List Mgmt. 2024 Trade & List Management Thread - Part 3

[giantroo]

Spoiler: 2024 Draft Picks

 

[Merlin007]

I thought these were 'not just Rawlings' decisions? Or just for the mistakes?

On this year's trade period, I didn't hate 43 (44?) to Sydney but suspect a future 3rd would have also got it done.

substitute "rawlings" for the "brains trust" which is how the conversation started

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

The rebuild is done or are you done with the rebuild? After 5 years of this misery, I want premierships. Not just to be competitive.

Yeah but you think pick 25 will be the difference winning falls or just competing.

 

[Passmore]

Mate, constantly read this “we need to keep rebuilding” from you. Its done. We gave enough talent.

From half back to half forward are all bloody midfielders with 3 corner stone talls.

We are missing a couple of items, another half back, a genuine small (but we may have 2 available in 2025 and may be bloody rippers) we need a couple of talls to develop.

The list is done. We flat out under performed this year, embarrassing. Leadership was identified and has been sort for fixing.

Im over this “rebuild” its 90% done. Enough is enough

Sheezel, Wardlaw, George, McKercher, Duursma, Dawson, Hardeman and Goad from the last 2 drafts plus whatever we get this year.

The "rebuild" isn't done until we start performing obviously. But we've had plenty of cracks at the pointy end.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[BrownPaperBag]

wasn't luff meant to be a data guy?

He was almost as much of a charlatan than Paul Roos

 

[chubbspeterson]

I agree that it gets you a foot in the door, but it isn't particularly helpful for the role. In our group we are missing some important skills for the role which is why we always struggle with negotiations and managing list numbers. Every trade or drafting decision seems to be made independently and without an overall strategy.

This trade period the job should have been really easy: split down pick 2 to fill the obvious gaps in the list and trade in a couple of players whilst leaving our F1 for next year. Yet, we have somehow traded out a pick we wanted to use and maneuvered ourselves into the weakest possible negotiating position despite holding the most valuable asset up for trade.

Hopefully we can pull a rabbit out of the hat, but it isn't looking very promising at the moment.

Well I think the skills of the person is more relevant than football vs non-football experience.
Negotiating power varies on the contract, player and salary situation. I think the list numbers management depends on what view you take on it. I think the club clearly wants to keep some of those players most of us view as "cloggers" to either give them more development time or keep them as squad depth. They've seen The Purge movie before.
We'll have roughly 21-24 kids under the age of 24 after this draft and a fair chunk of them may need a few more years in the system before we know what we have with them. Some will be easier calls than others next few years.

The overall strategy seems to be based on five years of kids since 2020 and trying to bring another kid or two in 12 months earlier by splitting 2 and/or trading futures. I suspect it'll be more trade/FA and/or draft balancing act the next few years and not as much turnover beyond say 8-10 players per year. It may mean Tucker, Stephens, Fisher, Corr, Logue, Kal Dawson types are kept longer as depth until the kids are ready. We'll see what happens with what we do at the draft.

 

[perplexed]

Well I think the skills of the person is more relevant than football vs non-football experience.
Negotiating power varies on the contract, player and salary situation. I think the list numbers management depends on what view you take on it. I think the club clearly wants to keep some of those players most of us view as "cloggers" to either give them more development time or keep them as squad depth. They've seen The Purge movie before.
We'll have roughly 21-24 kids under the age of 24 after this draft and a fair chunk of them may need a few more years in the system before we know what we have with them. Some will be easier calls than others next few years.

The overall strategy seems to be based on five years of kids since 2020 and trying to bring another kid or two in 12 months earlier by splitting 2 and/or trading futures. I suspect it'll be more trade/FA and/or draft balancing act the next few years and not as much turnover beyond say 8-10 players per year. It may mean Tucker, Stephens, Fisher, Corr, Logue, Kal Dawson types are kept longer as depth until the kids are ready. We'll see what happens with what we do at the draft.

With list numbers, I meant using our free list spots and number of picks to maximise our options at the draft. In the past we have had to trade picks for unders before the draft because we have had more picks than free list spots. This time we have four list spots but only one pick and it is limiting our ability to organise a trade for pick 2. Had we kept 25 we would be in a stronger negotiating position but also have a very useable pick if things fell through. Maximising our return for pick 2 was always our main priority before the draft and we needlessly compromised that in the Daniel trade. It was inept, but typical. Our approach to list management lacks strategy. It focuses on individual decisions and ignores the big picture. It's why we always go 'best available' even if it means taking four small mids in the same draft.

 

[DuckYeah]

With list numbers, I meant using our free list spots and number of picks to maximise our options at the draft. In the past we have had to trade picks for unders before the draft because we have had more picks than free list spots. This time we have four list spots but only one pick and it is limiting our ability to organise a trade for pick 2. Had we kept 25 we would be in a stronger negotiating position but also have a very useable pick if things fell through. Maximising our return for pick 2 was always our main priority before the draft and we needlessly compromised that in the Daniel trade. It was inept, but typical. Our approach to list management lacks strategy. It focuses on individual decisions and ignores the big picture. It's why we always go 'best available' even if it means taking four small mids in the same draft.

25 on Daniel is not inept. I think its a little high but the only sweeter scenario would have been to get a pick in the 30-40 range back. Which nets 4 fifths of **** all

 

[KiwiRoo]

No point judging the Daniel trade until next year
Could be the best second round pick we've had

 

[DuckYeah]

No point judging the Daniel trade until next year
Could be the best second round pick we've had

From the conversation I was having on saturday with a big time sponsor from The dogs. He is filthy they let Daniel and McCrae go.

And off topic, it sounds like JUH is heading in a similar direction to TT.

 

[perplexed]

25 on Daniel is not inept. I think its a little high but the only sweeter scenario would have been to get a pick in the 30-40 range back. Which nets 4 fifths of **** all

It is inept because we let a minor trade undermine the value of biggest trade asset. Those justifying it are looking at the deal in isolation, in which we overpaid, but not horribly.

 

[Ether]

It is inept because we let a minor trade undermine the value of biggest trade asset. Those justifying it are looking at the deal in isolation, in which we overpaid, but not horribly.

This will probably have been posted already, but Daniel's value is not just his playing ability. I'm sure they wanted to bring in leadership in a range of ages, as well as field positions. Parker and Darling will be retired or having limited ground time in a couple of years.

 

[perplexed]

This will probably have been posted already, but Daniel's value is not just his playing ability. I'm sure they wanted to bring in leadership in a range of ages, as well as field positions. Parker and Darling will be retired or having limited ground time in a couple of years.

Sure, but the Dogs didn't want to keep him, we should have offered them future picks or walked away. That trade has painted us into a corner and will cost us significantly more than the pick we paid for him.

 

[GS WARRIORS]

It is inept because we let a minor trade undermine the value of biggest trade asset. Those justifying it are looking at the deal in isolation, in which we overpaid, but not horribly.

It only hurts us if we are desperate to move 2. I hate that trade (DC) btw and would be happy to pick at 2.

If we are happy to use pick 2 on whoever is at the top of our board, even if it's a mid, then we sit tight for a very good offer. If it doesn't come, we take another top pick. Richmond and St Kilda miss out. They get a lesser player if we take a mid. They are banking on us taking Tauru.

 

[Zondor]

Sure, but the Dogs didn't want to keep him, we should have offered them future picks or walked away. That trade has painted us into a corner and will cost us significantly more than the pick we paid for him.

Walk Away? Rawling doesn't understand the concept of Walk Away. :stern look

 

[perplexed]

It only hurts us if we are desperate to move 2. I hate that trade (DC) btw and would be happy to pick at 2.

If we are happy to use pick 2 on whoever is at the top of our board, even if it's a mid, then we sit tight for a very good offer. If it doesn't come, we take another top pick. Richmond and St Kilda miss out. They get a lesser player if we take a mid. They are banking on us taking Tauru.

That's true. But surely, we aren't taking another mid. If we aren't going tall in this draft will we ever?

 

[muttley45]

Dawson and Goad not considered as drafting talls recently ?

 

[GS WARRIORS]

That's true. But surely, we aren't taking another mid. If we aren't going tall in this draft will we ever?

Taking the best player at 2, which is a mid, doesn't mean we can't/won't take a tall(s) with our remaining list spots.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

25 on Daniel is not inept. I think its a little high but the only sweeter scenario would have been to get a pick in the 30-40 range back. Which nets 4 fifths of **** all

That 4 fifths of **** all could have been a player like Gerreyn, who is expected to go between 30-40....

 

[perplexed]

Taking the best player at 2, which is a mid, doesn't mean we can't/won't take a tall(s) with our remaining list spots.

We don't have any other picks. Our F1 should be off limits. We may be able to get one with our F2 and F3, but it would be the same old story: using up our best picks on mids then filling in the rest with whatever we have left.

 

[ToxicMegaPunts]

That 4 fifths of **** all could have been a player like Gerreyn, who is expected to go between 30-40....

Exactly. Since that poster is so big on Gerreyn, it seems odd that they are willing to throw away an early 2nd rounder for a player who wasn't in his own sides' best 22, and who doesn't fill a gaping need. Wonder how they will feel on come draft night when the G-Train is still on the board at what would have been our pick 25.

 

[giantroo]

Walk Away? Rawling doesn't understand the concept of Walk Away. :stern look

Really? Did he not walk away from the Xerri and H.Clark trades?

 

[DuckYeah]

That 4 fifths of **** all could have been a player like Gerreyn, who is expected to go between 30-40....

Pull right on my heart strungs huh? Gerreyn will be top 15-20

 

[Passmore]

Exactly. Since that poster is so big on Gerreyn, it seems odd that they are willing to throw away an early 2nd rounder for a player who wasn't in his own sides' best 22, and who doesn't fill a gaping need. Wonder how they will feel on come draft night when the G-Train is still on the board at what would have been our pick 25.

I think he does fill a gaping need. Distribution of HB plus experience of what it's like to be in a good side.

25 was a bit rich, but it's hardly make or break.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[krakouers]

Really? Did he not walk away from the Xerri and H.Clark trades?

 

[GS WARRIORS]

We don't have any other picks. Our F1 should be off limits. We may be able to get one with our F2 and F3, but it would be the same old story: using up our best picks on mids then filling in the rest with whatever we have left.

Agree we shouldn't burn our F1 and we shouldn't burn 2 as well.

I'd rather take best available at 2 than trade it for unders or reach on a tall.

Trading 25 hurts us getting a tall but we shouldn't make it worst by wasting 2 or our F1.