List Mgmt. 2025 Trade & List Management Thread

[giantroo]

Official FA Moves/Trades​

Spoiler

Player/Picks	Original Team	Receiving Team​	FA /Trade?
Tom De Koning	Carlton	St Kilda	RFA
Jack Silvagni	Carlton	St Kilda	UFA
Jacob Wehr	GWS	Port Adelaide	UFA
Sam Draper	Essendon	Brisbane	UFA
Oscar Allen	West Coast	Brisbane	RFA
Charlie Spargo	Melbourne	North Melbourne	UFA

Buku Khamis - requests a trade to Carlton
Wade Derksen - requests a trade to Melbourne
Liam Ryan

1

Liam Ryan

Age

29

Ht

181cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.3

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

2.7

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

1.3

5star

D

9.9

3star

K

8.0

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.3

3star

T

1.6

3star

G

1.3

5star

D

11.4

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

1.6

5star

- requests a trade to St Kilda
Leek Aleer - requests a trade to St Kilda
Campbell Chesser - requests a trade to Carlton
Will Brodie

17

Will Brodie

Age

27

Ht

190cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.0

5star

K

8.2

3star

HB

10.8

5star

M

3.1

3star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

14.0

3star

K

4.0

1star

HB

10.0

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.0

2star

CL

3.0

4star

D

13.8

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

5.4

5star

CL

2.8

5star

- requests a trade to Port Adelaide
Liam Reidy - requests a trade to Carlton
Sam Flanders - has requested a trade/explore options

 

[spicerFanClub]

I think it can likely be looked at in far far simpler terms than the stats and the diferential that you are suggesting and it is absolutely all pinned 2 list movements and our finishing position.

We traded 25 for Daniel creating that need to
trade what is currently pick 2 for picks 27 and what is currently picks 21.

This list management has to have occurred with the idea that we would be moving up not merely holding our position.

I challenge anyone to find a deal where a club trades pick 2 for 21 and 27 (this is before any dilution so we can factor that as benefit of doubt).

Simply put it is unders. It is the selling of an asset (pick 2) for under market value.

This deal would still feel wrong if it was pick 8 for 21 and 27.

So from a list management position we needed the senior players we did bring in to have much more impact than they did coupled with the players that we already had to take more decisive steps forward. Which would have been merely to make the above equation look somewhat like a break even situation.

There is simply no way currently form where we are with what we have in front of us coupled with our form(lack thereof) and our injury list that we will drag our selves any higher than a potential finish in 16th.

Long and the short of it was it was a ballsy trade that have the very real potential to look incredibly foolish if the side did not deliver.

They didn't and now the people who made the deal look like fools and we continue to be an absolute joke.

Not objecting in entirely here but "market value" is also dictated by draft strength. It's the reason nobody would take our F1 (we were offering it to everyone below us) in a strong 2024 draft (something for everyone) and a weak 2025 draft (see lack of genuine KPPs - even the ones in the phantom drafts coming our are "maybes"


It's possible we got it wrong, but it's also possible we judged the "market" right. Only hindsight will tell. We have to remember what a crap shoot the draft is, particularly when it comes to trades like Daniel - known quantities are highest value due to lowest risk. Look at the horrific run Essendon has had with high picks being sub-par when it's commonly thought that top 5-10 picks are guaranteed successes.

We have the right to be impatient, but we also need to acknowledge that we now actually have a strategy, which we've lacked 2019-2022 (not accepting the 4 coaches in 2 years could possibly have realised a strategy).

 

[spicerFanClub]

Any competent organization would have regular check ins and assessments each QTR, and not just leave to the EOY. Some questions I would be asking.

1. Where did we rank on the soft tissue/over training injury index against the other 17 sides and what was the trend for the last 3 years? Are we up, down or stagnant?
2. Who owns and is responsible for players being represented and defended at the Tribunal? Looking at the Melb representation of Steven May for example. Do we have a similar level of diligence and professionalism in this area compared to the other clubs? Was it smart for Big X to try and defend himself.
3. Has the Daniel trade improved the NMFC in any capacity on the field this year? What are the plans for the next 3 years with this mills stone around the clubs neck.
4. Which assistant coaches need to be moved on for someone with fresh ideas and who has come from a successful program and has no ties with Clarko/Viney?

True and reasonable questions, but a competent organisation will also give a strategy time to come to fruition unless there is a disaster (which our season is not despite BFs thoughts otherwise). Strategies tend to be 3-5 years, we're likely in year 2 given Clarko year 1 would have been an assessment year.

 

[Only Forwards]

Not objecting in entirely here but "market value" is also dictated by draft strength. It's the reason nobody would take our F1 (we were offering it to everyone below us) in a strong 2024 draft (something for everyone) and a weak 2025 draft (see lack of genuine KPPs - even the ones in the phantom drafts coming our are "maybes"


It's possible we got it wrong, but it's also possible we judged the "market" right. Only hindsight will tell. We have to remember what a crap shoot the draft is, particularly when it comes to trades like Daniel - known quantities are highest value due to lowest risk. Look at the horrific run Essendon has had with high picks being sub-par when it's commonly thought that top 5-10 picks are guaranteed successes.

We have the right to be impatient, but we also need to acknowledge that we now actually have a strategy, which we've lacked 2019-2022 (not accepting the 4 coaches in 2 years could possibly have realised a strategy).

So we traded one of these for 2 shots at guys who are well outside this range.

That is the crux of it.

We had an asset of our first round pick which would have a certain level of value. Bookies had us as odd on to be bottom 4 again so it is probably fair that the market saw us as in this range of "guaranteed successful" pick territory and we traded it for unders.

From my cheap seats I can only summise that we would do such a thing because the internal expectation at the time was that we would defy the market expectations in 2025.

So we go right back to the start. Is 2025 any sort of pass and with the above it is pretty resoundingly no it is not.

We have had marginal improvement. Certainly not enough to be reflective of how long we have been going at this for.

Is what it is but 2025 cannot be a pass. If it is what in the f*** are we actually doing?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

So we traded one of these for 2 shots at guys who are well outside this range.

That is the crux of it.

We had an asset of our first round pick which would have a certain level of value. Bookies had us as odd on to be bottom 4 again so it is probably fair that the market saw us as in this range of "guaranteed successful" pick territory and we traded it for unders.

From my cheap seats I can only summise that we would do such a thing because the internal expectation at the time was that we would defy the market expectations in 2025.

So we go right back to the start. Is 2025 any sort of pass and with the above it is pretty resoundingly no it is not.

We have had marginal improvement. Certainly not enough to be reflective of how long we have been going at this for.

Is what it is but 2025 cannot be a pass. If it is what in the f*** are we actually doing?

We’re the mayor of Comfort town.

It’s sickening.

 

[ferball]

True and reasonable questions, but a competent organisation will also give a strategy time to come to fruition unless there is a disaster (which our season is not despite BFs thoughts otherwise). Strategies tend to be 3-5 years, we're likely in year 2 given Clarko year 1 would have been an assessment year.

Clarko's first year was a complete write off.

 

[pupstar]

Yeah I'd take Davies in the midfield over everyone in our centre rotation bar LDU and Warslaw atm. We've really done well there haven't we. Invest in the midfield, absolutely **** all to show for it

Not sure i would but i could be wrong. He has been on their list for 4 years 30 games roughly avg about 12 touches a game What would or how would he improve us. Not saying i wouldn't give him a go if he came cheap enough but what's his up

 

[nicko74]

Not sure i would but i could be wrong. He has been on their list for 4 years 30 games roughly avg about 12 touches a game What would or how would he improve us. Not saying i wouldn't give him a go if he came cheap enough but what's his up

Has good size about him so at least would be a point of difference in that regard

 

[pupstar]

Has good size about him so at least would be a point of difference in that regard

Not knocking him at all just wondered what his attributes are and how he would improve us hope it would be a little bit more than size .The one i would like to get is Erasmus would be a much better option for us i reckon or Brodie as archeleven and roos fanatic mention earlier even going back a couple of years ago they where keen on him I'm pretty sure.

 

[kanga kanga kanga]

Not knocking him at all just wondered what his attributes are and how he would improve us hope it would be a little bit more than size .The one i would like to get is Erasmus would be a much better option for us i reckon or Brodie as archeleven and roos fanatic mention earlier even going back a couple of years ago they where keen on him I'm pretty sure.

Brodie? as in the one from freo? he’s the biggest one way runner i have ever seen, does not work back defensively one bit that’s why he’s not getting games

 

[pupstar]

Brodie? as in the one from freo? he’s the biggest one way runner i have ever seen, does not work back defensively one bit that’s why he’s not getting games

Yeah that's a fair call Kanga but not every player needs to as long as you have enough doing it i believe that you still can get away with 1-2 that don't as long as they are contributing in other ways.

 

[spicerFanClub]

So we traded one of these for 2 shots at guys who are well outside this range.

That is the crux of it.

We had an asset of our first round pick which would have a certain level of value. Bookies had us as odd on to be bottom 4 again so it is probably fair that the market saw us as in this range of "guaranteed successful" pick territory and we traded it for unders.

From my cheap seats I can only summise that we would do such a thing because the internal expectation at the time was that we would defy the market expectations in 2025.

So we go right back to the start. Is 2025 any sort of pass and with the above it is pretty resoundingly no it is not.

We have had marginal improvement. Certainly not enough to be reflective of how long we have been going at this for.

Is what it is but 2025 cannot be a pass. If it is what in the f*** are we actually doing?

Sorry, when I said top 5-10 picks were generally considered guaranteed success it was meant in the context of Essendon having poor luck in the space and to point out that it's not a guarantee.

Agree 2025 isn't a pass mark but I'd say what we are expecting game-to-game as a fan base is increasing which is reflective of improving. How many games this year are we furious we didn't win where in the last 2 years we'd be annoyed but know we were never realistically in it.

 

[amaz199]

 

[DrZaius]

At round 15 our Goals Against was 12.7.

In three games it blew out by two goals a game.

Same thing happened after r3 where it was about even and in the next three games blew out to five goals a game against us.

You have to look holistically though, you can cherry pick any arbitrary round in any year and say “yeah but up until this round the stats looked better and then they blew out”.
Unless we were playing the exact same teams in the exact same order for multiple years in a row measuring progress round by round is pointless.

The best indicator we have is the 22 odd game sample size at seasons end.

 

[perplexed]

We have to remember what a crap shoot the draft is, particularly when it comes to trades like Daniel - known quantities are highest value due to lowest risk.

Daniel was a known quantity alright. It was well known that he was a flaccid liability in the backline because of the way the game has evolved. The dogs persisted with him in this role for too long before trying him unsuccessfully elsewhere. As many on here pointed out at the time of the trade, they wanted him gone. He was free to a good home, yet somehow we ended up completely messing up our draft hand to get him. What we are seeing from him this year is exactly what the Dogs saw over the previous two years. The incompetence is just infuriating.

 

[Firebat]

Daniel was a known quantity alright. It was well known that he was a flaccid liability in the backline because of the way the game has evolved. The dogs persisted with him in this role for too long before trying him unsuccessfully elsewhere. As many on here pointed out at the time of the trade, they wanted him gone. He was free to a good home, yet somehow we ended up completely messing up our draft hand to get him. What we are seeing from him this year is exactly what the Dogs saw over the previous two years. The incompetence is just infuriating.

Correcto! Daniel’s value should’ve been a pick 50~ at best.

We freed up the Dogs list spot and salary to take on Kennedy, who would be arguably top 5 in their best and fairest!

Infuriatingly, many of us here could see as being a mistake at the time except for our bloody list manager!

 

[chubbspeterson]

Not objecting in entirely here but "market value" is also dictated by draft strength. It's the reason nobody would take our F1 (we were offering it to everyone below us) in a strong 2024 draft (something for everyone) and a weak 2025 draft (see lack of genuine KPPs - even the ones in the phantom drafts coming our are "maybes"

It's possible we got it wrong, but it's also possible we judged the "market" right. Only hindsight will tell. We have to remember what a crap shoot the draft is, particularly when it comes to trades like Daniel - known quantities are highest value due to lowest risk. Look at the horrific run Essendon has had with high picks being sub-par when it's commonly thought that top 5-10 picks are guaranteed successes.

We have the right to be impatient, but we also need to acknowledge that we now actually have a strategy, which we've lacked 2019-2022 (not accepting the 4 coaches in 2 years could possibly have realised a strategy).

I completely understand how they would have rated the talls a better quality compared to this years draft.
That's why it's frustrating we gave up 29 (25) for Daniel in that draft class, it was an overpay that was unwarranted.
Potentially we just draft Matt (or Jack at the very least) with that pick, keep our R1 and then this year we could've added a top 5 BFNAAK wing/hbf Josh Lindsay to our team, which could've filled the Daniel role for us long term.
Maybe they didn't expect a kid like him to have the year he's had, but that's the disappointing part of it for me.
If they still made the same F1 trade for another tall to go with Matt, then perhaps we'd feel a bit less angst.

The success of the deal will depend on what happens with the development of Matt and who we add with the Tigers R2.
It might not look so bad if it's a promising young player to go along with Matt and they become key pillars in our team, but it's a risky trade gamble given where the team was that.

Max Gawn said it was a big deal for them early days at the Dees when they had players like Chris Dawes, Jordan Lewis and Bernie Vince wanting to come play for them. Those players contributions, even if short, help move the needle gradually.
I think that's been overlooked a bit by fans in terms of acquiring players like Parker, Darling and Daniel and the impact that can have on a young teams morale and culture, as opposed to just what happens on the field.
I don't really have an issue with the Parker and Darling (and Konstanty) deals.
A F3 for Caleb wouldn't have been a huge issue given this years draft crop and there's ways to generate a pick with player trades or futures if we really needed to get into the 40's.

 

[ferball]

You have to look holistically though, you can cherry pick any arbitrary round in any year and say “yeah but up until this round the stats looked better and then they blew out”.
Unless we were playing the exact same teams in the exact same order for multiple years in a row measuring progress round by round is pointless.

The best indicator we have is the 22 odd game sample size at seasons end.

Fair enough.

My point is those games show we went backwards in a big hurry.

AFter the first three games we had a positive goal difference and between r6 and r15 we probably had another one because the overall one went down. But that wasn't what i was interested about. I'm more interested in why things fell apart at those points and what's being done to understand and address that.

 

[zoomba23]

Not sure i would but i could be wrong. He has been on their list for 4 years 30 games roughly avg about 12 touches a game What would or how would he improve us. Not saying i wouldn't give him a go if he came cheap enough but what's his up

Quick, big bodied, can tackle. We already have accumulators and they've done **** all for us

 

[spurs]

Can we get Mitch Lewis please.

 

[spicerFanClub]

I completely understand how they would have rated the talls a better quality compared to this years draft.
That's why it's frustrating we gave up 29 (25) for Daniel in that draft class, it was an overpay that was unwarranted.
Potentially we just draft Matt (or Jack at the very least) with that pick, keep our R1 and then this year we could've added a top 5 BFNAAK wing/hbf Josh Lindsay to our team, which could've filled the Daniel role for us long term.
Maybe they didn't expect a kid like him to have the year he's had, but that's the disappointing part of it for me.
If they still made the same F1 trade for another tall to go with Matt, then perhaps we'd feel a bit less angst.

The success of the deal will depend on what happens with the development of Matt and who we add with the Tigers R2.
It might not look so bad if it's a promising young player to go along with Matt and they become key pillars in our team, but it's a risky trade gamble given where the team was that.

Max Gawn said it was a big deal for them early days at the Dees when they had players like Chris Dawes, Jordan Lewis and Bernie Vince wanting to come play for them. Those players contributions, even if short, help move the needle gradually.
I think that's been overlooked a bit by fans in terms of acquiring players like Parker, Darling and Daniel and the impact that can have on a young teams morale and culture, as opposed to just what happens on the field.
I don't really have an issue with the Parker and Darling (and Konstanty) deals.
A F3 for Caleb wouldn't have been a huge issue given this years draft crop and there's ways to generate a pick with player trades or futures if we really needed to get into the 40's.

I like the Gawn perspective, interesting for us. We're in somewhat of a similar position to them in that the reality is that we don't get to pay "market rate" for players. North realistically have nothing intangible to offer players and we're not a threat to other sides in taking their quality players (you can't tell me the likes of Collingwood, Adelaide, West Coast don't trade favours to get players or avoid losing them). Everyone also knows we're desperate and have very few options, so the result is we have to overplay. I made another recent post about all the things we don't have to offer compared to others.

I think the direction we've taken is the right one, but perhaps we haven't got the sugar hit we were after. We're investigating long term. The real problem is that this was supposed to happen in 2018 not 2023, so the frustration from supporters is more than warranted, but perhaps misplaced sometimes.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Can we get Mitch Lewis please.

Or calsher dear

I’d even take chol

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Duursma is absolutely better than Dear.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Duursma is absolutely better than Dear.

Calsher is a 195cm chf

Duurs is a diff type of player

 

[koshari]

Can we get Mitch Lewis please.

Strong mitts, solid kick.

 

[pupstar]

Or calsher dear

I’d even take chol

Or calsher dear

I’d even take chol

Good to see Banch getting another game this week and for those who kept harping on and on about how we should have picked May and we stuffed up again I have a feeling he might get a couple more goals or at least a few more touches than May this week.