List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[The Bighouse]

We've only got 1 spot available now.

Pretty sure we’re at 34 of 36 seniors ATM, including EH & MM, though he’s the only uncontracted.
3 ND picks (2 assumed givens) and/or upgrades.

IN (5): LR, CC, BA, WH, OF,
OUT (7): 1, 12, 14, 15, 19, 30, 31
^really needed to add an Acres, Binns to the numbers out &/or Motlop should not have been re-signed (at loss on this decision).

Rookies (7): 28*, 32, 36, 38*, 40, 44, 45*
*2 coming off you’d think.

 

[Sipahi]

Would be great to get Butters but I think there will be better targets come next year. We have Walsh who is a similar player to Butters and he is due for an extension next year anyway.

Gonna be hard to pay all of our young players in a few years time if they develop well. Does the AFL have a 'bird rights' rule like the NBA? If not, that wouldn't be a bad idea to implement.

 

[agro]

Whilst I don’t disagree need to consider the environment and culture they were brought into. Shocking for development. Worst in the league

Almost all of these players were rated at the picks we got them prior to draft

Whether these players would have made it is debatable but the environment they came into made it so much harder

Yes I have made the point that whilst our drafting has been below the AFL average it can’t be all due to our poor selections - development has been woeful and often counter productive.

Just point to Bolton’s pigheadedness in using Dow, O’Brien and Fisher together at the same time at Centre bounce attendances to “fast track” their development.

And then our “Teague Cat Bounce” where he sidelined all the younger players to “get results”.

No intelligent balance in either of those two coaches of our younger players, resulting in no development at all.

This doesn’t take into account historically what happened under Malthouse.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If you’re going to move to a 2 picks only model, you need to get rid of, or dramatically alter the DVI. It would remove flexibility, and fairness in terms of forward planning because you can’t know when a bid will come, and clubs can be bent over being forced to trade up. It also encourages players tanking, and other funny buggers.
It just becomes a much less fair system.

The Suns gave up a lot to be in the position they are for this year. They traded to be holding 3 Firsts, and then traded Flanders for pick 8.
Other clubs were able to benefit from the current rules which promote trading, and a relatively free market.

There seems to be 4 rough options:
1. Hold, match Dean when the bid comes and then use the 2nd pick that will slide into the teens
2. Live trade up ahead of the bid (Essendon the real option) with points back
3. Trade one out for a F1, and maybe a couple of extra points (might be quite tricky to find a buyer)
4. Trade heavy to get a top pick from WC or Tiges

I don’t know enough about the draftees, or how the next couple of weeks will play out to have a strong opinion, but I’m much less inclined to go option 4. I think it would e relatively expensive, and really limit our flexibility over the next 2 years.

So my priority of options would be 2/3 - 1 - 4

See this is the problem though. If you can’t use say three or four picks that you would have otherwise used to match and turn them into 2 picks to match than it’s telling you that you’re using junk picks for top quality players. This is what we don’t want and is obvious.
They do need to keep a deficit for those reasons and I’m sure they will. Something will just be attached to it.

The thing with GC for example is that had they had to use 7 and 8 to match a bid they would’ve blown all their other picks trading up for Petracca. (If they went for him at all)
That could have possibly meant our picks 9 and 11 actually get two picks higher in the draft. Possibly means we got a pick ahead of Dean without having to trade up or at worst someone rated a couple of spots higher with out second pick.

What I hate about the current system is we make it easy for clubs to get players they already have exclusive access to. To me that is nonsensical

 

[Soapy V]

I don’t know a lot about him but a few internally are very excited by Ison. Tall classy left footer type with very good skills that is apparently developing quickly. Could start Wing/HF and easily become a big mid. Bit of a Bont/Langford type

Got this from a recruiter

 

[The Return of the Paf]

It's one. You're ignoring SSP/MSD selections.

Hot Topic - Free Agency/Trade Period 2025

2025 AFL Trade Period and the AFL Draft All About Carlton Official Carlton Football Club Trade and Draft hub Current draft picks: -- Live Picks: 4 (3 used) 2027 draft picks: 1st round, 1st round (Sydney), 2nd round (NM), 2nd Round (GC), 3rd round (Bris), 4th round List changes: OUT...

www.bigfooty.com

Haven't we lost eight players, including rookies? The rest would depend on what mix of senior players to rookies we go with.

 

[Bletch]

Pretty sure we’re at 34 of 36 seniors ATM, including EH & MM, though he’s the only uncontracted.
3 ND picks (2 assumed givens) and/or upgrades.

IN (5): LR, CC, BA, WH, OF,
OUT (7): 1, 12, 14, 15, 19, 30, 31
^really needed to add an Acres, Binns to the numbers out &/or Motlop should not have been re-signed (at loss on this decision).

Rookies (7): 28*, 32, 36, 38*, 40, 44, 45*
*2 coming off you’d think.

Once more...

It's one. You're ignoring SSP/MSD selections.

Hot Topic - Free Agency/Trade Period 2025

2025 AFL Trade Period and the AFL Draft All About Carlton Official Carlton Football Club Trade and Draft hub Current draft picks: -- Live Picks: 4 (3 used) 2027 draft picks: 1st round, 1st round (Sydney), 2nd round (NM), 2nd Round (GC), 3rd round (Bris), 4th round List changes: OUT...

www.bigfooty.com

At end of last year's draft, we had one spot free. We added 3 players over SSP and MSD. We've added another 5 via trade. Total - 8 in.
We've removed 8 players from our playing list.

8 in, 8 out. We're in the same position as we were at the end of last year's draft. 43 listed players of a 44 maximum. One spot free.

You're right in that there are 34 senior listed players. But we are over-subscribed on the rookie list (by one).

We will make at least one cut to the rookie list by Oct 31 for the first list lodgment. And I think at least another cut by the draft, probably two.

 

[CrippasHeavyLoad]

Josh Lindsay looks a serious talent… Be bloody stoked if we ended up with him.

 

[bluesDeluxe]

It's one. You're ignoring SSP/MSD selections.

Hot Topic - Free Agency/Trade Period 2025

2025 AFL Trade Period and the AFL Draft All About Carlton Official Carlton Football Club Trade and Draft hub Current draft picks: -- Live Picks: 4 (3 used) 2027 draft picks: 1st round, 1st round (Sydney), 2nd round (NM), 2nd Round (GC), 3rd round (Bris), 4th round List changes: OUT...

www.bigfooty.com

It's 2. You are ignoring the main list which is most important for the draft. We have 2 main list spots available.

 

[CCurnow3picks]

I believe that's what we're intending to do... by getting rid of him...

I’d like to think it’s redeemable.

 

[Aphrodite]

It's 2. You are ignoring the main list which is most important for the draft. We have 2 main list spots available.

List currently stands at:-

SENIOR	34
CAT A ROOKIES	7
CAT B ROOKIES	2

 

[Bletch]

It's 2. You are ignoring the main list which is most important for the draft. We have 2 main list spots available.

Answer me this...

Say we only make the bare minimum changes before the draft, and delist Will White and Flynn Young. i.e. 2 players.

How many picks will we be able to make at the draft?

At least read the sticky post I linked (which I also wrote). Or look at Aph's post above. We have 43 players listed out of a maximum of 44. There's one spot free.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Would be great to get Butters but I think there will be better targets come next year. We have Walsh who is a similar player to Butters and he is due for an extension next year anyway.

Gonna be hard to pay all of our young players in a few years time if they develop well. Does the AFL have a 'bird rights' rule like the NBA? If not, that wouldn't be a bad idea to implement.

Butters is a top 5 player in the league. You don't pass on an opportunity to get players like that because some of our youngsters may end up needing a big contract in a few years time.

You get Butters in and worry about that when/if the time comes around.

Doubt we're much of a chance anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're up to our eyeballs with Humphrey end of year after reports we were chasing him hard even before the Curnow trade came up.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

I don’t know a lot about him but a few internally are very excited by Ison. Tall classy left footer type with very good skills that is apparently developing quickly. Could start Wing/HF and easily become a big mid. Bit of a Bont/Langford type

Got this from a recruiter

I have him ranked about 15th in this pool. He's got massive upside and in some ways I think we're quite lucky he had an injury interrupted season, every chance he could have gone top 10 if he played the whole year in the form he ended it with once he got to full fitness.

 

[The Bighouse]

Once more...



At end of last year's draft, we had one spot free. We added 3 players over SSP and MSD. We've added another 5 via trade. Total - 8 in.
We've removed 8 players from our playing list.

8 in, 8 out. We're in the same position as we were at the end of last year's draft. 43 listed players of a 44 maximum. One spot free.

You're right in that there are 34 senior listed players. But we are over-subscribed on the rookie list (by one).

We will make at least one cut to the rookie list by Oct 31 for the first list lodgment. And I think at least another cut by the draft, probably two.

Not ignoring anything & well aware of the SSP/Inactive replacements that are needed to be cut from the 7 rookies that currently remain following Cinc’s delisting. That was outlined.

We may cut deeper too, as we usually like to trial players as train-ons, which requires a list spot to remain open over this period.

 

[The Bighouse]

Josh Lindsay looks a serious talent… Be bloody stoked if we ended up with him.

And dropping down the draft boards from top-5 initially.

 

[agro]

I don’t know a lot about him but a few internally are very excited by Ison. Tall classy left footer type with very good skills that is apparently developing quickly. Could start Wing/HF and easily become a big mid. Bit of a Bont/Langford type

Got this from a recruiter

We are long overdue for a diamond in the rough.

 

[GT619]

We will go hard for one of West Coast or Tigers picks. 9, 11 and future picks on table. Another elite young mid sets up our next decade up and before Tassie.

Our target is one of these plus Dean & Ison. Next year Walker and heaps of SC room

Just a question now can we make it happen

who's the elite mid?

 

[Ninja Worrier]

Can we sign Shohei Ohttani? Unflowering believable

 

[Stamos]

It's 2. You are ignoring the main list which is most important for the draft. We have 2 main list spots available.

You’re ignoring that we have 7 rookies.
Right now, we have 1 list spot. We have to cut a minimum 2 more players to have a minimum 3 list spots come Draft Night.

 

[Faz 2000]

Can we sign Shohei Ohttani? Unflowering believable

Never get him under the cap, though.

 

[Stamos]

See this is the problem though. If you can’t use say three or four picks that you would have otherwise used to match and turn them into 2 picks to match than it’s telling you that you’re using junk picks for top quality players. This is what we don’t want and is obvious.
They do need to keep a deficit for those reasons and I’m sure they will. Something will just be attached to it.

The thing with GC for example is that had they had to use 7 and 8 to match a bid they would’ve blown all their other picks trading up for Petracca. (If they went for him at all)
That could have possibly meant our picks 9 and 11 actually get two picks higher in the draft. Possibly means we got a pick ahead of Dean without having to trade up or at worst someone rated a couple of spots higher with out second pick.

What I hate about the current system is we make it easy for clubs to get players they already have exclusive access to. To me that is nonsensical

I’d say that you’re ignoring, or at least underestimating, the massive changes that have been brought in for this year.

But the other thing is you seem to be looking at the bidding/matching system as purely through the lense of making clubs pay the maximum to get their player/s.
This is actually down the priority list of what the mechanisms are for. And, would bring about a stack of unintended consequences if they were to go with your suggested system.

Father Son is the best thing that the AFL does as a League. It’s the one thing that they do (aside from Australian Football, the best sport) better than other professional Leagues. It should be maintained, and on a scale of difficulty, we should lean towards free rather than too expensive, although “fair” would be ideal.
The Academies are about growing the game in non-traditional markets, and supporting clubs who have struggled with retention due to the majority of players coming from different states. They have clearly been quite successful in these aims, and at some stage should no longer be necessary. We’re not there yet though. And the clubs should pay fairly for their players, while maintaining the incentive for the clubs to continue increasing numbers of players in a way that is way more difficult for the AFL to do on their own.
NGAs are a bit different, because they have been so flawed in terms of qualification. This is starting to be addressed though.

The next major factor of the DVI system is to promote trade, and ease of trade. Your suggestion would stifle this. We surely want clubs, and also players, the best possible chances to trade, and trade fairly?

I think it’s way more important to look at the big picture. Clubs have previously been able to get their aligned guns way too cheaply, although the DVI system has made them pay more than the previous systems. And the changes for this year have made it fairer than ever before, using a mechanism that works for more than just forcing clubs to pay the maximum for their players.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

And it's madness that they're wanting to make changes next year without even having a sample size of 1 for the changes they've brought in this year!

And without finalising the rules before trade period.

Complete pack of amateurs... all clubs should rally against any new changes now. I get the feeling the majority of them have already anyway, you can't go making changes to a draft after clubs have finished the trade period and planned ahead.

 

[Stamos]

And it's madness that they're wanting to make changes next year without even having a sample size of 1 for the changes they've brought in this year!

And without finalising the rules before trade period.

Complete pack of amateurs... all clubs should rally against any new changes now. I get the feeling the majority of them have already anyway, you can't go making changes to a draft after clubs have finished the trade period and planned ahead.

And not only this, but they spent a huge amount of time (around a year), and effort, to ensure that they got the changes right.

And then they want to completely change it again on a whim. With no further research or evidence.

An utter clown show.

 

[Big Delut]

And not only this, but they spent a huge amount of time (around a year), and effort, to ensure that they got the changes right.

And then they want to completely change it again on a whim. With no further research or evidence.

An utter clown show.

Genuinely shambolic. It's like they want to make sure we know how incompetent they are in case we've forgotten.