List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Because - as things stand - games are won more from the midfield than they are from the forward half. There are maybe 3-4 forwards in the comp capable of being the sole reason their team gets up, and even they don't do it very often. Teams aren't getting 'Buddied' every week anymore.

You want to be spending your salary cap where it's most effective. Butler is having such a good season because of his output versus what is being paid for him to play and what they used to get him; it's a context thing.


... which is why this website is interesting. The Eddie situation demonstrates both arguments; I'd argue it favours mine more than yours, though.

Did Adelaide win a flag off the back of overpaying for Eddie's best years? Or did they have numerous players squeezed out financially because they couldn't match Eddie, then Jenkins, then Gibbs, then Lever? Sure, you've got the camp, but their salary cap was completely out of control. Correspondingly, we couldn't afford to pay Eddie that 50 thousand - not if we wanted to sign Daisy - so he left for a team that was offering substantially more.

Salary cap control has wound up being a cornerstone of premiership sides. Geelong had their famous 'no-one gets more than Joel', Hawthorn players actively and publicly spoke of getting paid unders to chase success; Richmond point blank refused to pay Dusty more than they wanted to in 2015 when his contract first hit the market, and let him try to shop himself around. Keeping players around despite offering them less than opposition can is vital to successful teams. So we need to have a little leeway in what contracts we make, and we need to monitor our spending as we improve to give us a degree of safety when players' contracts end.


You might not have mentioned it, but the implication in your post is that we need to add to the forward half players who can kick those 40+ goals a season, of which Papley is one.

Forward line players are paid a premium, and while I agree that there should be some outlay our midfield is the area of most need currently; midfield and transition. Now, I'd love it if Ramsay and/or LOB suddenly turn up next year and start channeling Tadhg Kennelly and/or Andrew Mackie and/or Andrew Gaff, but I prefer to play the percentages as far as list management goes.

Adelaide done exactly what you are saying though and wouldn’t overpay what they thought they were worth. They have a strange pay scale thing which is why they lost guys like Lever and Tippet and paid someone like Jenkins so much. Apparently almost identical to the Geelong model. Bottom guys paid more top guys paid less then other clubs around the league.

Richmond, GWS and West Coast have the different models where they pay what they perceive as the core/guns huge money and the average role players less.

 

[Gethelred]

Adelaide done exactly what you are saying though and wouldn’t overpay what they thought they were worth. They have a strange pay scale thing which is why they lost guys like Lever and Tippet and paid someone like Jenkins so much. Apparently almost identical to the Geelong model. Bottom guys paid more top guys paid less then other clubs around the league.

Richmond, GWS and West Coast have the different models where they pay what they perceive as the core/guns huge money and the average role players less.

Wrong. They couldn't pay more because their cap was already full to bursting. They also lied to Gov concerning the Gibbs trade. They're also apparently paying Talia 900 thousand a season, if you believe some of the rumours on their board; he's a good player, but he's not that good.

All I'm saying - and I can't believe this is a bone of contention - is that we shouldn't overpay for marquee players, given the degree of growth potential on our list. We should pay as much as we can whilst remaining cognizant of the fact that if we do not leave leeway in either direction on any given player's contract, we risk losing them for less than they're worth.

We've a talented bunch. Let's keep them together.

 

[Aphrodite]

Josh Kelly has had injury problems and would command close to 1 million P/A on an open market..

At his age, not worth it. Tim Taranto on the other hand, yes please, come to Papa !!!

He's 25.

 

[Aphrodite]

Terrible trade. Two first round picks is selling the farm. We offered pick 9 last year that the swans would have excepted if they got Daniher. Charlie Cameron went to Brisbane for pick 12. Our pick looks more like pick 5 or 6 this year.
Two first round picks will show how desperate the CEO is in bring in a player to justify the departure of sos.

Just like a broken record in practically every thread.

 

[Ricky Mott]

2 first round picks for us is not what it used to be, we shouldnt be anywhere near the bottom... 2 first round picks for a 24 year old All Australian (which he will be this year) seems like incredibly good value.

Seriously
Pick 5 or 6 and a future 1st!!! No way!!!

 

[Ricky Mott]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was word going around that we were requesting a 2nd rounder along with Papley as part of that trade.

We weren't offering a flat out pick 9 for Papley, it was pick 9 for Papley and pick 26.

So technically we never made an offer to the value of a top 10 draft selection.

9 was on the table outright

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Wrong. They couldn't pay more because their cap was already full to bursting. They also lied to Gov concerning the Gibbs trade. They're also apparently paying Talia 900 thousand a season, if you believe some of the rumours on their board; he's a good player, but he's not that good.

All I'm saying - and I can't believe this is a bone of contention - is that we shouldn't overpay for marquee players, given the degree of growth potential on our list. We should pay as much as we can whilst remaining cognizant of the fact that if we do not leave leeway in either direction on any given player's contract, we risk losing them for less than they're worth.

We've a talented bunch. Let's keep them together.

Which happened because of a pay scale. They overpaid average players then you can’t overpay top to end players. They wouldn’t go over a certain amount for players.
We are already overpaying players, it’s impossible not to when you are as poor as we have been for so long and there is a salary cap floor. The difference for me is instead of overpaying someone like Marchbank or Setterfield maybe overpaying an established gun is better money spent. Also successful sides often don’t have to overpay so the quicker we are successful the quicker we might be able to stop overpaying. Overpaying one guy like we were going to for Shiel or Cogs may mean you don’t have to overpay to keep ten other guy’s because you start winning.

You could end up being absolutely right in what you’re saying but we are relying on a lot of kids going from zero to hero. Statistically you would imagine half of our talented young players we are hoping come on won’t be anymore then average role players. It would be so against history for so many kids who haven’t proved much at AFL level by now to all come on. Individually guys like SPS, Setterfield, LOB, DOW ect might all become great players but history would suggest with what they are producing that if more then two become really good players we have done really well. If all our kids come on and we get salary cap pressure in the future because of that then overpaying a top line player $100k-$300k pa out of a salary cap of near $13mil will be extremely insignificant imo, possibly getting 20 guys to take $50k less because we became a good side earlier would be ideal.

 

[HARKER]

The Giants - So many players, so little cohesion and spirit.
I think it's the right culture they're missing first and foremost, but their squad balance isn't particularly good either.

Hopper, Coniglio, Caldwell, Whitfield, Hately, Green, Taranto and Kelly - 8 first round midfielders and you leave out one Toby Greene and you miss that one forward more than for several of the premium picked mids.
It's not always like that but when it is........It sure stands out.

I really don't want us to a GWS where we have too much of a good thing here...and not very much there. Balance..balance....balance

 

[CaressMyBlues]

The Giants - So many players, so little cohesion and spirit.
I think it's the right culture they're missing first and foremost, but their squad balance isn't particularly good either.

Hopper, Coniglio, Caldwell, Whitfield, Hately, Green, Taranto and Kelly - 8 first round midfielders and you leave out one Toby Greene and you miss that one forward more than for several of the premium picked mids.
It's not always like that but when it is........It sure stands out.

I really don't want us to a GWS where we have too much of a good thing here...and not very much there. Balance..balance....balance

100% Leon Cameron, should of had enough silverware by now to open up a shop.

 

[HARKER]

100% Leon Cameron, should of had enough silverware by now to open up a shop.

He's got plenty of the most expensive Knives, but not enough forks. It doesn't match.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Seriously
Pick 5 or 6 and a future 1st!!! No way!!!

Depends what else comes back, and what else we can do with the picks.

A late run up the ladder could see our first pick at 9 or 10, especially after academy bids and matching are factored in.
Our future first should be in the teens, especially if we actively improve the side with a couple of key acquisitions.
We can trade these picks before trading with Sydney - ie. swap firsts in whichever year with Brisbane to get Witherden, the later first is the one that goes to Sydney.

Say it was Pick 9 and a future Pick 15 for Papley, Witherden and an early/mid second? That starts to look more balanced.

 

[Blueyourmyboy!!]

100% Leon Cameron, should of had enough silverware by now to open up a shop.

Cameron is the spud of the giants

 

[HARKER]

IMO - Macreade, Marchbank and Weitering will be our long term KP backs.

It's so hard to make a case for Macreadie unless we knew the long-term situation with his back.
I was thrilled what I saw of him in his first year........I was down on what I saw of him last year.

If it works out like that...great, as we wouldn't have to expend currency looking for back-up.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Terrible trade. Two first round picks is selling the farm. We offered pick 9 last year that the swans would have excepted if they got Daniher. Charlie Cameron went to Brisbane for pick 12. Our pick looks more like pick 5 or 6 this year.
Two first round picks will show how desperate the CEO is in bring in a player to justify the departure of sos.

Absolutely shocking trade. I'd go as far as saying a huge idiot trade - if we did it.

 

[DangerousD]

Williams, Perryman, possibly Caldwell will be jettisoned to keep their gun core intact. Giants have not lost an A Grade player/talent yet (Treloar/Shiel/Adams etc are not A Graders)

Happy to be proven wrong though.

I think you are off your chops if you don’t think Treloar and Shiel are A graders. Other than Williams, the Giants don’t getmuch if any cap relief by moving on the players you mentioned.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Cameron is the spud of the giants

This.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Depends what else comes back, and what else we can do with the picks.

A late run up the ladder could see our first pick at 9 or 10, especially after academy bids and matching are factored in.
Our future first should be in the teens, especially if we actively improve the side with a couple of key acquisitions.
We can trade these picks before trading with Sydney - ie. swap firsts in whichever year with Brisbane to get Witherden, the later first is the one that goes to Sydney.

Say it was Pick 9 and a future Pick 15 for Papley, Witherden and an early/mid second? That starts to look more balanced.

A very dangerous assumption given that if we lose to Fremantle and Gold Coast in the next two rounds, we're likely to end up with a top 4 selection.

 

[DangerousD]

Because - as things stand - games are won more from the midfield than they are from the forward half. There are maybe 3-4 forwards in the comp capable of being the sole reason their team gets up, and even they don't do it very often. Teams aren't getting 'Buddied' every week anymore.

You want to be spending your salary cap where it's most effective. Butler is having such a good season because of his output versus what is being paid for him to play and what they used to get him; it's a context thing.


... which is why this website is interesting. The Eddie situation demonstrates both arguments; I'd argue it favours mine more than yours, though.

Did Adelaide win a flag off the back of overpaying for Eddie's best years? Or did they have numerous players squeezed out financially because they couldn't match Eddie, then Jenkins, then Gibbs, then Lever? Sure, you've got the camp, but their salary cap was completely out of control. Correspondingly, we couldn't afford to pay Eddie that 50 thousand - not if we wanted to sign Daisy - so he left for a team that was offering substantially more.

Salary cap control has wound up being a cornerstone of premiership sides. Geelong had their famous 'no-one gets more than Joel', Hawthorn players actively and publicly spoke of getting paid unders to chase success; Richmond point blank refused to pay Dusty more than they wanted to in 2015 when his contract first hit the market, and let him try to shop himself around. Keeping players around despite offering them less than opposition can is vital to successful teams. So we need to have a little leeway in what contracts we make, and we need to monitor our spending as we improve to give us a degree of safety when players' contracts end.


You might not have mentioned it, but the implication in your post is that we need to add to the forward half players who can kick those 40+ goals a season, of which Papley is one.

Forward line players are paid a premium, and while I agree that there should be some outlay our midfield is the area of most need currently; midfield and transition. Now, I'd love it if Ramsay and/or LOB suddenly turn up next year and start channeling Tadhg Kennelly and/or Andrew Mackie and/or Andrew Gaff, but I prefer to play the percentages as far as list management goes.

I like and welcome the debate, I don’t disagree with anything really, of course salary cap and how it’s spread is a major factor in a clubs success, I know it will be almost impossible to find, but earlier on in the year, the CEO mentioned his biggest concern with reduced salary caps was, that we got to keep the $$$ advantage that we had built up, which he said was confirmed by the AFL that clubs would keep it. I took this that we have the $$$ to target a player of need.

Who that player is, there would be many that would help enormously and whilst the midfield right now is a piece of the puzzle that needs addressing, it’s also the piece we have invested the most resources in the last 3 years. Do we go for the immediate midfield boost at the expense of a draftee for the sake of one or two years of quality output ahead of schedule?

I too have a limit to which I would pay certain players, but first we have to get this players to want to join us, without the cap changing, it’s currently around $13M, plenty of room there to pay up for good players that fill a pressing need.

 

[DangerousD]

Yes. But our only one at this stage (Weitering and Martin are close to it)

My definition of A Grade is the total elite/upper end talent of the league (of which there is only about 25-30 max)

Just my opinion though.

If I had to choose one midfielder from the Pies, it would be Treloar. Easily in my top 30 players.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Anyone have access to this article?

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au

Are we in the hunt for Caldwell?

 

[Love the Drake]

But Cripps has a tendency to butcher the ball and has been very inconsistent...

And hang on...Treloar, Adams and Shiel aren't A-Grade, but Jack Martin is close to it?! Elmer, come on mate, there's some incredible bias on display here.

Depends how high you rate A graders.

Dangerfield, Selwood (prime), Ablett (prime), Fyffe, Martin are A graders because they consistently perform at a high level and significantly influence games.

I don’t see Treloar or Shiel as A graders. Definitely not Adams. They are better than most onballers but have obvious flaws.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Dear Diary,

In 2021, I hope to be playing for Carlton

WATCH: What was Rowell writing in his notebook?

Gold Coast sensation Matt Rowell set the internet alight when he was spotted jotting some notes on Wednesday. What were they?

www.afl.com.au

 

[DangerousD]

He's got plenty of the most expensive Knives, but not enough forks. It doesn't match.

not sure about this, I feel they good balance, their backline has good talls a good runners, the mids have size, grunt and class. They have a multiple Coleman medalist and a handy second tall,
lots of up and coming kids.

it smells there, it’s not talent or balance.

 

[Doro]

The Giants - So many players, so little cohesion and spirit.
I think it's the right culture they're missing first and foremost, but their squad balance isn't particularly good either.

Hopper, Coniglio, Caldwell, Whitfield, Hately, Green, Taranto and Kelly - 8 first round midfielders and you leave out one Toby Greene and you miss that one forward more than for several of the premium picked mids.
It's not always like that but when it is........It sure stands out.

I really don't want us to a GWS where we have too much of a good thing here...and not very much there. Balance..balance....balance

It could easily have been a different story if they grabbed the opportunities when they were presented. Doggies in a prelim on the Giants home turf was probably their best chance. Two MCG finals against the Tigers were only ever going the other way. They've done a remarkable job since inception really, but still very prone to ordinary performances on a regular basis as in last night. I think Cameron is the most obvious change to make whilst the window is wide open. No MCG GF this year is the perfect time for an interstate team to win one.

 

[Curnowhan]

Are we in the hunt for Caldwell?

I hope so