List Mgmt. 2022 Trade & List Management Thread III

[giantroo]

Spoiler: Confirmed Trades

Spoiler: 2022 Draft Pick Order

AFL Draft - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

www.afl.com.au

Spoiler: 2023 Draft Pick Order

Spoiler: Key dates

AFL Trade Period Key Dates - AFL.com.au

When does Free Agency begin? How long does the Trade Period go for? Find out on AFL.com.au.

www.afl.com.au

Key Dates:

Friday 07 October at 5.00pm
Close of AFL Restricted Free Agency Offer and Unrestricted Free Agency Period.

Monday 10 October
NAB AFL Draft Nominations open (9am)
AFL Restricted Free Agency Matching Offer 3 Day Period Ends (5pm)

Wednesday 12 October at 7.30pm
AFL Trade Period closes – players and selections


Thursday 03 November at 9.00am
AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) commences

Wednesday 09 November at 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) closes

Friday 11 November at 9.00am

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) commences

Tuesday 15 November by 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) closes
AFL Trade Period closes – selections only

Monday 21 November by 3.00pm

NAB AFL Draft Nominations close

Monday 28 November at 7.10pm

2022 NAB AFL Draft Round One (Venue TBC)

Father/Son, Academy & NGA and Players Bidding opens.

Tuesday 29 November

AFL Trade Period – selections only (5.45pm to 6.30pm)

2022 NAB AFL National Draft Round two until completion (7pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period opens (10pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences (10pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period closes (11pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes (11pm)

Wednesday 30 November

NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft (3pm, online)
NAB AFL Rookie Draft (3.20pm, online)

Thursday 01 December by 4.00pm

Final AFL Club List Lodgement

 

[Twangler]

Not sure there is any such confirmation at this point. The fact is, he was list boss at Wet Toast and they have had a stunning fall from grace. He was then employed by NM and we havnt gotten off the bottom of the ladder.

The only confirmation will be when we start to rise and when we have more kpfs than Larkey and Chom - which we don't at this point in time...

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think that’s what CCJ was recruited for, it just hasn’t worked out so far. Agree regardless, it’s a definite hole in our list profile

 

[The Nostradamus]

If this is accurate, two things stand out to me:

1 Rawlings' capacity to get that deal done knowing that coming away with Port's original offer or having Horne-Francis stay in 2023 was a disaster for the Club.

2 The arrogance of Port who knew Horne-Francis was worth more than what they offered but point blank refused to cough up a quality player.

What goes around comes around. Bookmark it.

I want that port list raided so badly by the whole comp

 

[RoovolverUpstairs]

Jimmy Rowe has just been delisted by Adelaide would be worth a shout to add to our small forward stocks; high footy IQ small that although lacks a bit of pace/athleticism has great goal sense and probably only got booted cause the crows signed Rankine.

 

[HARPSichord]

Jimmy Rowe has just been delisted by Adelaide would be worth a shout to add to our small forward stocks; high footy IQ small that although lacks a bit of pace/athleticism has great goal sense and probably only got booted cause the crows signed Rankine.

The bloke averages way less than a goal a game. He's a spud.

 

[Passmore]

The bloke averages way less than a goal a game. He's a spud.

I may have imagined it, but he seemed to kick a high % of his goals against us.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[ferball]

It’s a good article but it’s frogshit that Rawlings was doing all the heavy lifting for Port and GWS. They both wanted what we selling, they should have been the ones coming to us.

Maybe.

I've thought that for a while but I'm coming around a bit. They may have seen it as an opportunity to get rid of JHF with a potential replacement in Wardlaw and a future first. Plus a high pick that we'd get anyway. Maybe they thought it was the only way to effectively replace JHF with minimal change to the list profile, then getting another top three pick and a F1 if you are sure you can replace your lost player is worth it.

We've all looked at this as a situation where the priority is to get as much as possible from the trade.

Imagine the club saw JHF as a problem we needed to get rid of by the end of the season. If the stuff about Patch and the ice bath is true (and why wouldn't it be) that situation is broken and not fixable.

Maybe Rawlings and co looked at it as an opportunity to remove JHF with minimal disruption to the list profile (ie get Wardlaw and another top 3 pick this draft) and their priority was getting JHF out before he caused further division? So they judged getting him out as more important than a bonanza from the trade. Ideally we get Wardlaw (so we haven't lost anything list structure wise,) Sheezel, and get rid of JHF.

So getting rid of JHF is now a high priority - if the opportunity to get rid of him and come out a little in front (with an extra couple of picks next year and later in this draft) and get two players we rated 1 and 2 this year presents itself then we are little ahead and have dealt with a problem that could have cost us in terms of not getting players we wanted and losing draft value.

It changes the way I see the situation.

IE - if North had offered him up for trade at the end of the year we wouldn't have got this sort of return for him. He requested one so we were able to wheel and deal a bit and come out ahead of where we'd have been otherwise, and the opportunity to ship JHF off was too good to pass up cos he is a toxic influence on the playing group.

 

[HARPSichord]

I may have imagined it, but he seemed to kick a high % of his goals against us.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

Played 4 against us and could only manage 5 goals.

 

[RoovolverUpstairs]

The bloke averages way less than a goal a game. He's a spud.

Has his limits for sure but spud is a bit harsh; he's only played 2 seasons so projecting his future output based on his average goals per game off his rookie and 2nd year doesn't reflect his scope of improvement.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Good article explaining the mega deal. Paints Brady as the architect and also calls out North's strong relationships in the industry.

The art of the deal: how the AFL’s mega trade took shape

It involved two No.1 picks, two top-five picks, a premiership player and a future first-rounder. Plus it involved four states. The deal that started with Jason Horne-Francis’ request for a trade was the mega-trade to beat all others. Here’s the inside story.

www.theage.com.au

I think the big question to come out of this article is:

Who suggested to meet at The Brighton Schoolhouse? It better have been Cripps, or else the lot of us should kidnap Brady and make him eat at every food joint in Errol Street... & then get him sloshed at The Limerick!

 

[Rooboy 96]

It’s a good article but it’s frogshit that Rawlings was doing all the heavy lifting for Port and GWS. They both wanted what we selling, they should have been the ones coming to us.

Just shows how desperate we were to get mummy’s boy out of the club


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Masked Avenger]

Maybe.

I've thought that for a while but I'm coming around a bit. They may have seen it as an opportunity to get rid of JHF with a potential replacement in Wardlaw and a future first. Plus a high pick that we'd get anyway. Maybe they thought it was the only way to effectively replace JHF with minimal change to the list profile, then getting another top three pick and a F1 if you are sure you can replace your lost player is worth it.

We've all looked at this as a situation where the priority is to get as much as possible from the trade.

Imagine the club saw JHF as a problem we needed to get rid of by the end of the season. If the stuff about Patch and the ice bath is true (and why wouldn't it be) that situation is broken and not fixable.

Maybe Rawlings and co looked at it as an opportunity to remove JHF with minimal disruption to the list profile (ie get Wardlaw and another top 3 pick this draft) and their priority was getting JHF out before he caused further division? So they judged getting him out as more important than a bonanza from the trade. Ideally we get Wardlaw (so we haven't lost anything list structure wise,) Sheezel, and get rid of JHF.

So getting rid of JHF is now a high priority - if the opportunity to get rid of him and come out a little in front (with an extra couple of picks next year and later in this draft) and get two players we rated 1 and 2 this year presents itself then we are little ahead and have dealt with a problem that could have cost us in terms of not getting players we wanted and losing draft value.

It changes the way I see the situation.

IE - if North had offered him up for trade at the end of the year we wouldn't have got this sort of return for him. He requested one so we were able to wheel and deal a bit and come out ahead of where we'd have been otherwise, and the opportunity to ship JHF off was too good to pass up cos he is a toxic influence on the playing group.

Yep, the reaction of the Club when informed Horne-Francis was seeking a trade according to the article - was what can we get for him rather than how can we keep him.

That says a fair bit about where he sat in the minds of the Club.

Rawlings also said twice in the Fox interview that the Club had information that others didn't when it came to its decision making around him.

A clue there too.

 

[ferball]

Has his limits for sure but spud is a bit harsh; he's only played 2 seasons so projecting his future output based on his average goals per game off his rookie and 2nd year doesn't reflect his scope of improvement.

Kayne Turner averaged a goal a game for three of his first four years. The other year he played one game with 60% game time and one game with 9%.

 

[ferball]

Yep, the reaction of the Club when informed Horne-Francis was seeking a trade according to the article - was what can we get for him rather than how can we keep him.

That says a fair bit about where he sat in the minds of the Club.

Rawlings also said twice in the Fox interview that the Club had information that others didn't when it came to its decision making around him.

A clue there too.

Yep.

re the bolded. Was that info - "He's a complete **** wit!"

 

[My Left Foote]

who'd have thought dealing amicably with clubs would have its benefits

Surprising lack of threats to walk anyone to the PSD in that article, I mean do they even know how trade period works?

 

[Passmore]

Played 4 against us and could only manage 5 goals.

Better than his career average.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Lloyd Christmas]

I agree mate, and props to Rawlings (who I’ve been very critical of in the past). It’s just the arrogance of Port throughout this whole process that really irritated me.

Whilst I agree, that is also down to that smug, entitled * that allowed Port to behave in such a manner.

We simply had to get the best possible outcomeand I believe we've done well.

 

[Harris 10]

Is there any backstory on Dawson and whether he can play CHF? Even just as depth.

I really liked the way that he played last year.

I mentioned in another thread I’d like to see him trialled on a wing.
I think he could provide a tall outlet coming off half back and he has the speed to break a line. Would also take a bit of pressure off Comben and Larkey have to hit up all the time.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

At the moment we have a mismatch between our number of list spots and number of draft picks. Based on us going with a 38 main list / 6 rookie list split, which seems by far the most likely option, we have:



So that will need to change prior to the draft by either reducing our number of picks or delisting some of our contracted players to then re-draft as rookies. Personally I'd go with trading picks 40, 43 & 59 into a single higher pick, then just use pick 70 to match the Harvey bid (might lead to a deficit next year, but would only be minor).

 

[Shinboner1]

At the moment we have a mismatch between our number of list spots and number of draft picks. Based on us going with a 38 main list / 6 rookie list split, which seems by far the most likely option, we have:

View attachment 1536970

So that will need to change prior to the draft by either reducing our number of picks or delisting some of our contracted players to then re-draft as rookies. Personally I'd go with trading picks 40, 43 & 59 into a single higher pick, then just use pick 70 to match the Harvey bid (might lead to a deficit next year, but would only be minor).

You know we could always save a pick or 2 for the mid season draft.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

You know we could always save a pick or 2 for the mid season draft.

Certainly could. We currently have 3 vacant rookie list spots, so plenty of room for that.

 

[hoffseason gains]

You know we could always save a pick or 2 for the mid season draft.

I think as well we need to be looking at using the SSP, there is a lot of even talent at this years draft meaning a few gems will go overlooked.

 

[1975]

I’m not ready to bin cj just yet.

 

[viccles]

Make Anderson rookie

 

[Roo096]

We are screaming for mature players in the 28yr bracket surely it makes sense to keep Jed on for at least another year.

 

[buttox]

We are screaming for mature players in the 28yr bracket surely it makes sense to keep Jed on for at least another year.

Of the 4 uncontracted (jed, Turner, Walker and atu) jed would be the one I'd keep.
Turner seems to offer the most as far as leadership goes. It will be interesting to see how it goes.