From what I've seen tonight, Treloar and Aish would have been a massive waste of money.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Analysis 2016 List Management Discussion
- Thread starter The Old Dark Navy's
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Probably even easier since he would've followed the Blues as a kid. Well I'm only guessing because all the good football players barracked for the Blues, Yeah??
Dramoth
Premium Platinum
Aish definitely. Treloar might be worth the money.
I'm happy with the guys we traded in
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,268
- 21,236
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
What game were you watching? Treloar smashed it. Aish on the other hand.
32 disposals but I can't remember any hitting a target. Mind you I have been celebrating my last day at work...
BS. Treloar and Fasolo won it for Collingwood.
BS indeed.
Jimmae
Brownlow Medallist
Aish somehow managed 2 clangers by hand
bluedabadee
Team Captain
one more than I usually manage
Aish bad but Treloar is excellent. To suggest otherwise is just some one eyed Carlton sour grapes.
Whether he is two first rounders excellent remains to be seen but signs are good.
Whether he is two first rounders excellent remains to be seen but signs are good.
Richmond remind me of our 2011 list. Enough quality to be decent, not enough depth and structure to be good.
I remember arguing on the main board last year that I thought Carlton were closer to their next premiership than Richmond for that reason - their current crop will fail and they need to rebuild before winning one, whereas we are in that process now. I was hounded and ridiculed by everyone, even some blues supporters lol.
Their list is still young, but I just don't see a premiership team when I look at it.
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,664
I posted this on the main board in the thread about Carlton not rebuilding properly. Thought it could be a good comparison as to where we are starting in comparison to other teams in terms of list balance.
---------------------------------
I want to address a few points about the differences with Carlton's rebuild compared to some others.
Firstly, the notion that our rebuild started in the 2014 offseason under Malthouse. Firstly, the team sank like a stone under Mick and it is acknowledged whatever we were doing was not working.
However, these were the quantity and ages of our list come 1/1/14:
2014 list 1/1/14
6 x 18, 3 x 19, 3 x 20, 2 x 21, 3 x 22, 3 x 23, 9 x 24, 1 x 25, 5 x 26, 4 x 27, 2 x 29, 4 x 30+
2015 list 1/1/15
4 x 18, 5 x 19, 5 x 20, 3 x 21, 4 x 22, 3 x 23, 3 x 24, 7 x 25, 1 x 26, 5 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 30+
4 18 year olds added (2 rookies, 1 2nd rounder, 1 4th rounder), a 19 year old 5th rounder, a 20 year old DFA, traded in a 20 year old, a 21 year old first year player with a 1st rounder, 22 year old traded in, 22 year old rookie, 22 year old Cat B rookie, a 23 year old in the PSD, a 23 year old traded in.
As you can see above, we simply tried to address a dearth of players in the 19-23 year old area so they can play ASAP and while we increased our 22 and under brigade, most of them were rookies and late picks.
We lost 3 experienced players for zero FA compo, delisted for culture reasons, traded for a 4th rounder for culture reasons.
2 30+ players retired because of injury, one before the 2014 season got under way. So no real rebuild happening here, just stop gap measures.
Secondly, Carlton start a rebuild under new coach Brendan Bolton - 2016 incorporating 2015 drafts/trades. Starting from 18th with 4 wins, 18 losses.
Let's compare it to Richmond under new coach Damian Hardwick - 2010, incorporating 2009 drafts/trades. Starting from 15th of 16 teams, 5 wins - 1 draw - 16 losses.
Also Hawthorn, the benchmark and probably the Bolton model, under new coach Alastair Clarkson - 2005 incorporating the 2004 drafts/trades. Starting from 15th of 16 teams, 4 wins - 18 losses.
So remember we are looking at list changes from one year to the next:
Carlton 2015 as of 1/1/15
4 x 18, 5 x 19, 5 x 20, 3 x 21, 4 x 22, 3 x 23, 3 x 24, 7 x 25, 1 x 26, 5 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 30+
Carlton 2016 as of 1/1/16 15 changes
6 x 18, 3 x 19, 2 x 20, 6 x 21, 5 x 22, 3 x 23, 4 x 24, 2 x 25, 6 x 26, 1 x 27, 4 x 28, 3 x 29, 1 x 30+
The first thing you will notice is that we have increased our 18 year olds a little bit. 4 of the 6 18 year old we took came in the first round of the draft. 1 father/son. 1 with the 1st pick in the rookie draft.
Then you notice we have a fundamental development problem as our 9 18 and 19 year olds from 2015, have been reduced to 5 19 and 20 year olds. The 4 lost consisted of 2 rookies, a third rounder pick and a late second rounder. This highlights the importance of getting early draft picks.
We held our own in the 20-24 range from 2015 as it became 21-25 and added a couple in this key range.
Now 26 seems to be an arbitrary cut off for elder statesmen in this thread. I'm not sure why as it's a bit of a peak age. Nonetheless we carried 7 25 year olds into 2015 and we have managed to secure good draft picks for a 24, 25 and 26 year old respectively and have managed to drop the total of 25 year olds down one as they became 26 year olds. All 5 are best 22 with 2 in the leadership group, 1 our No 1 ruck, 1 our leading goal scorer last year (who was almost traded late mind you) and a rebounding half back with good kicking skills.
We have a 28 year old rookie seeing out a contract, a high priced free agent seeing out a contract, a 28 year old key defender who has just been dropped for an 18 year old, and the other elder statesmen are team leaders. A couple in this range may be in trouble this year.
We did reduce our 30+ year olds from 3 down to 1 but 1 of those was because of a career ending injury.
Let's take a look at Richmond.
Richmond 2009 List as of 1/1/10 - 44 players
3 x 18, 5 x 19, 6 x 20, 7 x 21, 7 x 22, 3 x 23, 2 x 24, 1 x 25, 3 x 26, 1 x 27, 6 x 30+
Richmond 2010 List as of 1/1/10 - 46 players - 13 changes
10 x 18, 3 x 19, 6 x 20, 6 x 21, 6 x 22, 5 x 23, 2 x 24, 3 x 25, 1 x 26, 1 x 27, 1 x 28, 2 x 30+
Right away the number of 18 year olds jumps out. 6 in the 2005 draft, 1 in the PSD and 3 in the rookie draft. You look to the end and you see 6 30+ players reduced to 2. That's what people have been saying right? Get rid of the older players and bring in young players, wherever you can get them in the draft.
Carlton increased their 22 and under stocks from 21 to 22 only due to losing 4 of their 19/20 year olds. Richmond increased their 22 and under stocks from 28 to 31. It's not a massive rise but it was a huge influx of 18 year olds. You can see right away how far out of whack Carlton's starting position was. The damage was done years before with drafting mature types and poor recruiting and development.
Of course Carlton didn't have that old contingent to pension off Richmond had unless we want to retire some 28 and 29 year olds prematurely. Of course 2 of those Richmond over 30s retired midseason because of injury and for 1 other, it had most definitely taken its toll. The two that retired midseason were way over 30. Seems to be a little bit forced on the Tigers here.
The Tigers maintained their 18 year old to the next year and pretty much maintained their 20-22 year olds as they got a year older.
However .... of those 10 18 year old they picked up, 5 were gone within 3 years, 2 didn't play a game and the other 3 played 16, 4 and 3 respectively. A 6th lasted 6 years for 31 games.
These are the games played by the respective ages on the Tigers list in 2010, bear in mind the quantity of players in each age group.
484 games
18y - 64 games
19y - 21 games
20y - 70 games
21y - 79 games
22y - 95 games
23y - 49 games
24y - 4 games
25y - 37 games
26y - 0 games
27y - 21 games
28y - 20 games
30y+ - 24 games
In 2005 Richmond finished 15th of 16 teams with 6 wins and 16 losses.
Let's look at Hawthorn:
Hawks 2004 list as of 1/1/2004 44 players
6 x 18 or under, 5 x 19, 3 x 20, 8 x 21, 1 x 22, 6 x 23, 1 x 24, 1 x 25, 3 x 26, 2 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 29, 2 x 30+
After drafts & trades 45 players
9 x 18 or under, 3 x 19, 5 x 20, 4 x 21, 9 x 22, 0 x 23, 4 x 24, 1 x 25, 0 x 26, 3 x 27, 2 x 28, 2 x 29, 3 x 30+
Again, an increase in the 18 or under category (17 year olds were drafted back then). Mind you 3 of those 18 year olds were rookies or outside the top 20 and did nothing. They also lost a few 18 year olds as they turned 19.
A key for the hawks here is they had a heap of 19 year olds progressing to the next year and a heap of 21 year olds progressing to 22. They had a great draft and it was here and the next year they sold off mid aged players for plum draft picks. Not older players, 25 year olds, much like Carlton did at the end of this year.
Note that Hawthorn did not reduce their 27 and over numbers at all this year. They took their 22 and under stocks from 23 to 30 but increased their list size by 2 and as mentioned 3 of those young players didn't do anything. They opted to strip back their 23-26 age group a little instead of touching their veterans. A similar strategy to Carlton except our crappy recruiting cost us 19 and 20 years olds as well.
484 games - 2005
17y - 36 games
18y - 28 games
19y - 36 games
20y - 41 games
21y - 33 games
22y - 99 games
23y - 0 games
24y - 48 games
25y - 20 games
26y - 0 games
27y - 63 games
28y - 9 games
29y - 12 games
30y+ - 46 games
Note that Hawthorn too made little improvement.on the ladder in the first year under Clarkson.
I suspect Carlton will get plenty of games into their 22 year olds as the Tigers and Hawks did. Unfortunately we still have to repair our 19 and 20 year old stocks as we are coming from so far behind, but our 21 year olds will start coming on once the injuries are behind a couple of them.
The last point to remember is the difference in game plan from one era to another. Some players may learn it quicker so the age profiles in the early part of the season may vary wildly.
---------------------------------
I want to address a few points about the differences with Carlton's rebuild compared to some others.
Firstly, the notion that our rebuild started in the 2014 offseason under Malthouse. Firstly, the team sank like a stone under Mick and it is acknowledged whatever we were doing was not working.
However, these were the quantity and ages of our list come 1/1/14:
2014 list 1/1/14
6 x 18, 3 x 19, 3 x 20, 2 x 21, 3 x 22, 3 x 23, 9 x 24, 1 x 25, 5 x 26, 4 x 27, 2 x 29, 4 x 30+
2015 list 1/1/15
4 x 18, 5 x 19, 5 x 20, 3 x 21, 4 x 22, 3 x 23, 3 x 24, 7 x 25, 1 x 26, 5 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 30+
4 18 year olds added (2 rookies, 1 2nd rounder, 1 4th rounder), a 19 year old 5th rounder, a 20 year old DFA, traded in a 20 year old, a 21 year old first year player with a 1st rounder, 22 year old traded in, 22 year old rookie, 22 year old Cat B rookie, a 23 year old in the PSD, a 23 year old traded in.
As you can see above, we simply tried to address a dearth of players in the 19-23 year old area so they can play ASAP and while we increased our 22 and under brigade, most of them were rookies and late picks.
We lost 3 experienced players for zero FA compo, delisted for culture reasons, traded for a 4th rounder for culture reasons.
2 30+ players retired because of injury, one before the 2014 season got under way. So no real rebuild happening here, just stop gap measures.
Secondly, Carlton start a rebuild under new coach Brendan Bolton - 2016 incorporating 2015 drafts/trades. Starting from 18th with 4 wins, 18 losses.
Let's compare it to Richmond under new coach Damian Hardwick - 2010, incorporating 2009 drafts/trades. Starting from 15th of 16 teams, 5 wins - 1 draw - 16 losses.
Also Hawthorn, the benchmark and probably the Bolton model, under new coach Alastair Clarkson - 2005 incorporating the 2004 drafts/trades. Starting from 15th of 16 teams, 4 wins - 18 losses.
So remember we are looking at list changes from one year to the next:
Carlton 2015 as of 1/1/15
4 x 18, 5 x 19, 5 x 20, 3 x 21, 4 x 22, 3 x 23, 3 x 24, 7 x 25, 1 x 26, 5 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 30+
Carlton 2016 as of 1/1/16 15 changes
6 x 18, 3 x 19, 2 x 20, 6 x 21, 5 x 22, 3 x 23, 4 x 24, 2 x 25, 6 x 26, 1 x 27, 4 x 28, 3 x 29, 1 x 30+
The first thing you will notice is that we have increased our 18 year olds a little bit. 4 of the 6 18 year old we took came in the first round of the draft. 1 father/son. 1 with the 1st pick in the rookie draft.
Then you notice we have a fundamental development problem as our 9 18 and 19 year olds from 2015, have been reduced to 5 19 and 20 year olds. The 4 lost consisted of 2 rookies, a third rounder pick and a late second rounder. This highlights the importance of getting early draft picks.
We held our own in the 20-24 range from 2015 as it became 21-25 and added a couple in this key range.
Now 26 seems to be an arbitrary cut off for elder statesmen in this thread. I'm not sure why as it's a bit of a peak age. Nonetheless we carried 7 25 year olds into 2015 and we have managed to secure good draft picks for a 24, 25 and 26 year old respectively and have managed to drop the total of 25 year olds down one as they became 26 year olds. All 5 are best 22 with 2 in the leadership group, 1 our No 1 ruck, 1 our leading goal scorer last year (who was almost traded late mind you) and a rebounding half back with good kicking skills.
We have a 28 year old rookie seeing out a contract, a high priced free agent seeing out a contract, a 28 year old key defender who has just been dropped for an 18 year old, and the other elder statesmen are team leaders. A couple in this range may be in trouble this year.
We did reduce our 30+ year olds from 3 down to 1 but 1 of those was because of a career ending injury.
Let's take a look at Richmond.
Richmond 2009 List as of 1/1/10 - 44 players
3 x 18, 5 x 19, 6 x 20, 7 x 21, 7 x 22, 3 x 23, 2 x 24, 1 x 25, 3 x 26, 1 x 27, 6 x 30+
Richmond 2010 List as of 1/1/10 - 46 players - 13 changes
10 x 18, 3 x 19, 6 x 20, 6 x 21, 6 x 22, 5 x 23, 2 x 24, 3 x 25, 1 x 26, 1 x 27, 1 x 28, 2 x 30+
Right away the number of 18 year olds jumps out. 6 in the 2005 draft, 1 in the PSD and 3 in the rookie draft. You look to the end and you see 6 30+ players reduced to 2. That's what people have been saying right? Get rid of the older players and bring in young players, wherever you can get them in the draft.
Carlton increased their 22 and under stocks from 21 to 22 only due to losing 4 of their 19/20 year olds. Richmond increased their 22 and under stocks from 28 to 31. It's not a massive rise but it was a huge influx of 18 year olds. You can see right away how far out of whack Carlton's starting position was. The damage was done years before with drafting mature types and poor recruiting and development.
Of course Carlton didn't have that old contingent to pension off Richmond had unless we want to retire some 28 and 29 year olds prematurely. Of course 2 of those Richmond over 30s retired midseason because of injury and for 1 other, it had most definitely taken its toll. The two that retired midseason were way over 30. Seems to be a little bit forced on the Tigers here.
The Tigers maintained their 18 year old to the next year and pretty much maintained their 20-22 year olds as they got a year older.
However .... of those 10 18 year old they picked up, 5 were gone within 3 years, 2 didn't play a game and the other 3 played 16, 4 and 3 respectively. A 6th lasted 6 years for 31 games.
These are the games played by the respective ages on the Tigers list in 2010, bear in mind the quantity of players in each age group.
484 games
18y - 64 games
19y - 21 games
20y - 70 games
21y - 79 games
22y - 95 games
23y - 49 games
24y - 4 games
25y - 37 games
26y - 0 games
27y - 21 games
28y - 20 games
30y+ - 24 games
In 2005 Richmond finished 15th of 16 teams with 6 wins and 16 losses.
Let's look at Hawthorn:
Hawks 2004 list as of 1/1/2004 44 players
6 x 18 or under, 5 x 19, 3 x 20, 8 x 21, 1 x 22, 6 x 23, 1 x 24, 1 x 25, 3 x 26, 2 x 27, 3 x 28, 3 x 29, 2 x 30+
After drafts & trades 45 players
9 x 18 or under, 3 x 19, 5 x 20, 4 x 21, 9 x 22, 0 x 23, 4 x 24, 1 x 25, 0 x 26, 3 x 27, 2 x 28, 2 x 29, 3 x 30+
Again, an increase in the 18 or under category (17 year olds were drafted back then). Mind you 3 of those 18 year olds were rookies or outside the top 20 and did nothing. They also lost a few 18 year olds as they turned 19.
A key for the hawks here is they had a heap of 19 year olds progressing to the next year and a heap of 21 year olds progressing to 22. They had a great draft and it was here and the next year they sold off mid aged players for plum draft picks. Not older players, 25 year olds, much like Carlton did at the end of this year.
Note that Hawthorn did not reduce their 27 and over numbers at all this year. They took their 22 and under stocks from 23 to 30 but increased their list size by 2 and as mentioned 3 of those young players didn't do anything. They opted to strip back their 23-26 age group a little instead of touching their veterans. A similar strategy to Carlton except our crappy recruiting cost us 19 and 20 years olds as well.
484 games - 2005
17y - 36 games
18y - 28 games
19y - 36 games
20y - 41 games
21y - 33 games
22y - 99 games
23y - 0 games
24y - 48 games
25y - 20 games
26y - 0 games
27y - 63 games
28y - 9 games
29y - 12 games
30y+ - 46 games
Note that Hawthorn too made little improvement.on the ladder in the first year under Clarkson.
I suspect Carlton will get plenty of games into their 22 year olds as the Tigers and Hawks did. Unfortunately we still have to repair our 19 and 20 year old stocks as we are coming from so far behind, but our 21 year olds will start coming on once the injuries are behind a couple of them.
The last point to remember is the difference in game plan from one era to another. Some players may learn it quicker so the age profiles in the early part of the season may vary wildly.
- Moderator
- #1,665
For mine, we should be looking to trade with a team that finishes around 8th and is looking for a bit of class and harder edge to push it the next step up the ladder.
We trade a senior player (pains me to say it but someone like Touhy) + second round pick (Likely in the 21-25 range after academy picks are all sorted, assuming a bottom 3 finish) for the team that finishes 8ishs first rounder (pick @ 10).
We should probably have 2 second round picks this year (Im hoping for a PP being awarded at the end of the 1st round). We package one of those picks up with a best 22 player over 26 for a top 10 pick. That should net us picks around 2, 10 and 20.
We have enough mature bodies to afford losing one and not going full Melbourne.
We trade a senior player (pains me to say it but someone like Touhy) + second round pick (Likely in the 21-25 range after academy picks are all sorted, assuming a bottom 3 finish) for the team that finishes 8ishs first rounder (pick @ 10).
We should probably have 2 second round picks this year (Im hoping for a PP being awarded at the end of the 1st round). We package one of those picks up with a best 22 player over 26 for a top 10 pick. That should net us picks around 2, 10 and 20.
We have enough mature bodies to afford losing one and not going full Melbourne.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #1,666
source?
Not a big fan of trading Tuohy but I can see what you are doing. We have plenty of HBFer so if we could pull of an upgrade trade then go for it
A variation on the theme is which HBF would you trade with 2nd round pick to get a mid first round pick:
- Tuohy - deal - sense we win in deal
- Sheehan - deal - sense we win as unproven player really
- Docherty - no deal - well respected apparently and it might only be a break even deal based on his continued improvement to date
- White - deal - we win (not really a HBFer but threw him in)
- Byrne - no deal - might be like Eddie outcome and result in Cripps leaving
- Dick - in a heartbeat but no takers
- Simpson - too old - no one would trade - heart n sole of club as well
- Moderator
- #1,668
It doesnt have to be Touhy; a player like Levi or Everitt could possibly also work. A club pushing for top 4 could certainly find a use for an established 26 y/o to plug a gap or give an instant harder edge. Considering they'd only be downgrading from pick 10ish to pick 24ish in such a deal (a 5-600 point downgrade) its not much of a loss for them, and could make all the difference in pushing up the ladder.
Im also not opposed to trading our first round pick (assuming 2-3) for 2 picks in the top 12. A team like GWS or GCS would definately consider it, and could arrange for it to be done.
Im intrested in Patton also, but with two knee recos and a recurring issue with his knees to begin with vs his obvious talent its hard to place a value. Jury is out.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #1,669
Another sign of good depth is having players in the discount bin other teams are willing to browse. See The D Word thread for more info on depth.
Good call, smart call, wise call.
You are shameless.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #1,672
moi?
YES
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #1,674
had to be said
- Moderator
- #1,675
If we combine this with trading our 2nd rounder (24ish) + (Levi/ Touhy/ Everitt etc) for a pick around the 10 range, we go into the draft with three picks from 8-12 and (hopefully) a PP round the 20 mark.
- Status
