List Mgmt. 2025 Trade/FA Thread

[jmac70]

Contracts. Its gonna be tight

Mattys123 used to post on here…

 

[Jen2310]

Mattys123 used to post on here…

yeah.
he's a mate of mine.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

That’s why he’d be 4th in line of that ruck depth chart

For context Essendon are having a horrific run with their ruck injuries and have reached to their 4th just once. I think we’ve done it once this century (Begg in 2022). Even then in year 1 you’d probably find a way to use someone else be it Frampton or Howes.

I think it’d be unlikely that Smit would get a second chance in 2026 if we delisted him. He’s currently a very poor state league ruckman playing as a KPD which doesn’t exactly scream list spot to an acquiring club.

For context none of this is considering that we’ll have a clear line of sight on Condon’s future this time next year. If we don’t already (although I think we do).

As a ruck Smit is about 5th in line.
1.Cameron
2. Cox
3. Frampton
4. McStay (maybe)
5. Smit/Steene
? Condon
? McCarthy

As a ruck forward he is even further behind.

We can give a spot to Smit as a ruck or a mature ruck such as:
Soldo
Marshall

 

[Jen2310]

As a ruck Smit is about 5th in line.
1.Cameron
2. Cox
3. Frampton
4. McStay (maybe)
5. Smit/Steene
? Condon
? McCarthy

As a ruck forward he is even further behind.

We can give a spot to Smit as a ruck or a mature ruck such as:
Soldo
Marshall

There is a good chance the club now sees Smit as a defender (who can support Oscar in the ruck if needed), and I expect he'll have his first pre-season there next year/

 

[Apex36]

It’s a decent endorsement.

It’s a chance.

 

[Mick F]

There is a good chance the club now sees Smit as a defender (who can support Oscar in the ruck if needed), and I expect he'll have his first pre-season there next year/

Given how the comp is meant to level out via draft picks and the salary cap, the reality is that we have to develop players. Hence the focus of the football department on Steene, Smit etc. One or two become solid senior players is the aim (eg Mihocek and Long) - surely that is a plus.

 

[901023]

Given how the comp is meant to level out via draft picks and the salary cap, the reality is that we have to develop players. Hence the focus of the football department on Steene, Smit etc. One or two become solid senior players is the aim (eg Mihocek and Long) - surely that is a plus.

Fair enough on the need to develop players — but the reality is, the playing field isn’t even.

Right now, the northern Academies have exclusive rights to develop any local talent, regardless of background — a luxury no other club is afforded. The results are obvious: three of the four northern clubs are currently in the top half of the ladder, and all are genuine premiership contenders. Even Sydney, who’ve had an injury-interrupted season, have played in two of the last three grand finals and are beginning to surge again.

The draft was meant to equalise the competition — but it's quickly becoming an exercise in empowering the northern clubs. Ross Lyon wasn't wrong when he called Gold Coast the AFL’s 'nepotism baby'.

It’s hard to argue with that, especially when clubs like St Kilda can’t even afford to pay the full salary cap, yet still have to navigate a structurally compromised draft system.

Clubs like Brisbane and Sydney not only benefit from academy priority access but also retain Father-Son advantages, compounding the imbalance. Meanwhile, Victorian and other southern clubs are limited to developing players who fit narrow eligibility criteria — often requiring their parents to be born in select international regions. This makes little sense when it’s typically non-English-speaking migrants who are least familiar with AFL, and therefore most in need of targeted development pathways. So why can a kid born of a parent from Columbia be listed, but not from Romania? What is the supposed advantage that a child born from a parent raised in Roman has?

Now we hear that Luke Hodge’s son, who resides in Brisbane, can nominate the Lions through their Academy zone, despite Hodge being a Hawthorn icon!!! That says it all.

I don’t mean to rant, but the draft has become an exercise that empowers the northern clubs at the expense of traditional heartland teams. And with the Tasmanian Devils set to receive major concessions if their licence is approved, the inequality may only grow.

The AFL needs to seriously consider the long-term impact. They risk alienating passionate supporters of less affluent Melbourne clubs if the current Academy concessions remain unchecked.

 

[jmac70]

Fair enough on the need to develop players — but the reality is, the playing field isn’t even.

Right now, the northern Academies have exclusive rights to develop any local talent, regardless of background — a luxury no other club is afforded. The results are obvious: three of the four northern clubs are currently in the top half of the ladder, and all are genuine premiership contenders. Even Sydney, who’ve had an injury-interrupted season, have played in two of the last three grand finals and are beginning to surge again.

The draft was meant to equalise the competition — but it's quickly becoming an exercise in empowering the northern clubs. Ross Lyon wasn't wrong when he called Gold Coast the AFL’s 'nepotism baby'.

It’s hard to argue with that, especially when clubs like St Kilda can’t even afford to pay the full salary cap, yet still have to navigate a structurally compromised draft system.

Clubs like Brisbane and Sydney not only benefit from academy priority access but also retain Father-Son advantages, compounding the imbalance. Meanwhile, Victorian and other southern clubs are limited to developing players who fit narrow eligibility criteria — often requiring their parents to be born in select international regions. This makes little sense when it’s typically non-English-speaking migrants who are least familiar with AFL, and therefore most in need of targeted development pathways. So why can a kid born of a parent from Columbia be listed, but not from Romania? What is the supposed advantage that a child born from a parent raised in Roman has?

Now we hear that Luke Hodge’s son, who resides in Brisbane, can nominate the Lions through their Academy zone, despite Hodge being a Hawthorn icon!!! That says it all.

I don’t mean to rant, but the draft has become an exercise that empowers the northern clubs at the expense of traditional heartland teams. And with the Tasmanian Devils set to receive major concessions if their licence is approved, the inequality may only grow.

The AFL needs to seriously consider the long-term impact. They risk alienating passionate supporters of less affluent Melbourne clubs if the current Academy concessions remain unchecked.

And yet, Collingwood will still find a way to be top.

 

[legendstatus]

I like the ideal of Smit to defence, quite athletic also adds further depth with a few coming back from injury next year. Very young still so has plenty of room for growth

 

[Harry O]

Mattys123 used to post on here…

I rarely agree with anything he says on Twitter. Like a kiss of death almost

 

[sr36]

And yet, Collingwood will still find a way to be top.

And most of it is good for us. The draft is broken - NGA will get bigger. Players are moving much more readily due to free agancy and cultural shifts - and the salary cap is broken as Collingwood dollars go a heap further than a lot of other clubs. The equalisation measures are cooked. Big clubs are back to having a big advantage over the small ones.

 

[sr36]

Given how the comp is meant to level out via draft picks and the salary cap, the reality is that we have to develop players. Hence the focus of the football department on Steene, Smit etc. One or two become solid senior players is the aim (eg Mihocek and Long) - surely that is a plus.

I'd argue that the bolded are reasons why you don't need to spend a long time developing the kids you've added who aren't particularly close. It took them half a season after we drafted them to become senior players.

When I watch a state league game, there's usually a couple not on senior lists who look better than the prospects that we have to hang on to. I don't really get why guys like Macrae and Steene are blokes that so many and the club view(ed) as players we have to hang on to to develop ahead of many blokes who are better state league players. Without knowing the stats I'd be willing to bet that mature players added from state leagues would have a way higher hit rate than blokes who in their 3rd season on an AFL list are still in the VFL team.

 

[sr36]

Fair enough on the need to develop players — but the reality is, the playing field isn’t even.

Right now, the northern Academies have exclusive rights to develop any local talent, regardless of background — a luxury no other club is afforded. The results are obvious: three of the four northern clubs are currently in the top half of the ladder, and all are genuine premiership contenders. Even Sydney, who’ve had an injury-interrupted season, have played in two of the last three grand finals and are beginning to surge again.

The draft was meant to equalise the competition — but it's quickly becoming an exercise in empowering the northern clubs. Ross Lyon wasn't wrong when he called Gold Coast the AFL’s 'nepotism baby'.

It’s hard to argue with that, especially when clubs like St Kilda can’t even afford to pay the full salary cap, yet still have to navigate a structurally compromised draft system.

Clubs like Brisbane and Sydney not only benefit from academy priority access but also retain Father-Son advantages, compounding the imbalance. Meanwhile, Victorian and other southern clubs are limited to developing players who fit narrow eligibility criteria — often requiring their parents to be born in select international regions. This makes little sense when it’s typically non-English-speaking migrants who are least familiar with AFL, and therefore most in need of targeted development pathways. So why can a kid born of a parent from Columbia be listed, but not from Romania? What is the supposed advantage that a child born from a parent raised in Roman has?

Now we hear that Luke Hodge’s son, who resides in Brisbane, can nominate the Lions through their Academy zone, despite Hodge being a Hawthorn icon!!! That says it all.

I don’t mean to rant, but the draft has become an exercise that empowers the northern clubs at the expense of traditional heartland teams. And with the Tasmanian Devils set to receive major concessions if their licence is approved, the inequality may only grow.

The AFL needs to seriously consider the long-term impact. They risk alienating passionate supporters of less affluent Melbourne clubs if the current Academy concessions remain unchecked.

Out of curiosity, do you type it and then put it through AI to correct it? Or is this generated by AI? If the latter - what do you type as the commands?

 

[Mollythedolly]

Definitely from an AFL perspective when we first recruited him.

But he was a ruck prospect for Sydney. Sydney reserves didn't play VFL. THey played the much lower standard NEAFL. Cameron was first ruck in the NEAFL team of the year in 2018 and runner up in the league MVP. So when we recruited him, he was a dominant ruckman at the level he played. I'm not sure what his WAFL form was like when drafted or whether he was playing first ruck or forward

Cameron turned 23 in 2018 I think.

 

[sr36]

Cameron turned 23 in 2018 I think.

Stats suggest he killed it playing ruck forward in the eagle in 2016.

Darcy Cameron | WAFL

wafl.com.au

 

[Jen2310]

Cameron turned 23 in 2018 I think.

Drafted at age 21 from the wafl, so 2018 he would have been 23

 

[granniewolf]

I don't get why we do it - unless they've got something a bit special about them. List spots are so tight that teams have very limited depth, why list a ruck who doesn't project that high for a 4 year wait before their even viable depth. And if they do get up to the viable depth stage, they'll probably look elsewhere for a first ruck gig - unless things align perfectly with succession from your current first ruck. Just get blokes when they're at least physically an option.

If all clubs had that attitude there wouldn't be any rucks for you to poach.

 

[sr36]

If all clubs had that attitude there wouldn't be any rucks for you to poach.

Yeah there would, they'd be in the state leagues until they were getting closer to being physically ready.

I honestly don't get it. Would we want to recruit these blokes if they were 21 year olds doing what they're doing in a state league team that didn't have black and white stripes? I don't think we would, so I don't really understand why we want to re-sign them.

 

[granniewolf]

Yeah there would, they'd be in the state leagues until they were getting closer to being physically ready.

I honestly don't get it. Would we want to recruit these blokes if they were 21 year olds doing what they're doing in a state league team that didn't have black and white stripes? I don't think we would, so I don't really understand why we want to re-sign them.

Have you been watching the VFL games?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Would we want to recruit these blokes if they were 21 year olds

Are you including Iliro in that? Because he's still only 19 and I think showing nice versatility by playing a role in defense as well.

Steene, I'm a little more sceptical of, but Smit I think is still very much on a trajectory that's promising.

 

[sr36]

Have you been watching the VFL games?

On tv only.

The club can obviously see something I can't. I look at Steene and see a ruck forward - three years into a VFL career - having had SANFL experience previously - who doesn't take many marks, kick goals or win many hitouts. And who doesn't look like developing outstanding physical traits for a ruck/forward.

I think there are more likely state league guys, performing better who haven't had the benefit of the level of coaching or being a full time footballer that a Collingwood listed guy gets. Industry wide, I think clubs would be better off taking more mature state leaguers and not taking so many 18 year olds and holding on to them for years - chasing the sunk cost.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

As a complete random aside, I've been tracking Seamus Mitchell at Hawthorn this year - He's been absolutely crushing it at VFL level all year, and he's still out of contract.

The reason it's interesting to me is that he's been delisted and rookied, so he's a UFA if he doesn't re-sign with Hawthorn, which means he could be had for nothing.

Unsure why Hawthorn haven't used him this year as the wraps are good on both his disposal and his kicking - Maybe an acknowledgement that he can walk at the end of the year?

 

[Bianconeri]

Yeah there would, they'd be in the state leagues until they were getting closer to being physically ready.

I honestly don't get it. Would we want to recruit these blokes if they were 21 year olds doing what they're doing in a state league team that didn't have black and white stripes? I don't think we would, so I don't really understand why we want to re-sign them.

I suspect with Steene he has a point of difference in his marking game that many state league rucks don’t have. Even the state league rucks that do get onto AFL lists tend to be ruck contest ruckman not marking ruckman.

With Smit the club must be seeing enough improvement in his game defence. He’s probably one that wouldn’t develop in the state leagues how we want so waiting the finished product version of Smit isn’t going to work.

Have no idea why we persisted with Begg for so long though.

 

[granniewolf]

On tv only.

The club can obviously see something I can't. I look at Steene and see a ruck forward - three years into a VFL career - having had SANFL experience previously - who doesn't take many marks, kick goals or win many hitouts. And who doesn't look like developing outstanding physical traits for a ruck/forward.

I think there are more likely state league guys, performing better who haven't had the benefit of the level of coaching or being a full time footballer that a Collingwood listed guy gets. Industry wide, I think clubs would be better off taking more mature state leaguers and not taking so many 18 year olds and holding on to them for years - chasing the sunk cost.

I've only seen it on tv too.
You don't get to see as much with only a few cameras if that but I have seen Oscar do some good work. Take some really good marks.
I guess time will tell how good he is.

 

[sr36]

I suspect with Steene he has a point of difference in his marking game that many state league rucks don’t have. Even the state league rucks that do get onto AFL lists tend to be ruck contest ruckman not marking ruckman.

With Smit the club must be seeing enough improvement in his game defence. He’s probably one that wouldn’t develop in the state leagues how we want so waiting the finished product version of Smit isn’t going to work.

Have no idea why we persisted with Begg for so long though.

Begg's follow up work was very strong.

I think you're right on Steene and why the club would have given him 2 more years - might be the best available in terms of marking for prospective ruckmen. He screams tweener to me though. I think he'll be a good mark for a ruck- but not for a forward. And a good ruck for a forward, but not for a ruck. So not good at either of the positions he plays.

Smit's strength and aggression might give him a bit more of a chance of being good as a ruck.

I'd be adding a more mature currently better ruck.