List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[BluesForEternity]

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

I’ve been thinking about how we could make this work, whilst still guaranteeing Dean and Ison. What if it went something like this?

Trade #1:
Carlton give: Pick 11
West Coast give: Pick 13, 41, 53, 58

West Coast loses out on points, but also they most likely won’t need all of their late picks to match their F/S and NGA players anyway, as it is unlikely any are bid on before pick 37. Also, they still have pick 34 as their main 2nd rounder for a speculative pick if they want one. This enables them to move up two spots in the open draft at no meaningful loss. Meanwhile, it leaves us with more points to cover Dean and Ison.


Trade #2:
Carlton give: Pick 9, 2027 Future 1st (Sydney)
Richmond give: Pick 4

Richmond keep Pick 3, and use it to draft their elite midfielder of choice. We then get to choose whoever is left at Pick 4 of the upper end midfielders. Richmond might find splitting their second pick across two drafts more appealing, since they probably don’t need to take two midfielders of the same age (especially given they took Lalor and Smilie last year already), and at pick 9, they’ll still likely have someone like Lindsay, Schubert, or Dovaston available. Obviously 2027 future 1st is less valuable because of Tassie, but the points are still pretty similar if you compare Pick 4 to Pick 9+25 (Sydney’s natural number if they win the premiership in 2027).

This leaves us with the following picks:
4, 13, 41, 43, 53, 54, 58

By my calculations, this should be enough to cover us if Dean gets bid on at 9 and Ison gets bid on at 25 (accounting for the late picks moving forward due to Brisbane/GC matching bids).


Thoughts? Plausible?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

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.

This is about all I disagree with and I find it hard to comprehend why it should be skewed towards the easy end.
Why would you have a system that benefits one side (possibly two) and hurts the rest of the competition? I can honestly see no reason for that. It’s logical to make a team pay as close to what the market values that player as possible. What does giving a club a second leg up achieve? Nothing. Clubs will still get their players if the want them

Of course the DVI promotes trade, that’s the problem with it. It promotes trading good assets for poor ones that only benefits two sides and sees other sides slide down the draft board.

The big picture is about trying to move to the most level playing field possible. I find it bizarre that people are worried about clubs having to pay as close to market value for a player as possible especially when they are already getting a leg up by having exclusive access to them.

 

[Stamos]

This is about all I disagree with and I find it hard to comprehend why it should be skewed towards the easy end.
Why would you have a system that benefits one side (possibly two) and hurts the rest of the competition? I can honestly see no reason for that. It’s logical to make a team pay as close to what the market values that player as possible. What does giving a club a second leg up achieve? Nothing. Clubs will still get their players if the want them

Of course the DVI promotes trade, that’s the problem with it. It promotes trading good assets for poor ones that only benefits two sides and sees other sides slide down the draft board.

The big picture is about trying to move to the most level playing field possible. I find it bizarre that people are worried about clubs having to pay as close to market value for a player as possible especially when they are already getting a leg up by having exclusive access to them.

Increased trading doesn’t only benefit one or two sides.
That is such a myopic view. There was a 4 way trade at the start of the trade period. And look at the number of picks that are on-traded, or that allow clubs to trade other picks that they own. It’s not a zero sum game.

If you’re worried about a level playing field, then FA compo and assistance picks are a much bigger issue.

 

[bluesDeluxe]

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.

I'm not ignoring anything, we have to cut rookies too.

I'm looking at the ND.

If we take 4 picks to the ND draft, we need to cut 2 more primary list players. If we take 3 picks to the draft, need to cut 1 more.

Get my drift?

 

[bluesDeluxe]

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.

The answer is we need to make at least 1 more cut to the primary list, to enable us to make our mandatory 3 selections at the ND.

That is the most important.

We need to make changes to the rookie list too

 

[HarryFlashman]

Can we sign Shohei Ohttani? Unflowering believable

He would lock down Jeremy Cameron and hold him goal less in the first half & then go forward & kick 7 in the second half!

 

[Stamos]

I'm not ignoring anything, we have to cut rookies too.

I'm looking at the ND.

If we take 4 picks to the ND draft, we need to cut 2 more primary list players. If we take 3 picks to the draft, need to cut 1 more.

Get my drift?

No, we still need to cut 1 more player than what you’re saying.

Right now, we only have 1 list spot. We have to cut 2 more players. It doesn’t matter if they’re on the Rookie List or the Senior List.

 

[Blue1980]

Okay.

Between Matt Owies, Corey Durdin and Charlie Curnow, we have lost 264 goals and 157 behinds, 263 tackles, and 89 goal assists from 144 games, bringing things to an average net loss of 1.83 goals per match, 1.09 behinds, 1.83 tackles and 0.62 goal assists per match over the last three seasons; in Owies' case, we've excluded his WC stats as they aren't equivalent to what he'd have gotten if we retained him, so his contribution is limited to a 2 year timeframe where the other two have their last three years. While we could include other stats like marks or I50's, this is more or less the raw offensive/defensive output of a forward.

Ben Aisworth has over the same timeframe has 60 goals, 38 behinds, 97 tackles and 35 goal assists over 62 matches. Will Hayward has 95 goals, 56 behinds, 193 tackles and 33 goal assists over 70 matches. This comes to a total of 155 goals, 94 behinds, 290 tackles and 78 goal assists over 132 matches, producing averages of 1.17 goals, 1.34 behinds, 1.46 tackles and 0.59 goal assists per match.

Now, it's pretty obvious here where we're going to look short next season: we're going to kick significantly less goals, be slightly less accurate, lay less tackles and be on par roughly as far as goal assists are concerned. We should - fingers crossed - get more games out of the two given the fact that we only achieved 144 games across 3 players and 8 years of footy, where Ainsworth and Hayward got to 132 in the same timeframe with just the two players.

The thing here is, we don't know who's going to be fronting up beside Harry next year or how Kemp will look in front of ball over the long term. A criticism that can be levied at this analysis is that I've analysed two small/mediums against 2 small/mediums and a KPP, but without knowing who that KPP will be replaced by we cannot know what stats to look at.

What this ultimately means is that we will need to change the method or, all things being equal, we will be short goals.

It’s not that simple, as you’re extrapolating how many goals the guys coming in will get when they were at different clubs and in different roles.

Look at how many goals Owies is getting at West Coast as a case example.

The availability you mentioned is a big one though, if past availability of Heyward, Ainsworth and florent translates into future availability we have 3 bonafide best 23 players added to the side playing week in week out.

Also Durdin only played the odd good game here or there, and was behind all of Evans, Motlop and even Will White who may not even be on the list next year. We also can reasonably expect more goals from Moir, and either of Gov/Kemp.

Losing Charlie hurts as he was also a very good shot for goal and could at his best do things very few players can do.

 

[Blue1980]

After missing out on Khamis I don’t think we can get rid of Gov. Also whilst Elijah is a complicated mess I think he is so talented he is worth one last chance. I’d much rather we delist and pay out Fogarty than delist and pay out Elijah.

If it were me Boyd and Binns will be the ones to go. Binns is not an AFL footballer and never will be. I’m not sure what happened to Boyd because he looked like he belonged but he has clearly done something to fall out of favour.

Boyd is a confusing one, off field issues? The one to get Elijah back on the drink?

 

[Blue1980]

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.

To be fair Voss did do a balanced approach when it was clear we couldn’t make finals introducing younger guys but not being dumb about it like Bolton, in a balanced approach from probably the port game onwards.

 

[Blue1980]

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.

An entirely conceivable situation is end of 2026 we have a good year and finish 5th/6th. Hawks slip out of the 8 with their midfield weaker and Gunston not kicking 70 goals again and dogs still can’t defend.

In the above scenario the narrative shifts, suddenly we are a side with only a couple of missing pieces to a flag tilt.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Increased trading doesn’t only benefit one or two sides.
That is such a myopic view. There was a 4 way trade at the start of the trade period. And look at the number of picks that are on-traded, or that allow clubs to trade other picks that they own. It’s not a zero sum game.

If you’re worried about a level playing field, then FA compo and assistance picks are a much bigger issue.

Trading doesn’t create more talent so creating trading by allowing junk pick for good players just creates a system that allows teams to double dip which is pointless and stupid.

Absolutely they need to address that. It is every bit as bad.

 

[Stamos]

Trading doesn’t create more talent so creating trading by allowing junk pick for good players just creates a system that allows teams to double dip which is pointless and stupid.

Absolutely they need to address that. It is every bit as bad.

It doesn’t create more talent, but that ignores that clubs rate players differently, and have different needs for their list.

There’s not just an objective ranking of talent.

You can no longer get top rated talent with junk picks. The AFL has addressed this with the changes to the DVI. You seem to be ignoring this.

 

[katmanblue]

To be fair

We really don't like people doing that round these parts.

 

[DangerousD]

Come on.. we're not going to intentionally rort the system... AFL will come down on both clubs like a ton of bricks. We can't go making a deal with Port to allow us to take him as a fa so they get say pick 5 and then end up giving them our two 2027 1sts for Stanislas Sorbentopoulous ... no way AFL will approve that.

Also, don't know what compensation pick changes there are if any next year... there was talk where the earliest pick back would be outside the top 10 regardless of where you finish...

The AFL has no issue with clubs overpaying for players at the trade table and your example is deliberately being disingenuous.

Paying a 1st round pick for a player rated as a second rounder isn’t going to have the AFL dragging you in to head office, or offering up a overly generous points swap wouldn’t cause an issue.

The AFL has no issue handing out priority picks to WC to trade for a player from Brisbane that they could get for free via the PSD, the AFL also doesn’t say anything about clubs trading free agents as to not dilute compo picks and the AFL has no problem with GC over paying for nearly every player they bring in.

But my idea was just a small example of a possibility, the small sample size we have of the cost to trade for a FA when a club matches a bid, shows the cost is pretty good and could easily be managed by lots of clubs.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It doesn’t create more talent, but that ignores that clubs rate players differently, and have different needs for their list.

There’s not just an objective ranking of talent.

You can no longer get top rated talent with junk picks. The AFL has addressed this with the changes to the DVI. You seem to be ignoring this.

if you can’t use junk picks than trade them into two picks. It’s bloody simple. You don’t need to trade for the exact pick, you have a range of around 10 picks to trade For

 

[Beyond Blue]

It’s not that simple, as you’re extrapolating how many goals the guys coming in will get when they were at different clubs and in different roles.

Look at how many goals Owies is getting at West Coast as a case example.

The availability you mentioned is a big one though, if past availability of Heyward, Ainsworth and florent translates into future availability we have 3 bonafide best 23 players added to the side playing week in week out.

Also Durdin only played the odd good game here or there, and was behind all of Evans, Motlop and even Will White who may not even be on the list next year. We also can reasonably expect more goals from Moir, and either of Gov/Kemp.

Losing Charlie hurts as he was also a very good shot for goal and could at his best do things very few players can do.

I agree with all of this except the highlighted bit. He almost lost as many games as he won for us off his own boot!

 

[DangerousD]

if you can’t use junk picks than trade them into two picks. It’s bloody simple. You don’t need to trade for the exact pick, you have a range of around 10 picks to trade For

Why not just allow a mix of both? Say we end up with pick 8 and 16 next year and Walker is bid on at pick 2, which if I’m correct, leaves us a bit short, it’s clear we have made an effort to get picks in the 1st round to match this bid, we use these two picks and top up any shortfall required. That’s a solid payment for a untried player at the draft

The issue for me, the AFL don’t want clubs shuffling late 2nds and 3rds to pay for top quality players which I fully agree with, but the two pick supposed limit makes things really difficult.

It will be interesting to see how GC match this year, as you can only take as many picks to a draft as you have lost spaces, they traded out good assets and they have quality players to add.

The AFL can easily make the system fairer and I think the current one is or will be better than the last and I’m sure it could be tightened further, but the two pick thing seems stupid to me.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Why not just allow a mix of both? Say we end up with pick 8 and 16 next year and Walker is bid on at pick 2, which if I’m correct, leaves us a bit short, it’s clear we have made an effort to get picks in the 1st round to match this bid, we use these two picks and top up any shortfall required. That’s a solid payment for a untried player at the draft

The issue for me, the AFL don’t want clubs shuffling late 2nds and 3rds to pay for top quality players which I fully agree with, but the two pick supposed limit makes things really difficult.

It will be interesting to see how GC match this year, as you can only take as many picks to a draft as you have lost spaces, they traded out good assets and they have quality players to add.

The AFL can easily make the system fairer and I think the current one is or will be better than the last and I’m sure it could be tightened further, but the two pick thing seems stupid to me.

I have no doubt they’ll allow a deficit in some form as it’s impossible to know exactly when a bid is coming.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

Can we sign Shohei Ohttani? Unflowering believable

He would lock down Jeremy Cameron and hold him goal less in the first half & then go forward & kick 7 in the second half!

People fawning over overseas athletes who have nothing whatsoever to do with AFL football, in threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with their sport, makes me want to tear my hair out and roll on the floor in fits of rage.

That's all...

 

[Ninja Worrier]

People fawning over overseas athletes who have nothing whatsoever to do with AFL football, in threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with their sport, makes me want to tear my hair out and roll on the floor in fits of rage.

That's all...

Ohtani would still be better than Caleb Mourish

 

[Jd15]

I agree with all of this except the highlighted bit. He almost lost as many games as he won for us off his own boot!

Please name a game that Curnow “lost of his own boot”. The only game I can think of is the heartbreaking final game of 2022 where he was incredibly inaccurate but even then you can’t say the game was lost because of him. The problem was that when he was on he was borderline unstoppable but the second he turned it off we didnt have anyone else able to rip a game apart barring the miraculous 2023 run which we can look back now and call that a flook.

 

[The Return of the Paf]

Ohtani would still be better than Caleb Mourish

...

 

[bradfisher14]

Please name a game that Curnow “lost of his own boot”. The only game I can think of is the heartbreaking final game of 2022 where he was incredibly inaccurate but even then you can’t say the game was lost because of him. The problem was that when he was on he was borderline unstoppable but the second he turned it off we didnt have anyone else able to rip a game apart barring the miraculous 2023 run which we can look back now and call that a flook.

Round 16 2022
Round 22 2022
Round 23 2022
Round 5 2024
Round 18 2024

 

[Stamos]

I have no doubt they’ll allow a deficit in some form as it’s impossible to know exactly when a bid is coming.

You have a lot of faith in an administration which has just shown by their suggestions of more change without even seeing the results of their most recent change that they are incompetent.