List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[Beyond Blue]

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.

In the following games his inaccuracy was critical to the result
Western Bulldogs 2024 - 3 goals 7 points
Sydney 2023 - 1 goal 3 points
Essendon 2023 - 2 goals 4 points
St Kilda 2022 - 1 goal 4 points
Melbourne 2022 - 1 goal 4 points
Collingwood 2022 - 2 goals 5 points

He almost cost us the round one Richmond game in 2024 with his ridiculous decision to play on after taking a mark in the goal square only to get caught holding the ball instead of going back and icing the game kicking a set shot from the goal square.

He also had that putrid stretch mid season this year when he kicked 0 goals 11 points across 4 consecutive games.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

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.

I have faith because they have never gone too hard before. Every single change they have made has still been in the matching sides advantage. Two picks is obviously still a big advantage but they do need to go abit further and allow some sort of deficit to allow sides to plan

 

[juzza316]

In the following games his inaccuracy was critical to the result
Western Bulldogs 2024 - 3 goals 7 points
Sydney 2023 - 1 goal 3 points
Essendon 2023 - 2 goals 4 points
St Kilda 2022 - 1 goal 4 points
Melbourne 2022 - 1 goal 4 points
Collingwood 2022 - 2 goals 5 points

He almost cost us the round one Richmond game in 2024 with his ridiculous decision to play on after taking a mark in the goal square only to get caught holding the ball instead of going back and icing the game kicking a set shot from the goal square.

He also had that putrid stretch mid season this year when he kicked 0 goals 11 points across 4 consecutive games.

OK so that is 6 games that according to your logic he lost off his own boot by kicking 4 or more behinds.

Only fair then to compare that to games where he has kicked 4 or more goals to determine games he won off his own boot.

Games where Curnow has kicked 4 or more goals = 47 games.

Hardly 'almost lost as many as he won'.

 

[My Hat]

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

Seems like one of the main reasons that clubs have been willing to give up a higher pick in exchange for 'junk' picks is specifically to use some of the lower picks to match bids. If that's no longer possible, then it will be much harder for us to find someone who is willing to give us the high picks we need.

 

[bluesDeluxe]

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.

We have to cut AT LEAST 1 more from the primary list, to allow us to take our mandatory 3 picks.

We can upgrade 1 from the rookie list, and take 2 only in ND, which is a possibility.

However if we want to take 4 picks to the ND for matching purposes, we need to cut 2 more from the primary list to give us 4 primary list spots.

Whatever we do with the rookies is separate

 

[bigblueboy]

We could do a pick swap with Essendon to get ahead of the Dean bid -
9,11,54 for 6,27,30

 

[swuzzlebubble]

We could do a pick swap with Essendon to get ahead of the Dean bid -
9,11,54 for 6,27,30

That's about 300 points gain to us.
It would cost us to trade up.

 

[bigblueboy]

That's about 300 points gain to us.
It would cost us to trade up.

43 instead of 54 would be enough to swing it in Essendons favour from a pure points perspective.

 

[Stamos]

We could do a pick swap with Essendon to get ahead of the Dean bid -
9,11,54 for 6,27,30

This (or similar) is by far our most viable way of trading up.
Of course it’s only a smaller trade up.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

43 instead of 54 would be enough to swing it in Essendons favour from a pure points perspective.

27 & 30 then isn't enough for matching earlier than about 12. Ison would have to be done with deficit

 

[Stamos]

We have to cut AT LEAST 1 more from the primary list, to allow us to take our mandatory 3 picks.

We can upgrade 1 from the rookie list, and take 2 only in ND, which is a possibility.

However if we want to take 4 picks to the ND for matching purposes, we need to cut 2 more from the primary list to give us 4 primary list spots.

Whatever we do with the rookies is separate

If we only cut 1 more, then we have to upgrade a rookie, and we would only have 2 list spots, and 2 ND picks.
The rookie upgrade would make this acceptable to the AFL, but your numbers are wrong.

And it’s also wrong to consider our rookies as separate, given we are currently oversubscribed.

 

[Stamos]

That's about 300 points gain to us.
It would cost us to trade up.

The proposed trade would be with the assumption that Essendon value the trade up from 27 to 11 as much more important than the slide from 6 to 9.

We can’t really afford a trade that we lose points on pick 11 for, unless we’re prepared to wipe a 2027 1st.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The proposed trade would be with the assumption that Essendon value the trade up from 27 to 11 as much more important than the slide from 6 to 9.

We can’t really afford a trade that we lose points on pick 11 for, unless we’re prepared to wipe a 2027 1st.

Even if we get 27 & 30 it's not enough for matching ahead of 9. And if a bid is ahead of 9, then 6 is a risk of not being ahead enough (unless live trade)

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

We could do a pick swap with Essendon to get ahead of the Dean bid -
9,11,54 for 6,27,30

I thought that Essendon's list spots were just as tight as ours, especially after taking 2 in the SSP and 4 in the MSD. Not sure if they'd be keen on splitting one of their high picks if they don't have the space.

They may offer up picks 5 and 6 to WCE for pick 2 and a future pick, and just keep their later picks for their two academy boys.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

I thought that Essendon's list spots were just as tight as ours, especially after taking 2 in the SSP and 4 in the MSD. Not sure if they'd be keen on splitting one of their high picks if they don't have the space.

They may offer up picks 5 and 6 to WCE for pick 2 and a future pick, and just keep their later picks for their two academy boys.

Could be done as live trade when you know who is still on the board and you don't need to match picks with list spots

 

[Stamos]

Even if we get 27 & 30 it's not enough for matching ahead of 9. And if a bid is ahead of 9, then 6 is a risk of not being ahead enough (unless live trade)

Yes, but we would only do such a trade live, and, likely that Uwland, Anabel and Paterson have already been bid on. So we’d be trading for 9, not ‘6’, and the earliest possible bid for Dean would be at 10.
Also, 27 and 30 would now be 25 and 26, which would be enough to match a bid at 10, Melbourne’s first pick.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Seems like one of the main reasons that clubs have been willing to give up a higher pick in exchange for 'junk' picks is specifically to use some of the lower picks to match bids. If that's no longer possible, then it will be much harder for us to find someone who is willing to give us the high picks we need.

Which just tells you the true value of these picks. Your two natural selection’s allow you to move up ~6 spots in the first round. If you need to move up more than that your future first probably should be on the table.

 

[Beyond Blue]

OK so that is 6 games that according to your logic he lost off his own boot by kicking 4 or more behinds.

Only fair then to compare that to games where he has kicked 4 or more goals to determine games he won off his own boot.

Games where Curnow has kicked 4 or more goals = 47 games.

Hardly 'almost lost as many as he won'.

I reckon a dozen of those 47 games were against North and West Coast, both of whom are almost VFL level teams. Also how many of those 47 games did we lose? In his time at Carlton I can probably only count 15 games where I would say he was outstanding. IMO he has been hugely overrated by us fan due to the way the media hype him up and I cringe when I hear him described as a“generational” star.

I think the club have played this really well. By getting rid of Charlie in one fell swoop they have sorted out the salary cap, addressed list holes and given ourselves draft picks to get the list right before Tasmania come into the league. Also I genuinely think we are immediately better next year. I hope this is a sign of what we will see from the club in terms of having a more balanced deep list of players rather than over hyped “generational” stars.

 

[Bletch]

We have to cut AT LEAST 1 more from the primary list, to allow us to take our mandatory 3 picks.

We can upgrade 1 from the rookie list, and take 2 only in ND, which is a possibility.

However if we want to take 4 picks to the ND for matching purposes, we need to cut 2 more from the primary list to give us 4 primary list spots.

Whatever we do with the rookies is separate

You seem to be under the impression that the two lists are independent. They are not.

For a start, the Primary List size limit is 36-38. We currently have 34, so can add between 2 and 4 players. Yes of course, it will almost certainly end up at 36, but for the purposes of the draft, the picks we can take to the draft take into account:
(1) the overall list limit (Primary+Rookie: 42; plus Cat-B: 2; total 44); and
(2) the individual list limits - Primary: 36-38; Rookie: 1-6.

For example. We can leave the primary list alone, and cut 3 players from the rookie list prior to the draft. In that case, we'd still take 4 picks to the draft, even though we're at 34 on the primary list already.

 

[My Hat]

Which just tells you the true value of these picks. Your two natural selection’s allow you to move up ~6 spots in the first round. If you need to move up more than that your future first probably should be on the table.

Not sure there is such a thing as a 'true' value of picks, really. Their value is determined by whatever they can be used for. When their utility is higher then their value is higher, and when their utility reduces, so does their value.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Not sure there is such a thing as a 'true' value of picks, really. Their value is determined by whatever they can be used for. When their utility is higher then their value is higher, and when their utility reduces, so does their value.

just because the value changes from year to year doesn’t mean you can’t find a much fairer value. If you can’t get two picks to equal one than you are obviously getting a ridiculous bargain.

Also people seem to be making a mistake of thinking you need to trade up right next to these picks. You don’t, the closest you need to be is within ~10 picks. That gives you plenty of potential sellers to find fair value from.

 

[Shambolic]

just because the value changes from year to year doesn’t mean you can’t find a much fairer value. If you can’t get two picks to equal one than you are obviously getting a ridiculous bargain.

Also people seem to be making a mistake of thinking you need to trade up right next to these picks. You don’t, the closest you need to be is within ~10 picks. That gives you plenty of potential sellers to find fair value from.

Who determines the ~10 - or is that a point thing?

 

[marcmurphy3]

just because the value changes from year to year doesn’t mean you can’t find a much fairer value. If you can’t get two picks to equal one than you are obviously getting a ridiculous bargain.

Also people seem to be making a mistake of thinking you need to trade up right next to these picks. You don’t, the closest you need to be is within ~10 picks. That gives you plenty of potential sellers to find fair value from.

If Walker gets bid on at 1 you will need to get much closer then within 10. For example, picks 4 and 8 if no discount, would be one combination.

The issue is picks that high are often not for sale, for almost anything. You can argue that clubs should trade players if required, but even then you can't force players to go to the club that has the picks you want.

You want a bidding system that is fair, but you need to balance that with being able to realistically match bids, from various points on the ladder. Otherwise there is no point having a bidding system.

It is never going to be 100% fair. Most things in the competition arent. Just need to find a reasonable balance.

 

[Stamos]

If Walker gets bid on at 1 you will need to get much closer then within 10. For example, picks 4 and 8 if no discount, would be one combination.

The issue is picks that high are often not for sale, for almost anything. You can argue that clubs should trade players if required, but even then you can't force players to go to the club that has the picks you want.

You want a bidding system that is fair, but you need to balance that with being able to realistically match bids, from various points on the ladder. Otherwise there is no point having a bidding system.

It is never going to be 100% fair. Most things in the competition arent. Just need to find a reasonable balance.

If they are going to shift to only 2 picks to match, they will have to recalculate the DVI, because the current points were calculated with no limit to the number of picks allowed, and with a 10% discount.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

If Walker gets bid on at 1 you will need to get much closer then within 10. For example, picks 4 and 8 if no discount, would be one combination.

The issue is picks that high are often not for sale, for almost anything. You can argue that clubs should trade players if required, but even then you can't force players to go to the club that has the picks you want.

You want a bidding system that is fair, but you need to balance that with being able to realistically match bids, from various points on the ladder. Otherwise there is no point having a bidding system.

It is never going to be 100% fair. Most things in the competition arent. Just need to find a reasonable balance.

True on pick 1, it’s an outlier though and imo should be revalued under a two pick system.
If he gets a bid at pick 3 we can match with 13 and 14. That is totally fair. They just need to do something about picks/points getting pushed back because of compensation picks.

Who determines the ~10 - or is that a point thing?

Just a point thing.