List Mgmt. 2021 List Management: Draft, Trade, Free Agency and Academy

[freo_leo29]

the rules have changed, we’ll be trading away 61 and 69 if we can, assuming we want Benning and Motlop.

if we have 6,8,19 (trade up or away 61,69) 84,102

If Benning is bid on at 25 it’ll consume pick 84 (we don’t need to make up points), just our next pick. Benning is ours after pick 20.

If Motlop is then bid on at 42, it’ll consume pick 102. Again, don’t need to make up points, just the next pick, which will be 102.

Therefore it’s highly likely we will trade 61 and 69 away. Hopefully for a future 3rd. They’ll likely be involved if we downgrade 19 too, possibly to fetch us a future 2nd. On the other hand we may choose to wait until we hit pick 40, to see if Motlop slides before trading them away.

Is this true for picks before 40?

So if another club gets a bid at 21 they can match with their last pick in the draft too?

I assumed that the rules for bids between 21 and 40 remain the same as previous years as it's too big of an advantage


I know that after 41 it's next pick
Edit: I had a look and yeah between 21 and 40 it's the old rules, so we do need points in case Benning is early

 

[Cesoir]

It may not be best available for a different club and most certainly may not be best available to what the media and Bigfooty experts put out.

I will be highly offended if they ignore the 17 players we have touted as list needs on here.

 

[Taylor]

Is this true for picks before 40?

So if another club gets a bid at 21 they can match with their last pick in the draft too?

I assumed that the rules for bids between 21 and 40 remain the same as previous years as it's too big of an advantage


I know that after 41 it's next pick
Edit: I had a look and yeah between 21 and 40 it's the old rules, so we do need points in case Benning is early

This is the last year where points matter to us, and they only matter from pick #21 to #40.
We can only match from pick #21 onwards as long as the players aren't Metro.

 

[rgauci]

Is this true for picks before 40?

So if another club gets a bid at 21 they can match with their last pick in the draft too?

I assumed that the rules for bids between 21 and 40 remain the same as previous years as it's too big of an advantage


I know that after 41 it's next pick
Edit: I had a look and yeah between 21 and 40 it's the old rules, so we do need points in case Benning is early

i didn’t know that, if Benning is bid early let the other team have him. He’s not worth a pick in that range I don’t think.

 

[Fyfster]

i didn’t know that, if Benning is bid early let the other team have him. He’s not worth a pick in that range I don’t think.

Benning at 50 would be reaching , Looked lost in the last WA vs SA game .

 

[Bring back Drum]

Benning at 50 would be reaching , Looked lost in the last WA vs SA game .

I’m confident he sustained a lower leg injury very early in that game & tried to play through it before missing the last quarter.
From a very early contest he was reaching down to his shin, ankle region looking in discomfort.

 

[guidodp15]

the picks wernt wasted at all.

we picked up 2 good players.

also if Walker and Western wernt bid on we wouldn’t have picked up Tracey and bandield

On draft night the strategy should be as follows:
Add three players to the main list in the top 22 or so selections.
Watch picks 61 & 69 come in as bids are matched, then the minute the 40th selection is made trade out those 2 picks (by then probably picks 50 and 58) for a future third or fourth.
Once pick 40 is made, we can match benning or Motlop with the next available pick (can be pick 120 and 121, doesn’t matter). Points are then irrelevant.
Motlop definitely won’t make the rookie list so if he’s still on the board after pick 40 then match him with the next pick available, having traded out the original picks 61 and 69 in to next year.
Same with Benning if a bid comes. If no main draft bid for Benning, then add him to the Cat B list (ideal).
If Motlop is gone by pick 40, then it MAY be possible to pick another main draft slider if Benning makes Cat B. That’s a bit of a tricky one, as we can’t be certain of the former before the latter happens.
We want to avoid last years scenario where a pick in the 50s was essentially wasted.

 

[salim malik]

Very disappointing if we don't take a mid, key position forward and small to midsize forward .
Draft best for our needs.

 

[freo_leo29]

the picks wernt wasted at all.

we picked up 2 good players.

also if Walker and Western wernt bid on we wouldn’t have picked up Tracey and bandield

The picks were wasted, we didn't use them, we matched with later picks


Walker and Western would have been Cat B rookies, meaning we would have still have space on the rookie list, in fact we could have taken an extra 2 rookies on top of Treacy and Banfield as Cat B sits outside the main list and we would have been 2 down on the Main list.

 

[Fyfster]

I’m confident he sustained a lower leg injury very early in that game & tried to play through it before missing the last quarter.
From a very early contest he was reaching down to his shin, ankle region looking in discomfort.

Only saw the last three quarters , So didn't really know that . Still on other exposed form I would expect he is still there well into the 50's

 

[Bring back Drum]

Very disappointing if we don't take a mid, key position forward and small to midsize forward .
Draft best for our needs.

Agree completely & are hoping for Erasmus (or the best mid they think) Rachelle & hopefully JVR at 19.

 

[Lach72]

Agree completely & are hoping for Erasmus (or the best mid they think) Rachelle & hopefully JVR at 19.

I'm thinking that this will be our best strategy.

Best mid, Rachele, best tall

 

[wahooo]

Very disappointing if we don't take a mid, key position forward and small to midsize forward .
Draft best for our needs.

I agree to an extent. Although, I think our need for key forwards is greater than our need for smalls. Where our picks fall this year (referring to 8 and 19 here) are right in the range for Amiss and JVR.

I'd rather go a mid at 6 and Amiss at 8. I get the hype over Rachelle but I personally would prefer Amiss over him. We have Schultz, Switta, Walters, Henry and Western who should all be fighting for that small forward role this year. I'd rather grab the talls if they fall at our picks this year and get the development into them.

Further, if we go Erasmus and Amiss we then open up plenty of options with 19. If JVR lasts til then, we could grab him. Or, if JVR doesn't last we could trade down the order slightly and pick up Motlop whilst getting back into the 2022 draft.

 

[malpaso]

Erasmus, NWM/Rachele, JVR/Amiss/Williams

 

[wahooo]

Erasmus, NWM/Rachele, JVR/Amiss/Williams

Think it's pretty optimistic to assume both Amiss and JVR will be there at 19.

 

[freo_leo29]

Sam Edmund so grain of salt but Cox may have been our backup option if Lobb was able to go

 

[DragoDelph]

Sam Edmund so grain of salt but Cox may have been our backup option if Lobb was able to go

Think it was also confirmed by his manager.

 

[wayToGo_]

We dodged an American pie then.

 

[gungho]

Erasmus, NWM/Rachele, JVR/Amiss/Williams

Sounds good in theory but how does it get done?
Erasmus at 6.....Sure.
NMW/Rachele at 8. No worries.
Reckon only Williams will be available at 19.

 

[salim malik]

I'm thinking that this will be our best strategy.

Best mid, Rachele, best tall

Best mid, best tall and see who slide at 19.

 

[Taylor]

Best mid, best tall and see who slide at 19.

Even if that best tall is a key defender in juniors?

 

[Freo Shark]

I'm thinking that this will be our best strategy.

Best mid, Rachele, best tall

I dont disagree majorly but I think we need to prioritise a Tall Forward that means 8 or 10. 19 the best will likely be gone.

Our tall Forwards are essentially Tabs, Treacy and a flaky Lobb who might well be gone this time next year.

We need to draft a Tall Forward whilst theres high value forwards available.

 

[Swiggy]

Think it was also confirmed by his manager.

Think his manager offered him to freo if lobb left. Don’t think freo were chasing

 

[Lach72]

Best mid, best tall and see who slide at 19.

I see our need for a high quality small to medium forward as higher than a tall forward.
There are also quite a few TALLER key forwards and forward rucks available next year.

I'd rather the best ball user we can get first and Rachele, so Rachele can start partnering Sturt etc ASAP

 

[GingerDocker]

I'd give my lefty to see JVR grow another 4-5cms between now and the end of the year.