List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading

[jimvic]

Surely Hayward is a need if we see Rachele and Rankine as full time midfielders.

Rachele needs to lose some weight if he is going to be a full time mid

 

[CrowToon]

Im not saying at all that we would ever get Lukosius but why on earth are media still reporting we would offer 2 firsts for Petty. Surely the lower hanging fruit would be 2 firsts for Luko. Anyway I don't think we will get either but it's just a timely reminder that the media sucks and Sack Nicks.

 

[FR0GGY]

He's a bit of a whipping boy on the Sydney board. Well polarising at least.

I don't watch him that closely, but he seems to make good decisions and has some polish. Kicks goals. A footballer - we need more of that.

I'd have him, a clear upgrade on Murphy.

Yeah but Sydney’s whipping boy is levels above ours.

 

[Redline]

I think we will want Petty but might have other priorities this year. Anyone able to see how we get Draper, Walsh and Petty?

I'd take Heyward as we have the Cap space that we have to spend but he wouldn't be a priority.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think we will want Petty but might have other priorities this year. Anyone able to see how we get Draper, Walsh and Petty?

I'd take Heyward as we have the Cap space that we have to spend but he wouldn't be a priority.

Yeah it's a tricky one

He's undoubtedly quality but seems a player you'd look to add when you've already got the core sorted.

 

[Trigger13]

What in the world?

This year Hayward average 1.6 goals per game to Murphy's 0 goals per game.

Hayward is averaging 1.4 tackles inside 50 (31st in AFL) per game to Murphy's .3

Hawyward is averaging 1.6 marks inside 50 per game to Murphys .3

Hayward is averaging 11.6 disposals to Murphy's 8 disposals.

Hayward does all of the important things a small forward should do.

Sorry, I was referring to his career stats. Daniel Hoyne from Champion data confirmed my suspicions about Hayward this week when he said Hayward does not meet statistical expectations for his role.

 

[Vader]

LDU - $13-$15m for a 10 year contract is what they said.

10 years is ridiculous, for a player who will be 25 by the time they join the club. Yes, Brent Harvey & Dustin Fletcher played to that age, but they're in a very, very, very, small minority. The reality is that they'd likely be paying him $1M+ to watch from the grandstands for the last 2-3 years of the contract.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yeah it's a tricky one

He's undoubtedly quality but seems a player you'd look to add when you've already got the core sorted.

Getting your Full Back right is a core component of your team structure .....MELB traded Hogan to get Stephen May, and then overpayed for Lever

Of course Petty has looked average this year .....a) he's coming back from a major injury ....and b) he's a backman only, only a fwd as an in-game tactical move

 

[AFC979810]

Sorry, I was referring to his career stats. Daniel Hoyne from Champion data confirmed my suspicions about Hayward this week when he said Hayward does not meet statistical expectations for his role.

Probably more relevant to look at the last couple of years at most for these two though right?

Since Rd 1 of 2022 - Hayward has kicked 70 goals. Murphy has kicked 21 goals.

Since Rd 1 of 2022 - Hayward has 28 goal assists. Murphy has 26 goal assists

Since Rd 1 of 2022 - Hayward has 69 tackles inside 50. Murphy has 37 tackles inside 50.

Since Rd 1 of 2022 - Hayward has 20 games with multiple goals. Murphy has 2 games with multiple goals.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Getting your Full Back right is a core component of your team structure .....MELB traded Hogan to get Stephen May, and then overpayed for Lever

Of course Petty has looked average this year .....a) he's coming back from a major injury ....and b) he's a backman only, only a fwd as an in-game tactical move

That post was about Hayward but I really like Petty, was keen for us to get him last year

However seeing Keane shine, Petty struggle and Murray still to return has me wondering whether he'd be worth the cost.

If he's not going to be a top line foward for us...?

 

[Carn The Texan]

10 years is ridiculous, for a player who will be 25 by the time they join the club. Yes, Brent Harvey & Dustin Fletcher played to that age, but they're in a very, very, very, small minority. The reality is that they'd likely be paying him $1M+ to watch from the grandstands for the last 2-3 years of the contract.

I think the claim was made for clicks rather than from any logical reasoning. Contracting somebody to 31-32 I could stomach.

That post was about Hayward but I really like Petty, was keen for us to get him last year

However seeing Keane shine, Petty struggle and Murray still to return has me wondering whether he'd be worth the cost.

If he's not going to be a top line foward for us...?

Handy Himmelberg replacement?

 

[skam85]

Bicks is taking a break from BF for a bit.

He posted on Monday, he's ignoring us

 

[WaynesWorld19]

That post was about Hayward but I really like Petty, was keen for us to get him last year

However seeing Keane shine, Petty struggle and Murray still to return has me wondering whether he'd be worth the cost.

If he's not going to be a top line foward for us...?

There isn't an AFL Club that would chase Petty as a FWD .....MELB only doing it out of desperation

Brown is shot ....McDonald only plays when it's Contract time .....and Van Rooyen is still developing

 

[Vader]

But that's the whole point

It wasn't silly

Sitting out of drafts as we've done in the past, or picking the old guy before Carmichael like we did who was no chance of ever playing a game (and was instantly delisted). That's silly.

Heck, Collingwood have still got him on their list. Even their misses kick our butt

You're conflating 2 separate issues.

Carmichael & Turner are both busts, even if Carmichael is still on Collingwood's list. We were wrong to select Turner, but correct in not picking Carmichael.

The big question is whether there was anyone selected in that draft who has actually turned out to be a decent player? Was there someone who we missed out on, who could/should have been identified by our recruiting team? If we're really talking about a pool of duds, then why get excited about whether or not we choose a player at all?

With 4 players who are now MIA for the rest of the season, we probably should be looking to use 2 selections in the MSD, if only to improve our list depth. I'd suggest that one of them should be a ruck, given our dearth of options in that particular position.

 

[aabp1978]

You're conflating 2 separate issues.

Carmichael & Turner are both busts, even if Carmichael is still on Collingwood's list. We were wrong to select Turner, but correct in not picking Carmichael.

The big question is whether there was anyone selected in that draft who has actually turned out to be a decent player? Was there someone who we missed out on, who could/should have been identified by our recruiting team? If we're really talking about a pool of duds, then why get excited about whether or not we choose a player at all?

With 4 players who are now MIA for the rest of the season, we probably should be looking to use 2 selections in the MSD, if only to improve our list depth. I'd suggest that one of them should be a ruck, given our dearth of options in that particular position.

If it is a ruckman, surely Murray the best option from the SANFL?

 

[Vader]

If it is a ruckman, surely Murray the best option from the SANFL?

He'd definitely be one of the candidates they would be considering... but I would be very disappointed if they weren't casting a wider net. We want the best ruckman available, not just the one under our noses. Murray may be the best, in which case I hope they draft him, but I also want them doing their due diligence in case there's someone better out there.

 

[BunjiMC]

He'd definitely be one of the candidates they would be considering... but I would be very disappointed if they weren't casting a wider net. We want the best ruckman available, not just the one under our noses. Murray may be the best, in which case I hope they draft him, but I also want them doing their due diligence in case there's someone better out there.

Maybe we play better when we have brothers on our list....

Crouch brothers
Win: 84
Loss: 60

Jarman brothers
Win:8
Loss:14

Overall:
Win: 92
Loss: 74

 

[dogs105]

SANFL watchers:

Kobe Ryan?

 

[Vader]

Looking at the MSD selections, there are a few things which stand out.

• The 2021 MSD was easily the best, with 9 of 22 players selected having played 10+ matches. Of these, Jai Newcombe (pick #2) is easily the most successful of all the MSD draftees.
• In 2022, only 3 of 17 players achieved 10+ matches.
• From the 2023 MSD, only 3 of 14 players selected have played a single AFL game.
• Essendon & Hawthorn have done the best out of the MSD, well ahead of the other clubs.

The 2021 MSD contained a large number of players who had been overlooked as a result of the COVID affected 2020 season, when there were almost no U18 games played. The club recruiters had limited information to work from when making selections in the 2020 ND, so there was an unusually high amount of talent still available.

Since then, it's been slim pickings.

Clubs shouldn't be making MSD selections just for the sake of doing so. They should only do so if they can identify a player who they think has the ability to make it at AFL level. History shows that there's not much talent left by the time the ND, PSD, RD, and PSSP have all been & gone. By that stage the talent pool has been picked almost clean.

In short, it's really not worth getting emotional over whether or not the club picks a player in the MSD, because the talent pool is generally so thin that the odds of MSD players making it are very low.

 

[Checksider]

Is our seeming obsession with drafting “good family” and “good character” kids because we don’t rate our culture as strong enough to take anyone who is an ounce of trouble under our collective wing and help them?

Most of the other clubs seem to manage just fine.

 

[Redline]

Getting your Full Back right is a core component of your team structure .....MELB traded Hogan to get Stephen May, and then overpayed for Lever

Of course Petty has looked average this year .....a) he's coming back from a major injury ....and b) he's a backman only, only a fwd as an in-game tactical move

I agree but I think the issue is do you get Petty and miss out on a one of the better mifielders in the draft who is local. If we can do Petty, Walsh and Draper then I'm happy.

 

[George Kramer]

Getting your Full Back right is a core component of your team structure .....MELB traded Hogan to get Stephen May, and then overpayed for Lever

Of course Petty has looked average this year .....a) he's coming back from a major injury ....and b) he's a backman only, only a fwd as an in-game tactical move

Murray and Keane not good enough?

Where do you think the club has in mind to play Curtin?

Given our midfield woes, to suggest using valuable draft capital on another key defender is incompetent list management but hey, we’ve shown we are good at that, so they most probably agree with you

 

[Bob Neil]

Looking at the MSD selections, there are a few things which stand out.

• The 2021 MSD was easily the best, with 9 of 22 players selected having played 10+ matches. Of these, Jai Newcombe (pick #2) is easily the most successful of all the MSD draftees.
• In 2022, only 3 of 17 players achieved 10+ matches.
• From the 2023 MSD, only 3 of 14 players selected have played a single AFL game.
• Essendon & Hawthorn have done the best out of the MSD, well ahead of the other clubs.

The 2021 MSD contained a large number of players who had been overlooked as a result of the COVID affected 2020 season, when there were almost no U18 games played. The club recruiters had limited information to work from when making selections in the 2020 ND, so there was an unusually high amount of talent still available.

Since then, it's been slim pickings.

Clubs shouldn't be making MSD selections just for the sake of doing so. They should only do so if they can identify a player who they think has the ability to make it at AFL level. History shows that there's not much talent left by the time the ND, PSD, RD, and PSSP have all been & gone. By that stage the talent pool has been picked almost clean.

In short, it's really not worth getting emotional over whether or not the club picks a player in the MSD, because the talent pool is generally so thin that the odds of MSD players making it are very low.

Whilst I agree Vader with all of your facts and much of your opinions I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion that you've drawn that "it's really not worth getting emotional over whether or not the club picks a player in the MSD".

The reason for this is the inherent paradox between the fact that "the odds of (any one) MSD players making it are very low" versus the fact that this is a recurring event and therefore the odds of selecting (one or more) AFL grade players are actually heavily in our favour over a multi-year horizon.

We can all quibble over what is the measure of success for an MSD (or any other selection) - you've shared some stats above on the probability from '21/22 of playing 20+ matches (9/22 + 3/17 = 12/39 ≈ 30%).

The facts are that if you have a 30% shot at success at an event (i.e. picking an AFL grade player in the MSD) then if you repeat that event multiple times (i.e. you take two players per year for five years) then at the end of that period statistically you are likely to have drafted three AFL grade players (i.e. the other seven are 'duds'). The chances of finding NO good players are only 2.5%. There's a one in six chance of finding five or more players (i.e. a quarter of your team) in this way.

So despite the fact that no single player/selection is likely to work out it is undeniably logical to continue trying this pathway because the odds are overwhelmingly in our favour - especially when you add in the fact that the asset of a list spot is a perishable good and so (like a retirement such as Sloane or a LTI) if not used will simply be wasted.

 

[Scorpus]

Whilst I agree Vader with all of your facts and much of your opinions I fundamentally disagree with the conclusion that you've drawn that "it's really not worth getting emotional over whether or not the club picks a player in the MSD".

The reason for this is the inherent paradox between the fact that "the odds of (any one) MSD players making it are very low" versus the fact that this is a recurring event and therefore the odds of selecting (one or more) AFL grade players are actually heavily in our favour over a multi-year horizon.

We can all quibble over what is the measure of success for an MSD (or any other selection) - you've shared some stats above on the probability from '21/22 of playing 20+ matches (9/22 + 3/17 = 12/39 ≈ 30%).

The facts are that if you have a 30% shot at success at an event (i.e. picking an AFL grade player in the MSD) then if you repeat that event multiple times (i.e. you take two players per year for five years) then at the end of that period statistically you are likely to have drafted three AFL grade players (i.e. the other seven are 'duds'). The chances of finding NO good players are only 2.5%. There's a one in six chance of finding five or more players (i.e. a quarter of your team) in this way.

So despite the fact that no single player/selection is likely to work out it is undeniably logical to continue trying this pathway because the odds are overwhelmingly in our favour - especially when you add in the fact that the asset of a list spot is a perishable good and so (like a retirement such as Sloane or a LTI) if not used will simply be wasted.

Also by not selecting a player in the MSD the chances of getting a good player in the MSD are precisely zero

 

[AFC979810]

Clubs shouldn't be making MSD selections just for the sake of doing so.

100% they should. Its a 100% absolute free hit - with zero downside.