List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets

[arsesmart]

If Voss is just as potent in front of goal he’ll take Sturt’s spot because he adds more physicality imo.

We need more rough nuts in the team.

It'd be interesting as to who is more effective in bringing effective pressure on the opposition. My money would be on Sturt.

 

[Docker82]

It'd be interesting as to who is more effective in bringing effective pressure on the opposition. My money would be on Sturt.

This was my thoughts too. Let's remember we need to replace one of the best pressure players in the competition.

I just don't think four tall forwards (including Jackson) will work.

Forward pressure creates scoring opportunities and without those scoring opportunities we'll be a sh** footy team - that's no different to any other team tbh. It's all about finding the right balance.

 

[maccamk]

It'd be interesting as to who is more effective in bringing effective pressure on the opposition. My money would be on Sturt.

We have a need for speed. Can’t have 3 talls playing without pace around them. Sturt has him and most of the comp covered for speed.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Spirit Level]

If Voss is just as potent in front of goal he’ll take Sturt’s spot because he adds more physicality imo.

We need more rough nuts in the team.

There is no way Voss should be keeping Sturt out of the side

 

[freo_leo29]

Voss isn't a sturt replacement, he is a Treacy/Taberner backup IMO

Too slow to play with all of Dogga, JT/Tabs and Amiss

 

[Dockeroo]

Not sure Longmuir does though - MC choices over the last few years strongly suggest solid backup r2g players (who know our game plan) are the incumbents in B22 until forced out preferred over unproven developing players coming thru who have potential. They earn their b22 position only by training the house down or starring at peel.

Hughes and banners aren’t going any where until they stop putting in solid performances when called on.

Hughes towards the end of last year was far more than serviceable, and banners kicking the odd three goal haul was often more than solid too.

But… both whipping boys on here.

Shiny new things often break or turn out to be disappointing. boring option offers less shine and excitement, but also less breaking and greater confidence of getting a minimum acceptable level of quality.

I guess if you want to remain a perpetual bottom 6 team then yeah - keep playing Banfield and Hughes. Even though we have seen close to 200 games combined from both of them, the vast vast majority of them for a team stuck in the oblivion of the bottom half of the ladder, some people think that (a) we are going to rise up to finals contention and (b) these guys are going to remain key role players.
How much more evidence is needed they are not good enough? To me they are two of the most obvious candidates for delisting I’ve seen in years at this stage of the season. Unless one of them turns into a completely different player in 2024 (just about zero chance of that happening) they are both goners. Nathan Wilson for example is a much better player than Hughes but his card was marked early last year.

 

[Ysaye]

I guess if you want to remain a perpetual bottom 6 team then yeah - keep playing Banfield and Hughes. Even though we have seen close to 200 games combined from both of them, the vast vast majority of them for a team stuck in the oblivion of the bottom half of the ladder, some people think that (a) we are going to rise up to finals contention and (b) these guys are going to remain key role players.
How much more evidence is needed they are not good enough? To me they are two of the most obvious candidates for delisting I’ve seen in years at this stage of the season. Unless one of them turns into a completely different player in 2024 (just about zero chance of that happening) they are both goners. Nathan Wilson for example is a much better player than Hughes but his card was marked early last year.

He is not in my best 22 but I always remind myself that Rowan Jones was part of a premiership team; if he can be in a team with players like Judd, Cousins, Kerr then so can Banfield or Hughes.

 

[Docker82]

He is not in my best 22 but I always remind myself that Rowan Jones was part of a premiership team; if he can be in a team with players like Judd, Cousins, Kerr then so can Banfield or Hughes.

There's one or two players of that standard in Collingwood's GF team last year.

Billy Frampton for example wouldn't get a regular game for many non bottom four teams in the last ten years imo.

You've only got to look at how many games Banfield played when we finished fifth to see that he can play in a good side. I don't think Hughes is much difference.

These guys are never the reason we lose games. Our best players and younger players with potential need to improve to be better than everyone else's. That's what win us more games - it's only when you have 4-6 players like Banfield or Hughes that it really makes an impact imo.

 

[Dockeroo]

There's one or two players of that standard in Collingwood's GF team last year.

Billy Frampton for example wouldn't get a regular game for many non bottom four teams in the last ten years imo.

You've only got to look at how many games Banfield played when we finished fifth to see that he can play in a good side. I don't think Hughes is much difference.

These guys are never the reason we lose games. Our best players and younger players with potential need to improve to be better than everyone else's. That's what win us more games - it's only when you have 4-6 players like Banfield or Hughes that it really makes an impact imo.

Of course that’s all fine and good, you can always find an example like that in every premiership team, but the issue will arise when we have to start making a choice between the likes of Banfield and NOD as an example, for a list spot.
This board consistently underestimates the reality of list demographics and turnover in the AFL. The fact is approx 100 new players will enter the AFL system each year and for that to happen, about 100 have to exit. That doesn’t count players that leave for another club and stay in the system. The long term average turnover year to year for an afl list is over 7 players I would confidently guess.

Remember that around 20 of the players that will be listed by Fremantle in 2028, four years from now, are still in school today. They are not even on the list yet!

To be fair you rightly pointed out last season that Wilson’s card was marked early as if you are aged 25 or more, and playing state league footy, your days are almost certainly numbered in the AFL. Of course the odd player slips though the cracks and gets lucky and extends it out. Good on them. I’d argue that’s already well and truly happened with these two guys. It’s incredible they have eked out a combined 17 years on an AFL list to be honest.

The only way I see Hughes or Banfield extended is if we have an injury crisis and they play a lot of games this year. If that happens we will probably be bottom 6 or worse anyway and JL will be sacked and there will be big changes at the end of the year to the list regardless.

 

[Docker82]

Of course that’s all fine and good, you can always find an example like that in every premiership team, but the issue will arise when we have to start making a choice between the likes of Banfield and NOD as an example, for a list spot.
This board consistently underestimates the reality of list demographics and turnover in the AFL. The fact is approx 100 new players will enter the AFL system each year and for that to happen, about 100 have to exit. That doesn’t count players that leave for another club and stay in the system. The long term average turnover year to year for an afl list is over 7 players I would confidently guess.

Remember that around 20 of the players that will be listed by Fremantle in 2028, four years from now, are still in school today. They are not even on the list yet!

To be fair you rightly pointed out last season that Wilson’s card was marked early as if you are aged 25 or more, and playing state league footy, your days are almost certainly numbered in the AFL. Of course the odd player slips though the cracks and gets lucky and extends it out. Good on them. I’d argue that’s already well and truly happened with these two guys. It’s incredible they have eked out a combined 17 years on an AFL list to be honest.

The only way I see Hughes or Banfield extended is if we have an injury crisis and they play a lot of games this year. If that happens we will probably be bottom 6 or worse anyway and JL will be sacked and there will be big changes at the end of the year to the list regardless.

I genuinely see no problem with us keeping Banfield over NOD if Banfield is the better footballer.

As I've said elsewhere I think Banfield probably leaves if he's offered two years elsewhere.

Hughes is approaching 30 so that won't happen.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I genuinely see no problem with us keeping Banfield over NOD if Banfield is the better footballer.

As I've said elsewhere I think Banfield probably leaves if he's offered two years elsewhere.

Hughes is approaching 30 so that won't happen.

With 3 first round picks, Banfield should be no where near the best 22 next year.

A Walters replacement (I would be happy to draft two small to medium forwards in the first four picks) , Banfield upgrade (maybe Zurhaar) and some midfield speed and class should be priorities next draft.

 

[wakojako]

With 3 first round picks, Banfield should be no where near the best 22 next year.

A Walters replacement (I would be happy to draft two small to medium forwards in the first four picks) , Banfield upgrade (maybe Zurhaar) and some midfield speed and class should be priorities next draft.

As we are about to enter our window it would be preferable to trade in players ready to go. Unfortunately, there really aren't any available small forwards from WA over the next few years. Pickett and Bolton are locked away on bloated contracts. I wish we prioritised the position instead of drafting in areas we are already strong in.

 

[GingerDocker]

As we are about to enter our window it would be preferable to trade in players ready to go. Unfortunately, there really aren't any available small forwards from WA over the next few years. Pickett and Bolton are locked away on bloated contracts. I wish we prioritised the position instead of drafting in areas we are already strong in.

Not being able to convince Brockman to come here past year is a real bugger.

 

[DragoDelph]

Not being able to convince Brockman to come here past year is a real bugger.

Yeah, he looks to be flying.

 

[freo1997]

Yeah, he looks to be flying.

We’ll see when he comes up against decent opposition..

In saying that he would’ve been a good get, but was really just too much of a coward to come here and back himself to be b22.

 

[Big Animal]

I'd rather have BB and Hughes on the list as we start to contend as plug and play for injury than to put some untried kid in to get his ass handed to him in an important game or final. We know those guys aren't particularly flash (at least on the field) but they are good cheap depth which contending teams need. There's plenty of spots outside the 22 for kids to be given time to develop as well as maintaining important experienced depth. I know depth is a foreign concept to many Freo supporters, but it seems to work quite well for the successful teams.

 

[wakojako]

Not being able to convince Brockman to come here past year is a real bugger.

That's why I'm worried we are pushing our no dickheads policy too far. We have missed out on quite a bit of talent that fits under this category. How hard did we actually pursue him?

 

[freo_leo29]

That's why I'm worried we are pushing our no dickheads policy too far. We have missed out on quite a bit of talent that fits under this category. How hard did we actually pursue him?

We offered him 4 years which is overs

So we pursued him pretty hard tbh

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I'd rather have BB and Hughes on the list as we start to contend as plug and play for injury than to put some untried kid in to get his ass handed to him in an important game or final. We know those guys aren't particularly flash (at least on the field) but they are good cheap depth which contending teams need. There's plenty of spots outside the 22 for kids to be given time to develop as well as maintaining important experienced depth. I know depth is a foreign concept to many Freo supporters, but it seems to work quite well for the successful teams.

This is fine in theory, now pick two of the following to get delisted instead

Emmett
Sturt
Knobel
Noddy
Stanley
Wagner

 

[wakojako]

We offered him 4 years which is overs

So we pursued him pretty hard tbh

Okay good to know! I wonder why he chose the dirty birds over us?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Okay good to know! I wonder why he chose the dirty birds over us?

I think that they were in his ear first (a big mistake from us) and there was likely similar coin on more guarantee of gametime.

 

[Alfonz]

Okay good to know! I wonder why he chose the dirty birds over us?

Managed by Colin Young. We never had a chance.

 

[apuchar]

Okay good to know! I wonder why he chose the dirty birds over us?

He is very good mates with Liam Ryan. He wanted to play in the same team. We tried very hard by the sounds of it.

 

[go_the_dockers]

As we are about to enter our window it would be preferable to trade in players ready to go. Unfortunately, there really aren't any available small forwards from WA over the next few years. Pickett and Bolton are locked away on bloated contracts. I wish we prioritised the position instead of drafting in areas we are already strong in.

Agree, but small forwards are a quick burn.

Zurhaar would be a big win, I think he would kick the 2nd most goals for us.

 

[DragoDelph]

Managed by Colin Young. We never had a chance.

He is very good mates with Liam Ryan. He wanted to play in the same team. We tried very hard by the sounds of it.

All the Flags!!