List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[Cromulant]

Yeah, I have no evidence to support this - it could be a complete invention, or just some prejudice being shown to a player who hasn't lived AFL as his number one priority

I'm still not convinced it is his first priority, rather that he was talked into it. Sort of a "give it a go and if it doesn't work out you've got basketball" sort of thing.

And that's where the problems might come from.

 

[The Shapeshifter]

What I don't understand is why we don't frontload the cheaper players that look like they're next on the delist pile. Burgess should have had his deal fully paid already. Knowing the value of list spots would be provide enough incentive to perform. $600k removed from frontloading larger and longer contracts would have given plenty of flexibility to create spots. Or even made a guy like Schoey more attractive at trade as he's already fully paid. We lose nothing and gain flexibility by doing this.

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

Was there ever any talk of where Tex would have been drafted in his draft year had we not pre listed him in the Scholarship program?

 

[Velvet George]

What I don't understand is why we don't frontload the cheaper players that look like they're next on the delist pile. Burgess should have had his deal fully paid already. Knowing the value of list spots would be provide enough incentive to perform. $600k removed from frontloading larger and longer contracts would have given plenty of flexibility to create spots. Or even made a guy like Schoey more attractive at trade as he's already fully paid. We lose nothing and gain flexibility by doing this.

Apparently we are maxed out every year.

Perhaps you can get Mostyn to give you the facts

 

[Mostyn]

What I don't understand is why we don't frontload the cheaper players that look like they're next on the delist pile. Burgess should have had his deal fully paid already. Knowing the value of list spots would be provide enough incentive to perform. $600k removed from frontloading larger and longer contracts would have given plenty of flexibility to create spots. Or even made a guy like Schoey more attractive at trade as he's already fully paid. We lose nothing and gain flexibility by doing this.

So - a player on a two year contract gets paid in full in year one and then works for free for a year?

 

[Golumless]

I bet you will change your mind on that if ROB gets hurt and we have to play Shirley Stratchan for an extended period.

Drafting Dodson doesn't change that situation at all, Strachan is the back up ruck next year. Though, depending on if it's long term enough to get a MSD pick, it might accidentally fix our ruck issues.

 

[crows dude]

Was there ever any talk of where Tex would have been drafted in his draft year had we not pre listed him in the Scholarship program?

End of first round I think. there was no bidding and matching then so got him with last pick

 

[Cromulant]

Was there ever any talk of where Tex would have been drafted in his draft year had we not pre listed him in the Scholarship program?

Rendell had him in the top 20, from memory most pundits said top 40

 

[BucketsNj]

Can we take the Mis out of the title?
It’s typical Big Footy pessimistic crap.
We’ve done pretty well recently.

 

[BRL121]

I'm still not convinced it is his first priority, rather that he was talked into it. Sort of a "give it a go and if it doesn't work out you've got basketball" sort of thing.

And that's where the problems might come from.

That's what Shifter and Ablett implied.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yeah, I have no evidence to support this - it could be a complete invention, or just some prejudice being shown to a player who hasn't lived AFL as his number one priority

There's general stereotyping from some old school football types whenever the B word is attached to a player

(Basketball)

 

[Cromulant]

That's what Shifter and Ablett implied.

Shit I might be wrong then !!!!

I know the coaches at Sturt were a bit shocked he made the call that he did

 

[Mostyn]

Shit I might be wrong then !!!!

I know the coaches at Sturt were a bit shocked he made the call that he did

He might be very gettable in a year or two's time.

 

[Mostyn]

Can we take the Mis out of the title?
It’s typical Big Footy pessimistic crap.
We’ve done pretty well recently.

I agree.

It doesn't need to be happy clapper positive either, as i know that will offend some - but I think most reasonable people would be happy with how the list currently stands, even acknowledging there's some gaps we can fill.

 

[Mostyn]

My bad... I meant Burgess, not Strachan. Brain fart at my end.

Himmelberg told them that he was leaving, exercising his FA rights. GWS had shown interest the previous year, so he knew there was a market for his talents/abilities. He knew that Thilthorpe had gone past him, so his opportunities were always going to be limited at Adelaide. Berg's decision was clearly in the best interests of his own career, and I wish him well in his endeavours.

Adelaide's response was to recruit Burgess, to provide depth in both the KPD and KPF roles. Little did we know that he sucked so badly at both roles that the AFC would have to resort to using Borlase as a KPF at times in the 2024 season.

In any event, that's still not really true.

The Crows knew that ruck/forward backup Himmelburg was likely leaving at the end of 2024, so we recruited ruck/forward backup Toby Murray at the 2024 MSD.

Burgess is more a tall swingman.

 

[Mostyn]

RETIRE
Smith
Tex
Burgess

DELIST
Schoenberg
Strachan
Murphy

TRADE/FA
ROB

RE-SIGN
Bond
Milera
Crouch
Taylor

Move one player to the rookie list, sign a couple of free agents or trade targets, draft three players and a rookie.

 

[Kickin Goals]

Don't think we though we were in the running for Peatling when we re-signed Berry.

Shouldn't have an issue with delistings next season. For starters
Smith
Walker
Burgess
Strachan

There are a few others playing for their careers too.

And Murphy, he won’t get a game next year.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What I don't understand is why we don't frontload the cheaper players that look like they're next on the delist pile. Burgess should have had his deal fully paid already. Knowing the value of list spots would be provide enough incentive to perform. $600k removed from frontloading larger and longer contracts would have given plenty of flexibility to create spots. Or even made a guy like Schoey more attractive at trade as he's already fully paid. We lose nothing and gain flexibility by doing this.

It's a very good point!

If we front load a few, would make paying them out easier.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So - a player on a two year contract gets paid in full in year one and then works for free for a year?

Or we pay a few 2 thirds of their contract in the 1st year & have the room to pay out their remaining third in the current year to give us the option.

Or put the most fringe players on 1 year deals would be most preferable.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

And Murphy, he won’t get a game next year.

Hopefully!

 

[The Shapeshifter]

So - a player on a two year contract gets paid in full in year one and then works for free for a year?

No, he doesn't work for free, it's no different than any other frontloading example. He agrees to a 2 year contract at a specific value, we just pay that out in the first year. It's not difficult to grasp, it's frontloading 10, just an adjustment to how much goes to the longer term more expensive players. If you're worried about whether this fringe player will put in in his final year, then you're ignoring that they all want another contract and not putting in won't earn them one.

How about you explain the pitfalls for us?

 

[Big Dub]

Or we pay a few 2 thirds of their contract in the 1st year & have the room to pay out their remaining third in the current year to give us the option.

Or put the most fringe players on 1 year deals would be most preferable.

I think that the 1 year extension is the way to go.

Save the front loading for the 5 year plus extensions, because then is where we will need the extra salary cap room (and it's bigger $s to play with).

 

[Mutineer]

In any event, that's still not really true.

The Crows knew that ruck/forward backup Himmelburg was likely leaving at the end of 2024, so we recruited ruck/forward backup Toby Murray at the 2024 MSD.

Burgess is more a tall swingman.

Not too many would agree that Murray or Himmelberg to this point have ever been classed as ruck/forwards more forwards capable of chopping out in ruck if required. With Murray since he's joined the Crows there's really no evidence in his SANFL games we're concentrating on him being our back up ruck going forward.

 

[rabidcrow]

Hang on. No!

Himmelberg did not leave at the end of 2023.

He was a replacement for Berg as we knew Berg would leave end of 24. We went after Chol - and would have let Berg go in 2023 - but Chol went to the Hawks, so Burgess was the fall back


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mostyn]

No, he doesn't work for free, it's no different than any other frontloading example. He agrees to a 2 year contract at a specific value, we just pay that out in the first year. It's not difficult to grasp, it's frontloading 10, just an adjustment to how much goes to the longer term more expensive players. If you're worried about whether this fringe player will put in in his final year, then you're ignoring that they all want another contract and not putting in won't earn them one.

How about you explain the pitfalls for us?

You want to run a business where you pay someone for two years work in its entirety in the first year?

That's NOT how front loading works.

Front loading is taking a four year $2m contract and paying it $750k/$750k/$250k/$250k.

Your suggestion only makes sense if you DO want to cut them. What if they have a fantastic first year and demand to be traded?