still believe we need another year or two to develop and trade for more depth, as well as have an understanding of exactly what our strengths and weaknesses are. I appreciate that all of our players bleed blue and play for the jumper, but if we have a handful of injuries and resort back to playing Moore, Lang etc. it means we're lacking depth. I know they try their best, but the reality is to improve, we need to strengthen our top 30-32 players to be more competitive. Just feels like the timing is off by a year or two to make a massive play, in particular for a small forward.

If we retain our top end picks (1st and 2nd rounders), as well as make one value trade per season, we can effectively add 6 decent players to our depth over 2 years. Should we trade a king's ransom for Papley, this makes it substantially harder to continue building quality depth as you don't have the draft currency to do so. Yes, there's free agency, but I wouldn't personally rely on that given how successful we've been over the past few years on that front. Also, FA is not the most sustainable way to build a list because you're always overpaying for average talent.

 

[Red Bull]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was word going around that we were requesting a 2nd rounder along with Papley as part of that trade.

We weren't offering a flat out pick 9 for Papley, it was pick 9 for Papley and pick 26.

So technically we never made an offer to the value of a top 10 draft selection.

Silvagni flatly refused to confirm that pick 9 on it’s own, with nothing coming back was offered for Papley.
To my knowledge, that offer has never been confirmed by anyone in an official capacity.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Based on what though? A feeling? The vibe?

Certainly not reality.

Papley kicked 5 goals once in 2019. Franklin was right there beside him.

That's one game. You need to take a more holistic view.

Papley was averaging 1.2 goals per game in 2018. Franklin played 19 games that season.

Franklin has played 10 games over the past 2 seasons, with Papley's average goals per game increasing to approximately 1.7 and 2 goals in 2019 and 2020.

Hence, my reasoning for Papley's lift in output in Franklin's absence across the past 2 seasons.

 

[Red Bull]

That may have been our opening offer, but my understanding was that a straight swap for pick 9 was on the table.

Has this offer ever been officially confirmed ?

 

[Eiffel 65]

Silvagni flatly refused to confirm that pick 9 on it’s own, with nothing coming back was offered for Papley.
To my knowledge, that offer has never been confirmed by anyone in an official capacity.

That's what I thought. My interpretation was that we may have expected something back in return.

 

[Red Bull]

That's what I thought. My interpretation was that we may have expected something back in return.

Silvagni’s refusal to confirm the offer when asked directly was telling.
His body language was even more so ...

 

[smashbox gill]

Surprised no LOB again even listed as emergency

 

[BigBreakfast]

They're desperate for another tall forward. How about we trade McGovern for Hunter. Sound fair?

When you throw up a fanciful trade, you have to remember that it’s not the NBA, players have to agree to a trade in the AFL and Gov is not going to agree to any trade. Please remember that none of our players have nor will request a trade any time soon. Talk realistic currency: draft picks.

 

[StandByyourMan]

One is a free agent; the other we've re-signed and is an integral member of our defense.

I think it's fair to say we're not trading either.

I was vibing and clearly I've come up short.

 

[StandByyourMan]

Can't trade Big Levi and you'd be mad to get rid of Plowman, does something really dumb things but he is a good player.

That's a very courteous handing my ass to me. Very kind of you

 

[StandByyourMan]

I was doing a David king impression. Gulp.

 

[HereComesJuddy]

Depends what else comes back, and what else we can do with the picks.

A late run up the ladder could see our first pick at 9 or 10, especially after academy bids and matching are factored in.
Our future first should be in the teens, especially if we actively improve the side with a couple of key acquisitions.
We can trade these picks before trading with Sydney - ie. swap firsts in whichever year with Brisbane to get Witherden, the later first is the one that goes to Sydney.

Say it was Pick 9 and a future Pick 15 for Papley, Witherden and an early/mid second? That starts to look more balanced.

Pick 15... doubt it.
It's a terrible move considering we are still a bottom 6 team.

 

[Arr0w]

Hawkins, shows why the likes of Jonas and Clurey are just undersized KPD's that will struggle with monsters forwards

 

[CaressMyBlues]

That's a very courteous handing my ass to me. Very kind of you

 

[BlueJet]

This argument looks awfully familiar...

Wait a second; I've seen this discussion before. We had it about Shai Bolton, when he was on the edges of Richmond's side and couldn't get a game. People said exactly what you've said right here about him. Fast forward to now - and Ian Hill is a near identical proposition to Bolton, as both are small forwards with outside midfield chops - and Bolton is a fixture in Richmond's midfield rotation, and the chance is gone.

We need to maximise our chances of getting it right; we do not do this by just trading for Papley. I like building from within - it's a basis for why I think we need to be conservative with contract size and trade price - but we need to look at multiple avenues to supplement not just Papley, but the young smalls already on our list.

Well said.
I think people tend to get seduced by certain names without factoring the relative value of those players or the position that they play.
I'd place small forwards & ruckmen in the same category, in that the availability of low cost options renders paying a premium for them incredibly risky.