List Mgmt. 2023 List Management thread

[Snuffaluphagus]

Mod notice after Mr Bob did a lot of annoying work in moving days of posts out of here. As we are heading into offseason, this thread is for 2023 list management only. Getting upset on previous trades can be taken to the vent thread. Lets keep this thread on track in the part of the year it's actually relevant

 

[freo1997]

If we let Darcy go we should fold the club

Not a modern ruck and best to put $ into other players.

 

[s_wd6]

Not a modern ruck and best to put $ into other players.

Awful take

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I have zero problem cutting Reidy.

Wilson, Colyer, Benning easy delists. Henry is gone whether we like it or not. That’s 4 players already off the main list. We’ve got two of the best young rucks in the comp. We don’t need both Knobel and Reidy too.

Ooooh another disagree. Knobel is less ready than Davies and Draper, how can we basically go into next year with only two rucks on the list, both of who play in the main side and one of which seems to have their best influence outside the ruck? Havent you said you prefer Jackson around the ground rather than ruck? What if Reidy is ok to contribute if Darcy is injured next year and we can keep Jackson in his best position of unicorn next year?

 

[theGav56]

Crazy talk delisting Hamling what happens when one of our key defenders go down as we’ve seen , yeah Davies and Draper no thanks at this point i’d like to stick with the key Premiership defender, i mean they picked Hammer over the two i mentioned straight away which tells me they aren’t ready and probably won’t be for awhile.

Unfortunately we aren't a club that specialises in doing the bleeding obvious, but hopefully there's a chance.

 

[s_wd6]

Ooooh another disagree. Knobel is less ready than Davies and Draper, how can we basically go into next year with only two rucks on the list, both of who play in the main side and one of which seems to have their best influence outside the ruck? Havent you said you prefer Jackson around the ground rather than ruck? What if Reidy is ok to contribute if Darcy is injured next year and we can keep Jackson in his best position of unicorn next year?

Look maybe. But I don’t think we need both Reidy and Knobel and Reidy is the easy one because he’s ooc. Knobel will just be a list clogger for a while imo

 

[wakojako]

As Dockeroo proved, no team has turned over less than 5 players in a decade, we are almost definitely turning over at least 5

While that may be true, we oversold the amount of players we lost last season so we can make up for the deficit this season.

 

[Big Animal]

what's the minimum changes? I thought it was 3 (ML) and therefore, if Wilson, Colyer and Benning go, can't we just call it a day (leaving the unknown in Henry at this time)? We had 10 changes last year which was clearly destabilising, have a super young best 22, and are therefore, in not much rush, I would have thought, for any significant clean out.

 

[Purple Suit]

I've said that and that becomes a separate discussion if that happens. I hope we arent losing any contracted players and I hope Sturt signs on.

Then I'm in the wait and see camp. I feel like 3 kids is plenty this year and if we lose senior players then we replace them with mature players.

 

[Ge3ks]

Hamling isn’t a definite delist. But likely we delist and consider as rookie list back-up for one more year.

This.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

what's the minimum changes? I thought it was 3 (ML) and therefore, if Wilson, Colyer and Benning go, can't we just call it a day (leaving the unknown in Henry at this time)? We had 10 changes last year which was clearly destabilising, have a super young best 22, and are therefore, in not much rush, I would have thought, for any significant clean out.

3 draft picks is the minimum per AFL rules, 5 appears to be the minimum in practice on historical trends

 

[Big Animal]

3 draft picks is the minimum per AFL rules, 5 appears to be the minimum in practice on historical trends

does that include or exclude delistings and then re-rookieing cause many clubs do that every year?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

does that include or exclude delistings and then re-rookieing cause many clubs do that every year?

No, basically, per Dockeroo who looked it up, in the last decade a team's list has changed by only 5 players only 3 times. It has never been less than 5 (And this makes sense if you think about player movement each year). The delistings / re-roookieings are not included in this

 

[Nalin]

These discussions continually are arguing the wrong thing. If you want to keep Hamling you need to either
A) Justify why turning over less players then any club basically ever is worth it; or
B) Justify cutting Reidy, Sturt or Stanley instead...

I can't keep up. When did this board turn from:

We have too much draft capital and list spots spent in defenders when we need more talent in our forward line and wings.

to:

Delist one of 2 forwards or developing winger so we can keep an aging defender on our list.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I can't keep up. When did this board turn from:

to:

Haha, exactly. I also think everyone should watch Davies last two games for Peel and watch them going forward. He is making A LOT of progress, very quickly. A preseason is going to be massive for him plus in terms of development, do we want the maybe 5 games Hamling gets next year to be taken off Davies?

And again for all, I would keep Hamling over a couple of contracted players but if that's not an option I cant see how we can keep him over those other names. Maybe there's an argument we can make close to a league first turnover of only 4 players given how many players we always lose but I assume there's a reason clubs dont do that.

 

[Taylor]

These discussions continually are arguing the wrong thing. If you want to keep Hamling you need to either
A) Justify why turning over less players then any club basically ever is worth it; or
B) Justify cutting Reidy, Sturt or Stanley instead...

The third option here is that Hamling is the best choice for that last list spot on the rookie list than any player that would be available.

We wouldn't be cutting quality players to meet a standard of numbers of players delisted, it is possible that we have a full squad of AFL talent.

I think Fremantle could cut all of: Wilson, Hamling, Colyer, Benning, Hughes, Emmett, Wagner, Banfield with a view to later rookie the contracted players of Hughes, Emmett, Wagner (maybe) and Banfield.

Even just selecting them again at the end of the national draft if required, really just opening up list spots for the purpose of hoarding picks.

It would only be players like Wilson, Colyer, Benning, Emmett who would gain free agency by doing that and I'd argue most of those players are gone anyway.

There's plenty of wiggle room without losing Sturt or even Henry.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

The third option here is that Hamling is the best choice for that last list spot on the rookie list than any player that would be available.

We wouldn't be cutting quality players to meet a standard of numbers of players delisted, it is possible that we have a full squad of AFL talent.

I think Fremantle could cut all of: Wilson, Hamling, Colyer, Benning, Hughes, Emmett, Wagner, Banfield with a view to later rookie the contracted players of Hughes, Emmett, Wagner (maybe) and Banfield.

Even just selecting them again at the end of the national draft if required, really just opening up list spots for the purpose of hoarding picks.

It would only be players like Wilson, Colyer, Benning, Emmett who would gain free agency by doing that and I'd argue most of those players are gone anyway.

There's plenty of wiggle room without losing Sturt or even Henry.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is reskinning the same thing others have said. Clubs dont make less than 5 list changes, there will be a reason in clubland for this. If Dockeroo has lied to me then I'll relent (because I'd like to keep Hamling for one more year as well) but otherwise people need to pick a minimum of 5 players not to be at the club next year - even 5 is optimistic

 

[Taylor]

3 draft picks is the minimum per AFL rules, 5 appears to be the minimum in practice on historical trends

It's three primary list changes, three primary listed players delisted - but you can take all three of those back at the draft if you want to.

It's about having enough players taken at the draft.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It's three primary list changes, three primary listed players delisted - but you can take all three of those back at the draft if you want to.

It's about having enough players taken at the draft.

Again, same thing, according to Dockeroo, no club has turned over less than 5 players in a decade (and that only happened 3 times) even though they only need 3 at the draft (and they can do those picks however they want). On history (unlike Super funds, I think past performance is a reliable indicator of future performance), people need to pick at least 5 players not to be at the club next year.

 

[Taylor]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is reskinning the same thing others have said. Clubs dont make less than 5 list changes, there will be a reason in clubland for this. If Dockeroo has lied to me then I'll relent (because I'd like to keep Hamling for one more year as well) but otherwise people need to pick a minimum of 5 players not to be at the club next year - even 5 is optimistic

On averages yes. But if you shifted a quarter of your squad the year before then you can afford to average the two seasons out to just 10% of your squad per season.

There's no point picking players with late picks just to cycle bodies, that just leads to more cycling.

 

[Taylor]

Again, same thing, according to Dockeroo, no club has turned over less than 5 players in a decade (and that only happened 3 times) even though they only need 3 at the draft (and they can do those picks however they want). On history (Unlike Super funds, I think past performance is a reliable indicator of future performance), people need to pick at least 5 players not to be at the club next year.

By averages... yes.

Or you could look at this season and the two before it and find fifteen players who have moved on. It will be more than that.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

By averages... yes.

Or you could look at this season and the two before it and find fifteen players who have moved on. It will be more than that.

I mean, I would imagine similar scenarios lead to the other 3 times in the last decade only 5 players were moved on. Even only 5 is a once in a blue moon type stuff (side note, if Dockeroo was wrong on what he looked up, I'll kill him). It's not* an average thing, it's a firm yearly number. We can keep Hamling if we want to, I'm not denying that but it would be, dare I say it, unprecedented...

*edit Taylor

 

[Taylor]

2023: Colyer, Benning...
2022: Valente, Mundy, Western, Lobb, Tucker, Acres, Logue, Blakely, Crowden, Meek
2021: Hill, Thomas, Cerra, Conca, Bewley, Duman, Giro, Watson

That's already almost 7 per year.

 

[Taylor]

I mean, I would imagine similar scenarios lead to the other 3 times in the last decade only 5 players were moved on. Even only 5 is a once in a blue moon type stuff (side note, if Dockeroo was wrong on what he looked up, I'll kill him). It's an average thing, it's a firm yearly number. We can keep Hamling if we want to, I'm not denying that but it would be, dare I say it, unprecedented...

One of the five was Hawthorn in 2016 when they spent all their picks buying Mitchell etc. Only took two draft picks at #74 and #76 before three rookies. One of those rookies was already on their list.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

One of the five was Hawthorn in 2016 when they spent all their picks buying Mitchell etc. Only took two draft picks at #74 and #76 before three rookies. One of those rookies was already on their list.

This year? They seem to bring in 9 players. Some of those I assume is recycling players already on their list but there's no way they only lost 4 players from their list in 2015

 

[mattis117]

Do you think Davies and Draper can pick up the slack if Pearce and Cox go down cos i can’t.

With another full pre season under their belt, perhaps. There's about ten months till they might be needed, a lot of time to transform into more hardened bodies.