List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets Part 2

[Snuffaluphagus]

Didnt we have a spare list spot not used in the MSD? Is that counted?

No, just didnt use Kueks spot

 

[oldgoat]

If NOD, Voss and Reidy all re-sign as expected it’s hard to see how we fit both Bolton and Baker on the list and have a decent presence in the draft tbh. Without trading out players anyway.

If our third best draft selection is kind of late I think that’s a good time to stop but I don’t think I’d be taking any less than three selections in any draft.

We can probably view one of the Irish guys as a free selection so we’d still be bringing four in - the turnover will be bigger next year with Fyfe and Walters renting imo.

The Ultan of Swing... for free..?
I like it!

 

[Shadow Man]

I'd consider Jermaine Jones for a pre-season train on spot and see how he goes, think he has some weapons.

 

[Purple Suit]

Oh listen I’m 100% in agreement with you here.
We NEED to take 4 national draft picks this year.
Emmett and Stanley should both be cut.
Brodie just has be traded out. If Carlton are telling all those guys to look around, surely, surely we are saying the same to Brodie?

A deep draft like this you have to take advantage of. Even if it’s picks in the 40s or 50s.

Why? That’s 4 bites of the cherry that will be on the list for 2-3 years minimum. Ras was a top 10 pick and he’s 3 years in and barely impacting. How are 4 picks at our list age & stage going to impact compared to 2-3 plus trades or keeping older depth?

2 or 3 is fine.

 

[Dockeroo]

If you want to know the importance of turning over list spots regularly (more than what most people on here because they get too emotionally attached to fringe players) just take a look back at what we did in the 2020 off season.
We delisted a heap that year and even re rookied some who became UFAs such as Schultz (infamously) and Banfield.

But it crucially freed up the list spots to roll the dice on a young tall forward at around 3:05 pm the day after the main draft, at pick 7 in the rookie draft.

He was a nobody back then that didn’t register on anyone’s radar that day bar the most extreme of draft nerds here on BF but 4 years later he might just be the most important player we have.

If we didn’t cut hard on the list in that 2020 off season we wouldn’t have Josh Treacy right now.

 

[Docker82]

Oh listen I’m 100% in agreement with you here.
We NEED to take 4 national draft picks this year.
Emmett and Stanley should both be cut.
Brodie just has be traded out. If Carlton are telling all those guys to look around, surely, surely we are saying the same to Brodie?

A deep draft like this you have to take advantage of. Even if it’s picks in the 40s or 50s.

For me three draft picks is the absolute minimum and we may as well make at least two of those top 40-50 selections (depends on the year - might be closer to 50 this year). If we have four or five picks inside 40 I’m using them all but we won’t have that. If we have two selections inside 40 I’m still using a third pick.

FWIW I want the club to keep Emmett and Knobel on the list but can understand why the club is holding off (Personally I’d sign up Knobel and keep Reidy hanging for now). If an opportunity to bring in a good player comes up you want to be able to bring them in not be constrained because you signed up some fringe player.

Agree it’d be ideal to trade Brodie - I just can’t think of who the suitor would be if I’m honest.

Age is a big thing and I think say Emmett (good pressure, mature body) or Knobel (ruck with two years development) on our list over some pick 50-odd 18 year old that likely plays a similar role benefits us more in our current situation. I would say I’d support us taking 50-odd if the alternative was pick 9 in the Rookie Draft (or later) though.

 

[Dockeroo]

Why? That’s 4 bites of the cherry that will be on the list for 2-3 years minimum. Ras was a top 10 pick and he’s 3 years in and barely impacting. How are 4 picks at our list age & stage going to impact compared to 2-3 plus trades or keeping older depth?

2 or 3 is fine.

Remember the rule (fact actually, over many years of hard data) that only 30% of drafted players play 50 games or more.
If we draft 3, one will make it to 50 games and the others will be busts.
Thats the reality.
Draft 5, including rookie picks, we might get lucky and get two long term players.

The numbers just don’t lie and are the reason every club takes at least 4 or 5 new players in every draft & rookie draft, as an absolute minimum.

 

[Docker82]

If you want to know the importance of turning over list spots regularly (more than what most people on here because they get too emotionally attached to fringe players) just take a look back at what we did in the 2020 off season.
We delisted a heap that year and even re rookied some who became UFAs such as Schultz (infamously) and Banfield.

But it crucially freed up the list spots to roll the dice on a young tall forward at around 3:05 pm the day after the main draft, at pick 7 in the rookie draft.

He was a nobody back then that didn’t register on anyone’s radar that day bar the most extreme of draft nerds here on BF but 4 years later he might just be the most important player we have.

If we didn’t cut hard on the list in that 2020 off season we wouldn’t have Josh Treacy right now.

We used four picks in the National Draft and live one in rookie list. From 2018 to 2022 (plus Cat B rookies when available) that’s what we did literally every single off season.

We actually cut slightly deeper in 2015-2017 too (an extra rookie pick). Last year we used less National Draft picks but utilised the SSP on two reasonably young players.

We’ve always favoured using a pick in the rookie draft - It wasn’t just the Treacy pick.

 

[Docker82]

Remember the rule (fact actually, over many years of hard data) that only 30% of drafted players play 50 games or more.
If we draft 3, one will make it to 50 games and the others will be busts.
Thats the reality.
Draft 5, including rookie picks, we might get lucky and get two long term players.

The numbers just don’t lie and are the reason every club takes at least 4 or 5 new players in every draft & rookie draft, as an absolute minimum.

Personally I think these numbers are false - Let’s look at our picks between 2016 and 2021 and who’ll get to 50 games

2016
Logue - Yes
Darcy - Yes
Cox - Yes
Ryan - Yes

2017
Brayshaw - Yes
Cerra - Yes
Dixon - No
Crowden - No
North - No
Meek - Yes (May have already?)
Switta - Yes
Jones - No

2018
Sturt - Probably (based off fitness only)
Valente - No
Schultz- Yes
Bewley - No

2019
Young - Yes
Serong - Yes
Henry - Yes
Frederick - Yes

2020
Chapman - Yes (Is he there yet?)
O’Driscoll - 50/50
Walker - Yes
Western - No

2021
Amiss - Yes
Erasmus - 50/50
Johnson - Probably
Benning - No

Reality is IMO 50 games isn’t that many but even if that’s all they play they’d still added useful depth for 3-4 years minimum (assuming it’s a good team).

I’d say a strike rate of 30% would be closer to the success rate of getting to 50 games outside the first round tbh.

 

[Madas]

Picture this. You're in the WC footy department. Stay with me, stay with me now. And you know you need a PR win to settle in your new coach. You have a player on the hook, ready to go, he's committed but you think you can really energise your fan base by making it seem like he's genuinely a chance for both.

Then you name the coach and shortly after Baker officially nominates West Coast, saying that he feels supremely confident in the future of the club and the coach swung him to the Eagles - or in as few a words as your player can manage.

Suddenly it's King as Coach, Baker endorses the coach, WC steals Baker from Freo, haha suckers Freo, and it's done.

If it's true WC came hard for him I can only laugh. What a bunch of morons spending good capital on Liam Baker with where they are at. Absolutely bizarre. Like, it's kind of being missed but they are starting to delist kids they drafted when the rebuild started...

They need every pick they can get.

Or ….

WC are messing with us and driving Bakers price up
They never had any intention of taking him , they just want best value back from Richmond when they trade pick 3

I don’t even know if that makes sense


Makes about as much sense as Freo going after Dusty though

 

[apuchar]

Is that better,Snuff and Apuchar?…..

If it is true, yes. Knobel is a smidge concerning though. Got anything a little more soothing

 

[Dockeroo]

Personally I think these numbers are false - Let’s look at our picks between 2016 and 2021 and who’ll get to 50 games

2016
Logue - Yes
Darcy - Yes
Cox - Yes
Ryan - Yes

2017
Brayshaw - Yes
Cerra - Yes
Dixon - No
Crowden - No
North - No
Meek - Yes (May have already?)
Switta - Yes
Jones - No

2018
Sturt - Probably (based off fitness only)
Valente - No
Schultz- Yes
Bewley - No

2019
Young - Yes
Serong - Yes
Henry - Yes
Frederick - Yes

2020
Chapman - Yes (Is he there yet?)
O’Driscoll - 50/50
Walker - Yes
Western - No

2021
Amiss - Yes
Erasmus - 50/50
Johnson - Probably
Benning - No

Reality is IMO 50 games isn’t that many but even if that’s all they play they’d still added useful depth for 3-4 years minimum (assuming it’s a good team).

I’d say a strike rate of 30% would be closer to the success rate of getting to 50 games outside the first round tbh.

It’s total listed AFL players, regardless of where they were drafted, as far as I know.
You forgot guys like
Jason carter
Ryan nyhuis
Taylin Duman
Jarvis Pina
Isiah butters
Leno thomas
Dylan o reilly
Sebit kuek
Strnardica
Grey
Deluca
Giro
Watson
Worner
Williams
Reidy

I know these guys are generally less likely to play more games than higher draft picks, but they are still AFL players taking up list spots.

 

[Daka]

It's getting disrespectful frankly. Pull the offer.

I think he wants to be sure to make the right choice & is waiting who will be the coach of WCE before making a decision, apparently, he wrestled all year about staying or going.

 

[wakojako]

I’m in the bring baker in camp. I think he’s an excellent addition to fix some of our weaknesses.

Baker would be a good get for us but he would just be collecting a salary with Freo. His heart is at West Coast, can we rely on someone like that?

 

[Stinky Lomax]

Baker would be a good get for us but he would just be collecting a salary with Freo. His heart is at West Coast, can we rely on someone like that?

Like he did at Richmond?
How many current Freo listed players supported Freo growing up?

 

[FUS_RO_DAH]

Baker would be a good get for us but he would just be collecting a salary with Freo. His heart is at West Coast, can we rely on someone like that?

One of Baker's attributes that I love the most is that he has that dawwwwg in him. Absolutely zero doubt in my mind that once he's at the club he'd be right next to Lukey Ryan at every scrap.

Plus, seeing West Coast get pumped continously by 60+ points every weekend would probably help.

 

[Cesoir]

I'd consider Jermaine Jones for a pre-season train on spot and see how he goes, think he has some weapons.

The guy who just got delisted from the crappiest crap team that ever crapped in crappy crapland?

 

[go_the_dockers]

If you want to know the importance of turning over list spots regularly (more than what most people on here because they get too emotionally attached to fringe players) just take a look back at what we did in the 2020 off season.
We delisted a heap that year and even re rookied some who became UFAs such as Schultz (infamously) and Banfield.

But it crucially freed up the list spots to roll the dice on a young tall forward at around 3:05 pm the day after the main draft, at pick 7 in the rookie draft.

He was a nobody back then that didn’t register on anyone’s radar that day bar the most extreme of draft nerds here on BF but 4 years later he might just be the most important player we have.

If we didn’t cut hard on the list in that 2020 off season we wouldn’t have Josh Treacy right now.

Great post.

Agree.

This is the same reason I don't like being in players like Martin. They waste list spots.

 

[eastfreo75]

Personally I think these numbers are false - Let’s look at our picks between 2016 and 2021 and who’ll get to 50 games

2016
Logue - Yes
Darcy - Yes
Cox - Yes
Ryan - Yes

2017
Brayshaw - Yes
Cerra - Yes
Dixon - No
Crowden - No
North - No
Meek - Yes (May have already?)
Switta - Yes
Jones - No

2018
Sturt - Probably (based off fitness only)
Valente - No
Schultz- Yes
Bewley - No

2019
Young - Yes
Serong - Yes
Henry - Yes
Frederick - Yes

2020
Chapman - Yes (Is he there yet?)
O’Driscoll - 50/50
Walker - Yes
Western - No

2021
Amiss - Yes
Erasmus - 50/50
Johnson - Probably
Benning - No

Reality is IMO 50 games isn’t that many but even if that’s all they play they’d still added useful depth for 3-4 years minimum (assuming it’s a good team).

I’d say a strike rate of 30% would be closer to the success rate of getting to 50 games outside the first round tbh.

AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[Docker82]

It’s total listed AFL players, regardless of where they were drafted, as far as I know.
You forgot guys like
Jason carter
Ryan nyhuis
Taylin Duman
Jarvis Pina
Isiah butters
Leno thomas
Dylan o reilly
Sebit kuek
Strnardica
Grey
Deluca
Giro
Watson
Worner
Williams
Reidy

I know these guys are generally less likely to play more games than higher draft picks, but they are still AFL players taking up list spots.

I listed all National Draft picks between 2016 and 2021. All names you’ve listed above are either rookies or drafted earlier than that. FWIW I don’t think it gets much worse if you go back to 2013 to include guys like Grey and Deluca. It’s 1/3 for 2013, 3/4 for 2014 and 2/4 for 2015 i.e. slightly over 50%.

Going back to your original post, if you’re talking about National Draft picks there’s a much greater chance than 30% a player plays 50 games. It’s common sense really - the higher the draft selection, the higher the chance is of getting a guy that adds useful depth to list or is a best 22.

Once you’ve used your top 40-50 selections (let’s say it depends on the year) it’s very much down to where your list is at IMO - Some random depth player probably gets cut in a rebuild to take pick 50-odd or an extra rookie but probably gets is retained if you’re looking be top four the next year. We’re not quite there yet but we’re close enough we should be thinking that’s possible next year.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

Great post.

Agree.

This is the same reason I don't like being in players like Martin. They waste list spots.

It would be nice to think that the club considered it, did it’s due diligence & then decided ‘no thanks’

 

[Dockeroo]

I listed all National Draft picks between 2016 and 2021. All names you’ve listed above are either rookies or drafted earlier than that. FWIW I don’t think it gets much worse if you go back to 2013 to include guys like Grey and Deluca. It’s 1/3 for 2013, 3/4 for 2014 and 2/4 for 2015 i.e. slightly over 50%.

Going back to your original post, if you’re talking about National Draft picks there’s a much greater chance than 30% a player plays 50 games. It’s common sense really - the higher the draft selection, the higher the chance is of getting a guy that adds useful depth to list or is a best 22.

Once you’ve used your top 40-50 selections (let’s say it depends on the year) it’s very much down to where your list is at IMO - Some random depth player probably gets cut in a rebuild to take pick 50-odd or an extra rookie but probably gets is retained if you’re looking be top four the next year. We’re not quite there yet but we’re close enough we should be thinking that’s possible next year.

I’d argue you need to be taking more not less rookie and late picks when you are in the top 4.
Geelong certainly don’t seem to turn over their list any less aggressively in the last 15 years or so.

They are the most active club in Ireland for example, and always seems to be rookie drafting guys like Dempsey, Close, Atkins, and using late picks on Humphries and the likes.

My point has always been that 18 months or two years is ample time for a rookie to demonstrate what they can do or even show signs of being a future piece, and if the club believes they won’t make it after seeing them for that duration as a listed player - ship them out and get the next one in.

Clinging on an extra year or two on the list to the likes of Sebit Kuek, Isiah Butters, Eric Benning, Jarvis Pina, Jason Carter, Tobe Watson, even Ethan Stanley this year potentially, means there’s less chances of finding those diamonds in the rough like Treacy and Draper.

Its a bit different for top 30 picks as the sunk cost fallacy becomes a genuine issue for all clubs so they often give an extra year or years for players to show they are at the level when drafted in this range.

 

[Purple Suit]

If you want to know the importance of turning over list spots regularly (more than what most people on here because they get too emotionally attached to fringe players) just take a look back at what we did in the 2020 off season.
We delisted a heap that year and even re rookied some who became UFAs such as Schultz (infamously) and Banfield.

But it crucially freed up the list spots to roll the dice on a young tall forward at around 3:05 pm the day after the main draft, at pick 7 in the rookie draft.

He was a nobody back then that didn’t register on anyone’s radar that day bar the most extreme of draft nerds here on BF but 4 years later he might just be the most important player we have.

If we didn’t cut hard on the list in that 2020 off season we wouldn’t have Josh Treacy right now.

Treacy is an interesting case. He broke out in his 4th season but didn’t have much more than glimpses through the other years. But he got games as we had very few options and he managed to get past his competition.

The game time opportunity ship has sailed, you need to perform or not play. There are no longer development spots in the team. Therefore the chances of a rookie hitting our list in 2024 & breaking out in 2028 are probably tiny. Especially since there is no Covid to mask a rookie picks production.

Who ever fills those last few list spots probably needs to be a mature age player for more impact. Keeping them or picking up a new one doesn’t really matter.

 

[freo_leo29]

I'm just annoyed how much baker is gonna cost

If our plan is to play him as the defensive mid that we are sorely lacking then I can see why we want him so bad tbh

 

[Docker82]

I’d argue you need to be taking more not less rookie and late picks when you are in the top 4.
Geelong certainly don’t seem to turn over their list any less aggressively in the last 15 years or so.

They are the most active club in Ireland for example, and always seems to be rookie drafting guys like Dempsey, Close, Atkins, and using late picks on Humphries and the likes.

My point has always been that 18 months or two years is ample time for a rookie to demonstrate what they can do or even show signs of being a future piece, and if the club believes they won’t make it after seeing them for that duration as a listed player - ship them out and get the next one in.

Clinging on an extra year or two on the list to the likes of Sebit Kuek, Isiah Butters, Eric Benning, Jarvis Pina, Jason Carter, Tobe Watson, even Ethan Stanley this year potentially, means there’s less chances of finding those diamonds in the rough like Treacy and Draper.

Its a bit different for top 30 picks as the sunk cost fallacy becomes a genuine issue for all clubs so they often give an extra year or years for players to show they are at the level when drafted in this range.

I do think I agree with the overall point you're trying to make having argued many times we should always take 3-4 picks minimum in National Draft. I'd normally want five new players brought in overall tbh.

My reasoning for thinking slightly different this year is I think they'll be 6-7 changes next year tbh.

If we keep players like Knobel or Emmett I can easily see them surviving the cull in 2025 and our list simply benefits from that.