List management

[Tbone McGraw]

With all th talk about our off contract players, i thought i would start a discussion about how our club should go about its list management.

Firstly what are the most important positions on a footy field. I believe you start with ruck and then your key position forwards and defenders. Then you need at least 1 extractor in the midfield and probably 3 other clearance/ball using midfields.

Ok in using that logic we have a ruckman in jolly (for how much longer?). Now our key position players off contract arw cloke, reid and taz (did he sign a 2 yr deal?). I think taz will retire esp if we win the comp this year.

Next is the 4 mids u need. Now 2 are signed in swan and daiay and our other 2 are pendles and ball. I believe ball will sign for whatever we want him to.

Now my point in this thread is how we go about our list. Hence from what i have just pointed out we offer cloke, reid and pendles pretty much what we can. Bj has already signalled his retirement after this year and if worse comes to worse we can lose players like wellingham,obrien, caff and krak to keep our key players. Not saying i want to lose these players. Also not sure who else off contract

Small/medium forwards, running/medium defenders are easy to replace as are depth midfielders

 

[Swooop]

Wow, this is a daunting task responding to such a huge topic...

I might just state one overriding principle that i'd like to see the club use, though it's probably not the popularist approach.

I don't think we should be looking to compete in any significant way with clubs like GWS to try and ward off attacks on our star players.

We can only lose one player. By paying each of players A, B, C, D and E more than we otherwise would, to encourage them to stay, is setting ourselves up to lose a lot, lot more down the track than just the one player we MAY have have lost to say a GWS.

If any one player wants to go to GWS or the next expansion club down the track for the $, let them go, good luck to them, but don't stuff up our future list by overly swelling half a dozen guys pay at the expense of the rest of our list.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Very fair points swoop. I think the main point i was trying to emphasise is who should be our priority signings and if we had to lose other players to do this, i would understand. However there are massive dangers in paying overs . I trust pert and the club in this respect

 

[Collingwoodity]

Wow, this is a daunting task responding to such a huge topic...

I might just state one overriding principle that i'd like to see the club use, though it's probably not the popularist approach.

I don't think we should be looking to compete in any significant way with clubs like GWS to try and ward off attacks on our star players.

We can only lose one player. By paying each of players A, B, C, D and E more than we otherwise would, to encourage them to stay, is setting ourselves up to lose a lot, lot more down the track than just the one player we MAY have have lost to say a GWS.

If any one player wants to go to GWS or the next expansion club down the track for the $, let them go, good luck to them, but don't stuff up our future list by overly swelling half a dozen guys pay at the expense of the rest of our list.

But it's a fine line between having a list that is 90-100% capable of challening for a flag for 3-4 years and a list that is 70-80% capable of challenging for a flag for 5 - 7 years...

What I mean by that is if we let one of the star players go and they are replaced by draft picks who will become future stars, the current stars will age and retire thus damaging our capability to challenge for a flag at 90-100% capability.

 

[morgues]

If we manage to go one step further than 2011 and win the big one, and Tazza does retire, that may free up a bit of breathing space for us to spend some more on Reid, who may end up having another stellar year. You guys raise some really valid and interesting points, and I am supremely confident in Pert, Eddie, Walsh et al that are leading the club to choose what is right for Collingwood. They will be able to balance the now, the short term and long term.

I am also confident that a (hypothetical here) $400k Collingwood contract is worth close to 50% more (or more?) for another club, could even be worth double if you take into account everything that comes with signing with us. With being a Collingwood player comes so many benefits, and you just have to look at how well we are now taking care of the players that bled for us - I just saw a pic of Presti working as Merchandise Operations Manager - good. Keep him in black and white and our culture is unbreakable. I will be devestated if we lose Cloke, Pendles or any of our up-and-coming stars. But as has been said, we don't want to invest in just short term and forego foresight, and also, dont want to rebuild again. Interesting times.

Methinks the Sun is preparing a daily "magpie watch" for this year

So the list management will be crucial this year, as well as on field, the off field needs to be sorted out and surely we are positioning our club to be in the best possible spot come contract times.

 

[MarkT2]

It was reported when Tarrant returned that he was only on about $100k.
Ball is on about the same in 2012.
Tarrant won't get much more if he wants to go mon but Ball will.
The real cap management issue is how much of Thi9mas & Swan's contract is paid in 2012 v the following couple of years. If they have been able to front load those 2 deals then there will be spce to the others unless of course they take a $1.2 to $1.5 to jump ship to GWS. We can't compete just on salary but we will need to be close enough to the mark to allow loyalty/friendship/success to be factors in any decisions.

 

[Swooop]

But it's a fine line between having a list that is 90-100% capable of challening for a flag for 3-4 years and a list that is 70-80% capable of challenging for a flag for 5 - 7 years...

What I mean by that is if we let one of the star players go and they are replaced by draft picks who will become future stars, the current stars will age and retire thus damaging our capability to challenge for a flag at 90-100% capability.

That's a very good point, well made and I guess that's why we are lucky to have the quality guys like Pert, Eddie, Walsh etc running the club.

It's a real balancing act isn't it.

As morgues says also, there's more to playing for the Pies than just the dollars, which is a help. Being part of the biggest sporting family in Australia, living in sports crazy Melbourne, playing in front of 70,000 each week, then having a pretty good chance of getting looked after when you retire, is worth a hell of a lot.

I guess re the short term loss if we did lose a Cloke, Pendles etc, yes we'd get a couple of first round draft picks as compo ( you hope they'd be regarded as top bracket players!) but with free agency, we may be able to pick up someone pretty good as a ready made semi replacement.

But I do agree, there would be some potential short term compromise very likely in playing personnel if we lose a big player.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

There should be a tiny bit space in the cap when Simon Buckley is asked to find another club.
Ben Johnson is likely to retire and as Mark suggested Taz is probably in his last year too.
For those three it probably frees up $500k.

Not sure how the Vets list operates these days but I think it applies to any player who has served 10 years, with the 30 years of age restriction being removed.

 

[noideaatall]

don't know much about how free agency will work but wondering if it will change the way lists are managed somewhat. instead of focusing on developing the range of player position-types required, clubs can simply develop the best players they can get depending on their draft picks, then flog them off to exchange for the actual player positions needed.

ie. in theory the pies might have 3 A list ruckmen in 2 years. Keep Witts, exchange Ceglar and Woods for a decent extractor to replace Ball.

possible?

 

[Tbone McGraw]

now that we have resigned pendles, the obvious. keys are cloke and Reid.

i suppose the obvious big question is how important Ben reid is as i believe cloke is a must sign

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

We really need to start looking at mature age recruits the likes of Duigan, Barlow, Curnow and these sorts of players.

We've been borderline non-existent in this arena of recruiting, and given our injury situation last season and this season, I expect Bucks to really go over that side of the recruiting with a fine tooth comb.

Even picking up a 22-23 year old recruit means picking up a ready made player who can still technically give anywhere from 5-10 years of service depending on the quality of the player drafted.

No reason we shouldn't be looking at these types of players as depth at the very least.

 

[PieNSauce]

I'm afraid I'm not one to buy overly into the belief that signing with Collingwood is seen by players as so much better than signing with another club for more money. It may be a factor but I suspect it's fairly minimal.

Potential for future earnings post-career is a whole lot different to money in the bank which a contract represents. Sure we have some of the best facilities and there may be some perception that future earnings potential might be slightly improved but to suggest it's worth 50% more or anything approaching that sort of number is nothing more than wishful thinking.

IMO, friendships, loyalty and the desire to be a one club player are far more likely to help retain players than any perceived benefit of wearing black and white but this has its limits when big dollars are on the table.

 

[soreplums]

I'm afraid I'm not one to buy overly into the belief that signing with Collingwood is seen by players as so much better than signing with another club for more money. It may be a factor but I suspect it's fairly minimal.

Potential for future earnings post-career is a whole lot different to money in the bank which a contract represents. Sure we have some of the best facilities and there may be some perception that future earnings potential might be slightly improved but to suggest it's worth 50% more or anything approaching that sort of number is nothing more than wishful thinking.

IMO, friendships, loyalty and the desire to be a one club player are far more likely to help retain players than any perceived benefit of wearing black and white but this has its limits when big dollars are on the table.

I tend to agree. It may encourage Collingwood players to stay at Collingwood- particularly those who would be looking for a carrer in the media post playing career.

In terms of attracting other players, being a the biggest club with great facilities, traditions and playing in front of big crowds at the G would appeal to only those players who are hell bent on wanting to leave their current club.

 

[carnthepies19]

Of Reid and Cloke, I reckon Reid is more important to keep.

If we lost Reid, we will have Brown, Keeffe and Taz, that is if he doesn't retire this season. Brown I've got no problems with, just Keeffe. He's literally a stick and he'd get easily knocked around by a tall forward.

If we lost Cloke, there is Paine and Witts, two young players that have heaps of potential. Witts is playing key forward in the VFL, and can kick goals. Paine, as we've already seen, can play. They will only get better from here.

Ideally, it would be great to hang onto both of our stars, but realistically under the salary cap, that might not happen. I'd hope they are willing to take a pay cut to keep the list together, but who knows!

 

[soreplums]

Of Reid and Cloke, I reckon Reid is more important to keep.

If we lost Reid, we will have Brown, Keeffe and Taz, that is if he doesn't retire this season. Brown I've got no problems with, just Keeffe. He's literally a stick and he'd get easily knocked around by a tall forward.

If we lost Cloke, there is Paine and Witts, two young players that have heaps of potential. Witts is playing key forward in the VFL, and can kick goals. Paine, as we've already seen, can play. They will only get better from here.

Ideally, it would be great to hang onto both of our stars, but realistically under the salary cap, that might not happen. I'd hope they are willing to take a pay cut to keep the list together, but who knows!

Unless the money to keep Cloke will damage our list, I'd rather Cloke ahead of Reid. Far harder to find a damaging power forward than developing a CHB. Sure Paine and Witts are young and developing, but Paine has been taking the number 3 defender.
I'd look at continuing to develop Hartley and Keefe down back. In extreme cases of desperation, we can look at using Dawes as a CHB. He has the fitness and he doesn't have to take a mark.

 

[Knightmare]

There aren't any great holes yet, but there will be very soon.

If Cloke/Reid leave they will be top priorities to replace whether that be through trade or early draft.

Same scenario when Jolly retires, will need to get replaced immediately with another developed, high level replacement.

Not confident N.Brown will get healthy and stay healthy - if he hasn't proven this by the time Tarrant retires then another key defender is on the cards.

The basic formula with bigs: If key forward 1st round. If key defender 1st/2nd round. For a developed ruck trade week is the way to go, if going for a ruck prospect (not relevant to us considering our recent draft selections) rookie draft is always good option.


But best case scenario. None of these key bigs leave and we don't need to replace anyone. We then look to add some high quality mids as well as add James Stewart as a long term key forward option assuming he has a solid year and continues to show strong development.

 

[TradeDraft]

There aren't any great holes yet, but there will be very soon.

If Cloke/Reid leave they will be top priorities to replace whether that be through trade or early draft.

Same scenario when Jolly retires, will need to get replaced immediately with another developed, high level replacement.

Not confident N.Brown will get healthy and stay healthy - if he hasn't proven this by the time Tarrant retires then another key defender is on the cards.

The basic formula with bigs: If key forward 1st round. If key defender 1st/2nd round. For a developed ruck trade week is the way to go, if going for a ruck prospect (not relevant to us considering our recent draft selections) rookie draft is always good option.


But best case scenario. None of these key bigs leave and we don't need to replace anyone. We then look to add some high quality mids as well as add James Stewart as a long term key forward option assuming he has a solid year and continues to show strong development.

I doubt Reid would go but Still not 100% Sure on Cloke.

Problem with our Drafting it be late in the 1st Round so the Top Young KPP would be Gone so it be hard to find young KPP that could be Superstars.

Our Ruck Stocks is Very Young and that's why I think we need to play Ceglar a bit in the AFL this season

 

[Ed D]

I doubt Reid would go but Still not 100% Sure on Cloke.

Problem with our Drafting it be late in the 1st Round so the Top Young KPP would be Gone so it be hard to find young KPP that could be Superstars.

Our Ruck Stocks is Very Young and that's why I think we need to play Ceglar a bit in the AFL this season

Don't forget Stewart. Our first pick could be a late 2nd rounder. In saying that Stewart is a KPP anyway.

 

[TradeDraft]

Don't forget Stewart. Our first pick could be a late 2nd rounder. In saying that Stewart is a KPP anyway.

Well he is not Guranteed to be that High Yet. What I saw of him in RD 1 of the TAC Cup he did not Really play as a KPF. More of a Winger

 

[carnthepies19]

Well he is not Guranteed to be that High Yet. What I saw of him in RD 1 of the TAC Cup he did not Really play as a KPF. More of a Winger

I reckon Stewart's style will be similar to what Buddy is trying to do; in having the endurance to go through the midfield but still be present on the scoreboard. May or may not work for him though.