List Mgmt. Contracts/Trade Thread - 2025 Edition Vol 3

[Keys]

Quick Links

• Draft thread
• Player contract status
• Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)

List Changes - 2025

Spoiler

In:

• Brandon Starcevich arrives at West Coast in a three team deal
• Tylar Young (Richmond) arrived at West Coast in exchange for Pick 38.
• Deven Robertson (Brisbane) has agreed to join West Coast and will be signed on to the rookie list after being delisted by Brisbane

Out:

• Oscar Allen joins Brisbane as a FA - West Coast receive Pick 2 as compensation
• Liam Ryan and a 2027 R3 pick has been traded to St Kilda for a 2026 R2 pick
• Campbell Chesser has been traded to Carlton for Pick 41
• Jayden Hunt announces retirement
• Jack Petruccelle, Callum Jamieson and Loch Rawlinson not offered new contracts
• Coen Livingstone joins the list of players not offered a new contract

Players Out of Contract - 2025 (0)

Spoiler

• Jamie Cripps and Malakai Champion seem to have been offered new contracts despite there being no official announcement. Means that all players out of contract for 2025 have been given new contracts despite or removed from the playing list

2025 Draft Order

Spoiler

Current Draft Picks:
Round 1: 1, 2, 13
Round 2: 34, 41
Round 3: 53, 58 (These picks are in excess of available list spots so will be forfeited if we don’t consolidate our 2025 picks up the order or trade some for future picks)

List Spots Available (39 of 48):
• Main list (33 of 38) - 5* (in: Starcevich, Young out: Allen, Ryan, Chesser, Hunt, Petruccelle, Jamieson)
• Cat A rookie list (5 of 8) - 3* (in: Robertson (pending), out: Rawlinson)
• Cat B rookie list (1 of 2) - 2 (out: Livingstone)

* Based on Dewar being upgraded after the maximum 3 years on the rookie list. Hutchinson may also have been upgraded but this isn’t confirmed - if it is we will have 4 main and 4 rookie list spots open

* Matthew Clarke has stated we have 5 main list spots

Matt Clarke wraps up the trade period - 6PR

 

[RustyShacklefordFalcon]

Williams could be a good player, but I dare say his name would scarcely be mentioned as a want on this board if not for his NGA status with us.

I'm not going to be too upset if he ends up at Geelong, as much as I hate those pricks.

 

[BSD]

I think the main question people need to ask is whether these NGA's, father sons are worth investing a 2 year contract in, including other clubs. that will dictate whether they get drafted in ND and whether we match. so who isnt worth a 2 year contract?

Maybe next years crop of NGA's are better than some of this years so they won't want to give out 2year contracts.

 

[BSD]

Why would we want to.
WA were pretty bad in the champs... And our NGA players weren't even in the best 10 players for the state.

Just match Banfield and let the rest go.

Spot on !!!

 

[chaddy22]

Other teams are delisting contracted players that are far better than those 4.

That’s also with the promise of picking them back up as mentioned above.

I’d be happy enough paying out all 4 contracts. Delisting and picking them back up (if needed) should have been the minimum requirement.

Firstly we most probably don't have enough rookie spots to do delist all four.
Secondly. having nine picks in the main draft would be insane. Not enough quality and would make our age profile too young.
Thirdly leave us with very few options to delist next year.
Would be embarrassing if next year's draft is a lot better than this year and we are short of list spots.

 

[archiemoses]

Obviously you are absolutely correct, but the idea that matthew Clarke can’t figure out the #s and requirements to match bids of all these guys is just too great of a narrative not to melt over.

He hasnt given anyone anything to justify any confidence in his ability

 

[bzparkes]

You're de-listing them with the promise to re-rookie them, not de-listing them permanently, GWS have just done the exact thing with 2 guys. Would have given us a lot more flexibility to match bids and also pick up any sliders we may have liked at the end of the draft.

Other teams are delisting contracted players that are far better than those 4.

That’s also with the promise of picking them back up as mentioned above.

I’d be happy enough paying out all 4 contracts. Delisting and picking them back up (if needed) should have been the minimum requirement.

If we de-list and re-rookie those players, how to we bringing Dev and our other mature targets? We've just clogged up our rookie list with current players and opened up main list spots instead.

The idea isn't to bring in even more 18yo's from the back end of this draft.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

WA were pretty bad in the champs... And our NGA players weren't even in the best 10 players for the state.

Just match Banfield and let the rest go.

You need to get over it and then you need to recognise internet lists don't correlate with the real-world.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I think you are right.

Would not be surprised if we do not match Williams. Be interesting to see how far pick 34 comes in with bids and what talent is available.

The list already has Champion, Long, Newton, Brockman, Cripps, Owies, and players like Baker who may play more forward.

We could rookie a Schoenburg who is a mid fwd and Berry who has been mentioned by the media is a small fwd.

Though some currently listed may not be as talented as Williams in that role, our list profile and list needs probably do not cater to drafting all the NGA's.

None of these players listed are a good correlate for Williams.

Wes Walley i understand as he's very much in the mold of Brockman.

 

[Godfather32]

If we de-list and re-rookie those players, how to we bringing Dev and our other mature targets? We've just clogged up our rookie list with current players and opened up main list spots instead.

The idea isn't to bring in even more 18yo's from the back end of this draft.

Obviously you have to determine whether the player you're drafting is going to be any better than the senior guy you're after but the list management team would know how many they can take in each draft and leave enough spots for the ssps they want.
As far as I'm aware there's nothing stopping us having extra players on the rookie list rather than the main list as long as we don't go over our max total.

 

[Mr Q]

You're de-listing them with the promise to re-rookie them, not de-listing them permanently, GWS have just done the exact thing with 2 guys. Would have given us a lot more flexibility to match bids and also pick up any sliders we may have liked at the end of the draft.

That's true - but it's also true that it's a much better draft next year, and we'll have to find spaces next year - is it then better to have some players on the list who are out of contract, rather than move them to the rookie list now, and take on a bunch of kids in the ND who will all have at least two year contracts?

It might be long term list management to do this. We want to take some high talent next year and have some promising NGA/FS options - might need a lot of free spaces next year.

 

[bzparkes]

Obviously you have to determine whether the player you're drafting is going to be any better than the senior guy you're after but the list management team would know how many they can take in each draft and leave enough spots for the ssps they want.
As far as I'm aware there's nothing stopping us having extra players on the rookie list rather than the main list as long as we don't go over our max total.

We just got given extra rookie spaces, meaning we only have so many. If we de-list 3 players on the promise we'll re-draft them, we lose those spaces we were given and have to use main list spots on late draft picks instead.

Would be very bad list management.

Plus we also need people to de-list next year.

 

[cookiesncream]

None of these players listed are a good correlate for Williams.

Wes Walley i understand as he's very much in the mold of Brockman.

Is Williams a need though?
If so where in the draft should we take him?

 

[mulehoops]

Was speaking to Tristan Xerri

38

Tristan Xerri

Age

26

Ht

202cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

5.5

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

2.5

2star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

2.5

5star

D

5.5

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

2.5

2star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

2.5

5star

D

5.5

2star

K

3.0

1star

HB

2.5

3star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

2.5

5star

at a mutual friends engagement tonight, reckons he was very surprised Phillips was axed. Thinks he'll be a gun in the future.

 

[Godfather32]

We just got given extra rookie spaces, meaning we only have so many. If we de-list 3 players on the promise we'll re-draft them, we lose those spaces we were given and have to use main list spots on late draft picks instead.

Would be very bad list management.

Plus we also need people to de-list next year.

I don't think we do though, we've had years where we've gone into the season with less main list players then the max and filled those list spots with extra rookie list players. Maybe it's changed but iirc clubs can go into the season with 36 instead of 38 main list players and the rest rookies to fill out the 44 (or in our case 48).
If that's the case we don't have to draft anyone if there's no one worth it, but it'd be nice to have the flexibility to do so if we wanted to.

 

[bzparkes]

I don't think we do though, we've had years where we've gone into the season with less main list players then the max and filled those list spots with extra rookie list players. Maybe it's changed but iirc clubs can go into the season with 36 instead of 38 main list players and the rest rookies to fill out the 44 (or in our case 48).
If that's the case we don't have to draft anyone if there's no one worth it, but it'd be nice to have the flexibility to do so if we wanted to.

The AFL informed the Eagles of their handouts on Tuesday afternoon. West Coast will receive four additional rookie list spots over the next three seasons along with an extra draft pick at the end of the first round of the 2025 draft.

'Absolutely against this': AFL great slams Eagles handout

'They have been inept'

www.nine.com.au

If rookie spots didn't matter, the AFL wouldn't have given us extra.

The main list spots are for SSP, or if we want to upgrade someone prior to the MSD.

 

[Godfather32]

'Absolutely against this': AFL great slams Eagles handout

'They have been inept'

www.nine.com.au

If rookie spots didn't matter, the AFL wouldn't have given us extra.

The main list spots are for SSP, or if we want to upgrade someone prior to the MSD.

I didn't say that rookie spots don't matter, please show me where I said this. I literally just said that if we want to, like we have in the past, we could go into the season with 36 or 37 players on the main list instead of 38 and then fill out the list to 48 with rookie listed players (instead of 44 seeing as we've been given 4 extra rookie spots).
Try reading the 2nd part of the sentence you wrote and I bolded and was responding to: meaning we only have so many

 

[bzparkes]

I didn't say that rookie spots don't matter, please show me where I said this. I literally just said that if we want to, like we have in the past, we could go into the season with 36 or 37 players on the main list instead of 38 and then fill out the list to 48 with rookie listed players (instead of 44 seeing as we've been given 4 extra rookie spots).
Try reading the 2nd part of the sentence you wrote and I bolded and was responding to: meaning we only have so many

We've filled those spots out because main list players went on the LTI. You can't just create them from thin air.

 

[Godfather32]

We've filled those spots out because main list players went on the LTI. You can't just create them from thin air.

The player/s who would potentially be de-listed to re-draft are on the list anyway so it doesn't matter if they're on the main list or the rookie list, they are already accounted for. I agree we have a finite number of list spots. We would have the same amount of list spots whether we de-list and re-draft those guys or we do nothing.
As I've stated several times, we aren't committed to using 38 of our list spots on the main list, we can go into the main draft with the flexibility to take our full quota or we can draft to only 36 or 37 players and leave a spot or two open for more rookie list players or for SSP players. But that would obviously be a decision on the night as to whether the players available late in the draft or possibly our NGA's are going to be any better than whatever opposition dregs we're thinking about bringing in later on.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Why would we want to.
WA were pretty bad in the champs... And our NGA players weren't even in the best 10 players for the state.

Just match Banfield and let the rest go.

I think WA were badly coached in the champs. And wrong - Banfield and Williams walked away with heads held high

 

[BSD]

None of these players listed are a good correlate for Williams.

Wes Walley i understand as he's very much in the mold of Brockman.

One Brockman type is enough on any list.

 

[Wooshaaaa]

I think WA were badly coached in the champs. And wrong - Banfield and Williams walked away with heads held high

Who's responsible for that appointment?

 

[Wooshaaaa]

One Brockman type is enough on any list.

Brochman types....on talent, or effort? Cause on talent, I'm happy to have 2 of them and the one that wants it more gets the next contract. Brochman is lazy, but he has talent to burn.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Who's responsible for that appointment?

No idea

 

[Cuzz09]

Was speaking to Tristan Xerri at a mutual friends engagement tonight, reckons he was very surprised Phillips was axed. Thinks he'll be a gun in the future.

Did he wear his formal helmet?

 

[rebel23]

I think WA were badly coached in the champs. And wrong - Banfield and Williams walked away with heads held high

Who's responsible for that appointment?

That's a cop out from both of you for no reason.
The most likely scenario from the champs games is that our players weren't very good..