List Mgmt. 2020 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is Part 1

The thread is continued in part 2:

List Mgmt. - 2020 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread - Part 2

This Part 2 Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2020-list-management-free-agency-trade-thread.1241035/ What type of players does our list need? Pace, Skill, Class and and goal threat. A winger, forward flank and forward pocket are the 3 positions that we need, plus...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
Unfortunately (or fortunately) not identical in how they play football. You'd be more likely to mix up Haddow and Brandon than Chris and his brother based purely on how they football.
 
Monument Hills said:
think of it as having a spare. Like when I find a pair of jeans I really like that also fit well, I go back and buy a second pair for when they get worn out/damaged.

could have done with having a second Morabito
Click to expand...

A spare? or spare parts?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Snuffaluphagus said:
Dont think your getting much better value than a future 4th for a current 3rd and 4th - even if the market favours getting a good return on futures.

Trade gives more flexibility for this year and we saw last year what happens when you trade on draft night - you get bent over.

Worst case scenario before the trade was a deficit next year in the 2nd or third round and no other picks this year

Seems worst case scenario now is our 4th pick is the last in the draft.

Seems a good result for a future 4th
Click to expand...
Not bad for a pick 72 ;)
 
Scham said:
When names like Keitel and Shaw are thrown around, we’re desperate alright! Reckon this bloke is a class above them but he’s still got serious work to do to make it.

It’s worth a shot getting him to prove his application while not on a list or in an AFL environment.
Click to expand...
As I said, Mason Shaw is a south Freo boy. Spent 2014-6 on Ports list. Goes back to south Freo in 2017 after being delisted and not playing and AFL game.

He kicks like 40 goals in 2017. I seriously thought Freo were going to put him on the rookie list.

Saying that. I still remembered the constant complaints back in 2012-15 that Freos KPF stocks were bare because we only had an ageing pav, a young Taberner and a young KPF ruck in Michael apeness who did his knee.

Start of this year we had Hogan, McCarthy, Taberner and Lobb as tall forwards. Hogan and McCarthy are gone.

And it looks like Freo KPF stocks are almost empty again despite having Lobb and tabs on the list on their prime years as 27 year Olds.

Hoping to get a teenage KPF to slowly develop, Like taberner in the past. or a Mature ager thats 20-25 years old.
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
Dont think your getting much better value than a future 4th for a current 3rd and 4th - even if the market favours getting a good return on futures.

Trade gives more flexibility for this year and we saw last year what happens when you trade on draft night - you get bent over.

Worst case scenario before the trade was a deficit next year in the 2nd or third round and no other picks this year

Seems worst case scenario now is our 4th pick is the last in the draft.

Seems a good result for a future 4th
Click to expand...

This sort of trade would have been available to the club on draft night when we’ve got some sort of clarity regarding Pick 32. Clubs such as Adelaide would have picks they have no intention of using which they’d give away for **** all (essentially exactly what’s happened here) rather than literally losing the pick for nothing. A trade where the other team (Brisbane) had a similar intention last year is the reason Michael Frederick is now on our list.

I don’t hate the trade - I just think the benefit of it is minimal if a Walker bid comes before pick 32, which I consider extremely likely. We would’ve essentially thrown away a future fourth rounder to obtain an upgrade of 4-5 picks very late in the draft.

Of course the trade is great if the Walker bid comes just after pick 32.
 
Joao said:
We should steal Ballenden off the Lions. He is getting rookied and was the bid before we took Dixon. Wonder if we still like him?
Click to expand...
Ironic as we originally put a bid on him in that 2017 draft. Brisbane decided they want him. Dead certain he would of got a game or 2 in 2018 or 2019.
prpl_jss said:
Just call it something else - 'Rookie' implies they're some sort of apprentice. Stupid system.
Click to expand...

Originally the rookie list was used for filling certain types of players such as project rucks on 2 year deals or a free shot on mature agers
 
Freomaniac said:
Ironic as we originally put a bid on him in that 2017 draft. Brisbane decided they want him. Dead certain he would of got a game or 2 in 2018 or 2019.


Originally the rookie list was used for filling certain types of players such as project rucks on 2 year deals or a free shot on mature agers
Click to expand...

Used to be a rule where you had to under 23 as well. The AFL then allowed one exception, then just did away with the rule altogether.

Tbh I’d be happy if they brought one rule to fox the rookie list:
1. No players who’ve previously been on an AFL list.

Done. Problem solved*.

*In reality you’d probably need to adjust lists and make rookie lists smaller and senior lists bigger to accommodate such a change.
 
Snuffaluphagus said:
Dont think your getting much better value than a future 4th for a current 3rd and 4th - even if the market favours getting a good return on futures.

Trade gives more flexibility for this year and we saw last year what happens when you trade on draft night - you get bent over.

Worst case scenario before the trade was a deficit next year in the 2nd or third round and no other picks this year

Seems worst case scenario now is our 4th pick is the last in the draft.

Seems a good result for a future 4th
Click to expand...
I dont mind trading that future 4th rounder to the crows to get picks 56 and 63.

It might be a small trade. Crows are likely not going to use those 2 picks anyway.

Would be good if freo get 2 gun players with pick 56 and 63
 
Docker82 said:
This sort of trade would have been available to the club on draft night when we’ve got some sort of clarity regarding Pick 32. Clubs such as Adelaide would have picks they have no intention of using which they’d give away for **** all (essentially exactly what’s happened here) rather than literally losing the pick for nothing. A trade where the other team (Brisbane) had a similar intention last year is the reason Michael Frederick is now on our list.

I don’t hate the trade - I just think the benefit of it is minimal if a Walker bid comes before pick 32, which I consider extremely likely. We would’ve essentially thrown away a future fourth rounder to obtain an upgrade of 4-5 picks very late in the draft.

Of course the trade is great if the Walker bid comes just after pick 32.
Click to expand...
There's two weeks until the draft, it could be taking deals while they are there, before another club does the same.

What if we intend to move up the order with #32 and #55 in exchange for a pick in the gun for another academy bid;

Collingwood have #14 and #16
Reef McInnes is ranked at #18 on draftcentral which puts him behind Davies (not counted), Jones, Campbell and Ugle-Hagan. Their picks would be pushing back Collingwood by three and Davies' removal from the pool drops his ranking by 1.

That has the Pies holding #17 and #19 with Reef ranked at #17.

We know they already want to trade out their first next season which could throw a spanner in the works, but based off that they would be potentially looking to lose their pick #19 to points matching (let's say they don't pick him at #17) the #18 bid.

#18 bid for McInnes needs 788 points to match. Our pick #32 and #55 is worth 791 points.

We could trade #32, #55 and #56 to them for their current pick #16 then they trade us their first round pick next season to get it back after his bid.

I'm not sure I'd care about a deficit in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if we have two first round picks next season. We would still hold pick #63 which we know from that bid would move at least three picks higher as our bulk picks are chewed up for the Pies matching.
 
Taylor said:
There's two weeks until the draft, it could be taking deals while they are there, before another club does the same.

What if we intend to move up the order with #32 and #55 in exchange for a pick in the gun for another academy bid;

Collingwood have #14 and #16
Reef McInnes is ranked at #18 on draftcentral which puts him behind Davies (not counted), Jones, Campbell and Ugle-Hagan. Their picks would be pushing back Collingwood by three and Davies' removal from the pool drops his ranking by 1.

That has the Pies holding #17 and #19 with Reef ranked at #17.

We know they already want to trade out their first next season which could throw a spanner in the works, but based off that they would be potentially looking to lose their pick #19 to points matching (let's say they don't pick him at #17) the #18 bid.

#18 bid for McInnes needs 788 points to match. Our pick #32 and #55 is worth 791 points.

We could trade #32, #55 and #56 to them for their current pick #16 then they trade us their first round pick next season to get it back after his bid.

I'm not sure I'd care about a deficit in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if we have two first round picks next season. We would still hold pick #63 which we know from that bid would move at least three picks higher as our bulk picks are chewed up for the Pies matching.
Click to expand...

Don’t mind it at all. Probably doesn’t happen but would be great if it did.
 
Docker82 said:
Don’t mind it at all. Probably doesn’t happen but would be great if it did.
Click to expand...

It would be a daydream if they went for it.

Their progression has gone:
2018 - 2nd
2019 - 3rd
2020 - 6th
2021 missing some big players

We could have a top ten pick for pick #19 this season which we bought for a second and two thirds.

I'm dreaming. It would make it easier to buy a free agent if they match if we have access to three first round picks, or if someone like McDonald has a breakdown away from home and needs to come home after a season.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GeEkNeRd said:
And ironicly this little pick swap is worth more points to us than the Jesse Hogan trade was. (220)
Click to expand...
Yes but we also lost Jesse’s salary which was a huge limiting factor..
 
GeEkNeRd said:
And ironicly this little pick swap is worth more points to us than the Jesse Hogan trade was. (220)
Click to expand...
Look at it this way.
We’ve given up Jesse and a future 4th for 55,56,63 = picks 43.
By the time picks / bids come in that should be a 2nd round pick, which feels a lot better. ☺️
 
We should trade these picks for Jesse Hogan.
 
Taylor said:
There's two weeks until the draft, it could be taking deals while they are there, before another club does the same.

What if we intend to move up the order with #32 and #55 in exchange for a pick in the gun for another academy bid;

Collingwood have #14 and #16
Reef McInnes is ranked at #18 on draftcentral which puts him behind Davies (not counted), Jones, Campbell and Ugle-Hagan. Their picks would be pushing back Collingwood by three and Davies' removal from the pool drops his ranking by 1.

That has the Pies holding #17 and #19 with Reef ranked at #17.

We know they already want to trade out their first next season which could throw a spanner in the works, but based off that they would be potentially looking to lose their pick #19 to points matching (let's say they don't pick him at #17) the #18 bid.

#18 bid for McInnes needs 788 points to match. Our pick #32 and #55 is worth 791 points.

We could trade #32, #55 and #56 to them for their current pick #16 then they trade us their first round pick next season to get it back after his bid.

I'm not sure I'd care about a deficit in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if we have two first round picks next season. We would still hold pick #63 which we know from that bid would move at least three picks higher as our bulk picks are chewed up for the Pies matching.
Click to expand...
12, 32 and 55 for 14 and 16?

That is the kind of deal I am hoping for.
 
I think this is the year to take a speculative punt on a tall for our first pick.

Our developing depth in defence and the midfield is good. We are 1 or 2 good tall forwards away from from building a list that could challenge for a flag.

The most highly regarded talls in this draft - McDonald/Reid/Tilthorpe/JUH/DGB and Cox - will be gone by our first so we are going to have to take a punt like we did with Apeness and hope that it turns out better. He would have been ok but for injuries btw.

I am looking at the likes of Callow or Neale for pick 12. I can hear you all choking on your coco pops right now.

Callow looks ok - a no nonsense type of player.

Neale has elite athletic qualities. The upside for this bloke is huge. Just will take a couple of years. He will go a lot earlier in the draft than people think.

We have to act on the Tall Forward issue now. No good kicking the can down the road another year.
 
Joose said:
I think this is the year to take a speculative punt on a tall for our first pick.

Our developing depth in defence and the midfield is good. We are 1 or 2 good tall forwards away from from building a list that could challenge for a flag.

The most highly regarded talls in this draft - McDonald/Reid/Tilthorpe/JUH/DGB and Cox - will be gone by our first so we are going to have to take a punt like we did with Apeness and hope that it turns out better. He would have been ok but for injuries btw.

I am looking at the likes of Callow or Neale for pick 12. I can hear you all choking on your coco pops right now.

Callow looks ok - a no nonsense type of player.

Neale has elite athletic qualities. The upside for this bloke is huge. Just will take a couple of years. He will go a lot earlier in the draft than people think.

We have to act on the Tall Forward issue now. No good kicking the can down the road another year.
Click to expand...


Still an even chance that one of Reid or Cox are available at our first I reckon.
 
Taylor said:
There's two weeks until the draft, it could be taking deals while they are there, before another club does the same.

What if we intend to move up the order with #32 and #55 in exchange for a pick in the gun for another academy bid;

Collingwood have #14 and #16
Reef McInnes is ranked at #18 on draftcentral which puts him behind Davies (not counted), Jones, Campbell and Ugle-Hagan. Their picks would be pushing back Collingwood by three and Davies' removal from the pool drops his ranking by 1.

That has the Pies holding #17 and #19 with Reef ranked at #17.

We know they already want to trade out their first next season which could throw a spanner in the works, but based off that they would be potentially looking to lose their pick #19 to points matching (let's say they don't pick him at #17) the #18 bid.

#18 bid for McInnes needs 788 points to match. Our pick #32 and #55 is worth 791 points.

We could trade #32, #55 and #56 to them for their current pick #16 then they trade us their first round pick next season to get it back after his bid.

I'm not sure I'd care about a deficit in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if we have two first round picks next season. We would still hold pick #63 which we know from that bid would move at least three picks higher as our bulk picks are chewed up for the Pies matching.
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding the pure ambition of this post, it’s pretty impressive. You should offer your services to the club. You might teach them a thing or two.
 
Joose said:
I think this is the year to take a speculative punt on a tall for our first pick.

Our developing depth in defence and the midfield is good. We are 1 or 2 good tall forwards away from from building a list that could challenge for a flag.

The most highly regarded talls in this draft - McDonald/Reid/Tilthorpe/JUH/DGB and Cox - will be gone by our first so we are going to have to take a punt like we did with Apeness and hope that it turns out better. He would have been ok but for injuries btw.

I am looking at the likes of Callow or Neale for pick 12. I can hear you all choking on your coco pops right now.

Callow looks ok - a no nonsense type of player.

Neale has elite athletic qualities. The upside for this bloke is huge. Just will take a couple of years. He will go a lot earlier in the draft than people think.

We have to act on the Tall Forward issue now. No good kicking the can down the road another year.
Click to expand...

Apeness was at least in the discussion for pick 17 in 2013. He was considered an outside chance but was mentioned for clubs around his pick.

Neale and Callow are literally not even in the discussion. Both seem highly likely to still be there at our second selection, maybe even third selection (depending on where the Walker bid comes one of these will be live) tbh. I’ve seen whole phantom drafts where both have been overlooked altogether.
 
Last edited:
Docker82 said:
Apeness was at least in the discussion for pick 17 in 2013. He was considered an outside chance but was mentioned for clubs around his pick.

Neale and Callow are literally not even in the discussion. Both seem highly likely to still be there at our second selection, maybe even third selection (depending on where the Walker bid comes one of these will be live) tbh. I’ve seen whole phantom drafts where both have been overlooked altogether.
Click to expand...

I hear what your saying but this is the mindset that has got us nowhere. After Walker and Western bids our next pick will be around 55 ish and I can guarantee they will not still be there. We have to be speculative and get on the front foot. Not just hope the cards fall our way.

With the current list being well stocked with young mids and defenders ( to be supplemented by the two NGAs ) now is the time to take a risk.

No doubt when it is our turn at the draft we will select the next HFF/Mid off the rank but if it were me, I'd take a punt on Neale or Callow.
 
Docker82 said:
This sort of trade would have been available to the club on draft night when we’ve got some sort of clarity regarding Pick 32. Clubs such as Adelaide would have picks they have no intention of using which they’d give away for **** all (essentially exactly what’s happened here) rather than literally losing the pick for nothing. A trade where the other team (Brisbane) had a similar intention last year is the reason Michael Frederick is now on our list.

I don’t hate the trade - I just think the benefit of it is minimal if a Walker bid comes before pick 32, which I consider extremely likely. We would’ve essentially thrown away a future fourth rounder to obtain an upgrade of 4-5 picks very late in the draft.

Of course the trade is great if the Walker bid comes just after pick 32.
Click to expand...
But what are you risking not having a 4th rounder next year? Our major list overhauls are complete besides a few specific pieces so we probably don't need our 4th rounder next year or we miss out on 8-10 places late in the draft in 2021 for an insurance policy.

Learning from last years mistakes is a step forward in my book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

go_the_dockers
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management thread - Trade Targets
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
6K
yakamoto
Y
Lach72
List Mgmt. 2025 List management
43 44 45 46 47
Replies
1K
Views
75K
Joao
J
Tonga Bob
Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2025
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
162
Views
8K
FreoRicci
FreoRicci
Tonga Bob
  • Sticky
Certified Legendary Thread 2025 Freo Buddy Draft
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
2K
Rhufus
Rhufus
go_the_dockers
  • Locked
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets
459 460 461 462 463
Replies
12K
Views
954K
s_wd6
s_wd6
go_the_dockers
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets Part 2
397 398 399 400 401
Replies
10K
Views
190K
fnerd
F
E
  • Poll
Strategy Load Management
Replies
7
Views
717
Raz
Raz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top