Mega Thread 2019 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread

[eastfreo75]

Yeah but clubs still do it anyway when they can upgrade a few rookies which we’ll do with Carter and a couple of others. Won’t be a problem using dead picks at the end of the draft

Don’t understand why teams go with a main list of 39/49 when you can go 38 with 6 on the rookie list.

 

[briztoon]

Having watched a few Brisbane games in the last few years I always get the feeling Cox is scared of body on body contact. His defensive efforts are very average. I love his skill set though.

On SM-G611F using BigFooty.com mobile app

We have been working on that at NEAFL level.

Cedric has been mostly playing forward this year, as pressure small forward. Laid 10 tackles on the weekend against Sydney’s reserves.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

We have been working on that at NEAFL level.

Cedric has been mostly playing forward this year, as pressure small forward. Laid 10 tackles on the weekend against Sydney’s reserves.

What do you think he would honestly cost if he asked out

 

[Taylor]

Don’t understand why teams go with a main list of 39/49 when you can go 38 with 6 on the rookie list.

Especially when those category a rookies can play as much as we want

 

[Bastyy]

What do you think he would honestly cost if he asked out

If he's uncontracted he's probably worth a 3rd or 4th rounder, give Brisbane a pick to secure Noah Cumberland, Keidan Coleman or other academy picks

 

[briztoon]

Yeah but clubs still do it anyway when they can upgrade a few rookies which we’ll do with Carter and a couple of others. Won’t be a problem using dead picks at the end of the draft

Rookies are upgraded using late picks before the draft.

You can’t designate those residual picks to be used on upgrading during the draft.

 

[briztoon]

Don’t understand why teams go with a main list of 39/49 when you can go 38 with 6 on the rookie list.

Because you can’t keep a player on the rookie list forever. It’s 3 years then upgrade or delist.

 

[eastfreo75]

Because you can’t keep a player on the rookie list forever. It’s 3 years then upgrade or delist.

Sometimes, I think that teams hold up to players to long.

If a rookie list player after 3 years isn’t in your best 30, then I would be cutting them.

 

[rgauci]

Rookies are upgraded using late picks before the draft.

You can’t designate those residual picks to be used on upgrading during the draft.

We will have a heap of space on the main list.

Sandilands, Ballantyne, Kersten, Bennell, potentially Jones, Meek, North, Hill, Hill, Langdon, Giro (could delist and redraft), etc etc

 

[Purpellian Anchor]

We should be asking why Colin Young felt it necessary to single out the club over a player who was never going to garner a new contract.

He has a self interest here... people are speculating that it’s Sumich but Young has specifically targeted the rehab processes.

I’m going to suggest that he’s clearly upset about Bennell & Kersten but primarily that he’s trying to salvage a deal for Stephen Hill, who’s suitors may have cooled significantly recently.

I can’t see enough motivation outside of that,

how much money does he lose once a players contract is screwed up...Very stupid what he did and it will come back to bite him if he does not hose it down....players are not just dumb followers of their manager and will think twice about a manager who antagonises the relationship with the club they are committed to.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Rookies are upgraded using late picks before the draft.

You can’t designate those residual picks to be used on upgrading during the draft.

Ahhh so if you had 5 picks going into the draft and were upgrading 3 rookies you would only be allowed 2 live picks regardless of where they were?

Cant you nominate 3 rookies to be upgrade, take in 5 picks with 5 spots then actually use 4 picks in the draft and upgrade the rookies to go over your list limit and cull 2 from the main list by list finalisation date

That seems awfully restricting otherwise but TIL, thanks

 

[theGav56]

If either or both of Langdon or BHill go we would most likely have Tucker, Bewley and Giro rotating the wing positions, and I will probably get calls to wash my mouth out with soap for using the C word, but here it is; Colyer. At the very least he would need to have the hard word put on him that he must be prepared for that role.

Yes, backward moves, but we would also have the draft capacity to recruit Stephens and Sharp who could be adequate replacements. There would be alternative draft options as well as alternative main list options for the wing (Wilson, Duman, Carter etc). I think Logue has some capacity (thinking that magnificent series of contests he made running out of defence), and I think our defence can cover him. A hell of a difficult match up.

I am not against the idea of Gus Brayshaw being traded in, but I am in the BHill for #2 pick camp, then on trading that to GWS for a bunch of mid first rounds. If we indicated that we consider Green an option at #2 they would become very motivated to deal, and it does sound like he is a plausible option at that pick. Being able to control that part of the draft can help us protect Henry from potential bidders and net us some of the better draft options. I don't see a bid for Henry coming before the GWS picks anyway.

The net result could bring in Stephens, Sharp, Taylor and Henry, which in the near future would spice up the wings and the forward line for us. Our skills base would be significantly enhanced, and our X-factor upgraded.

In terms of mature players I would prefer the club to look for short term stop gap options along the lines of deBoer and Barlow types who are expendable by their clubs but still have some serviceable years left. I would prefer that to Gus Brayshaw who is a contested beast with ordinary disposal. I get the rationale, but have preferences to move our list in a different direction.

 

[Purpellian Anchor]

The net result could bring in Stephens, Sharp, Taylor and Henry, which in the near future would spice up the wings and the forward line for us. Our skills base would be significantly enhanced, and our X-factor upgraded.

In terms of mature players I would prefer the club to look for short term stop gap options along the lines of deBoer and Barlow types who are expendable by their clubs but still have some serviceable years left. I would prefer that to Gus Brayshaw who is a contested beast with ordinary disposal. I get the rationale, but have preferences to move our list in a different direction.

two quick Q's...is Rivers >Taylor and is J Silvagni a DeBoer/Barlow type

 

[briztoon]

What do you think he would honestly cost if he asked out

A third round pick.

 

[briztoon]

If he's uncontracted he's probably worth a 3rd or 4th rounder, give Brisbane a pick to secure Noah Cumberland, Keidan Coleman or other academy picks

He’s contracted. And we already have 2 second round picks and two third round picks.

A future third. Or we send Cedric and a third for a second.

 

[briztoon]

We will have a heap of space on the main list.

Sandilands, Ballantyne, Kersten, Bennell, potentially Jones, Meek, North, Hill, Hill, Langdon, Giro (could delist and redraft), etc etc

Great. But that has no relevance to the discussion about draft and rookie upgrade rules.

 

[Taylor]

Great. But that has no relevance to the discussion about draft and rookie upgrade rules.

In this context it would be taking six or seven list places with their matching six or seven draft picks then passing on the last two or three after chewing the picks in academy matching.

Then leaving a spot open on the rookie list to pick up anyone we want before the season starts as a supplemental pick. Assuming they continue with that next season.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

I think you're more likely to see Brayshaw on the wing than Cerra.

I was going to say this. For mine if Brayshaw isn't in the square/stoppage then he could easily play wing. He has the running power and would suit that that defensive-side-of-the-pack role that so many wingers play these days.

 

[briztoon]

Ahhh so if you had 5 picks going into the draft and were upgrading 3 rookies you would only be allowed 2 live picks regardless of where they were?

Correct. Your two highest picks you take to the draft.

Cant you nominate 3 rookies to be upgrade, take in 5 picks with 5 spots then actually use 4 picks in the draft and upgrade the rookies to go over your list limit and cull 2 from the main list by list finalisation date

No.

That seems awfully restricting otherwise but TIL, thanks

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Correct. Your two highest picks you take to the draft.

No.

Thanks mate, honestly wont matter too much with the delistings and players we are losing. We'll go in with 7ish list spots, upgrade 2 rookies, take 4 at the draft

 

[briztoon]

If either or both of Langdon or BHill go we would most likely have Tucker, Bewley and Giro rotating the wing positions, and I will probably get calls to wash my mouth out with soap for using the C word, but here it is; Colyer. At the very least he would need to have the hard word put on him that he must be prepared for that role.

Yes, backward moves, but we would also have the draft capacity to recruit Stephens and Sharp who could be adequate replacements. There would be alternative draft options as well as alternative main list options for the wing (Wilson, Duman, Carter etc). I think Logue has some capacity (thinking that magnificent series of contests he made running out of defence), and I think our defence can cover him. A hell of a difficult match up.

I am not against the idea of Gus Brayshaw being traded in, but I am in the BHill for #2 pick camp, then on trading that to GWS for a bunch of mid first rounds. If we indicated that we consider Green an option at #2 they would become very motivated to deal, and it does sound like he is a plausible option at that pick. Being able to control that part of the draft can help us protect Henry from potential bidders and net us some of the better draft options. I don't see a bid for Henry coming before the GWS picks anyway.

The net result could bring in Stephens, Sharp, Taylor and Henry, which in the near future would spice up the wings and the forward line for us. Our skills base would be significantly enhanced, and our X-factor upgraded.

In terms of mature players I would prefer the club to look for short term stop gap options along the lines of deBoer and Barlow types who are expendable by their clubs but still have some serviceable years left. I would prefer that to Gus Brayshaw who is a contested beast with ordinary disposal. I get the rationale, but have preferences to move our list in a different direction.

First Gold Coast will get a beginning of first round PP.

If you’re trading pick pick 3 for a couple of mid first round picks to GWS, you will also need to trade them enough later picks and points so they can still match a bid on Green.

They’re not trading up, unless the get a second round pick back as well.

 

[briztoon]

In this context it would be taking six or seven list places with their matching six or seven draft picks then passing on the last two or three after chewing the picks in academy matching.

Then leaving a spot open on the rookie list to pick up anyone we want before the season starts as a supplemental pick. Assuming they continue with that next season.

That’s a reasonable position.

 

[Dale147]

I really don’t think Gold Coast deserve a priority pick, but the AFL is always trying to pump them up where they can.

 

[Taylor]

Gold coast chose to not play their best options, even letting one go so he didn't play NEAFL all year.

But, it's their job to leverage anything they can to get as much talent in as possible

 

[Tbonefreo]

Where is pick 2 coming from?