List Mgmt. 2025 List Management

[serial_thrilla]

 

[Cesoir]

I want to see a trade target pull out of negotiations with a rival club after being unimpressed with the tour of their facilities

No waterslides, no deal.

 

[Clems Knee]

I want to see a trade target pull out of negotiations with a rival club after being unimpressed with the tour of their facilities

Dustin Martin at GWS?

 

[freo_leo29]

Dude this is worthless analysis. We're in the business of picking actually good players, not maximising the points we take to the draft.

Do you need an extreme example to understand? What if the draft contained 20 Murphy Reids and 45 Devon Robertsons? Your two picks in the 20s are total garbage.

It blows my mind people are still talking points in terms of OUR drafting. The draft contains groups of players and there can be large cliffs between groups.

The only argument that can be made against is we gave away points to other clubs that need them for free. From our perspective, it looks like we only want one pick and have decided that there is someone worth drafting at our first one, then we get Whan. End of draft. Everything else is just noise.

Your arguing for a scenario where we have worse picks and have more picks than we need.

Dude, you have 0 understanding of the market.

In my scenario I'm saying we use the points to trade back up

You need to stop arguing for the sake of it when you don't understand how the trade period works.

 

[millsy]

12 for 25/26

25 for Mcvee (Dees took 24 so I'd be absolutely stunned if they wouldn't take 25)


26, 34, 51 = equiv of pick 15 (we still hold 44 in this scenario)

gets us close to GC pick 15, would almost certainly get us 18 in which case we end up with a pick 2 spots higher in both the first round and the 3rd round (44 never moves down to 46 in this scenario)

Alternatively 44 goes in with it and we get pick 15, as I reckon we are only taking 1x live pick this draft


Thats just going off the possible GC/North trade from the AFL, its without even delving into Brissy/Blues/Bombers possibilities


Basically we should have held points to allow us to trade up because there are gonna be multiple clubs willing to trade down for points

quick edit: FWIW I reckon we can do much better than 25/26 but this is just showing we can start off in a bad position and still come out on top of what we actually did, if only we held the other picks to trade up with points.

Perfect example. Reasonable alternative. Marginally better outcome all going to plan.

 

[Superkoops]

12 for 25/26
26, 34, 51 = equiv of pick 15 (we still hold 44 in this scenario)

1. Isn’t Gold Coast swapping out 15 for 25/26. So 12 > 25/26 is not a good swap.
2. A collection of picks 26,34,51 would never be enough for pick 15. Pick 34 is going to be around the same value is 40 and 26 pushed back as well. Pick 51 worth basically nothing.

 

[freo_leo29]

Perfect example. Reasonable alternative. Marginally better outcome all going to plan.

I reckon I was being conservative (against us) too by allowing for 12 to become just 25/26

GC are chasing points hard and we could have been the one to provide em, instead we tossed em away

 

[Cobbler]

My golly. Been out all day. Notification popped up whilst I was at a work meeting. Did a cheeky glance. Saw for pick 103. My mind raced to Big Footy and the posts that would roll in.

What I will say is…

This has all the making of part of a second deal! Hahaha.

Man… what a trade period for us.

Look, we brought in McVee and cleared some space.

Let’s see if that pick 20 moves…

 

[Eski3]

12 for 25/26

25 for Mcvee (Dees took 24 so I'd be absolutely stunned if they wouldn't take 25)


26, 34, 51 = equiv of pick 15 (we still hold 44 in this scenario)

gets us close to GC pick 15, would almost certainly get us 18 in which case we end up with a pick 2 spots higher in both the first round and the 3rd round (44 never moves down to 46 in this scenario)

Alternatively 44 goes in with it and we get pick 15, as I reckon we are only taking 1x live pick this draft


Thats just going off the possible GC/North trade from the AFL, its without even delving into Brissy/Blues/Bombers possibilities


Basically we should have held points to allow us to trade up because there are gonna be multiple clubs willing to trade down for points

quick edit: FWIW I reckon we can do much better than 25/26 but this is just showing we can start off in a bad position and still come out on top of what we actually did, if only we held the other picks to trade up with points.

This is a fairer breakdown of what may actually have happened versus what the trade was, but if it played out this way:

1. We'd be waiting around for a week to potentially get a pick that Gold Coast may end up trading elsewhere anyway, when West Coast and Brisbane were already haggling over picks right in the range we needed to targetl

2. We end up with pick 18 instead of pick 20, which is hardly worth melting over

3. Could you imagine the melts when we completed the first part of the trade, and essentially did 12 for Mcvee and 26

 

[Superkoops]

But at the end of all that - what's the highest draft pick we could end up with and getting an early 20s pick with McVee? Cos from a net stand point, if we're taking Whan with our second pick that's all that really matters. We weren't upgrading 12, so the only question is how far back are we sliding

Why not keep 34 or 45 to use to trade up or otherwise trade into the future. Brisbane can have 45 at the cost of an F3 for example. Just chucking away the pick because we don’t need that isn’t justification for being inept.

 

[freo_leo29]

1. Isn’t Gold Coast swapping out 15 for 25/26. So 12 > 25/26 is not a good swap.
2. A collection of picks 26,34,51 would never be enough for pick 15. Pick 34 is going to be around the same value is 40 and 26 pushed back as well. Pick 51 worth basically nothing.

1. Yes agreed but my main point is we end up better off and thats by starting off with a crappy offer (I think we could have done better than that but even starting off that bad we end up in a better position in both the 1st and 3rd round)

2. I said it would be enough for 18 but close to 15, (it is actually worth more than pick 15 tho and GC are chasing points) also how have you decided they will be pushed back? GC very likely are the first club to have talent bid on, these picks are going to be eaten up before they have the chance of moving back

 

[millsy]

1. Yes agreed but my main point is we end up better off and thats by starting off with a crappy offer (I think we could have done better than that but even starting off that bad we end up in a better position in both the 1st and 3rd round)

2. I said it would be enough for 18 but close to 15, (it is actually worth more than pick 15 tho and GC are chasing points) also how have you decided they will be pushed back? GC very likely are the first club to have talent bid on, these picks are going to be eaten up before they have the chance of moving back

Yeah but we're sitting here with McVee done and not chasing pick swaps for what might be a marginally better outcome.

Still think it helps illustrate that the very squandering of value we're livid with is actually still likely to happen in the alternatives where we bundle picks to the clubs chasing points. End result starts to look very same same.

 

[A New Hope]

Don't forget all of the handshake deals we have been making by by giving away picks and receiving bad ones.
I even heard Wallsy had to put down his beer for a few.
We are lucky Snuff hasn't had his BBQ yet or Wallsys hands would have been full.

In the end we will have got in a great player showing him what we thought of him by making it happen early.
We stayed out of all the bulltish, became an easy to deal with club.
Danster has never been so quiet. (almost reasonable)
And we still have plenty of time for us to pull out a JOM/Lob in the last ten mins of the trade period.
Enough to keep this thread going until first bounce toss next year.

 

[Barnabus]

Wildcard trade move: Could Collingwood star Jordan De Goey be on the table?

Collingwood match-winner Jordan De Goey shapes as a wildcard trade possibility in the 48 hours before Wednesday’s AFL trades deadline.

www.theage.com.au

Any takers?

So this is why we went after pick 103

 

[freo_leo29]

Yeah but we're sitting here with McVee done and not chasing pick swaps for what might be a marginally better outcome.

Still think it helps illustrate that the very squandering of value we're livid with is actually still likely to happen in the alternatives where we bundle picks to the clubs chasing points. End result starts to look very same same.

Thats the point though, you don't give up value when trading down a first rounder because you need that value to move up elsewhere, you're supposed to lose some value when moving up, its how the market works, some clubs want points and others want positions, we somehow squandered both points and position in our first trade.

 

[pK75]

Thats the point though, you don't give up value when trading down a first rounder because you need that value to move up elsewhere, you're supposed to lose some value when moving up, its how the market works, some clubs want points and others want positions, we somehow squandered both points and position in our first trade.

Spot on.
Not a single trade this year has seen the club trading down its 1st round pick has also lost points value except Freo, all the arguments about the weakness of this fmdrsft or what the picks will end up being and bringing McVee early are just a diversion from the fact it was a stupid trade.
I shouldn’t be surprised though, Walls obviously knows who he wants with pick 20 and is sure he’ll be available so the rest doesn’t matter to him.

 

[freo_leo29]

Talking draft now

Do we think its as simple as pick 20 + Take Whan whenever our 2nd pick rolls around or do we try and slide him through to the rookie list?

I think the scenarios should be one of the below - first you delist Sturt and promise to redraft

Scenario A) 20 + whichever slider is available at 40 and then if Whan gets bid on, you take him and draft Sturt as a rookie.

Scenario B) 20 + whichever slider is available at 40 and no bid for Whan, then you take him as a Cat B and redraft Sturt in the PSD (gets us back to 36+6) - I call this the Gunston 2024 method

Scenario C) 20 + just take Whan if there are no sliders that we actually rate, redraft Sturt in the PSD (I prefer trying to get Whan to the cat B list so this is my least favourite scenario)

 

[s_wd6]

Talking draft now

Do we think its as simple as pick 20 + Take Whan whenever our 2nd pick rolls around or do we try and slide him through to the rookie list?

I think the scenarios should be one of the below - first you delist Sturt and promise to redraft

Scenario A) 20 + whichever slider is available at 40 and then if Whan gets bid on, you take him and draft Sturt as a rookie.

Scenario B) 20 + whichever slider is available at 40 and no bid for Whan, then you take him as a Cat B and redraft Sturt in the PSD (gets us back to 36+6) - I call this the Gunston 2024 method

Scenario C) 20 + just take Whan if there are no sliders that we actually rate, redraft Sturt in the PSD (I prefer trying to get Whan to the cat B list so this is my least favourite scenario)

Wouldn’t we have to delist Sturt before the draft?

Either way I don’t see them actually doing that. I’m almost certain it will be 20 and Whan. For the same reason we drafted Benning and Carr when we didn’t have to.

 

[Bastyy]

We can talk shit about Port and how they’re taking cast offs but I’ll wait to start flaming and laughing at Port until we actually overtake them in terms of success…

Fremantle haven’t really lit up the trading floor in terms of quality trading moves in our 30 year history….

Port's past successes hardly make up for the current fact that they have a list management team that has brought in spuds like Ivan Soldo, Jordon Sweet, Joe Richards, Rory Atkins, Jacob Wehr, Will Brodie and Corey Durdin in the last 3 trade periods. Their biggest successes are Esava and Brandon Zerk-Thatcher (Who wouldn't be getting a game here!). They only got 7 games out of Jack Lukosious this year, that trade could go down in the dirt if he can't get over injury issues

I don't know about you but I think this is a list management strategy worth laughing at!

 

[Mainy66]

There was a compelling case made on one of the Fox footy shows tonight regarding how tall forwards don’t win finals - with stats on who kicked the goals in the recent grand final. Are FFC missing an opportunity to trade out one of our tall forwards while they still have some value?

 

[Cobbler]

There was a compelling case made on one of the Fox footy shows tonight regarding how tall forwards don’t win finals - with stats on who kicked the goals in the recent grand final. Are FFC missing an opportunity to trade out one of our tall forwards while they still have some value?

They’re all 22-23 mate. They’ll have value in 3 years should we go that path. They’ll also all be hitting their primes in that time.

Patience still required, but as much as Voss busted out from seemingly nowhere, imagine Treacy goes another level or Amiss.

Still growth here. Wouldn’t want to sell for unders.

 

[Docker82]

Wouldn’t we have to delist Sturt before the draft?

Either way I don’t see them actually doing that. I’m almost certain it will be 20 and Whan. For the same reason we drafted Benning and Carr when we didn’t have to.

Wouldn't be surprised either way in terms of whether we delist and redraft someone as a rookie or not tbh. We used to delist and redraft contracted players all the time.

Another option if Whan does go inside Pick 40 (which I assume pick 47 falls inside of) is to upgrade Voss to the senior list post draft.

I'd personally take three picks.

 

[s_wd6]

There was a compelling case made on one of the Fox footy shows tonight regarding how tall forwards don’t win finals - with stats on who kicked the goals in the recent grand final. Are FFC missing an opportunity to trade out one of our tall forwards while they still have some value?

This gets brought up here a lot. Almost as much as not needing a good ruck because other teams have won flags with experienced, less good rucks.

Brisbane have just added Allen, on top of Morris and Gallop. They’ll run with three next year. Hawks went with four a few times.

If we can trade out Amiss for a quality pressure small who kicks goals I’d take it, but not for picks.

 

[s_wd6]

Wouldn't be surprised either way in terms of whether we delist and redraft someone as a rookie tbh. We used to delist and redraft contracted players all the time.

Another option if Whan does go inside Pick 40 (which I assume pick 47 falls inside of) is to upgrade Voss to the senior list post draft.

Did we? Can only remember Blakely in recent times. Weren’t the rest all ooc?

 

[The Feeder Club]

There was a compelling case made on one of the Fox footy shows tonight regarding how tall forwards don’t win finals - with stats on who kicked the goals in the recent grand final. Are FFC missing an opportunity to trade out one of our tall forwards while they still have some value?

I didn't see the show but stats from one grand final wouldn't convince me too much.
In the end a lot of it's down to coaching. The best coach will make the most out of a forward structure, and history says there are many successful forward structures including a structure that includes three talls.
I really don't think there's one playing formula that wins a flag, except I have never seen one won yet without a good midfield.

Midfield>coach>defence=forwards in order of importance, IMO

 

[Taylor]

I was hearing rumours that DeGoey was going to retire end of this year if Pies won the flag so I'd be very cautious taking him on elsewhere.

Once the drive dies the player just isn't going to perform anymore. Even a little off field distraction can stuff a player's performance all year.