List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion

[braddsey]

Likewise, a lot will depend on what the AFL decide to do with the West Coast compo stuff. If they allow them to sign Starce without ruining their Allen compensation that’ll screw us over massively. If they give them a mid first round pick that needs to be traded to us for Starce that’ll allow us to flip that into Ridley. Would imagine that’ll annoy quite a few other clubs though. Otherwise I like the idea of us paying Draper enough for band 1 in return for Essendon paying the difference on Ridley’s contract and maybe sending a future pick to them.

I can’t see how the AFL can allow WC to sign Starce without impacting their compensation - I reckon the Lions could threaten to take the AFL to court over it.
They can give WC an extra pick to use as they wish - it doesn’t need to be traded to us. This affects all clubs equally. WC can then figure out whatever trade deal required to get Starce (assuming he decides not re-sign).

 

[StevoJenkins]

Anyone else heard whispers of Sam Walsh and management enquiring about a move out of Carlton? Lions supporter growing up, bring him back home.

Where does he fit with Bailey, Marshall, Ashcrosfts, Annable, Fletcher and the other existing mids?

If we keep drafting/trading in mids, and not other positions, we'll end up like the Bulldogs with mids everywhere.
Would prefer not to be like the Bulldogs. They throw the ball a lot.

Not the player he was a couple of years ago, and I think our midfield is pretty full. Plus his salary would be hard to accommodate given we have needs elsewhere on the list.

To be fair, he's been a bit like Cripps 5/6 years ago, getting bashed around in that midfield.
Wherever he goes next, if he spent half a season getting his body right/healing up, we'd probably see his best again.

 

[Tom14]

Get on board the Riddler train or GET OFF THE GRASS

The Riddler train is a stalking horse for the DRAPER SIDE CAR so I will be putting level crossing after level crossing in its road.

 

[Nathan Barley]

When they say load up they don't mention 2 dependable, finals performers departing picking up 3 injury prone guys from losing cultures

Not saying it's a bad move just a very misleading headline

 

[Tom14]

Hopefully its solution like this that the AFL do actually take on board as outlined in Cal's article:

Lots of common sense suggestions in this. I don't like having to keep a first round pick to match a first round bid - just increase the points value and abolish the discount and make clubs have to work it out.

But removing the ability to trade to get extra picks during the draft is the most easy fix that makes it more equitable.

 

[braddsey]

Hopefully its solution like this that the AFL do actually take on board as outlined in Cal's article:

It’s just good to see a bit of sensible pushback from other clubs who are about to miss out on F/S if they change the rules.

Personally i like the rule of needing a round-1 pick to match a top-10 selection. I don’t like like the restriction on how many players you can pick up - if a club is near the bottom of the ladder then by default they have many more points and much better picks to work with. If a club near the bottom of the ladder has a couple of f/s or academy prospects then why shouldn’t they trade down a little and get access to some top talent.
The flipside is us - very difficult to trade into the first round.

I would also fix FA compo. No FA compo in the first round. Clubs will be bitter at losing top players - but then those clubs need to work harder to keep them.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

But removing the ability to trade to get extra picks during the draft is the most easy fix that makes it more equitable.

I've never understood why you can only take as many picks in as you have list spots, but as soon as the draft starts it doesn't matter. Although we've played that game well, it's always struck me as weird - you should only be able to have as many picks as spots.

 

[Tom14]

It’s just good to see a bit of sensible pushback from other clubs who are about to miss out on F/S if they change the rules.

Personally i like the rule of needing a round-1 pick to match a top-10 selection. I don’t like like the restriction on how many players you can pick up - if a club is near the bottom of the ladder then by default they have many more points and much better picks to work with. If a club near the bottom of the ladder has a couple of f/s or academy prospects then why shouldn’t they trade down a little and get access to some top talent.
The flipside is us - very difficult to trade into the first round.

I would also fix FA compo. No FA compo in the first round. Clubs will be bitter at losing top players - but then those clubs need to work harder to keep them.

Totally agree with that. Start FA compo from end of first round at least (I'd argue end of second round).

On 'retaining a first round pick' I get the appeal but at some point two second round picks IS worth more than a first round pick, the problem is the previous points values were calculated on really large draft classes and then covid happened and draft classes shrunk making it absurd how much late picks were worth.

For example, a very reasonable trade for a team to make would be to trade pick 14 for pick 22 and 26 if they had the view that the draft class was pretty even from 10-25 and wanted more shots at it. It is arbitrary to say that you should have to keep pick 14 to match a bid when any team could consider picks 22 and 26 to be worth more than pick 14.

Just adjust the points values correctly, get rid of being able to trade in more picks on draft night than you have list spots, and abolish the discount (after this year's draft, of course).

 

[Tom14]

I've never understood why you can only take as many picks in as you have list spots, but as soon as the draft starts it doesn't matter. Although we've played that game well, it's always struck me as weird - you should only be able to have as many picks as spots.

AFL wants draft night trades for content is the only explanation that makes sense. But these sort of draft night trades are very, very boring.

 

[mpal6]

I've never understood why you can only take as many picks in as you have list spots, but as soon as the draft starts it doesn't matter. Although we've played that game well, it's always struck me as weird - you should only be able to have as many picks as spots.

If they remove it, the draft night pick shuffle drama would be drastically cut down.
Not sure AFL would do that as it removes one of the selling points to media.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

When they say load up they don't mention 2 dependable, finals performers departing picking up 3 injury prone guys from losing cultures

Not saying it's a bad move just a very misleading headline

Seems to be commonly over looked at the moment, during all these calls of foul play. We’re in this position as you’ve outlined, and that’s not including Daniher’s or even Oscar’s potential situation.

Daniher by all account’s has left likely 1m in cap space this year, while still having the capacity to offer a similar contract to someone else, as we’re without any obvious successor.
That 1m saved this year, will put us in a position to potentially offer a 200k/5 year premium on a contract like Oscars. Likely makes the Oscar/Draper pick up an easy swap for Daniher/Oscar salaries.

Starce is clearly gone to WC, he is the only free agent they’ve been linked too ? They wouldn’t go to this effort asking for exemption without being well advanced in conversation with a player.
Ah Chee likely with not being signed already.
These players likely going probably gives us room to look at players like Ridley etc.

Shaping up as a big pre-season, think it’s more about rejuvenating the list rather than adding an abundance of talents like non supporter are concerned with.

 

[briztoon]

It’s just good to see a bit of sensible pushback from other clubs who are about to miss out on F/S if they change the rules.

Personally i like the rule of needing a round-1 pick to match a top-10 selection. I don’t like like the restriction on how many players you can pick up - if a club is near the bottom of the ladder then by default they have many more points and much better picks to work with. If a club near the bottom of the ladder has a couple of f/s or academy prospects then why shouldn’t they trade down a little and get access to some top talent.
The flipside is us - very difficult to trade into the first round.

I would also fix FA compo. No FA compo in the first round. Clubs will be bitter at losing top players - but then those clubs need to work harder to keep them.

Twomey is a big Essendon fanboi, and Essendon have a highly rated father son in 2027, along with the strongest nga zone that is stacked for 2025, 2026 & 2027.

 

[braddsey]

Totally agree with that. Start FA compo from end of first round at least (I'd argue end of second round).

On 'retaining a first round pick' I get the appeal but at some point two second round picks IS worth more than a first round pick, the problem is the previous points values were calculated on really large draft classes and then covid happened and draft classes shrunk making it absurd how much late picks were worth.

For example, a very reasonable trade for a team to make would be to trade pick 14 for pick 22 and 26 if they had the view that the draft class was pretty even from 10-25 and wanted more shots at it. It is arbitrary to say that you should have to keep pick 14 to match a bid when any team could consider picks 22 and 26 to be worth more than pick 14.

Just adjust the points values correctly, get rid of being able to trade in more picks on draft night than you have list spots, and abolish the discount (after this year's draft, of course).

Clubs will find loopholes if they're there. Of clubs know they're short on draft picks before they draft, they'll just shift more fringe players our and sign them after the draft, as they do today. Adjusting points value does help, but still leaves it open to exploitation in my mind.

The advantage of enforcing a first-round pick is that the inserted pick is replaced quicker so impacts fewer clubs.
Let's say GWS have an academy selection at pick-5 and currently hold pick-14. Then they use pick-14 to match, so pick-14 is inserted in front of pick-5, and all picks from pick-5 to pick-13 slide back 1, but by pick-15 everything is back on par.
Instead if they trade pick-14 to Essendon for 22 and 25, then GWS use 22 & 25 to match then all picks from pick-5 to pick-23 slide back 1, plus Essendon gets to trade up into round ahead of the clubs holding pick-15 to pick-21.
Combined with removing round-1 FA compensation and priority picks, it helps to ensure round-1 doesn't push past pick-20 (or out to pick-25 like last season).

It also helps to ensure that fewer picks are used for matching (as higher value picks must be used). Currently we hold 16,37,40,46,48 = 1695points, so we can match a bid on Annable at pick 5. We will exchange 5 low value picks for 1 high value pick, but then any picks after our pick 48 jump up by 4 picks, and increase in value by about 50 points each. (though we would be using a round-1 pick... so I guess it get's through anyway!).
If GC are to trade out their picks at 6 and 12 for a whole handful of picks in the 20's and 30's, these will be eaten up by bids for Uwland & Patterson. Assuming they exchange 6 picks for 2 picks, our picks jump up by 4 positions. So our 37,40,46,48 (=771 points) become 33,36,42,44 (=1068 points). We gain 300 points purely by GC consuming more low value picks to match their kids.
That problem could be resolved by not shifting picks up when a match happens - picks 16,37,40,46,48 would just be removed from the pool - but imagine trying to explain that to the media & general footy public!

 

[briztoon]

For example, a very reasonable trade for a team to make would be to trade pick 14 for pick 22 and 26 if they had the view that the draft class was pretty even from 10-25 and wanted more shots at it. It is arbitrary to say that you should have to keep pick 14 to match a bid when any team could consider picks 22 and 26 to be worth more than pick 14.

Just adjust the points values correctly, get rid of being able to trade in more picks on draft night than you have list spots, and abolish the discount (after this year's draft, of course).

We traded picks 20 & 25 in 2017 to move up to pick 15.

The new points system should see pretty reasonable trade backs for small points upgrades.

Teams should be able to trade picks, as long as they have the available list spots. Trade your first pick this year, will pretty much wipe you out of next year’s draft.

However, I can see the point of not having a compromised draft.

 

[Tom14]

We traded picks 20 & 25 in 2017 to move up to pick 15.

The new points system should see pretty reasonable trade backs for small points upgrades.

Teams should be able to trade picks, as long as they have the available list spots. Trade your first pick this year, will pretty much wipe you out of next year’s draft.

However, I can see the point of not having a compromised draft.

I think in the long run having the northern states run academies is a lot cheaper for the AFL than having to (a) fund them themselves (they won't do it) or (b) continually have to bail out clubs like us when we are bad or GC. They will also need academies for Tassie to start with too.

God help the AFL if GWS ever bottom out, the amount of money they'd have to pour in there to fix it would be absurd.

 

[SpecialBruce]

Can't see how it gets done

It will get done. It will be one of those situations where the two clubs know what it will take, and will be told to drag it out until the deadline, and it will happen five mins before.

 

[braddsey]

Totally agree with that. Start FA compo from end of first round at least (I'd argue end of second round).

The other element on FA compo is it discourages bottom of the ladder clubs from signing FA’s. The media are all about “the best FA’s going to from the bottom clubs to the top clubs”, but as West Coast have very clearly illustrated - they’re not going to sign a FA if it dilutes the very high draft pick they’ll get for pushing out their club captain. So it’s a situation created by the FA compensation rules.
Brisbane on the other hand happy to sign FA’s, even if we are at risk of losing Starce. The maximum pick 17 we would get for him isn’t nearly as valuable as WC’s pick-2.

 

[dlanod]

God help the AFL if GWS ever bottom out, the amount of money they'd have to pour in there to fix it would be absurd.

Might be able to get a seat in the members bar once more.

 

[GenericUsername202]

It is funny how we've become a destination club while Essendon is the rabble. Imagine telling this to this board back in 2015. You would probably get banned on site, lol

 

[janty]

Bailey for Caddy and Ridley should get it done.

 

[braddsey]

"Pull your socks up": Cornes questions Ridley amid trade desire

Jordan Ridley has expressed his desire to leave the club.

www.sen.com.au

I don't disagree with Kane Cornes at all regarding his thoughts about players signing long term deals only to want to be traded out; you can't have your cake and eat it, too which is what players and their managers are now commanding.

Of course clubs are well within their right to not even entertain a trade - if they’ve got the spine to do it. Curious as to why clubs don’t stand firm more often.

The player can choose to sit out the season (would be interesting to see if this is a breach of contract ), but other than that the player has no right to a trade.

 

[M Malice]

Bailey for Caddy and Ridley should get it done.

I still wouldn't do it.... unless Zac raised the possibility and wanted to go, if I was Ambrogio I would not even broach the subject with Zac, sends the wrong message.

 

[eaglevision]

Hey fellas. A possible return to WA for Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

32

Ht

177cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

and his family still doing the rounds here. Anyone got some solid mail on this? Presumably to bring in Oscar with possibly Draper and Ridley would require a fair amount of cap space and with your young midfield guns perhaps Neale shakes loose?

Please do Australia a favour and beat Geelong.

 

[lioninthesand]

I can’t see how the AFL can allow WC to sign Starce without impacting their compensation - I reckon the Lions could threaten to take the AFL to court over it.
They can give WC an extra pick to use as they wish - it doesn’t need to be traded to us. This affects all clubs equally. WC can then figure out whatever trade deal required to get Starce (assuming he decides not re-sign).

Bit of ‘restraint of trade!’

 

[M Malice]

Hey fellas. A possible return to WA for Lachie Neale and his family still doing the rounds here. Anyone got some solid mail on this? Presumably to bring in Oscar with possibly Draper and Ridley would require a fair amount of cap space and with your young midfield guns perhaps Neale shakes loose?

Please do Australia a favour and beat Geelong.

Lachie OOC next year, however if he wanted to go this year and become to the Eagles what Luke Hodge was for us the Lions would not stand in his way IMO... I do think it is a possibility and the chances would improve if we manage to get a 2nd flag this year.