List Mgmt. 2022 Trade & List Management Thread III

[giantroo]

Spoiler: Confirmed Trades

Spoiler: 2022 Draft Pick Order

AFL Draft - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

www.afl.com.au

Spoiler: 2023 Draft Pick Order

Spoiler: Key dates

AFL Trade Period Key Dates - AFL.com.au

When does Free Agency begin? How long does the Trade Period go for? Find out on AFL.com.au.

www.afl.com.au

Key Dates:

Friday 07 October at 5.00pm
Close of AFL Restricted Free Agency Offer and Unrestricted Free Agency Period.

Monday 10 October
NAB AFL Draft Nominations open (9am)
AFL Restricted Free Agency Matching Offer 3 Day Period Ends (5pm)

Wednesday 12 October at 7.30pm
AFL Trade Period closes – players and selections


Thursday 03 November at 9.00am
AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) commences

Wednesday 09 November at 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) closes

Friday 11 November at 9.00am

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) commences

Tuesday 15 November by 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) closes
AFL Trade Period closes – selections only

Monday 21 November by 3.00pm

NAB AFL Draft Nominations close

Monday 28 November at 7.10pm

2022 NAB AFL Draft Round One (Venue TBC)

Father/Son, Academy & NGA and Players Bidding opens.

Tuesday 29 November

AFL Trade Period – selections only (5.45pm to 6.30pm)

2022 NAB AFL National Draft Round two until completion (7pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period opens (10pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences (10pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period closes (11pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes (11pm)

Wednesday 30 November

NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft (3pm, online)
NAB AFL Rookie Draft (3.20pm, online)

Thursday 01 December by 4.00pm

Final AFL Club List Lodgement

 

[guapo]

That is looking at it backwards in my opinion. We have 8 list vacancies at the moment. 2-4 on the primary list and 4-6 on the rookie list. If we move two players back to the rookie list it becomes 4-6 on the primary list and 2-4 on the rookie list. By not doing this we have locked ourselves into taking 4 at the draft (unless nobody bids on Cooper and we can rookie him). We have lost any list flexibility, negotiating power and some minor picks in the process and gained nothing. We only got an F4 for our 43 today because we had needlessly put ourselves in a position where we had to trade or lose the pick. Small loss, it doesn't really matter, but also totally unnecessary.

The draft ain’t that deep. Better to have flexibility next year.
It’s also clear that the strategy is to bring in mature age rookies, not shift existing list cloggers to the rookie list solely for the purpose of bringing in more speculative players that probably won’t make it.
This board complains when we do nothing proactive and then complains when we do

 

[perplexed]

The draft ain’t that deep. Better to have flexibility next year.
It’s also clear that the strategy is to bring in mature age rookies, not shift existing list cloggers to the rookie list solely for the purpose of bringing in more speculative players that probably won’t make it.
This board complains when we do nothing proactive and then complains when we do

I wasn't suggesting we shift players to the rookie list in order to bring in extra players at the draft - though we would have this option if one we rated slid. We should have done it to maximise the value of our picks and the extra list spots we were given and so we don't have to do dump trades like we did yesterday. Those picks in the forties are more valuable as points than picks, but to get value for them you need to take them to the draft. Other teams don't limit their options at the draft by committing to maxing out their primary list this early, why are we? This wasn't proactive, it was us desperately dumping a pick we had needlessly devalued.

 

[Passmore]

All this "coulda done this", "shoulda done that" are all fantasy trades.

The blokes doing the business deal in reality.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[perplexed]

All this "coulda done this", "shoulda done that" are all fantasy trades.

The blokes doing the business deal in reality.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

The reality is that we are mostly in our current position because our list management and player development is amongst the worst in the comp and has been for years. Yesterday's trade was the result of a reality created through poor list management.

 

[The acurate one]

We either trade 40 for a future 3rd which is another potential loss. Our we trade 23 + 40 into the mid teens to break even.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes let's do that, I will inform the relevant clubs today via a well worded email.

I will report back with their thoughts....

 

[My Left Foote]

I do understand that, but theres only one move left to break even. In isolation, our pick swaps have all been losses.

40 + 43 came from the JHF trade. Most people were unhappy with that, but settled. Now its 40 and 55 at best. Which is a loss. If they are useless picks we should have agreed to something better at the time, even a GWS F2.

23 for 59 + Future 19-22. Also a loss.

We either trade 40 for a future 3rd which is another potential loss. Our we trade 23 + 40 into the mid teens to break even.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

How can a trade be a loss when we haven't even used that pick to select a player? Trades aren't 'won' or 'lost' on paper.

It's only when we use that pick that a trade can be judged and even then the player needs several years to develop and start realising their potential before it can be truly judged.

This mindset of 'wining' and 'losing' trades is so short-sighted.

 

[Passmore]

The reality is that we are mostly in our current position because our list management and player development is amongst the worst in the comp and has been for years. Yesterday's trade was the result of a reality created through poor list management.

Yesterday's trade was shuffling draft picks to move out of a shallow draft and give us something in what is touted to be a deeper draft where we have another potential FS.

That's about where it starts and finishes. You've got to draw a line under past indiscretions at some point and let Clarko and team get to work.

"List management " probably won't look so poor with better coaching.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[guapo]

I wasn't suggesting we shift players to the rookie list in order to bring in extra players at the draft - though we would have this option if one we rated slid. We should have done it to maximise the value of our picks and the extra list spots we were given and so we don't have to do dump trades like we did yesterday. Those picks in the forties are more valuable as points than picks, but to get value for them you need to take them to the draft. Other teams don't limit their options at the draft by committing to maxing out their primary list this early, why are we? This wasn't proactive, it was us desperately dumping a pick we had needlessly devalued.

But the clearly stated Rookie List strategy is to bring in mature players (25+ yo) to fill specific needs and bring experience. It’s never been the intent to move fringe players out to open main list spots for sliders.
This trade is completely consistent with the strategy Snoz and Viney made public weeks ago.
They didn’t get cute with our first 3 picks, they traded out a pick we weren’t using and got some currency next year

 

[roos 10]

Rookie spot’s I would like
Sydney stack

44

Sydney Stack

Age

24

Ht

179cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.5

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

8.7

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

3.0

5star

MG

202.0

3star

D

9.8

2star

K

3.4

1star

HB

6.4

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

2.8

4star

MG

133.0

2star

D

16.2

4star

K

7.2

3star

HB

9.0

5star

M

5.6

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

227.4

4star

Ethan Phillips
Liam stocker

14

Liam Stocker

Age

25

Ht

184cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.6

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

180.0

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.6

4star

K

8.4

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

180.0

3star

Liam shiels

14

Liam Shiels

Age

33

Ht

184cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.2

5star

K

11.7

4star

HB

8.5

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.9

5star

CL

3.4

5star

D

17.4

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

4.1

5star

CL

1.9

4star

D

12.2

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

3.8

5star

(development coach) retired at mid season draft open spot

 

[guapo]

Credit to Mav, this pretty much puts a full stop on the topic of the Freo trade

2022 AFL National Draft Preview Thread (North's current picks - #2, #3, #23, #40, #70 & #77)

Game Day - 2022 AFL National Draft Thread (North's current picks - Sheezel, Wardlaw, #23, #63)

www.bigfooty.com

 

[perplexed]

Yesterday's trade was shuffling draft picks to move out of a shallow draft and give us something in what is touted to be a deeper draft where we have another potential FS.

That's about where it starts and finishes. You've got to draw a line under past indiscretions at some point and let Clarko and team get to work.

"List management " probably won't look so poor with better coaching.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

I agree with the last point.

Pick shuffling is fine. But if we had an extra list spot or two we could likely have got more for 43 at the draft. At worst we could have done the same trade at then. We needlessly put ourselves in a position where we had to do a dump trade or lose a pick. Is there another team that has already committed to maxing out their primary list? Maybe, Geelong, but for very different reasons. Last year only three teams had the max 38, considering we have extra rookie spots this year it just looks like another wasted opportunity.

 

[perplexed]

But the clearly stated Rookie List strategy is to bring in mature players (25+ yo) to fill specific needs and bring experience. It’s never been the intent to move fringe players out to open main list spots for sliders.
This trade is completely consistent with the strategy Snoz and Viney made public weeks ago.
They didn’t get cute with our first 3 picks, they traded out a pick we weren’t using and got some currency next year

The strategy is fine but isn't affected by shifting a couple of players back so we have more flexibility at the draft and maximise the value of our picks. We could go 36 + 8 or 38 + 6 with exactly the same players. But with the former we have more currency at the draft to trade for future picks. They are only minor gains but why are we not taking these opportunities when they cost us nothing?

 

[Passmore]

I agree with the last point.

Pick shuffling is fine. But if we had an extra list spot or two we could likely have got more for 43 at the draft. At worst we could have done the same trade at then. We needlessly put ourselves in a position where we had to do a dump trade or lose a pick. Is there another team that has already committed to maxing out their primary list? Maybe, Geelong, but for very different reasons. Last year only three teams had the max 38, considering we have extra rookie spots this year it just looks like another wasted opportunity.

We were always maxing out our senior list spots this year. All the uncontracted players were given the arse and it left us with 4 spots. 2,3,23 and Harvey. Our only way to leave a spot open would be to move pick 23. Not sure how not using that and leaving a spot open is better list management.

We could always go down the fantasy route of delisting Lazzaro, Mahony and Spicer. However that moving away from the reality of the situation.

 

[perplexed]

We were always maxing out our senior list spots this year. All the uncontracted players were given the arse and it left us with 4 spots. 2,3,23 and Harvey. Our only way to leave a spot open would be to move pick 23. Not sure how not using that and leaving a spot open is better list management.

We could always go down the fantasy route of delisting Lazzaro, Mahony and Spicer. However that moving away from the reality of the situation.

Why were we always doing maxing out our senior spots? Because Brady said is not a good reason. Moving players back from the primary list to the rookie list isn't a fantasy route, it's a standard practice that teams use when it advantages them. This year it looks like we are already doing this with Turner and Brisbane and are doing the same with Cockatoo and Lester. In the past we've done it with Hayden, Polec and Daw, off the top of my head and probably several more.

 

[Passmore]

Why were we always doing maxing out our senior spots? Because Brady said is not a good reason. Moving players back from the primary list to the rookie list isn't a fantasy route, it's a standard practice that teams use when it advantages them. This year it looks like we are already doing this with Turner and Brisbane and are doing the same with Cockatoo and Lester. In the past we've done it with Hayden, Polec and Daw, off the top of my head and probably several more.

Quite possibly we don't want to delist contracted kids. Clarkson might see more in them than those playing fantasy footy at home?

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[perplexed]

Quite possibly we don't want to delist contracted kids. Clarkson might see more in them than those playing fantasy footy at home?

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

I'm just saying shift a player or two back to the rookie list, not delist them entirely. It doesn't affect their contract value or length and even gives them greater rights in the future as they automatically become DFA's when their contracts expire. There are no real disadvantages to the players.

 

[Passmore]

I'm just saying shift a player or two back to the rookie list, not delist them entirely. It doesn't affect their contract value or length and even gives them greater rights in the future as they automatically become DFA's when their contracts expire. There are no real disadvantages to the players.

On face value there's not. But we're dealing with individual human beings. We don't know how it will impact a kid from the cheap seats.

Maybe Clarko doesn't want to go full campaigner mode from day 1? I just think there's more to it than meets the eye.

Anyway, we have differening opinions, nothing wrong with that.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[Psicosis]

Why were we always doing maxing out our senior spots? Because Brady said is not a good reason. Moving players back from the primary list to the rookie list isn't a fantasy route, it's a standard practice that teams use when it advantages them. This year it looks like we are already doing this with Turner and Brisbane and are doing the same with Cockatoo and Lester. In the past we've done it with Hayden, Polec and Daw, off the top of my head and probably several more.

It's an odd thing to get so hung up on IMO.

As you've said, we appear to have done it with Turner & have proven in the past that we are open to using that mechanism when neccersary (Hayden, Polec & Daw).

I get that you want them to do it with more players, however there's obviously reasoning behind why they aren't (rating certain players internally, lack of draft depth, young player morale etc.).

 

[Passmore]

It's an odd thing to get so hung up on IMO.

As you've said, we appear to have done it with Turner & have proven in the past that we are open to using that mechanism when neccersary (Hayden, Polec & Daw).

I get that you want them to do it with more players, however there's obviously reasoning behind why they aren't (rating certain players internally, lack of draft depth, young player morale etc.).

Player morale, particularly from where we are as a club, is absolutely underrated.

From a tactical point, you start ****ing around with Lazarro for example, you might piss his house mate and holiday companion off. Not too bright when he's coming out of contract.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[Psicosis]

Player morale, particularly from where we are as a club, is absolutely underrated.

From a tactical point, you start ******* around with Lazarro for example, you might piss his house mate and holiday companion off. Not too bright when he's coming out of contract.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

Ofcourse, it's a critical piece of information that internet list managers cannot gauge

 

[perplexed]

It's an odd thing to get so hung up on IMO.

As you've said, we appear to have done it with Turner & have proven in the past that we are open to using that mechanism when neccersary (Hayden, Polec & Daw).

I get that you want them to do it with more players, however there's obviously reasoning behind why they aren't (rating certain players internally, lack of draft depth, young player morale etc.).

I know it's a minor thing, but it frustrates me when we needlessly miss little chances to improve our list and the best defense anyone can offer seems to be along the lines of 'Brady knows best coz he isn't an internet warrior like you' or a theory on player morale. Close and Atkins don't seem particularly troubled by their rookie listing, don't see why Greenwood or whoever would be.

 

[Psicosis]

I know it's a minor thing, but it frustrates me when we needlessly miss little chances to improve our list and the best defense anyone can offer seems to be along the lines of 'Brady knows best coz he isn't an internet warrior like you' or a theory on player morale. Close and Atkins don't seem particularly troubled by their rookie listing, don't see why Greenwood or whoever would be.

Depends which way you choose to look at it, I suppose.

Personally I look at Logue, Tucker, Pick 2, 3, 23, Cooper & 4 rookie spots as some very solid chances to improve our list.

Whilst I don't really see pick 40 & 43 in this years draft, making our list any better.

 

[Psicosis]

Gerard Healy and Brad Johnson preview the 2023 seasons of Geelong, Gold Coast, GWS, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne - Tuesday November 15

Gerard and Johnno with their second part of their three-part AFL preview series.

player.whooshkaa.com

13:00 mark, they discuss North.

 

[the flying ham]

I know it's a minor thing, but it frustrates me when we needlessly miss little chances to improve our list and the best defense anyone can offer seems to be along the lines of 'Brady knows best coz he isn't an internet warrior like you' or a theory on player morale. Close and Atkins don't seem particularly troubled by their rookie listing, don't see why Greenwood or whoever would be.

If they don't rate this years crop of kids, why do we need more spots to draft them? We've got some good quality picks and a father son. That's plenty. We don't need more speculative kids,we need good ones

 

[perplexed]

If they don't rate this years crop of kids, why do we need more spots to draft them? We've got some good quality picks and a father son. That's plenty. We don't need more speculative kids,we need good ones

Not sure how many times I need to say it, but I'm not suggesting we generate list spots to draft kids. We are the only team that goes into the draft committed to maxing out our primary list which subsequently devalues our picks. It's a mistake that no other club has made and was the reason we had to dump a pick for stuff all yesterday.