List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading (Part 2)

[PeterSalt]

Do you have a link to the article? I can't find anything on Google or the AFL website. Not doubting you, just trying to find the article you referenced.

From the article below:

"For instance, it would have allowed Adelaide to list one of Rory Sloane or Taylor Walker as a veteran for 2024 and opened up another spot on their primary list. The idea was designed to keep veterans in the game without sacrificing a list spot that a youngster may have taken, with the veteran’s full payments still counted in the salary cap."

Roos target pick one, Dee to go on, big Dog to stay

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

There's a link in the post above

 

[skam85]

because we're obviously fine with delisting Hamill (or Sholl or McHenry or whoever) and then re-rookieing them.

You keep making this up and throwing these names out there with absolutely no basis

 

[Mostyn]

You keep making this up anf throwing these names out there with absolutely no basis

What kind of basis are you expecting?

There is another list lodgement period. Players can be delisted then. This is exactly what we did as recently as last year, with TWO players.

What do you think is the most likely thing to occur? Exactly what we did last year, or we just forget to do anything and somehow have to pass on a first round pick, which has never happened in the history of the draft?

FFS - we either have a trade lined up or we're planning to move someone to the rookie list. It's obvious.

 

[Vader]

What kind of basis are you expecting?

There is another list lodgement period. Players can be delisted then. This is exactly what we did as recently as last year, with TWO players.

What do you think is the most likely thing to occur? Exactly what we did last year, or we just forget to do anything and somehow have to pass on a first round pick, which has never happened in the history of the draft?

FFS - we either have a trade lined up or we're planning to move someone to the rookie list. It's obvious.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a contracted player will be delisted, and re-signed to the rookie list (as a DFA) between the ND and RD. As you say, the club has done this for the last 2 years, and there's every reason to expect that they will do it again in 2023.

What is less helpful is naming Hamill as the most likely candidate, which may or may not have any basis in reality. Hamill seems to be the target of speculation, due to his repeated concussions, and out of well meaning concern for his playing future. However, I do not believe that his concussions are a factor which they club would consider important, when selecting a player for delisting.

Based on previous delistings, the player who is delisted (and re-contracted) is will almost certainly be a player who has only 1 year left on his contract (i.e. contract expires in 2024), who is almost certain to be delisted at the end of 2024, and a player the club would not be unhappy losing (should another club decide to gazump us).

Hamill is no more or less likely than any of Sholl, Cook, McHenry, Gollant, Bond, and Sloane - though it would be incredibly harsh to do it to a player with Sloane's history at the club. Hamill is definitely a candidate for the delist/re-sign path, but he's not the only candidate. If anything, I suspect Cook may be the most likely candidate - as the player who has shown least at AFL level (excluding Bond, who is still on his initial contract).

 

[Coopers]

So I've been wondering - what is in place to prevent this:

• A pretty typical trade is a clubs Round 1 pick for a Future 1 + R2 pick.
• In year 1 you do that and you miss out on your R1 pick - so that's the hit.
• But every year going forward you can make that trade. Effectively you will get a free 2nd round pick every year.
• Over a long period that's huge value.

Why would you not do that every year?

 

[Mostyn]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a contracted player will be delisted, and re-signed to the rookie list (as a DFA) between the ND and RD. As you say, the club has done this for the last 2 years, and there's every reason to expect that they will do it again in 2023.

What is less helpful is naming Hamill as the most likely candidate, which may or may not have any basis in reality. Hamill seems to be the target of speculation, due to his repeated concussions, and out of well meaning concern for his playing future. However, I do not believe that his concussions are a factor which they club would consider important, when selecting a player for delisting.

Based on previous delistings, the player who is delisted (and re-contracted) is will almost certainly be a player who has only 1 year left on his contract (i.e. contract expires in 2024), who is almost certain to be delisted at the end of 2024, and a player the club would not be unhappy losing (should another club decide to gazump us).

Hamill is no more or less likely than any of Sholl, Cook, McHenry, Gollant, Bond, and Sloane - though it would be incredibly harsh to do it to a player with Sloane's history at the club. Hamill is definitely a candidate for the delist/re-sign path, but he's not the only candidate. If anything, I suspect Cook may be the most likely candidate - as the player who has shown least at AFL level (excluding Bond, who is still on his initial contract).

Yeah, I agree. I've also mentioned Sholl and McHenry in other posts.

Cook seems least likely to me. I think he's the one in that list that still seems like he could have a successful AFL career, and the one most likely to be taken by someone else. But that's just my view.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Which club do we think will crash unexpectedly next year? I wonder if we'd gamble on a 1st rounder 2023/2024 swap

 

[GROTTO]

Which club do we think will crash unexpectedly next year? I wonder if we'd gamble on a 1st rounder 2023/2024 swap

In no particular order:

Port
Dogs
Dons
Cats
Freo

 

[BRL121]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a contracted player will be delisted, and re-signed to the rookie list (as a DFA) between the ND and RD. As you say, the club has done this for the last 2 years, and there's every reason to expect that they will do it again in 2023.

What is less helpful is naming Hamill as the most likely candidate, which may or may not have any basis in reality. Hamill seems to be the target of speculation, due to his repeated concussions, and out of well meaning concern for his playing future. However, I do not believe that his concussions are a factor which they club would consider important, when selecting a player for delisting.

Based on previous delistings, the player who is delisted (and re-contracted) is will almost certainly be a player who has only 1 year left on his contract (i.e. contract expires in 2024), who is almost certain to be delisted at the end of 2024, and a player the club would not be unhappy losing (should another club decide to gazump us).

Hamill is no more or less likely than any of Sholl, Cook, McHenry, Gollant, Bond, and Sloane - though it would be incredibly harsh to do it to a player with Sloane's history at the club. Hamill is definitely a candidate for the delist/re-sign path, but he's not the only candidate. If anything, I suspect Cook may be the most likely candidate - as the player who has shown least at AFL level (excluding Bond, who is still on his initial contract).

Ther's no way they would do that with Cook. He'd be very likely to be picked up by someone else with brains.

 

[Vader]

Ther's no way they would do that with Cook. He'd be very likely to be picked up by someone else with brains.

The question isn't really whether he's likely to be picked up... but whether the club cares if he gets picked up.

Given his poor showing at AFL level to date, the answer to that is most likely no.

I get the distinct feeling that Cook is rated much more highly on BF than he is within the AFC. BF fans see a lot of unrealised potential, the club appears to be coming around to the view that he's unlikely to ever fulfil that potential.

 

[Numinous]

Based on previous delistings, the player who is delisted (and re-contracted) is will almost certainly be a player who has only 1 year left on his contract (i.e. contract expires in 2024), who is almost certain to be delisted at the end of 2024, and a player the club would not be unhappy losing (should another club decide to gazump us).

Hamill is no more or less likely than any of Sholl, Cook, McHenry, Gollant, Bond, and Sloane - though it would be incredibly harsh to do it to a player with Sloane's history at the club. Hamill is definitely a candidate for the delist/re-sign path, but he's not the only candidate. If anything, I suspect Cook may be the most likely candidate - as the player who has shown least at AFL level (excluding Bond, who is still on his initial contract).

I broadly agree. The other thing to consider is that the player delisted becomes eligible for unrestricted free agency for the rest of the career, so ideally you wouldn't pick anyone who might turn into a target for another club. That's why I'd consider Sloane over the others - although as you say it's not a good look for a club legend.

 

[Vader]

I broadly agree. The other thing to consider is that the player delisted becomes eligible for unrestricted free agency for the rest of the career, so ideally you wouldn't pick anyone who might turn into a target for another club. That's why I'd consider Sloane over the others - although as you say it's not a good look for a club legend.

Hence why you only do it for players who you really don't mind losing, and intend delisting at the end of next season.

 

[skam85]

The question isn't really whether he's likely to be picked up... but whether the club cares if he gets picked up.

Given his poor showing at AFL level to date, the answer to that is most likely no.

I get the distinct feeling that Cook is rated much more highly on BF than he is within the AFC. BF fans see a lot of unrealised potential, the club appears to be coming around to the view that he's unlikely to ever fulfil that potential.

Ah yes, Cook is the new Fog.

 

[Vader]

Ah yes, Cook is the new Fog.

Cook has shown a LOT less than Fog had, to the same point in their respective careers.

 

[Betts are off]

Which club do we think will crash unexpectedly next year? I wonder if we'd gamble on a 1st rounder 2023/2024 swap

Freo are the basketcase waiting to happen IMO. Lost so many best 22 players in the last 2 seasons, and really only picked up a hybrid ruckman/fwd to show for it.

Plus no pick 1 this season.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I prefer Cook to Hamill but I think Nicks would take the opposite view. We've seen Nicks is happy to overlook poor skills if a player is hard at the footy but he won't select a player with good skills if he thinks he's soft.

 

[Mostyn]

The question isn't really whether he's likely to be picked up... but whether the club cares if he gets picked up.

Given his poor showing at AFL level to date, the answer to that is most likely no.

I get the distinct feeling that Cook is rated much more highly on BF than he is within the AFC. BF fans see a lot of unrealised potential, the club appears to be coming around to the view that he's unlikely to ever fulfil that potential.

Not sure where you're getting that opinion from, regarding the club's views?

 

[Vader]

Not sure where you're getting that opinion from, regarding the club's views?

Refer to the post by Mr_Moogle just above.

 

[MarcusP2]

Not sure where you're getting that opinion from, regarding the club's views?

Living in Canberra means Vader has assimilated the ability to speak authoritatively on any subject regardless of expertise or knowledge.

 

[1970crow]

I broadly agree. The other thing to consider is that the player delisted becomes eligible for unrestricted free agency for the rest of the career, so ideally you wouldn't pick anyone who might turn into a target for another club. That's why I'd consider Sloane over the others - although as you say it's not a good look for a club legend.

it's not a good look or a bad look, it's just list management reality. And if Sloane was to be taken at his word, it'd be his idea.

 

[Mostyn]

Refer to the post by Mr_Moogle just above.

But that's just another fan opinion.

Cook has gotten games, and they've been trying to find the right role to suit his skills and frame.

My fan opinion is that they've been waiting for his body to catch up to his talent. He still has massive upside IF that ever occurs.

 

[Mostyn]

it's not a good look or a bad look, it's just list management reality. And if Sloane was to be taken at his word, it'd be his idea.

Sloane wants to do what's best for the club. He may not think being delisted benefits us.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But that's just another fan opinion.

Cook has gotten games, and they've been trying to find the right role to suit his skills and frame.

My fan opinion is that they've been waiting for his body to catch up to his talent. He still has massive upside IF that ever occurs.

Had a decent game when played this year.

Should be the type of player we are getting more games into as highly skilled.

 

[spenze]

Sloane wants to do what's best for the club. He may not think being delisted benefits us.

No he doesn’t Rory is all about Rory

 

[Vader]

But that's just another fan opinion.

Cook has gotten games, and they've been trying to find the right role to suit his skills and frame.

My fan opinion is that they've been waiting for his body to catch up to his talent. He still has massive upside IF that ever occurs.

That was all I expressed too - an opinion of what I thought the club would do.

 

[GreyCrow]

Sloane wants to do what's best for the club. He may not think being delisted benefits us.

I laughed at this

In what way does Rory think it doesnt benefit the club ?


I do agree the club must have a plan but your post is laughable and clappy