List Mgmt. List Management Thread

[Velvet George]

So don't give them any of those players.

Who the hell trades out a quality player to get a quality player?

Wellman is 30 years ago. It just doesn't happen.

Burton was included in a trade for Wingard.

 

[Mutineer]

Value wise it’s probably unders from us

But there’s no way in hell I’m forcing out a popular young clubman

Only try to include players that would be open to a move. I don’t see Rash as being a guy that would be

i doubt in the current climate the club would try this on Nicks?


“It wasn’t until I got to Essendon and said hello to Sean and his family that I realised they actually thought it had been my decision to trade Sean to Essendon,” Shaw recalled. “His family thought it was Robert Shaw who had stuck a knife into their son.”

“I did want Jarman at Adelaide but I didn’t want that come about as the result of losing a good young player. I was about building a young side and when that is the case you don’t go and trade one of your best young players. Quite frankly, I was totally against the idea.”

“It was something that I was told about at the last minute. I wasn’t asked if it should happen, I was basically told that it had happened. I’m not going to name names but they were far higher authorities than me. They know who they are and how they did the deal. Fortunately Sean and I have been able to develop a very good relationship over the past four years now he understands what really happened.”

 

[arrowman]

Nothing in that image that suggests we can’t be exempt by promising to trade back into the 2026/27 draft next year.

I don't think you can / should grant exemptions based on a promise like that. What is the consequence if the club finds itself unable to make a suitable trade - or can only do so by making a trade that is heavily favourable to the other club? The latter being the sort of self foot shooting that the rule is designed to prevent in the first place?

 

[1970crow]

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

I haven't worried about the Power, I've not commented on them at all, it's pointless, they're stuffed from the get go. We at least have 2 years that we can trade without asking for any exemptions whatsoever. Port traded last year's and this year's firsts, they must use 2026 & 2027 at the draft. Notwithstanding high value players departing, we are undoubtably in a better trading position because we have 2 tradeable firsts, they have none. Obviously trading out quality players changes things, but at the moment we're largely talking draft picks and lower value type players. If we got wind that Butters was leaving, the whole discussion would be moot because NWM clearly prefers Port and the only reason there is a discussion here is because Port has zero firsts to offer, whereas we have 2.

I'd have no hesitation giving up Rachele, a first and another lower end best 23 player. But a player like Rachele wanting to go would require a pretty significant contract uplift offer from a club he'd want to go to. I wonder if our way out would more likely be 3 guys getting us picks in the second round that can be rolled to something Saints would accept with 2 of our next 3 firsts. Berry, Nank and Keays would all be close to getting a 2nd rounder each, all contracted. Berry to be overtaken by Draper, Nank is AFL quality behind the ball (passable wing and forward) and Keays a very good contributor, but ageing (ANB type value). So we could lose those 3 without a negative hit to our best 23.

Just spitballing there, but something will need to be dislodged to add to our 2 firsts. And even if the AFL approves the 2027 pick, it's value would be low.

 

[Vader]

Would Rach, or any of our other players for that matter, even be willing to be traded to St Kilda?

Most likely this would end up being a 3-way trade, involving a 3rd club - just as the original Wellman/Jarman/Salmon trade was ~30 years ago. Presumably Rach, or someone else, would go to a 3rd club - with that club then trading a player to St Kilda.

I just don't see the club agreeing to trade Rachele in the first place. 119others is probably correct in identifying him as a valuable player who we could conceivably do without, but the cultural issues should see an end to this discussion very quickly. If this means that we don't end up with NWM, then so be it - I get the feeling that we're his 3rd option of 3 anyway.

 

[119others]

Giving them three firsts is one of the best hauls in trade history. We can't trade contracted players there.

I agree trading 3 x firsts is certainly much preferable to letting a non-core but still quality player like Rash go. Esp from a cultural perspective. Was getting into hypotheticals re other options but probably a bit pointless at this time.

NWM could very well earn the greatest trade collateral of all time. I expect he will if leaving. Teams are getting better compensated for losing quality players in the last decade - see Jezza Cameron, Bolton, Kelly etc. That combined with his relative youth (will likely be in the system another 10-12 years+) and talk of a 1.5-2m salary I can’t see how this doesnt need a massive trade haul of picks and/or players

 

[Crow till I die]

I haven't worried about the Power, I've not commented on them at all, it's pointless, they're stuffed from the get go. We at least have 2 years that we can trade without asking for any exemptions whatsoever. Port traded last year's and this year's firsts, they must use 2026 & 2027 at the draft. Notwithstanding high value players departing, we are undoubtably in a better trading position because we have 2 tradeable firsts, they have none. Obviously trading out quality players changes things, but at the moment we're largely talking draft picks and lower value type players. If we got wind that Butters was leaving, the whole discussion would be moot because NWM clearly prefers Port and the only reason there is a discussion here is because Port has zero firsts to offer, whereas we have 2.

I'd have no hesitation giving up Rachele, a first and another lower end best 23 player. But a player like Rachele wanting to go would require a pretty significant contract uplift offer from a club he'd want to go to. I wonder if our way out would more likely be 3 guys getting us picks in the second round that can be rolled to something Saints would accept with 2 of our next 3 firsts. Berry, Nank and Keays would all be close to getting a 2nd rounder each, all contracted. Berry to be overtaken by Draper, Nank is AFL quality behind the ball (passable wing and forward) and Keays a very good contributor, but ageing (ANB type value). So we could lose those 3 without a negative hit to our best 23.

Just spitballing there, but something will need to be dislodged to add to our 2 firsts. And even if the AFL approves the 2027 pick, it's value would be low.

This is my thinking too. Also we have 3 x 3rd round picks. I would assume we could bundle a couple of them for a later 2nd rounder. Then a player like Berry may garner a 2nd rounder as may Nankervis. Thats 3 2nd rounders. We may be able to trade another fringe player for a pick in the 2nd or early 3rd round and therefore could go to GC who have 2 top rated academy players they will need to bank points for and try for their port 2025 1st they got. Then we could offer 2 x 2025 1sts with one being top 10 and our 2026 1st -3 x 1sts in total.

Without losing a quality player, that would be about the best we could do if we wheeled and dealed.

 

[Mutineer]

Would Rach, or any of our other players for that matter, even be willing to be traded to St Kilda?

Most likely this would end up being a 3-way trade, involving a 3rd club - just as the original Wellman/Jarman/Salmon trade was ~30 years ago. Presumably Rach, or someone else, would go to a 3rd club - with that club then trading a player to St Kilda.

I just don't see the club agreeing to trade Rachele in the first place. 119others is probably correct in identifying him as a valuable player who we could conceivably do without, but the cultural issues should see an end to this discussion very quickly. If this means that we don't end up with NWM, then so be it - I get the feeling that we're his 3rd option of 3 anyway.

Are we actually that flush with quality small forwards ANB turns 30 in January?

 

[119others]

I haven't worried about the Power, I've not commented on them at all, it's pointless, they're stuffed from the get go. We at least have 2 years that we can trade without asking for any exemptions whatsoever. Port traded last year's and this year's firsts, they must use 2026 & 2027 at the draft. Notwithstanding high value players departing, we are undoubtably in a better trading position because we have 2 tradeable firsts, they have none. Obviously trading out quality players changes things, but at the moment we're largely talking draft picks and lower value type players. If we got wind that Butters was leaving, the whole discussion would be moot because NWM clearly prefers Port and the only reason there is a discussion here is because Port has zero firsts to offer, whereas we have 2.

I'd have no hesitation giving up Rachele, a first and another lower end best 23 player. But a player like Rachele wanting to go would require a pretty significant contract uplift offer from a club he'd want to go to. I wonder if our way out would more likely be 3 guys getting us picks in the second round that can be rolled to something Saints would accept with 2 of our next 3 firsts. Berry, Nank and Keays would all be close to getting a 2nd rounder each, all contracted. Berry to be overtaken by Draper, Nank is AFL quality behind the ball (passable wing and forward) and Keays a very good contributor, but ageing (ANB type value). So we could lose those 3 without a negative hit to our best 23.

Just spitballing there, but something will need to be dislodged to add to our 2 firsts. And even if the AFL approves the 2027 pick, it's value would be low.

Thanks, agree with most of this but reckon we could trade Keays/Berry/Nank easily for a first round pick alone for a rebuilding club (pick 15ish or later)

Also power should be able to trade 2027 first and not use at the draft assuming they use 2026 at the draft (meets 2 out of 4 years rolling rule):

2024 Draft - Berry
2025 TRADED
2026 Draft

 

[Mutineer]

This is my thinking too. Also we have 3 x 3rd round picks. I would assume we could bundle a couple of them for a later 2nd rounder. Then a player like Berry may garner a 2nd rounder as may Nankervis. Thats 3 2nd rounders. We may be able to trade another fringe player for a pick in the 2nd or early 3rd round and therefore could go to GC who have 2 top rated academy players they will need to bank points for and try for their port 2025 1st they got. Then we could offer 2 x 2025 1sts with one being top 10 and our 2026 1st -3 x 1sts in total.

Without losing a quality player, that would be about the best we could do if we wheeled and dealed.

Only problem there is this is a heavily comprimised draft so 1st rounders unless they're at the top end won't have a whole lot of value.

 

[Vader]

Are we actually that flush with quality small forwards ANB turns 30 in January?

Small forwards are much easier to find/obtain/draft/trade than top quality (elite) midfielders.

 

[Mutineer]

Thanks, agree with most of this but reckon we could trade Keays/Berry/Nank easily for a first round pick alone for a rebuilding club (pick 15ish or later)

Also power should be able to trade 2027 first and not use at the draft assuming they use 2026 at the draft (meets 2 out of 4 years rolling rule):

2024 Draft - Berry
2025 TRADED
2026 Draft

Re Port have you factored in the fact they have an avalanche of top end prospects coming down the pipeline the next few years in Dougie Cochrane, Louis Salopek, Tevan Rodan, Zemes Pilot etc, they aren't all going to fall off a cliff and all project as 1st round prospects in 2026/2027 which is further compromised by the advent of the Tassie Devils coming in.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

It's irrelevant because the rule is that you need to use 2 first round picks at the draft every rolling 4 years. When we're talking about trading out our 2027 first rounder, all that matters is whether between 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027 we will have selected 2 players from the first round. And given that we only selected one player in the first round of 2024, we cannot trade out all of our future firsts, because it would mean that we've only selected 1 first rounder in the 4 year rolling period between 2024 and 2027. It's pretty simple. Why people keep referring to what we did prior to 2024 is beyond me. the AFL don't care, the rule isn't 'we'll make a judgement call on whether you've got enough first rounders on the list from the last 4 year', they've said that you need to have 2 every rolling 4 years.

The exemption they appear to have allowed, which they said, is that they're prepared to treat a recently traded in first rounder as though they'd been selected by you in the draft. No chance Rankine qualifies, his draft was years ago.

the AFL are always sh1t up on the fly. just because that specific exemption has't been granted yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't be.

 

[Crow till I die]

Only problem there is this is a heavily comprimised draft so 1st rounders unless they're at the top end won't have a whole lot of value.

It is just bad luck for the saints that its such a draft year should NWM choose to leave. We can't choose the draft, but all that can be done is to try for the best picks possible in the relevant draft(s).

 

[Mutineer]

Small forwards are much easier to find/obtain/draft/trade than top quality (elite) midfielders.

Quality proven small forwards we're talking not just any small forward. The really good small forward prospects usually go very high in the draft and you pay plenty via trade as well. How do you reckon we'd go getting Nick Watson currently

 

[119others]

Re Port have you factored in the fact they have an avalanche of top end prospects coming down the pipeline the next few years in Dougie Cochrane, Louis Salopek, Tevan Rodan, Zemes Pilot etc, they aren't all going to fall off a cliff and all project as 1st round prospects in 2026/2027 which is further compromised by the advent of the Tassie Devils coming in.

Yes mate I know that. I actually mentioned to you last week you had forgotten Zemes Pilot in the other thread when discussing this very issue.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Thanks, agree with most of this but reckon we could trade Keays/Berry/Nank easily for a first round pick alone for a rebuilding club (pick 15ish or later)

Also power should be able to trade 2027 first and not use at the draft assuming they use 2026 at the draft (meets 2 out of 4 years rolling rule):

2024 Draft - Berry
2025 TRADED
2026 Draft

None of those players would be worth a first round pick. Keays would probably get you a 2nd round pick. The other two, possibly a 3rd round pick.

ANB was a trade for Pick 28. James Peatling was a 2nd round pick with the crows getting a 3rd and 4th round pick back. Caleb Daniel was Pick 25 because North was desperate to get him in.

All of those are better players than Berry or Nankervis. ANB and Keays are probably on par.

 

[Crow till I die]

Quality proven small forwards we're talking not just any small forward. The really good small forward prospects usually go very high in the draft and you pay plenty via trade as well. How do you reckon we'd go getting Nick Watson currently

What did we pay for Keays?

 

[Crow till I die]

None of those players would be worth a first round pick. Keays would probably get you a 2nd round pick. The other two, possibly a 3rd round pick.

ANB was a trade for Pick 28. James Peatling was a 2nd round pick with the crows getting a 3rd and 4th round pick back. Caleb Daniel was Pick 25 because North was desperate to get him in.

All of those are better players than Berry or Nankervis. ANB and Keays are probably on par.

I think Berry has certainly enhanced his reputation of late as a mid that can both hit the scoreboard and also lock down on the opposition best mids. He is still young enough too.

 

[Eddie Murphy]

I don't think you can / should grant exemptions based on a promise like that. What is the consequence if the club finds itself unable to make a suitable trade - or can only do so by making a trade that is heavily favourable to the other club? The latter being the sort of self foot shooting that the rule is designed to prevent in the first place?

Maybe a promise is a little too objective but something that suggests we make it a priority to trade back-in a first. It may ultimately be unnecessary. The reason the rule is in place, which has been ignored before, does not apply to us so I can see the AFL being flexible.

Knowing how player-centric the AFL trade industry is, it wouldn’t be a great look if a homesick player can’t go home because of a completely unnecessary AFL rule.

 

[Mutineer]

What did we pay for Keays?

Are you serious?

He was playing VFL and was delisted, not even Hamish and his crew would have expected anything like that outcome.
You've forgotten all the disparaging remarks from Crows supporters on here in his early years with us it seems, thankfully they've mostly been forced to eat humble pie...

What did we pay for Izak Rankine and at this point Rachele is a fair bit more proven than Rankine was.

 

[1970crow]

It’s as counter intuitive as arguing a 5 game / 7 goal 2025 forward in Draper was comparable to Tex Walker

PS people understand the rules. It’s hardly rocket science

Who said Draper was comparable to Tex Walker?

 

[Crow till I die]

Are you serious?

He was playing VFL and was delisted, not even Hamish and his crew would have expected anything like that outcome.
You've forgotten all the disparaging remarks from Crows supporters on here in his early years with us it seems, thankfully they've mostly been forced to eat humble pie...

What did we pay for Izak Rankine and at this point Rachele is a fair bit more proven than Rankine was.

Yeah, but wasn't Keays kicking a lot of goals at reserve level before he was delisted?. He was a punt but maybe an educated one. What about Malcolm Rosas at GC? probably get him cheap and he has x factor and in our forward line, he's be getting the 6th best defender. I just think we can wing it on a small forward considering we also have Izak, Keays and ANB. I am still hopeful on Pedlar too down there.

 

[Mutineer]

Yeah, but wasn't Keays kicking a lot of goals at reserve level before he was delisted?. He was a punt but maybe an educated one. What about Malcolm Rosas at GC? probably get him cheap and he has x factor and in our forward line, he's be getting the 6th best defender. I just think we can wing it on a small forward considering we also have Izak, Keays and ANB. I am still hopeful on Pedlar too down there.

James Rowe was kicking a lot of goals at reserves level

 

[1970crow]

the AFL are always sh1t up on the fly. just because that specific exemption has't been granted yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't be.

Sure, but that's a long way away from people saying, 'we can trade our next 3 first rounders', when as it stands right now, we only have 2 to trade.