List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion

[phantom13]

So at this point Nas looks gone, TDK seems inevitable which means we will trade Marshall. Aleer also seems likely. Fingers crossed we don't also lose Windy along with Nas.

Bergman and a future first for Nas would be my guess (yuck), though it could be something like Berry, a future first and a second rounder (gross).

2026 likely team?

B: Stocker, Aleer, Tauru
HB: Sinclair, Wilkie, Hastie
C: Hill, Steele, Windhager
HF: Hall, Caminiti, Sharman
F: Higgins, King, Owens

Foll: TDK, Macrae, Bergman
Int: Wilson, Henry, Phillipou, Wood, Garcia

Not particularly inspiring. Plenty of foot soldiers but our one genuine star is gone and we've swapped our ruck for a similar player who costs twice as much but is two years younger. I really think Aleer is surplus to needs considering we have Wilkie, Caminiti and Tauru looking like a good defensive lineup with Howard and Barrat in reserve.

I still think Camma plays back as the lockdown and Keeler plays as the back up ruck but otherwise thats how i see it.

It's a fair return but as Port fans will point out when a player requests a trade you very rarely get back their actual value. Doubt we are going to be happy with the return if he goes.

I dont think Bergman + 1 or Berry + 2 is actually fair, both are unders for Nas. Theyre just not laughably bad.

 

[phantom13]

We have enough money for Aleer on $750k, Nas on whatever he wants, TDK on $1.8m AND Rowell (understanding he’s not coming) on $2m, none of these deals were or are at the expense of the other.

We also have players OOC that have earned bumps. Were risking losing them at this point (assuming what youre saying is true)

 

[akaifu]

Something that noone in the media seems to be talking about (despite the fact that they spend every waking moment taking about trades) is that you can now trade firsts two years ahead. We could ask for Ports R1 for 2025, 26 and 27.

That's not the issue

I believe the issue is that Port haven't used enough first rounders the past few years because of the JHF trade so will need approval from the AFL to trade their 26 and 27 firsts

 

[akaifu]

I strongly disagree re Boyd, he was the worst list decsion the club have made for sometime. Just like Campbell you acheive nothing having list cloggers (with no future) on your list just because they might be needed. Look what has evolved with Max Heath and Dodson getting opportunity they are beginning to thrive. When you have cloggers like Boyd the club are obligated to play them at VFL, starving the future players of opportunity.

Have you seen Luke Blakiston running around with Essendon the past few weeks, he was the other state league ruckman option available when to chose Boyd. The irony is Luke has been playing a key defender role rather than rucking - thats been done by Visentini another promising kid who was under our noses and we over looked. Blakiston hasnt been setting the world on fire but at least he has proven some versatility and athletic traits something to work with, Boyd is like watching a slower smaller version of Campbell who cant take an over head mark.

Just to be paint a further picture Vigo Visentini 204cm was taken at pick #8 in the 2023 rookie draft, after playing in a winning Sandringham Dragons side mostly as a key forward - relieving ruck.

The club got the recruitment of Boyd very very wrong, list cloggers or break glass type players take you no where!

The point of recruiting Boyd was to ensure that we have a mature player who can play if Marshall goes down with injury - which was looking a real possibility in pre-season given he did pretty much none of it because of his back

There were still question marks over Heath's ability to get around the ground and match the intensity of AFL rucking and Dodson was a first-year ruckman

It was either Boyd or some other low-percentage recruit - like another Jack Carroll or a rookie draftee

The club did the right thing ensuring there's enough depth. The opportunity cost wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be imo

In the end, Heath has debuted and Dodson is dominating. I don't see the issue

 

[Jade Buddha]

I still think Camma plays back as the lockdown and Keeler plays as the back up ruck but otherwise thats how i see it.

I dont think Bergman + 1 or Berry + 2 is actually fair, both are unders for Nas. Theyre just not laughably bad.

I’d be insisting on both Bergman and Berry.

 

[littlecreatures]

Fwiw I agree and have said as much about Ross and co. And giving them the time but 2025 is another wasted year, his timeline for any form of measurable success is condensed, a poster the other day suggested extending his contract now, frankly that’s ****ing insane.

He’s got until 2027 and we shouldn’t even consider extending him until late 2027 based on where we are at (short of him winning a flag next year).

I don’t really agree, finishing 15th and talk of trading Marshall is rebuild.

No club ever really formally tells supporters this, we make assumptions from ladder positions and list management strategies but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that wasn’t calling what we did a “soft rebuild” or “retool” was another one.

Ross came in 2023 so he’s had 2 and 1/2 seasons, if you wanna preach some patience with him and his current tenure that’s fair, he has a contract until 2027 and we’ve handed him the keys, it would be silly to pull the trigger on anything with him right now but we were absolutely supposed to be seeing something out of him and his list by now, not a bottom 6 finish.

With all due respect, and I’m not targeting you specifically here, but this mentally is exactly the issue. 15 years of mostly shit but this time it’ll be different… even though we’re bottom 6. If by 2027 we’re still shit we will still have true believers either backing in another 5 years of Ross or backing in some new coach for another 5 year rebuild.

It’s basically north Melbourne at this point, just accept mediocrity because we’ve got some nice kids.

Yeah, look, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the extent of extending Ross contract further and agree we need to see measurable signs of improvement by 2026-27, amongst rectifying other issues. I also don’t subscribe to our season being derailed by a perennially injured KPF, a KPD arguably about to be delisted, and a 20 year old mid/fwd showing potential with relatively small bouts of form.

However, given we’re working through resolving firmly entrenched list issues spanning 15 years I’m also not expecting Ross to wave magic dust and be the first AFL coach to rebuild a list in the span of 2-3 seasons.

And, of course it’s a rebuild, call it whatever you like, I don’t think we need to get caught up in semantics, but the reality is we’ve cut close to half our list since Ross arrived, and I don’t think there’s many who would argue it’s been unnecessary (overdue if anything).

So, out of curiosity, what’s your assessment of a reasonable timeline for this footy department to develop a list to compete and challenge? Noting there hasn’t been another side capable of developing an AFL list in the span of less than 3 years which we’re now hitting (e.g., Fremantle 10 and counting, Adelaide now 6 years, Hawthorn 5-6 years, etc.).

Sydney is probably the closest example you’ll find with theirs on the softer side and even then they had the luxury of top end academy access as well as their core pillars sitting across a slightly younger demographic.

And, Marshall could be traded as we clearly need access to talent (through the draft or free agency), which means draft capital, and we’ve got a ready made replacement at 25 years of age who by all intent and purpose we’ll have for another what 6-7 years. It’s an odd point of reference given we would hardly be going back to the draft to replace him with a 18-19 year old (many would argue TDK is an upgrade).

And, fair enough making an assumption on the list strategy, but to say “the club promised me a soft rebuild” (not yourself personally) and they aren’t delivering said assumptions is a bit of a stretch when (a) they didn’t promise it in the first place, and (b) it evidently hasn’t been a soft rebuild as shown by the broader list transitions since Ross arrived.

I agree, it has been 15 years of shit, which could’ve prevented this mess to begin with, and we do deserve better, but to turn over a whole new football department then expect them to wave some magic dust and get this list cooking in the space of 2 seasons is somewhat unrealistic or otherwise counter productive to bring in another new footy department all over again because we can’t fathom seeing this out and want relatively short term outcomes.

I wouldn’t be calling it a “mentality” either which is painting others with a fairly broad brush without taking a deeper dive but each to their own I guess.

 

[Diehard Saint]

That's not the issue

The issue is that I believe Port haven't used enough first rounders the past few years because of the JHF trade so will need approval from the AFL to trade their 26 and 27 firsts

If it means the Saints losing NAS, and you know, being bagged by all and sundry for being unable to keep a star player, I’m sure the AFL will have no problem doing it. ( only half serious before everybody’s @‘s me)

Kind of like that moron Port poster saying we “don’t deserve to have him”

 

[westernsainter]

That's not the issue

I believe the issue is that Port haven't used enough first rounders the past few years because of the JHF trade so will need approval from the AFL to trade their 26 and 27 firsts

Coasters went three years straight without using a first and no one blinked an eye - AFL will wave it through with little fanfare. Port used a first last year anyway.

 

[St Neil]

It's a fair return but as Port fans will point out when a player requests a trade you very rarely get back their actual value. Doubt we are going to be happy with the return if he goes.

It doesn’t matter what Port fans think. Reading some of their comments their bon mots aren’t worth a pinch of cold water.

NWM will only leave if a deal WILL be facilitated between St Kilda and Port Adelaide. That is the fact people seem to be overlooking with their prognostications. He won’t go anywhere near the draft to get to his preferred destination.

It may not be known if a deal can be done between the two clubs for a little while (if in fact NWM wants to go home now). There may be discussions going on behind the scenes.

But if I was Port Adelaide I really wouldn’t be short changing St Kilda. Because if they do our blokes (SOS and Gubby) will hold out and that could prompt NAS to get nervous or disillusioned with the nominated party and to re-sign with the Saints short term.

If Port wants their man, and he wants to go there, then they should just pay the price to get it done quickly, even if it means paying overs. Don’t risk him getting nervous and changing his mind.

Sometimes the assumption that the losing club for an OOC player has no negotiating power is based on the assumption that the player himself won’t change his mind. That can’t be assumed with Nasiah (based on various reports). He loves the club and has close ties with people there.

I don’t expect Nasiah to re-sign for a while. But IMO if he does leave St Kilda it will be on the proviso that he knows in advance that a deal between the two clubs will be reached to everyone’s satisfaction. Otherwise I can see him agreeing to a short term deal to stay with the Saints.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Hes also a victim of body language at times. He can look disinterested and even annoyed alot of the time.

Externally he just doesnt present like a club captain at all (clearly his leadership qualities are massively rated internally cause hes been voted as such for a few years running now).

You’d prefer him to be smiling when we’re playing like sh*t?
Ot maybe annoyed with his body playing up?
What does disinterested look like? Very easy accusation to make.
Not making contests enough? Maybe physically hindered?

Very easy to make judgements from the stands or the couch.

 

[jwikked]

The point of recruiting Boyd was to ensure that we have a mature player who can play if Marshall goes down with injury - which was looking a real possibility in pre-season given he did pretty much none of it because of his back

There were still question marks over Heath's ability to get around the ground and match the intensity of AFL rucking and Dodson was a first-year ruckman

It was either Boyd or some other low-percentage recruit - like another Jack Carroll or a rookie draftee

The club did the right thing ensuring there's enough depth. The opportunity cost wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be imo

In the end, Heath has debuted and Dodson is dominating. I don't see the issue

I'm surprised Marshall hasn't broken down over the last 3 years. He's been constantly hurt, but plays through it. Very impressive stuff.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Something that noone in the media seems to be talking about (despite the fact that they spend every waking moment taking about trades) is that you can now trade firsts two years ahead. We could ask for Ports R1 for 2025, 26 and 27.

So lose our best player and have to wait another 1, 2 and 3 years to get young players we still have to develop while Tassie gets all the prime picks?
No thanks.

 

[SainterEire]

Wow not inspired with King 1st tall target, Marshall 2nd banana and Sharman B3. Hall and Higgo smalls. Owens the pack slitter.
If NAS goes I’d be working on Berry to add to that mix as well as Berg.

Well considering we've had 5/6 available this year and not exactly lit the scoreboard up, yes, it's kind of uninspiring

 

[phantom13]

If it means the Saints losing NAS, and you know, being bagged by all and sundry for being unable to keep a star player, I’m sure the AFL will have no problem doing it. ( only half serious before everybody’s @‘s me)

Kind of like that moron Port poster saying we “don’t deserve to have him”

Two futures is still garbage tbh. Part of me hopes the AFL says no to them so they have to actually ****ing work for it.

 

[saintbill]

Can we please stop mentioning Berry in any trade discussion for NAS, it's too depressing.

Sure, it's year 1 but he has looked seriously ordinary this year. No thanks.

 

[_Maximus_12]

We also have players OOC that have earned bumps. Were risking losing them at this point (assuming what youre saying is true)

we’re not going to lose anyone because of money

 

[Diehard Saint]

we’re not going to lose anyone because of money

Liking your posts.
You sound ITK.
Gut feel on NAS?

 

[mad-saint-guy]

I still think Camma plays back as the lockdown and Keeler plays as the back up ruck but otherwise thats how i see it.

I hope you're right regarding Hammer as I think he has far greater scope to become a good defender vs forward, but I can't see us playing him, Aleer, Wilkie and Tauru in the same backline. I'd rather just stick with the three that we have (plus senior backup Howard and developing tall Barrat) rather than spending significant cap and draft capital on Aleer.

Also, for people talking about how we can easily afford to get TDK and Aleer while re-signing Nas etc etc...that's an incredibly short-sighted view. Having a huge chunk of your cap tied up in a few massive long term contracts simply doesn't end well. Then you'd start to see players being told that they have to accept below market value if they want to stay in a few years. I have no doubt that we'd see players hitting their prime mid TDK/King contracts leaving the club so they can be paid fair market value. We already lowballed Battle last year and it sounds like we're doing the same to Windy right now - this is how cap space is kept open for our "big fish"

 

[SaintsofSteel]

The point of recruiting Boyd was to ensure that we have a mature player who can play if Marshall goes down with injury - which was looking a real possibility in pre-season given he did pretty much none of it because of his back

There were still question marks over Heath's ability to get around the ground and match the intensity of AFL rucking and Dodson was a first-year ruckman

It was either Boyd or some other low-percentage recruit - like another Jack Carroll or a rookie draftee

The club did the right thing ensuring there's enough depth. The opportunity cost wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be imo

In the end, Heath has debuted and Dodson is dominating. I don't see the issue

Again I disagree.

Boyd was never going to able to fill Campbells role let alone Marshall. The club and people like yourself got carried away because he won the Magarey, but he would be the worst player ever to do so. Blind freddy could see his game was never going to translate to the AFL, the guy is under sized and as a slow as an iceberg.

The issue is we could have added a player of worth with a FUTURE to the list, rather than a guy who will be the first delisted at years end. Just like the Cordy experience, what has that achieved moving into the future - zip.

 

[phantom13]

Yeah, look, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the extent of extending Ross contract further and agree we need to see measurable signs of improvement by 2026-27, amongst rectifying other issues. I also don’t subscribe to our season being derailed by a perennially injured KPF, a KPD arguably about to be delisted, and a 20 year old mid/fwd showing potential with relatively small bouts of form.

However, given we’re working through resolving firmly entrenched list issues spanning 15 years I’m also not expecting Ross to wave magic dust and be the first AFL coach to rebuild a list in the span of 2-3 seasons.

And, of course it’s a rebuild, call it whatever you like, I don’t think we need to get caught up in semantics, but the reality is we’ve cut close to half our list since Ross arrived, and I don’t think there’s many who would argue it’s been unnecessary (overdue if anything).

So, out of curiosity, what’s your assessment of a reasonable timeline for this footy department to develop a list to compete and challenge? Noting there hasn’t been another side capable of developing an AFL list in the span of less than 3 years which we’re now hitting (e.g., Fremantle 10 and counting, Adelaide now 6 years, Hawthorn 5-6 years, etc.).

Sydney is probably the closest example you’ll find with theirs on the softer side and even then they had the luxury of top end academy access as well as their core pillars sitting across a slightly younger demographic.

And, Marshall could be traded as we clearly need access to talent (through the draft or free agency), which means draft capital, and we’ve got a ready made replacement at 25 years of age who by all intent and purpose we’ll have for another what 6-7 years. It’s an odd point of reference given we would hardly be going back to the draft to replace him with a 18-19 year old (many would argue TDK is an upgrade).

And, fair enough making an assumption on the list strategy, but to say “the club promised me a soft rebuild” (not yourself personally) and they aren’t delivering said assumptions is a bit of a stretch when (a) they didn’t promise it in the first place, and (b) it evidently hasn’t been a soft rebuild as shown by the broader list transitions since Ross arrived.

I agree, it has been 15 years of shit, which could’ve prevented this mess to begin with, and we do deserve better, but to turn over a whole new football department then expect them to wave some magic dust and get this list cooking in the space of 2 seasons is somewhat unrealistic or otherwise counter productive to bring in another new footy department all over again because we can’t fathom seeing this out and want relatively short term outcomes.

I wouldn’t be calling it a “mentality” either which is painting others with a fairly broad brush without taking a deeper dive but each to their own I guess.

Good post, will do my best to respond piece by piece.

No real comment on the first few paras, measured and reasonable, mostly agree with it all.

On the "rebuild" thing. Whether the club announced it or not EVERYONE viewed the work being done as not at all a full rebuild. Re tool, Re shape, light sand and paint, whatever it was not supposed to be a total bottom out rebuild (even my old sparring partner stavro#4 and i came to that agreement and we agree on absolutely nothing) so call it semantics but in reality its a shift in approach that requires more time and more patience. Im not against it but its gotta be noted as a change.

I think to answer the next bit its important to view what we were SUPPOSED to do last/this year (i guess according to me but really what the general view was) 24 we dipped, we dumped Battle for an extra pick and 25 we were supposed to be pushing into the bottom half of the 8 to show growth for the potential FAs. 26 push on maybe get a home final and 27 onwards we should be genuinely challenging. That would mark 4 full season of Ross and into his 5th.

You can say that wasnt promised (im not sure i ever used the term promise anyway) but its absolutely what was understood and expected. Arguing they have never publically announced timeframes and goals isnt really good faith because short of "well win 3 flags by x year" no one ever announces, we fill in the blanks.

So rather than regressing further in 25 from 24 we were supposed to be improving. Now yeh sure reasons etc. but ladder positions dont care about reasons.

Now IMO (and because the previously understood "plan" is now shot to pieces my opinion is just mine) 26 has to be an improvement. The comp is more open than ever and next year really should be targeting the 6th-12th mire of teams. Natural development of the kids, Ross gameplan etc etc.

2027 we have to be playing finals and really we should be winning one. If were not Ross aint it.

I dont think we should do a thing on the coaching regardless of next year, with Ross until 2027 anyway. Extend OR fire.

I dont think im expecting magic, some sort of progression (which is never linear) though isnt unreasonable, weve gone backwards when we absolutely should have been going forwards.

The mentality comment is broad brush but im not gonna reply to every single ever optimistic supporter (and not all optimistics are the same just as not all pessimists are the same) but we absolutely do have some supporters that seem to think its happening and our kids are better than everyone elses and the close losses PROVE were progressing when in reality they dont. Its broad brush but if were gonna improve we shouldnt just assume its gonna happen and the 15th finish doesnt matter. It does, we need to review why it happened and change the shit that caused it (injury management etc) otherwise itll just happen again.

Im SURE the club will anyway, my commentary is more toward some supporters. Finishing bottom 6 aint acceptable even in a rebuuld you have to be looking at the whys.

 

[phantom13]

we’re not going to lose anyone because of money

We shouldnt NOW, if we singed TDK, Nas and Rowell (or Butters or whatever) i cant see how we wouldnt.

Wed need to be deciding who we can afford to lose at that point.

 

[akaifu]

Coasters went three years straight without using a first and no one blinked an eye - AFL will wave it through with little fanfare. Port used a first last year anyway.

They've used one in the last three years. If they trade their next 2 then thats one in five years

 

[akaifu]

Again I disagree.

Boyd was never going to able to fill Campbells role let alone Marshall. The club and people like yourself got carried away because he won the Magarey, but he would be the worst player ever to do so. Blind freddy could see his game was never going to translate to the AFL, the huy is under sized and as a slow as an iceberg.

The issue is we could have added a player of worth with a FUTURE to the list, rather than a guy who will be the first delisted at years end. Just like the Cordy experience, what has that achieved moving into the future - zip.

So if you recruit say a rookie midfielder from the draft instead of Boyd, what do you do in Round 1 when Marshall is hurt, Heath isn't ready, and Dodson is yet to play a VFL game as a first-year ruck?

 

[Mystifly]

I strongly disagree re Boyd, he was the worst list decsion the club have made for sometime. Just like Campbell you acheive nothing having list cloggers (with no future) on your list just because they might be needed. Look what has evolved with Max Heath and Dodson getting opportunity they are beginning to thrive. When you have cloggers like Boyd the club are obligated to play them at VFL, starving the future players of opportunity.

Have you seen Luke Blakiston running around with Essendon the past few weeks, he was the other state league ruckman option available when to chose Boyd. The irony is Luke has been playing a key defender role rather than rucking - thats been done by Visentini another promising kid who was under our noses and we over looked. Blakiston hasnt been setting the world on fire but at least he has proven some versatility and athletic traits something to work with, Boyd is like watching a slower smaller version of Campbell who cant take an over head mark.

Just to be paint a further picture Vigo Visentini 204cm was taken at pick #8 in the 2023 rookie draft, after playing in a winning Sandringham Dragons side mostly as a key forward - relieving ruck.

The club got the recruitment of Boyd very very wrong, list cloggers or break glass type players take you no where!

Unless you are ITK, I don't really see how you can say "we should've gone for X player," to me, based off what Ross has said before about Campbell and Boyd, is that they were both aware that joining the Saints was Marshall coverage, whilst Heath, Keeler and Dodson develop. I don't know whether recruiting Visentini as an 18yo makes sense as a back up, which every team needs. Brisbane have Fort, Hawthorn have Reeves, Fremantle have Reidy etc etc. The reality is that clubs DO use list spots on back up rucks, who are not best 23. The only reason Visentini has even played is because they lost Bryan and Draper for the season and 37 yo Goldstein needed a break.

Who knows what the conversations were with Blakiston, as you mentioned, he is playing full back (and had been in the VFL) - and maybe that is his preferred position, and why he joined the Bombers.

I understand what you mean by "don't waste a list spot," but we have been fortunate enough that the only query over Marshall was round 1, and having seen Heath, Dodson and Keeler all play main ruck in the VFL, they are not ready (but are developing nicely!)

 

[SainterinSydney]

Unless Tony says for us to start preparing ourselves for a life without Nas, he isn't leaving. Just because he hasn't re-signed this minute doesn't mean he is automatically going. There could be a myriad of reasons why it hasn't been announced--he is happy with 2 but we are trying to get him to sign for longer, they want to announce a group of players at once (Windy, Nas and Keeler), they may be waiting for us to have a win (we have been on a losing streak), Ben Williams causing delays to squeeze more money or the recent death in his family etc. etc. Who knows. All I can say is if the main player for our game plan for the next 5-10 years is going to leave and we believe so, our brain's trust don't look too worried--RTB in particular is pretty darn relaxed.

One last thing, has anyone heard any credible leak from an Adelaide club that he has indicated he wants to join them? I recall lots of leaks about Battle meeting with Sam Mitchell etc before he left.

Be patient!