List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[Danger in Texas]

Sorry to intrude lads and ladettes, whats the go with young Lukey Nankervis? As a fellow Ormond man I've always tried keeping tabs on him when he's been in the AFL side but seems to be battling away in the SANFL playing a few different roles?

See him sticking around long term? Best position? Chance of getting traded?

Really liked some of the stuff I saw from him but to be frank I haven't seen enough to know a heap.


Good luck come finals and please FFS just f*** off Collingwood if you meet them there.

Had a really solid season last year, his decision making looked generally off when played in the AFL side this year. Has apparently looked good in the two’s playing more up forward

Close with Soli and Rash, so I don’t really see him leaving at least until his contract’s up, but could maybe look for a best 22 spot elsewhere eventually. Personally hope he succeeds with us of course

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Had a really solid season last year, his decision making looked generally off when played in the AFL side this year. Has apparently looked good in the two’s playing more up forward

Close with Soli and Rash, so I don’t really see him leaving at least until his contract’s up, but could maybe look for a best 22 spot elsewhere eventually. Personally hope he succeeds with us of course

Thanks mate. Hope he goes well too, always a good kid at the Monders.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

How do we even do 3 first rounders? It’s 2 in a rolling 4 year period, we have to use one at the draft between 2025 and 2027. AFL shouldn’t allow us to trade all 3.

I believe we can ask for an exemption, and given how many recent first rounders we’ve had, we will should get it.

If the AFL weren’t prepared to give exemptions it would defeat the purpose of extending the timeline

 

[FR0GGY]

You able to summarise?

Well it starts off with Sam Edmund saying no one knows anything about what’s going to happen.

 

[1970crow]

More clubs will request it going forward now with the ability to trade 2 years in advance. That combined with AFL wanting to ensure Saints are adequately compensated means it’s a likely sign off I reckon. And our case is compelling -certainly compared to Power re using firsts at the draft:

2020 - TT, Pedlar
2021 - Rachele
2022 - Max
2023 - 3 lads headed by Curtin
2024 - Draper

most of those years are irrelevant to a 4 year rolling period that includes 2027. The years are 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027. To trade both 2026 and 2027 we’d have to use our first this year.

 

[Peter Doherty]

most of those years are irrelevant to a 4 year rolling period that includes 2027. The years are 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027. To trade both 2026 and 2027 we’d have to use our first this year.

We wouldn't have to use our first, just have to use a first this year.

 

[1970crow]

Unless we've a player genuinely wanting to go to the Saints, I'm not for trading anyone. Cohesion and spirit are our strong suit and any suggestion of a player or two coerced into leaving might be taken poorly in the locker room.

If they want to win flags, sometimes tough decisions need to be made. Plus it doesn’t really work like that, players aren’t pushed hard, it’s ultimately their choice with the club being willing to help facilitate a trade.

Berry would be a good example. His value in the open market has potentially increased a fair bit, his manager is getting indicative contract values as we speak. We’re in semi-regular loose dialogue over extensions and we simply make it clear we have no more for him in the cap and off he goes on a bigger contract and we’re now holding a second rounder.

 

[1970crow]

We wouldn't have to use our first, just have to use a first this year.

Whatever first we use, will have been ours. Either way, we don’t currently have 3 first rounders to trade. We have 2 first rounders and players. And given we don’t have a second this year, it’s highly unlikely that without players with trade value leaving, we’ll be swapping for an extra first.

The negative aspect is that if we’re bundling up all our draft picks and a player to get an extra first to trade, that’ll leave a lot of uncontracted players extended. It’d be the minimum 3 players with replacements taken very late in the draft. Or upgrading rookies we’d previously delisted, assuming that counts.

 

[1970crow]

Sorry to intrude lads and ladettes, whats the go with young Lukey Nankervis? As a fellow Ormond man I've always tried keeping tabs on him when he's been in the AFL side but seems to be battling away in the SANFL playing a few different roles?

See him sticking around long term? Best position? Chance of getting traded?

Really liked some of the stuff I saw from him but to be frank I haven't seen enough to know a heap.


Good luck come finals and please FFS just f*** off Collingwood if you meet them there.

Looked a natural off half back last year but lost his spot when Milera returned. Has played ok on a wing and ahead of the ball this year, but borderline in terms of selection in those roles. If we’re trying to get second rounders, he’d be a worthwhile look.

 

[1970crow]

I believe we can ask for an exemption, and given how many recent first rounders we’ve had, we will should get it.

If the AFL weren’t prepared to give exemptions it would defeat the purpose of extending the timeline

So far the exemption has been based on trading in a first that was drafted in the qualifying period. Which clearly satisfies the intent of the rule. Providing an exemption that does the opposite makes a mockery of the rule itself. Just because picks ‘can’ be traded out 2 years in advance, doesn’t mean the AFL has designed it so 3 years of firsts are easily transferred.

That we’ve hit the draft hard the last few years should be irrelevant. The intent of the rule is that you need to have 2 first rounder from a rolling 4 year period on your list. It’s clear that this is to make it hard to trade away 3 years in a single year. But to be honest, I’m not sure why, if anything the basket cases have been too focussed on drafting kids rather than immediate improvement to their best 23.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

So far the exemption has been based on trading in a first that was drafted in the qualifying period. Which clearly satisfies the intent of the rule. Providing an exemption that does the opposite makes a mockery of the rule itself. Just because picks ‘can’ be traded out 2 years in advance, doesn’t mean the AFL has designed it so 3 years of firsts are easily transferred.

That we’ve hit the draft hard the last few years should be irrelevant. The intent of the rule is that you need to have 2 first rounder from a rolling 4 year period on your list. It’s clear that this is to make it hard to trade away 3 years in a single year. But to be honest, I’m not sure why, if anything the basket cases have been too focussed on drafting kids rather than immediate improvement to their best 23.

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.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

So far the exemption has been based on trading in a first that was drafted in the qualifying period. Which clearly satisfies the intent of the rule. Providing an exemption that does the opposite makes a mockery of the rule itself. Just because picks ‘can’ be traded out 2 years in advance, doesn’t mean the AFL has designed it so 3 years of firsts are easily transferred.

That we’ve hit the draft hard the last few years should be irrelevant. The intent of the rule is that you need to have 2 first rounder from a rolling 4 year period on your list. It’s clear that this is to make it hard to trade away 3 years in a single year. But to be honest, I’m not sure why, if anything the basket cases have been too focussed on drafting kids rather than immediate improvement to their best 23.

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.

 

[119others]

most of those years are irrelevant to a 4 year rolling period that includes 2027. The years are 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027. To trade both 2026 and 2027 we’d have to use our first this year.

Look I certainly understand the rules but you didn’t address the issues I raised (AFLs discretion in making exceptions and the increasing likelihood of this with the new 2 yrs in advance rules. Also “big picture” we have had a huge amount of firsts used in recent years - four in the last 2 draft periods alone - which would likely be considered as “substance over form” IMO). But anyway, moving on.

Ultimately i have been comparing our situation to Power. Tell me how THEY can trade 3 x firsts considering :

2023 - effectively involved with Ratagoeau trade - no first used for drafting
2024 - Berry
2025 - traded for Luko so as it stands - no firsts used for drafting
2026 - clearly NO ability to trade first rounder under AFL rules


Surely you can acknowledge we are in a FAR superior spot relative to Port Power? We at least have the next 2 years (2025, 2026) that can be traded. Port Power don’t have either that can be used. Nor do they have obvious decent VIC depth players (first 18 like Berry, Butts, Taylor etc) that can be used as part of a package to secure NWM.

If it came to it, I would give up Rachele and a first (with perhaps a steak knife player) to get NWM. I knew it would hurt losing Wellman but seeing D Jarman walking back through the doors at West Lakes eased the pain

 

[Velvet George]

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

 

[Crow till I die]

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

I'd do it in a heartbeat IF it was 100% not going to have a knock on effect on the culture we have set up with specifically Rachele and Soligo being the first interstate recruits to commit long term when we were shit. If we were seen to be forcing him out, does it p155 off others and have them wanting out too? Thats my only worry there, not from a player ability level as NWM is an apex player

 

[119others]

I'd do it in a heartbeat IF it was 100% not going to have a knock on effect on the culture we have set up with specifically Rachele and Soligo being the first interstate recruits to commit long term when we were shit. If we were seen to be forcing him out, does it p155 off others and have them wanting out too? Thats my only worry there, not from a player ability level as NWM is an apex player

Agree 100%. NWM likely becomes our best player as early as next year. Rash not top 7 IMO

We can deal with losing Rash as Rankine goes FT back as the games best small forward. It’s the potential culture hit on all the young guys inc housemates like Soli

 

[Velvet George]

I'd do it in a heartbeat IF it was 100% not going to have a knock on effect on the culture we have set up with specifically Rachele and Soligo being the first interstate recruits to commit long term when we were shit. If we were seen to be forcing him out, does it p155 off others and have them wanting out too? Thats my only worry there, not from a player ability level as NWM is an apex player

I wouldn’t be forcing Rach out, but if Rach was open to the move then yep. He signed his contract a few years back, he should be up for an improved contract if he was to go.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

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

Yes, would do it in theory... but Rachele not going anywhere.

 

[1990crow]

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

I have no interest in giving up Rachele to bring in another player.
Rachele is our future.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

I have no interest in giving up Rachele to bring in another player.
Rachele is our future.

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

 

[Velvet George]

I have no interest in giving up Rachele to bring in another player.
Rachele is our future.

And if NAS was playing for us what he would be?

Which is the better player?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

And if NAS was playing for us what he would be?

Which is the better player?

Same as Darren Jarman for Sean Wellman. Win Essendon, Massive win AFC.

 

[daniel_4tw]

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

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.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

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.

I thought that was a massive overs at the time. RFA and all. He is a better player now, if possible.

 

[119others]

I have no interest in giving up Rachele to bring in another player.
Rachele is our future.

Wasn’t Wellman also our future before we traded him for D Jarman? Just before Jars went bang and won us 2 Grand Finals off his own boot.

Surely you were happy with that trade? It’s the same thing (except Nas will only be 23 next year where as Jars was 28)