List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[Blue1980]

But that's exactly the kind of 'superstars or duds' thinking that has us in this position, forever.

Good clubs look at what they have, and figure out how to make it useful. Good clubs also think in a squad mentality, expect injuries and plan backups.

Bad clubs always look at the flaws and give up on people too early and too quickly. Bad clubs think in 'best 22' terms, don't have injury cover or backups, and let players go 'to get more opportunity' rather than having the real, hard conversation (the one that starts with 'you need to get better at...)

But to be specific:

• TDK = absolutely inflated contract at St Kilda, and if we were smart we would never have let it get this far.
• SOS = completely stuffed up how we managed him; salary, position, personal management, everything. Should still be a Blue, and would be if not for gross mismanagement, and we all know it
• Kennedy = see SOS.
• Martin = just played in a grand final, so he is on the list
• Dow = was good enough to be an injury reserve for us when we made a prelim final. Hard to judge his St Kilda form because he missed this year due to an unlucky infection, but if he was at Carlton he absolutely could have played when Walsh was injured
• Fisher = likely would have played every game for us this year, given our injuries and lack of depth.
• Owies = had he just repeated his 2024 form would have been our second leading goal kicker this year. We desperately lacked goal-kickers. Struggling while adjusting to play for a 1-22 West Coast team means a lot less than what he has previously shown
• O'Brien = his numbers and stats were tracking ahead of Ed Richards until we (for no apparent reason) benched him and consigned him to oblivion. Baffling mismanagement. Subsequently lost a lot of drive and quit AFL
• Plowman = he was a serviceable, versatile club man. We should have kept him around even as an injury backup.
• Carroll = also injured this year, lets wait and see. He was fine as an injury backup
• Honey = just player churn and has been replaced by equivalents in White, Young, etc. Just seems pointless to churn rookie listers rather than building something properly.

Cuningham and Marchbank = bodies may have finally given up, which imo is all the more reason to keep the others around.

But the thing is, individually you can look at any decision here and it is justifiable, but the point of list management is not to spend 10 years waiting for a competitive team, then lose 17 players in their prime in two years, leaving your team back 'rebuilding' - aka up shit creek with a hole in your canoe, and then considering trading your paddle for something that will hopefully (but no guarantees) fill the hole.

Bit of revisionist history with the above:

Martin - didnt play till like R13 this year, people would of rioted here if we'd kept him and only played from then on, as it would of been useless for us
SOS - yeah we could of kept him, but saints paying overs for him
TDK - def overs Saints paying
Dow - Better to have younger cheaper backup like Cooper Lord for salary cap purposes
Fisher - would barely have gotten a game for us this year, and North paying more for him than we'd be paying a Matt Carroll type
Owies - I'd have kept him, but if eagles offered more cash than us (which I am sure they did), well, I can see why we let him go
LOB - no and no. He couldn't handle physical contact and we delisted him at the end of 2023 with a year to run on his contract.
Plowman - Yeah could have kept him as injury backup or rookied him. Thing is you can make decent coin as a suburban footballer without putting in the same time as AFL level, and we were probably not wanting to give him anymore than a rookie spot.
Jack Carroll - meh, yeah could have kept him not sure what role he would have played this year for us though. What even is he? He seems sorta inside mid? sorta not? St Kilda still haven't re-signed him either.
Honey - never showed anything, may as well try to get someone who has some possible upside as opposed to a guy who spent 3 years going nowhere.

Cuningham and Marchbank - unfortunately their bodies had given up by 2024.

Out of the above I'd have probably tried a little harder to hang onto Jack Carroll, JSOS, Plowman and Owies. Martin we couldn't afford to keep him any longer, Dow and Fisher left for more promised senior opportunities we couldn't provide.

The issue we had was in 2023 we had a freakish occurrence of Martin, Cuningham and Marchbank all fit and playing good footy for half a season which coincided with our great back end of season run, we could also call on Dow and Fisher as backup, and we had our top liners firing (even when some missed weeks here and there, they were all in great form when playing).

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Thing is we don't want a war chest if we are total dog shit as no one will want to come, then you have to pay stupid overs to get anyone in.

Not really, we can always convince players to come to Carlton imo. We're not St Kilda

 

[ctwenty1]

Bit of revisionist history with the above:

Martin - didnt play till like R13 this year, people would of rioted here if we'd kept him and only played from then on, as it would of been useless for us
SOS - yeah we could of kept him, but saints paying overs for him
TDK - def overs Saints paying
Dow - Better to have younger cheaper backup like Cooper Lord for salary cap purposes
Fisher - would barely have gotten a game for us this year, and North paying more for him than we'd be paying a Matt Carroll type
Owies - I'd have kept him, but if eagles offered more cash than us (which I am sure they did), well, I can see why we let him go
LOB - no and no. He couldn't handle physical contact and we delisted him at the end of 2023 with a year to run on his contract.
Plowman - Yeah could have kept him as injury backup or rookied him. Thing is you can make decent coin as a suburban footballer without putting in the same time as AFL level, and we were probably not wanting to give him anymore than a rookie spot.
Jack Carroll - meh, yeah could have kept him not sure what role he would have played this year for us though. What even is he? He seems sorta inside mid? sorta not? St Kilda still haven't re-signed him either.
Honey - never showed anything, may as well try to get someone who has some possible upside as opposed to a guy who spent 3 years going nowhere.

Cuningham and Marchbank - unfortunately their bodies had given up by 2024.

Out of the above I'd have probably tried a little harder to hang onto Jack Carroll, JSOS, Plowman and Owies. Martin we couldn't afford to keep him any longer, Dow and Fisher left for more promised senior opportunities we couldn't provide.

The issue we had was in 2023 we had a freakish occurrence of Martin, Cuningham and Marchbank all fit and playing good footy for half a season which coincided with our great back end of season run, we could also call on Dow and Fisher as backup, and we had our top liners firing (even when some missed weeks here and there, they were all in great form when playing).

And now with this list it feels we need a freakish occurrence of some senior players being committed to the cause to get deep into finals again

Maybe we do get more value from letting some players go that is not just picks and players, but the lack of negative influence can make the team perform better

I deal with this conundrum at work regulalry

Im sure others do too

 

[Blue1980]

Not really, we can always convince players to come to Carlton imo. We're not St Kilda

We weren't exactly attracting many guys via free agency/trades until 2020 or so. What established stars/or up and coming gun youngsters would want to go to WC/Richmond/North or even Essendon at the moment?

 

[Blue1980]

And now with this list it feels we need a freakish occurrence of some senior players being committed to the cause to get deep into finals again

Maybe we do get more value from letting some players go that is not just picks and players, but the lack of negative influence can make the team perform better

I deal with this conundrum at work regulalry

Im sure others do too

Yes but we do need guys with talent. As I have mentioned in another thread in 2013-14 we let the apparent problem guys go in Waite, Garlett, Robinson, Laidler, Betts etc and replaced them committed battlers who "wanted to be there" and the result was going from middle of the road side to dead last and an endless rebuild which took 8 years to even get us a finals appearance.

 

[ctwenty1]

Yes but we do need guys with talent. As I have mentioned in another thread in 2013-14 we let the apparent problem guys go in Waite, Garlett, Robinson, Laidler, Betts etc and replaced them committed battlers who "wanted to be there" and the result was going from middle of the road side to dead last and an endless rebuild which took 8 years to even get us a finals appearance.

Totally agree - CC doesnt go for unders - just dont want to get hung up on stuff at the margins

Agree with you on 2013 and 2014, that whole period was wtf with Mick Malthouse as coach

 

[BM123]

Yes but we do need guys with talent. As I have mentioned in another thread in 2013-14 we let the apparent problem guys go in Waite, Garlett, Robinson, Laidler, Betts etc and replaced them committed battlers who "wanted to be there" and the result was going from middle of the road side to dead last and an endless rebuild which took 8 years to even get us a finals appearance.

The Yarran situation was extremely avoidable too.

We don't seem to manage stronger personalities all that well. It's hard to imagine players like Lance Franklin, Dane Swan, Steve Johnson and Dustin Martin thriving at Carlton.

 

[Uncle Fester]

ok - i'm officially obsessed, but the proposed system has a fatal flaw - the variation in value of the top 5 picks is just punishing - thats why we had the old 20% discount. especially when it comes to down the the vagaries of the teams drafting - Nick Daicos went pick 4 for christ's sake, Will Ashcroft 2, Levi 5

The new system is
Pick 1: 3000
Pick 2: 2481
Pick 3: 2178
Pick 4: 1962
Pick 5: 1795

fwiw Pick 11 is worth 1205 - so pick 5 + pick 11 equals pick 1 - its just too much - no club should be forced to find two picks in the top 11 to get a FS - one sure - the first pick being within 10 of the kid being drafted seems ok - but 2 - thats insane.

with the imminent arrival of tasmania, this change could doom us and * for a decade, just because Cody & young Bewick could easily go Pick 1

 

[Sector 7G]

ok - i'm officially obsessed, but the proposed system has a fatal flaw - the variation in value of the top 5 picks is just punishing - thats why we had the old 20% discount. especially when it comes to down the the vagaries of the teams drafting - Nick Daicos went pick 4 for christ's sake, Will Ashcroft 2, Levi 5

The new system is
Pick 1: 3000
Pick 2: 2481
Pick 3: 2178
Pick 4: 1962
Pick 5: 1795

fwiw Pick 11 is worth 1205 - so pick 5 + pick 11 equals pick 1 - its just too much - no club should be forced to find two picks in the top 11 to get a FS - one sure - the first pick being within 10 of the kid being drafted seems ok - but 2 - thats insane.

with the imminent arrival of tasmania, this change could doom us and * for a decade, just because Cody & young Bewick could easily go Pick 1

Just need for Cody to do a JHF and request a trade at the end of year 1 if teams bid in the top 3.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Doesn't matter.
If you sell shares to but a house, and the share price changes after you sell them, doesn't mean you got the house cheaper or dearer.

No it’s like selling half your shares to cover half the house value than saying you can have the rest of the shares next year regardless of their value.

So are you saying matching Walker at pick 1 could end up costing us say pick 5 next season and pick 1 in 2027 if we finish bottom?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Just need for Cody to do a JHF and request a trade at the end of year 1 if teams bid in the top 3.

or take next year very easy

 

[swuzzlebubble]

No it’s like selling half your shares to cover half the house value than saying you can have the rest of the shares next year regardless of their value

No it's not because the future pick you use is gone. It doesn't exist in 2027.

 

[carlton_99]

SOS = completely stuffed up how we managed him; salary, position, personal management, everything. Should still be a Blue, and would be if not for gross mismanagement, and we all know it

How do we "all know it"?

We offered a similar contract to those made by the Dogs and Pies. So not sure how salary was an issue when the only club to go over was the Saints who are going well over for every player. The contract offer was made to him mid-year after only playing 13/47 games since his last re-signing. So we clearly didn't make him wait unnecessarily.

And then on position he has been in the AFL for 10 years. 9 of those years he played as a forward. In recent years, whilst playing as a forward, he also chipped in in the ruck like many forwards do nowadays to avoid playing two pure rucks. And at his request in his 10th year we moved him back.

Where exactly is the mismanagement?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

No it's not because the future pick you use is gone. It doesn't exist in 2027.

I think that is a strange way of looking at it

 

[btdg]

How do we "all know it"?

We offered a similar contract to those made by the Dogs and Pies. So not sure how salary was an issue when the only club to go over was the Saints who are going well over for every player. The contract offer was made to him mid-year after only playing 13/47 games since his last re-signing. So we clearly didn't make him wait unnecessarily.

And then on position he has been in the AFL for 10 years. 9 of those years he played as a forward. In recent years, whilst playing as a forward, he also chipped in in the ruck like many forwards do nowadays to avoid playing two pure rucks. And at his request in his 10th year we moved him back.

Where exactly is the mismanagement?

Because as has been made clear, it's not about money or opportunity with SOS, but ego.

Rather than just taking care of him in the off-season, knowing he was rehabbing a knee injury, we made it quite clear he was a second priority and assumed he would resign into whatever space we could squeeze once TDK was sorted. We let it go far too long without even am offer. Took him for granted and left the door ajar for someone else to swoop.

Good clubs just don't let this sort of thing happen. It should have been the other way around - TDK was the white elephant offer, and we should have taken care of business with SOS and others first and left TDK to fit into the gaps.

 

[carlton_99]

Because as has been made clear, it's not about money or opportunity with SOS, but ego.

Rather than just taking care of him in the off-season, knowing he was rehabbing a knee injury, we made it quite clear he was a second priority and assumed he would resign into whatever space we could squeeze once TDK was sorted. We let it go far too long without even am offer. Took him for granted and left the door ajar for someone else to swoop.

Good clubs just don't let this sort of thing happen. It should have been the other way around - TDK was the white elephant offer, and we should have taken care of business with SOS and others first and left TDK to fit into the gaps.

JSOS re-signed end of 2023. He didn't play a game in 2024 due to an ACL. And you think it would have been smart to re-sign him again before 2025 started without seeing him play a game? Not to mention there is no guarantee JSOS would have even signed that deal as most players would prefer to sign when they have actually played to maximise the offer.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Because as has been made clear, it's not about money or opportunity with SOS, but ego.

Rather than just taking care of him in the off-season, knowing he was rehabbing a knee injury, we made it quite clear he was a second priority and assumed he would resign into whatever space we could squeeze once TDK was sorted. We let it go far too long without even am offer. Took him for granted and left the door ajar for someone else to swoop.

Good clubs just don't let this sort of thing happen. It should have been the other way around - TDK was the white elephant offer, and we should have taken care of business with SOS and others first and left TDK to fit into the gaps.

When it comes to contracts 90% on here have been complaining about doing exactly what you are suggesting we should’ve done.
I think we done the exact right thing, he just doesn’t want to be part of the group or the club.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

ok - i'm officially obsessed, but the proposed system has a fatal flaw - the variation in value of the top 5 picks is just punishing - thats why we had the old 20% discount. especially when it comes to down the the vagaries of the teams drafting - Nick Daicos went pick 4 for christ's sake, Will Ashcroft 2, Levi 5

The new system is
Pick 1: 3000
Pick 2: 2481
Pick 3: 2178
Pick 4: 1962
Pick 5: 1795

fwiw Pick 11 is worth 1205 - so pick 5 + pick 11 equals pick 1 - its just too much - no club should be forced to find two picks in the top 11 to get a FS - one sure - the first pick being within 10 of the kid being drafted seems ok - but 2 - thats insane.

with the imminent arrival of tasmania, this change could doom us and * for a decade, just because Cody & young Bewick could easily go Pick 1

Thankfully, no one will ever take a FS with Pick #1 as it ruins the mystique of your Pick #1 and the marketing and support that gives your player.

Pick #2 (2481) equals Pick #7 (1543) and #15 (973)
Pick #3 (2178) equals Pick #11 (1205) and #15 (973)
Pick #4 (1962) equals Pick #13 (1080) and #16 (924)

The good thing about them shaving off the values of points, means that the later the selection of the FS the less points needed. It's a double edged sword in that way. By making it harder to match a bid at Pick #1, they make it easier to match a bid later. Still more expensive than under the current model, but shouldn't be impossible to match a pick as long as it's not Pick #1. And noting the above assumes you can only use 2 picks to match, not sure if that is actually the case or not. Is it?

 

[btdg]

JSOS re-signed end of 2023. He didn't play a game in 2024 due to an ACL. And you think it would have been smart to re-sign him again before 2025 started without seeing him play a game? Not to mention there is no guarantee JSOS would have even signed that deal as most players would prefer to sign when they have actually played to maximise the offer.

Yep, 100% . He's a mature, versatile player who is a key part of our group. We should have had him locked away last year.

Instead, we did this:

‘I’ll get a call’: Jack Silvagni yet to open contract talks as Blue reborn after 600-day return

‘I’ll get a call’: Free agent’s waiting game as Blue blood reborn after 600-day return

www.foxsports.com.au

Option 1 (above): "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL and moving to a new position that you haven't played before, but we can't offer you a contract yet. We have to wait and see whether TDK wants to sign for a million dollars a year first, and then we might be able to fit you in. But as soon as he lets us know, we can maybe have a chat. We know you'll sign because you are a Silvagni, and you don't really have a position and you have been injured, so just hang around and we'll probably come back and sign you. Or not, if you get injured again, as happened with your mates (DC and Marchy and Martin). But we probably will, just don't go anywhere, right"

vs

Option 2: "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL, but we want you to know that we value you and see you as a long-term part of this club and future. This is probably your last big deal so we're going to give you a fair offer for four years, that will take you through until you are 32, and get this sorted before the season starts so you can focus on getting your body right, learning a new position, and being part of this club forever".

Let's face it, we treated him the way a high school quarterback treats the bookish, nerdy girl who lives next door - like a second choice. He then showed up at the ball looking pretty damn fine and Collingwood and others showed a genuine interest in him for the player he is, and of course he took that offer.

Meanwhile, we can barely put out 23 players next year, let alone the 35-odd we need in the squad to compete. But hey, Liam Reidy, come on down!

It is either incompetence or ego but it is ruining the club. Can't wait for another 10 year rebuild to start...

 

[carlton_99]

Yep, 100% . He's a mature, versatile player who is a key part of our group. We should have had him locked away last year.

Instead, we did this:

‘I’ll get a call’: Jack Silvagni yet to open contract talks as Blue reborn after 600-day return

‘I’ll get a call’: Free agent’s waiting game as Blue blood reborn after 600-day return

www.foxsports.com.au

Option 1 (above): "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL and moving to a new position that you haven't played before, but we can't offer you a contract yet. We have to wait and see whether TDK wants to sign for a million dollars a year first, and then we might be able to fit you in. But as soon as he lets us know, we can maybe have a chat. We know you'll sign because you are a Silvagni, and you don't really have a position and you have been injured, so just hang around and we'll probably come back and sign you. Or not, if you get injured again, as happened with your mates (DC and Marchy and Martin). But we probably will, just don't go anywhere, right"

vs

Option 2: "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL, but we want you to know that we value you and see you as a long-term part of this club and future. This is probably your last big deal so we're going to give you a fair offer for four years, that will take you through until you are 32, and get this sorted before the season starts so you can focus on getting your body right, learning a new position, and being part of this club forever".

Let's face it, we treated him the way a high school quarterback treats the bookish, nerdy girl who lives next door - like a second choice. He then showed up at the ball looking pretty damn fine and Collingwood and others showed a genuine interest in him for the player he is, and of course he took that offer.

Meanwhile, we can barely put out 23 players next year, let alone the 35-odd we need in the squad to compete. But hey, Liam Reidy, come on down!

It is either incompetence or ego but it is ruining the club. Can't wait for another 10 year rebuild to start...

You are making a whole lot of assumptions here.

The facts are our offer was very similar in $$$ and years to that offered by the Dogs and Pies. Pretty important when you consider teams normally need to pay overs to get someone out of a team. So not sure how they showed "genuine interest" when it was the exact same offer as us and came after our offer. And he took an offer that was 20-25% higher than offers from 3 other clubs. Offering him that would have been irresponsible.

Another fact is he has played 13/47 games since he re-signed his last contract at the end of 2023. We have been calling out for the club to stop holding on to injury prone players or offering these players long term deals and you want us to offer a long term deal to someone without seeing them play a game after an ACL.

I love Jack and rate him highly as a player but I disagree completely with the idea that we treated him poorly.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

We weren't exactly attracting many guys via free agency/trades until 2020 or so. What established stars/or up and coming gun youngsters would want to go to WC/Richmond/North or even Essendon at the moment?

Williams, Cerra, Saad...

With the right approach, I have full confidence we can.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Thankfully, no one will ever take a FS with Pick #1 as it ruins the mystique of your Pick #1 and the marketing and support that gives your player.

Pick #2 (2481) equals Pick #7 (1543) and #15 (973)
Pick #3 (2178) equals Pick #11 (1205) and #15 (973)
Pick #4 (1962) equals Pick #13 (1080) and #16 (924)

The good thing about them shaving off the values of points, means that the later the selection of the FS the less points needed. It's a double edged sword in that way. By making it harder to match a bid at Pick #1, they make it easier to match a bid later. Still more expensive than under the current model, but shouldn't be impossible to match a pick as long as it's not Pick #1. And noting the above assumes you can only use 2 picks to match, not sure if that is actually the case or not. Is it?

We might still get the discount too... let's see what happens with that.

 

[ctwenty1]

We might still get the discount too... let's see what happens with that.

surely the AFL shoudl be announcing this any day now!

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Our issue was that in 2023 we had a decent list that was hitting its prime and who had just played in a preliminary final (and gone pretty damn close to beating Brisbane on the road), and we have since moved on Silvagni, Dow, O'Brien, Kennedy, De Koning, Docherty, Carroll, Plowman, Martin, Marchbank, Fisher, Cuningham, Honey, Cincotta, Owies, and potentially Curnow and McGovern too.

That's not standing still - We CHOSE to cut 15-17 core players from a competitive list (of those, only Docherty would be 30+ now) and replace them with players from the rookie list.

If we are thinking about 2030 we might as well give up. Let's not forget that in 2030 Newman will be 37, Cripps, Saad, Williams and McGovern will be 35, Hewett, Acres, Pittonet will be 34, Weitering, McKay, Curnow will be 33.

You can't on the one hand say 'well, we think we can compete in 5 years time' and simultaneously 'develop a winning culture'.

It absolutely has to be the expectation on everyone that we play finals next year, and every year (which is something you say), but also that if we are in finals anything can happen.

But that's not what they are doing - we have repeatedly, year after year, crapped out on our depth, moved away from our strengths (which was contested ball-winning) and added almost nothing of note. Are we seriously buying that Buku Khamis, Campbell Chesser and Liam Reidy are filling the gaps we have? To replace TDK, Silvagni, Docherty, Cincotta, and possibly Hollands, Curnow and McGovern AND improve a team that finished 11th?

It's an utter failure, and tbh, moves into utter catastrophe if they trade Curnow. Not just because that affects our on-field performance (because Curnow is a top 3 forward in the league) but because of the message it sends. Why would any of the top-end players stick around if we do that. TBH, why would any of them stick around given we sold them on a competitive list, then gave half of it away...

Absolutely more than comfortable that they've all been moved on or getting moved on. Its a great thing for the club.

 

[BrisbaneCFC]

Yep, 100% . He's a mature, versatile player who is a key part of our group. We should have had him locked away last year.

Instead, we did this:

‘I’ll get a call’: Jack Silvagni yet to open contract talks as Blue reborn after 600-day return

‘I’ll get a call’: Free agent’s waiting game as Blue blood reborn after 600-day return

www.foxsports.com.au

Option 1 (above): "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL and moving to a new position that you haven't played before, but we can't offer you a contract yet. We have to wait and see whether TDK wants to sign for a million dollars a year first, and then we might be able to fit you in. But as soon as he lets us know, we can maybe have a chat. We know you'll sign because you are a Silvagni, and you don't really have a position and you have been injured, so just hang around and we'll probably come back and sign you. Or not, if you get injured again, as happened with your mates (DC and Marchy and Martin). But we probably will, just don't go anywhere, right"

vs

Option 2: "Hey, we know you are coming back from an ACL, but we want you to know that we value you and see you as a long-term part of this club and future. This is probably your last big deal so we're going to give you a fair offer for four years, that will take you through until you are 32, and get this sorted before the season starts so you can focus on getting your body right, learning a new position, and being part of this club forever".

Let's face it, we treated him the way a high school quarterback treats the bookish, nerdy girl who lives next door - like a second choice. He then showed up at the ball looking pretty damn fine and Collingwood and others showed a genuine interest in him for the player he is, and of course he took that offer.

Meanwhile, we can barely put out 23 players next year, let alone the 35-odd we need in the squad to compete. But hey, Liam Reidy, come on down!

It is either incompetence or ego but it is ruining the club. Can't wait for another 10 year rebuild to start...

A little over dramatic id say.