List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[119others]

PlayStation trade, sure. But trading out players that don’t want to leave creates disharmony in the group. Wouldn’t do it for that alone.

Would rather trade 3x firsts which is Jeremy Cameron territory. And more than Dangerfield and other great player trades.

Well you can’t trade out anyone that doesn’t want to leave. The club must honour the contract. But I get that these discussions would need to be done in a very sensitive manner to not get that potential departing player, and the wider playing group, offside.

Saints could ask for a number of our quality younger guys:

• Max
• Worrell
• Keane even
• Soligo
• Curtin
• Draper
• Rankine
• TT

I find losing Rachele more palatable than any of these other blokes.

 

[1970crow]

Who’s it irrelevant? The rule is protect clubs from themselves from burning long term prospects for short term gain.

We would still have a lot of young high draft picks on the list for the future.

It's irrelevant because the rule is that you need to use 2 first round picks at the draft every rolling 4 years. When we're talking about trading out our 2027 first rounder, all that matters is whether between 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027 we will have selected 2 players from the first round. And given that we only selected one player in the first round of 2024, we cannot trade out all of our future firsts, because it would mean that we've only selected 1 first rounder in the 4 year rolling period between 2024 and 2027. It's pretty simple. Why people keep referring to what we did prior to 2024 is beyond me. the AFL don't care, the rule isn't 'we'll make a judgement call on whether you've got enough first rounders on the list from the last 4 year', they've said that you need to have 2 every rolling 4 years.

The exemption they appear to have allowed, which they said, is that they're prepared to treat a recently traded in first rounder as though they'd been selected by you in the draft. No chance Rankine qualifies, his draft was years ago.

 

[Mutineer]

Well you can’t trade out anyone that doesn’t want to leave. The club must honour the contract. But I get that these discussions would need to be done in a very sensitive manner to not get that potential departing player, and the wider playing group, offside.

Saints could ask for a number of our quality younger guys:

• Max
• Worrell
• Keane even
• Soligo
• Curtin
• Draper
• Rankine
• TT

I find losing Rachele more palatable than any of these other blokes.

Trading out good players that have fully bought in to all things Adelaide Crows and like Rachele are much loved by teammates and the supporters is never a good idea....@daniel_4tw is spot on.

 

[GreyCrow]

Where does NWM play?

Does old man Laird shuffle to the bench?

 

[Crow till I die]

Where does NWM play?

Does old man Laird shuffle to the bench?

Right in the guts. Have you not seen his last few weeks when moved in there for St Kilda?

 

[GreyCrow]

Right in the guts. Have you not seen his last few weeks when moved in there for St Kilda?

You want me to watch St Kilda play?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

They liken him to NWM i saw in the draft write up

More explosive , less composure

In top couple I reckon

 

[119others]

Trading out good players that have fully bought in to all things Adelaide Crows and like Rachele are much loved by teammates and the supporters is never a good idea....@daniel_4tw is spot on.

What were you thoughts on trading Wellman for DJ at the time? And were you happy with the ultimate result?

Wellman was a much loved and very popular young gun in a time of extraordinary talented SA youngsters signed on at the Crows. Roo, Hart, Mods, Rehn, Smart, Mc Leod etc. I didn’t want to lose him but recognised to get the extreme talent of DJ back we had to give up something of note. Ultimately I was happy with the trade and over the moon with the end results at the end of 1998.

Happy for your views though

 

[Crow till I die]

You want me to watch St Kilda play?

Its customary to watch a future star of our team play before he gets here

 

[119others]

Where does NWM play?

Does old man Laird shuffle to the bench?

If you’ve seen his last 3-4 weeks he plays MIDFIELD. Our best midfielder, probably our best player with TT, and elevates our midfield into the elite category

 

[GreyCrow]

Its customary to watch a future star of our team play before he gets here

When he nominates I will do so

I knew he was a HBF and dominating MG

 

[Danger in Texas]

You blokes wouldn’t give up Rach and pick 18 for NAS?

As much as Rach is a good player, he’s not up to NAS level

Value wise it’s probably unders from us

But there’s no way in hell I’m forcing out a popular young clubman

Only try to include players that would be open to a move. I don’t see Rash as being a guy that would be

 

[Mutineer]

What were you thoughts on trading Wellman for DJ at the time? And were you happy with the ultimate result?

Wellman was a much loved and very popular young gun in a time of extraordinary talented SA youngsters signed on at the Crows. Roo, Hart, Mods, Rehn, Smart, Mc Leod etc. I didn’t want to lose him but recognised to get the extreme talent of DJ back we had to give up something of note. Ultimately I was happy with the trade and over the moon with the end results at the end of 1998.

Happy for your views though

That's ancient history, you got anything more current?

Sean Wellman was a defender, and certainly not rated as high as Rachele the forward is in the AFL landscape.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

That's ancient history, you got anything more current?

Sean Wellman was a defender, and certainly not rated as high as Rachele the forward is in the AFL landscape.

The more recent was the Judd transfer. Win short term for Carlton, massive win long term for WC.

 

[Mutineer]

The more recent was the Judd transfer. Win short term for Carlton, massive win long term for WC.

But Rachele is fair bit more proven than Josh Kennedy was at the time though both were similar draft picks.

 

[1970crow]

It feels a little counterintuitive giving clubs more currency but not allowing them to use more currency. I think the rule is mainly in place to prevent clubs from the risk of shooting themselves in the foot (for example, an older club like Carlton or Collingwood would be held to the rule).

With position our list is in and age of the player we’re bringing in, I doubt we won’t get an exemption. Our recent first rounders are relevant as they highlight the age profile of our list.

It's not counterintuitive at all, it's logical design. On one hand they're allowing further flexibility to make player movement easier, but on the other, they're providing limitation so that club's can't totally shaft themselves. The 2 measures go hand in hand. Look at the below from AFL website, it's exceptionally clear what they're trying to achieve.

I wouldn't be confident that they're going to allow a request, if they do, I'll be very interested in their reasoning. Because to me, if you're going to be making the rules very precise, as they have done, then they shouldn't be trying to manipulate outcomes with secret herbs and spices behind closed doors.

 

[119others]

That's ancient history, you got anything more current?

Sean Wellman was a defender, and certainly not rated as high as Rachele the forward is in the AFL landscape.

Not correct Bicks. I followed this very closely at the time and Wellman was considered VERY highly - another Ben Hart calibre player. He was destined to and indeed made 2 All Australian Teams in the 6 years after leaving the Crows. Wellman was a far greater prospect than Rachele.

It doesn’t have to be a recent example. It’s the concept of giving up something that is quality (Rash) to get something absolutely elite which becomes your best player (or very close to) and a big finals winning type. The fact Nas is a midfielder now compared to a small forward is even more important.

I get we like Rash. But the truth is he isn’t in the top 7 players at our club and not in the best handful of players from his draft year (NWM, ND, Darcy, JHF, Callaghan). Would you rather give up TT, Worrell, Rankine, Max etc? Rachele is the one from a playing perspective we could lose - without considering the cultural impact

 

[119others]

It's not counterintuitive at all, it's logical design. On one hand they're allowing further flexibility to make player movement easier, but on the other, they're providing limitation so that club's can't totally shaft themselves. The 2 measures go hand in hand. Look at the below from AFL website, it's exceptionally clear what they're trying to achieve.

I wouldn't be confident that they're going to allow a request, if they do, I'll be very interested in their reasoning. Because to me, if you're going to be making the rules very precise, as they have done, then they shouldn't be trying to manipulate outcomes with secret herbs and spices behind closed doors.

View attachment 2381095

It’s as counter intuitive as arguing a 5 game / 7 goal 2025 forward in Draper was comparable to Tex Walker

PS people understand the rules. It’s hardly rocket science

 

[Mutineer]

Not correct Bicks. I followed this very closely at the time and Wellman was considered VERY highly - another Ben Hart calibre player. He was destined to and indeed made 2 All Australian Teams in the 6 years after leaving the Crows. Wellman was a far greater prospect than Rachele.

It doesn’t have to be a recent example. It’s the concept of giving up something that is quality (Rash) to get something absolutely elite which becomes your best player (or very close to) and a big finals winning type. The fact Nas is a midfielder now compared to a small forward is even more important.

I get we like Rash. But the truth is he isn’t in the top 7 players at our club and not in the best handful of players from his draft year (NWM, ND, Darcy, JHF, Callaghan). Would you rather give up TT, Worrell, Rankine, Max etc? Rachele is the one from a playing perspective we could lose - without considering the cultural impact

I ain't giving up any of our top players and Rachele is that, I've given my reasoning....the end.

 

[119others]

I ain't giving up any top players and I've given my reasoning....the end.

Fair enough, I hope you don’t take any joy out of our GF wins as we wouldn’t have them without sacrificing a (more talented than Rachele) youngster at the time

Let’s agree to disagree. The End

 

[Mostyn]

Sometimes you have to give up something to get something better. Pick 18 also means we are premiers. Double bonus.

Giving them three firsts is one of the best hauls in trade history. We can't trade contracted players there.

 

[Mostyn]

Well you can’t trade out anyone that doesn’t want to leave. The club must honour the contract. But I get that these discussions would need to be done in a very sensitive manner to not get that potential departing player, and the wider playing group, offside.

Saints could ask for a number of our quality younger guys:

• Max
• Worrell
• Keane even
• Soligo
• Curtin
• Draper
• Rankine
• TT

I find losing Rachele more palatable than any of these other blokes.

So don't give them any of those players.

Who the hell trades out a quality player to get a quality player?

Wellman is 30 years ago. It just doesn't happen.

 

[Mostyn]

Not correct Bicks. I followed this very closely at the time and Wellman was considered VERY highly - another Ben Hart calibre player. He was destined to and indeed made 2 All Australian Teams in the 6 years after leaving the Crows. Wellman was a far greater prospect than Rachele.

It doesn’t have to be a recent example. It’s the concept of giving up something that is quality (Rash) to get something absolutely elite which becomes your best player (or very close to) and a big finals winning type. The fact Nas is a midfielder now compared to a small forward is even more important.

I get we like Rash. But the truth is he isn’t in the top 7 players at our club and not in the best handful of players from his draft year (NWM, ND, Darcy, JHF, Callaghan). Would you rather give up TT, Worrell, Rankine, Max etc? Rachele is the one from a playing perspective we could lose - without considering the cultural impact

Of course it has to be a recent example. 30 years ago was a completely different time.

It doesn't happen. Players don't want to do it. Clubs don't want to do it. NWM is uncontracted, so no one has to do it.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

It's not counterintuitive at all, it's logical design. On one hand they're allowing further flexibility to make player movement easier, but on the other, they're providing limitation so that club's can't totally shaft themselves. The 2 measures go hand in hand. Look at the below from AFL website, it's exceptionally clear what they're trying to achieve.

I wouldn't be confident that they're going to allow a request, if they do, I'll be very interested in their reasoning. Because to me, if you're going to be making the rules very precise, as they have done, then they shouldn't be trying to manipulate outcomes with secret herbs and spices behind closed doors.

View attachment 2381095

Nothing in that image that suggests we can’t be exempt by promising to trade back into the 2026/27 draft next year. I don’t think a single person could argue we’d be shafting ourselves by bringing NWM in, which is the only reason the rule was introduced.

 

[Velvet George]

Value wise it’s probably unders from us

But there’s no way in hell I’m forcing out a popular young clubman

Only try to include players that would be open to a move. I don’t see Rash as being a guy that would be

Read on, I said not force him out, only if he wanted to