List Mgmt. 2024 List Mgmt

[phantom13]

St Kilda's scouting budget, including Bevos wages, was less than 100K in 2001.
Source: John Beveridge

100k in 2001 isn’t terrible. Plus it’s not like it’s just one scout.

In any event as the stats show, it’s not much better now with more resources.

Really not sure what your point here is

 

[ESPN8 The Ocho]

2000-2010

2000​	Riewoldt	Kozchitske	Didak	Livingston	McDougall		2/5	40​	2/5	40​
2001​	Hodge	Ball	Judd	Polak	X.Clarke		2/5	40​	4/10	40​
2002​	Goddard	Wells	Brennan	Walsh	McVeigh		2/5	40​	6/15	40​
2003​	Cooney	Walker	Sylvia	Ray	McLean		1/5	20​	7/20	35​
2004​	Deledio	Roughead	Griffen	Tambling	Franklin		3/5	60​	10/25	40​
2005​	Murphy	Thomas	Ellis	Kennedy	Pendlebury		3/5	60​	13/30	43.33333​
2006​	Gibbs	Gumbleton	Hansen	Lueneberger	Boak		1/5	20​	14/35	40​
2007​	Kruezer	Cotchin	Masten	Morton	Grant		1/5	20​	15/40	37.5​
2008​	Watts	Naitanui	S.Hill	Hartlett	Hurley		2/5	40​	17/45	37.77778​
2009​	Scully	Trengove	Martin	Morabito	Cunnington		2/5	40​	19/50	38​
2010​	Swallow	Benell	Day	Gaff	Polec		1/5	20​	20/55	36.36364​

A little science behind "star" multiple AA's or BnF's (or one of each).

11 years of picks 36% hit rate for a star in the top 5.

Will do 2011-2020 tomorrow

You have seriously underrated Daniel Wells.

 

[phantom13]

You have seriously underrated Daniel Wells.

Was always gonna be one

 

[kernelT]

Mad peg on wells.

 

[Bill Crouse]

Bearing in mind we will probably need to have between 4 and 8 list spots vacant by the off season, which of our players are closest to the exit, assuming none of them request a trade? Let's ignore for the moment the 2 Cat II rookies.

Off the top of my head:

Jones
Ross
Membrey
Allison

Campbell
Bonner
Paton
Butler

2 or 3 of those guys could get us 4th Rd future dps or something in a trade, free to a team in the window, the rest will have to be delisted.

I don't think any of those players except possibly Butler (assuming he gets fit and plays better than he started the year) have any trade value. Ross, Membrey, Campbell and Bonner are all unrestricted free agents so we definitely wouldn't get anything for them.

I know this board doesn't like Bonner but I really don't think he will be delisted.

 

[kernelT]

That is band 1.

Battle would have to take that unless Hawks offered something similar. A contract of $900,000 pa would be band 1.

Looking at the fixture I think we’ll only win 3-4 more matches. Probably finish 15th : pick 4. Band 1 compensation would give us pick 5.

Picks 4 & 5 almost allows us to rebuild the midfield in one draft.

Dangerous game shopping for FA compo, the bands will change with the cap increase… we’ll probably test his worth then **** it up and end up with a pick in the 30’s for losing another best 22 player.

 

[Saints43]

100k in 2001 isn’t terrible. Plus it’s not like it’s just one scout.

In any event as the stats show, it’s not much better now with more resources.

Really not sure what your point here is

You don't know what the point is?
The scouting budget was less than 100K.
That includes Bevos wages, travel.

How much do you reckon that leaves to pay scouts?

It was a tin pot operation. That's was his point.

You said "... it’s not like we didn’t have dedicated talent scouts and lost managers in 2000."

We didn't.

 

[The Jack]

Just on the Zebs game, yes Richmond side is cooked with injuries but of the 14 odd AFL listed players at Sandy, 7 have played 1 game of AFL which was Campbell in 2022.

Richmond also ran top of the ladder Footscray right down to the wire the week before with a similar injury list.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Dangerous game shopping for FA compo, the bands will change with the cap increase… we’ll probably test his worth then heck it up and end up with a pick in the 30’s for losing another best 22 player.

The bands are automatically part of an increase.
The bands are triggered by where the player sits compared to other players.
Band 1 means the player is top 5% of the AFL.

 

[St Neil]

Dangerous game shopping for FA compo, the bands will change with the cap increase… we’ll probably test his worth then heck it up and end up with a pick in the 30’s for losing another best 22 player.

We aren’t shopping for band 1 compensation. The likelihood is that the quantum of North’s offer would almost certainly be band 1.

We probably won’t match that bid and North would know that. So the ball would be in Battle’s court (if it is indeed true).

Stay for less and become a one club player, or take the security of a more lucrative contract.

 

[phantom13]

You don't know what the point is?
The scouting budget was less than 100K.
That includes Bevos wages, travel.

How much do you reckon that leaves to pay scouts?

It was a tin pot operation. That's was his point.

You said "... it’s not like we didn’t have dedicated talent scouts and lost managers in 2000."

We didn't.

Except we did mate. You just noted who our dedicated one was add in the media. Ffs 2001 was the super draft, everyone knew Hodge, Judd and Ball pre draft. You’re making out like it was the 80s and 90s, the science and pathways for guys from under 14s existed and the best talent was known 2 years out.

 

[kernelT]

The bands are automatically part of an increase.
The bands are triggered by where the player sits compared to other players.
Band 1 means the player is top 5% of the AFL.

But we all know the AFL have a secret colonels 11 herb and arsenic recipe that they tweak at will…

Stock up on vaseline, just in case.

 

[St Neil]

But we all know the AFL have a secret colonels 11 herb and arsenic recipe that they tweak at will…

Stock up on vaseline, just in case.

The age of the player is also a consideration for the AFL in determining FA compensation.

Battle turns 26 on 1st September. That is young for an UFA. He is in the prime of his career.

 

[gringo2011]

Dangerous game shopping for FA compo, the bands will change with the cap increase… we’ll probably test his worth then heck it up and end up with a pick in the 30’s for losing another best 22 player.

Yep, remember we were waiting on Gresham getting offers and if we didn't get a pick straight after our pick we'd match. Never actually works out unless you're a basket case and the AFL want to disguise a priority pick.

 

[gringo2011]

Except we did mate. You just noted who our dedicated one was add in the media. Ffs 2001 was the super draft, everyone knew Hodge, Judd and Ball pre draft. You’re making out like it was the 80s and 90s, the science and pathways for guys from under 14s existed and the best talent was known 2 years out.

Yeah, I reckon the only thing that's changed heaps is the athletic profiling and maybe some psychometric stuff. It can make the water cloudy. Recruiters get seduced by stats and ignore their eyes.

 

[gringo2011]

Richmond also ran top of the ladder Footscray right down to the wire the week before with a similar injury list.

Sandy looked much better this week regardless of who we played. Crouch and Garcia were huge and the forwards all seemed to work out where to be at just the right time. Some days you just have everything go right.

 

[phantom13]

Yeah, I reckon the only thing that's changed heaps is the athletic profiling and maybe some psychometric stuff. It can make the water cloudy. Recruiters get seduced by stats and ignore their eyes.

Aspects have absolutely improved, some aspects have argurably gotten worse (skin folds were a pretty important metric for application and professionalism imo).

Arguing that in 2000 it was some old codger trawling the local results in the HUN is just ****ing bizarre.

 

[phantom13]

But we all know the AFL have a secret colonels 11 herb and arsenic recipe that they tweak at will…

Stock up on vaseline, just in case.

See a bit of pegging in our future do you?

 

[Yabadoo22]

Still a long way to go this year, but early days I reckon list changes may look something like this:

Jones- delisted

Allison- delisted (unless he somehow continues to kick bags)

Byrnes- 50/50 delisted

Ross- 50/50 retired (moved on)

Membrey- see Ross

Paton- playing for his career (delisted)

McLennan- 50/50 delisted

Campbell- 50/50 retired

Hotton and Heath I'd give one more year, next year is make or break for them.

 

[akaifu]

Still a long way to go this year, but early days I reckon list changes may look something like this:

Jones- delisted

Allison- delisted (unless he somehow continues to kick bags)

Byrnes- 50/50 delisted

Ross- 50/50 retired (moved on)

Membrey- see Ross

Paton- playing for his career (delisted)

McLennan- 50/50 delisted

Campbell- 50/50 retired

Hotton and Heath I'd give one more year, next year is make or break for them.

Agree with all except McLennan. I'd give him one more, he's developing well and could be the long-term Webster replacement. Isn't he category B too so doesn't really impact our list spots?

 

[kernelT]

See a bit of pegging in our future do you?

ROLF levels.

Gotta git dem magic beans tho.

 

[joydivision22]

I’m comfortable to accept your benchmarks/metrics for ‘Star’ Phantom as it certainly strengthens my summation.

If top 5 picks return a Star 50% of the time, the remaining say, 70 picks return maybe 1-2 players of equal quality at best.

There is of course an exponential diminishing expectation for each pick and the success of any pick range should be measured against itself from previous years.

Like another poster mentioned, we are in the star market and it is bleedingly obvious whichever way draft history is manipulated, stk only has one way to find one, in the top 5.

 

[phantom13]

I’m comfortable to accept your benchmarks/metrics for ‘Star’ Phantom as it certainly strengthens my summation.

If top 5 picks return a Star 50% of the time, the remaining say, 70 picks return maybe 1-2 players of equal quality at best.

There is of course an exponential diminishing expectation for each pick and the success of any pick range should be measured against itself from previous years.

Like another poster mentioned, we are in the star market and it is bleedingly obvious whichever way draft history is manipulated, stk only has one way to find one, in the top 5.

There is absolutely no question it’s diminishing returns outside the top 5, complete agreement on that. This link shows games played and it’s hugely skewed to top 5 (pick 6 is a ****ing wasteland too).

AFL Draft Picks Broken Down by Pick Number - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[gringo2011]

There is absolutely no question it’s diminishing returns outside the top 5, complete agreement on that. This link shows games played and it’s hugely skewed to top 5 (pick 6 is a ******* wasteland too).

AFL Draft Picks Broken Down by Pick Number - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

That's right. Pick 6 is the pick of death and 40 is the sweet spot. Statistical anomalies.

 

[kernelT]

Since 2000 we've managed to draft 15 odd players (ND) who have played or look like playing 200 AFL games…

Ball
NDS
Goddard
Fisher
Gilbert
McEvoy
Stanley
Cripps
Ross
Newnes
*Billings
*Acres
*Gresham
*Battle
*King

2021 looking good but early days.

From the rare times we've managed to pick the right players, we've more often than not moved them on or they've walked for little to no gain.

You can argue the toss on where you rank the quality of some of these players, but 200 games is a fair indicator of an excellent career and ROI. It doesn't happen very often and when it does, we usually throw it away like a drunk playing two-up.