List Mgmt. 2024 List Management discussion

[blueiris]

The club doesn't even get more points in that in fact we lose 180 points strange trade

 

[Perrip]

Loss of points for us. Only makes sense in the context of bringing in another pick - 49 for sharp?

If we get 27 [Saints] + 49 [Dees] for 32 + 45, it gives us an extra 59 points

 

[buttermuffs]

Bugger off. He was awesome off the field.

He gave it 100% on the field as well. Played in a semi final side that got to second place. His disposal was what let him down but can’t say he didn’t give everything to the club.

 

[buttermuffs]

Depends what "an earlier pick" involves. Were we seeking something in the 20-30 range, or just angling for one of those other picks in the 40s? If the latter we'll probably just get it done anyway, it's a modicum of points. If we truly expected something earlier to trade away some depth, well a) we're probably a bit crazy, and b) yeah it won't get done.

I think it gets done by doing Sharp and a future 4th for 49 and a future 3rd. Will have two future thirds then that we can easily trade to get another pick with points this year.

Nothing like swapping future picks to make up the difference.

 

[buttermuffs]

What sort of left field shenanigans are we upto giving up points

Best guess is that we don’t have enough spots for all the picks we have and are looking to get. So give up a little bit of points to be able to bring in another pick for total greater points.

 

[Elixuh]

If we get 27 [Saints] + 49 [Dees] for 32 + 45, it gives us an extra 59 points

59 points is 59 points.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Best guess is that we don’t have enough spots for all the picks we have and are looking to get. So give up a little bit of points to be able to bring in another pick for total greater points.

Unless there's a trade target we're eyeing off & we needed a pick in the 20s to get it done.

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

So you're telling me the Saints have switched from whingers to enablers?

 

[Section 5]

They may have a club interested in 27 and are willing to give us more that the 180 points we just lost.
EDIT: It is actually 228 points i just took posters 180 points as correct

Or someone wants 27 in exchange for their future 2nd and extra picks this year
I believe we lost our future 2nd but could be wrong.

 

[Elixuh]

We can only take so many picks to the draft to give our packet of salt n vinegar chips for pick 1, so if we know we have players leaving who will generate more picks it makes sense if it adds additional points total?

 

[Section 5]

59 points is 59 points.

But it is not a gain is it.
It's a loss of 180 points. EDIT: it is actually 228 points

 

[WheildonTheAxe]

I think we'll have to work on the assumption there wasn't a formula error in Dom Ambrosio's 'Do we have enough points' spreadsheet.

 

[SpecialBruce]

Best guess is that we don’t have enough spots for all the picks we have and are looking to get. So give up a little bit of points to be able to bring in another pick for total greater points.

Spot on

 

[BigCat2]

We can only take so many picks to the draft to give our packet of salt n vinegar chips for pick 1, so if we know we have players leaving who will generate more picks it makes sense if it adds additional points total?

Likely we are constrained with number of picks we can take to the draft. Then once draft starts we can trade 27 to a club who actually intends to use it, to generate more points.

Remember once the draft starts, you can have as many picks in play as you like. We did something similar at the start of 2022 draft.

 

[Perrip]

Isnt it 228 points pick 32 = 584 points + pick 45 = 347 (total = 931 points) - pick 27 = 703 points = 228 net loss in points

Yep. It's only a net gain of draft points for us if we get Pick 49 from the Dees.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Yep. It's only a net gain of draft points for us if we get Pick 49 from the Dees.

Why is the 49 related?

 

[Perrip]

We can only take so many picks to the draft to give our packet of salt n vinegar chips for pick 1, so if we know we have players leaving who will generate more picks it makes sense if it adds additional points total?

Has the AFL brought that rule back? Was looking for it over the weekend and couldn't find anything since they scrapped it in 2020.

 

[David C]

I think it gets done by doing Sharp and a future 4th for 49 and a future 3rd. Will have two future thirds then that we can easily trade to get another pick with points this year.

Nothing like swapping future picks to make up the difference.

Not sure they can do that as they have traded their future 1st. It would have to be something like swapping F2's and/or F3's and hoping they don't make finals.

 

[Elixuh]

Has the AFL brought that rule back? Was looking for it over the weekend and couldn't find anything since they scrapped it in 2020.

Isn't it picks and list spots or whatever?

 

[SpecialBruce]

We lose 228 points so this quote from the AFL article seems even stupider:


But it doesn't or rather is detrimental to that

Seems like that trade is designed to just help St Kilda out ............ perhaps the picture will become clearer or make more sense later b/c it doesnt at the moment

We had too many picks especially when you factor in picks for Sharp, Prior and Dev. Reckon we are going to be looking at this year to clean it up a bit up and focus on next years picks. Either way we end up on top overall

 

[dlanod]

We lose 228 points so this quote from the AFL article seems even stupider:


But it doesn't or rather is detrimental to that

Seems like that trade is designed to just help St Kilda out ............ perhaps the picture will become clearer or make more sense later b/c it doesnt at the moment

Lyons, Daniher, Michael, Madden, Lane out.

McLachlan and Beecken in.

That's a net three spots so far, with Sharp, Prior, Dev and Craven unaccounted for.

Before this trade that meant we'd be losing 43, 45 and two picks in the 60s because of insufficient list spots - obviously that's not going to ultimately be the case, but TBD. If we keep Craven (I suspect we'd have delisted him if we weren't looking to keep him) and trade out the other three, they're also bringing in draft picks.

Because of how generous the Richmond trade was, we basically need to package up some picks otherwise they're going to be cancelled out. So while we might lose 228 points here, it probably keeps a pick in the 40s active down the track. This is clearly a trade we can only consider in the context of the whole draft period - basically, we want to deal enough picks to have enough points for Ashcroft and Marshall.

 

[Section 5]

Isnt it 228 points pick 32 = 584 points + pick 45 = 347 (total = 931 points) - pick 27 = 703 points = 228 net loss in points

Yes, i changed my post as i took other posters as being correct

 

[lions2010]

Unless there's a trade target we're eyeing off & we needed a pick in the 20s to get it done.

We could be looking to trade 27 to get back our 2nd rounder next year and swapping a few thing around. We have enough points by pick swapping and trading Sharp / Robertson amd our 3rd rounder next year etc.

 

[dlanod]

Why is the 49 related?

Because as it stands, it would be removed because we don't have enough list spots to utilise it - we'd be stuck with 32, 34, 42 and 43 (pending other trades). 45 would even come into play before it.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Because as it stands, it would be removed because we don't have enough list spots to utilise it - we'd be stuck with 32, 34, 42 and 43 (pending other trades). 45 would even come into play before it.

Seems most likely. Surely not the best move to now have to consolidate picks