List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

adelaidecrows said:
There is 0% punishment for changing our mind. They are delisted. It also depends on the wording off the promise. If we said outright that we will redraft them in the rookie draft and we dont, the AFLPA will be pretty pissed and it is a dog act by the club that will look incredibly poor by the playing group and the wider player and player manager population. But if we said we are considering our options and we will look at whats available but we will take them if its our best option well thats entirely different.
Click to expand...
We're not the only club committing to re-draft players we've delisted - Collingwood, Sydney, Fremantle, Brisbane, Norf, Hawthorn, GWS and Richmond are all doing the same thing.

There is a 100% guarantee that these clubs will all re-draft the players they delisted, provided they are still available at their picks in the RD.
adelaidecrows said:
This is all semantics anyway. We wouldnt have done it with the press release of the promise if there was the possibility of walking away from the deal. Afterall this is the club that has kept players on the rookie system who have retired and to pay medical bills. So I doubt we would be this ruthless.
Click to expand...
The reason we kept Gibbs on the list after his retirement is because we couldn't afford to pay out his contract and include it in the previous year's salary cap. We are not the only club to have found themselves in this predicament - Brisbane famously had to keep Voss on their list after his retirement for the very same reason.
adelaidecrows said:
Both players at this stage would know they are done and wont play AFL footy next year, I guess its up to them whether they pursue the promise and commit to a preseason or tell the club they want out and go play Sanfl or VFL etc. Either way the club has to pay them the contract because they are delisted.
Click to expand...
The difference is that their salaries need to be included in the 2024 salary cap (mostly spent already) if they're not re-drafted, whereas it goes in the 2025 cap if they are.

Presumably the club would have worked through this with the players before delisting them.
 
Vader said:
We're not the only club committing to re-draft players we've delisted - Collingwood, Sydney, Fremantle, Brisbane, Norf, Hawthorn, GWS and Richmond are all doing the same thing.

There is a 100% guarantee that these clubs will all re-draft the players they delisted, provided they are still available at their picks in the RD.

The reason we kept Gibbs on the list after his retirement is because we couldn't afford to pay out his contract and include it in the previous year's salary cap. We are not the only club to have found themselves in this predicament - Brisbane famously had to keep Voss on their list after his retirement for the very same reason.

The difference is that their salaries need to be included in the 2024 salary cap (mostly spent already) if they're not re-drafted, whereas it goes in the 2025 cap if they are.

Presumably the club would have worked through this with the players before delisting them.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I always thought payouts were done in accordance with the originally agreed contract (ie 2025 payment included in 2025 cap)

I guess it makes it not as easy to cut players mid-contract, given it’s something you can’t really plan for
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Danger in Texas said:
Interesting. I always thought payouts were done in accordance with the originally agreed contract (ie 2025 payment included in 2025 cap)

I guess it makes it not as easy to cut players mid-contract, given it’s something you can’t really plan for
Click to expand...
If a contracted player is delisted in 2024, the following rules apply:
  • If they're re-drafted to the same club, they simply resume their existing contract, with the salary included in the 2025 salary cap as normal.
  • If they're not picked up by any club, then they get paid out, and the payout is included in the club's 2024 salary cap.
  • If they're picked up by another club, then their current club is liable for any difference between their current contract and their contract with their new club (assuming the new club is paying less). The current club's payments are included in the 2025 salary cap.
 
Cromulant said:
Can't see Port doing that, especially as you'd think Soldo will sook up again and try to leave.

But I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
If we can convince him to ask for a trade they wont really have a choice. He will be out of contract at the end of next year.

Seeing as though Sweet has locked down the number 1 ruck spot and he is only 26, Visentini will either need to accept he will be the back up option at Port for the next 5 years, or look to move to another club where he would have a better shot at taking that role sooner. ROB is 4 years older and there is no other real competition for that spot, so he may look at us a a more attractive option.
 
WaynesWorld19 said:
No

Minimum main draft position requires a 2 year Contract .....Rookie spots allow for a one year Contract

I like the try B4 you buy aspect of the Rookie ....I agree, call it by another name, maybe Supplementary List .....but the Club gets to look at how a player who was overlooked in the Draft (s) applies himself to improving
Click to expand...
Just make everyone picked after 50 a one year contract, if that's your issue. It doesn't need a whole other list.
 
Talk on gettable suggests we for some reason want to move to pick 2 from 4, how on earth and why on earth would we do that.

I get the whole getting the player we want thing, but I don’t think we can go wrong with whoever’s there at 4 and I don’t think it’s worth throwing future picks away to slide up 2 spots


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Chezzel said:
Talk on gettable suggests we for some reason want to move to pick 2 from 4, how on earth and why on earth would we do that.

I get the whole getting the player we want thing, but I don’t think we can go wrong with whoever’s there at 4 and I don’t think it’s worth throwing future picks away to slide up 2 spots


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
I listened to it, he didn’t say we were after pick 2, he said of interest would be if we went for pick 2 and North slid to pick 4. He then went on to say we don’t have the capital to make it happen
 
I did this analysis last year when we were discussing replacing ROB. Given that we are STILL just discussing replacing ROB, I thought that I’d rerun the numbers to see just how hard it is to bring in a good ruck.

In 2024, there were 67 rucks (including ruck-forwards and ruck-defenders) on AFL lists. 52 of whom got at least one game in 2024, with 22 of these playing 15 or more games. Three of these rucks were classified as elite (top 10%), being Gawn, Marshall and Xerri, with the Big O, Grundy and Jackson just outside elite. All of the elite rucks joined their current club via a draft, with 2 of the 3 fringe elites traded in. Luke Jackson was a top 5 pick, both at the draft and in trade. Grundy was a first round pick, but traded for pick 40 to Sydney. Gawn was drafted at 34, with everyone else a late to rookie pick.

Another 10 were classified as above average for 2024, including our own ROB. Alleged trade target Sam Draper wasn’t in this group.

In my view, what we need is a 1st ruck that is competitive. But I’m not fussed if it’s not much more than that, so long as we don’t expend a heap of draft capital. So, I’ve classified a successful ruck as a player that averages 15 or more games a year for three or more years. That doesn’t mean we won’t get a better ruck than that with that same exact approach, as the current top 16 rucks shows.

It’s unusual for a ruck under 24 to be getting more than a handful of games, unless they primarily play a position other than ruck. So, I’ve adjusted years played to exclude years where rucks were 23 or under.

I’ve also considered players as fringe payers where they didn’t meet the success criteria, but did play:
  • 15 or more a year (adj) for less than 3 years (adj), or
  • 50 or more games or
  • 10 or more a year (adj) for 3 or more years (adj)
Since the 2010 draft period, clubs have used the draft or trade to bring in a ruck on 229 occasions. Only 40 of these (17%) were best 22 players, 26 (12%) fringe rucks and 133 (58%) fails. There are another 31 (14%) where it’s too early to tell.

But we can cut that down pretty quickly:
  • 92% of Cat-b rookies fail. Mason Cox (113 games at 12.6 a year) the only “success” from 26 attempts. Ivan Soldo (57 games at 6.3 per year for Richmond) the only other not to fail.
  • 84% of rucks drafted at 22 years or older fail. The Big O and Josh Walker at (third club) North the only success stories from 48 attempts. The fails were all delisted or retired.
  • 63% of rucks traded at 25 years or older fail, with only 24% resulting in best 22 players for their new club, from 38 attempts. Jordon Sweet (25 at the time) is the only success that wasn’t already a best 22 player in at least one of the 2 previous seasons when traded. Only 3 of the fails were traded out, with Grundy (from Melbourne) the only success of those traded.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

But after removing those key risks, drafted rucks were:
Top 5 - 2 from 2
Top 10 - 0 from 1 (+1 too early to tell)
Top 20 - 2 from 4 (+2 too early)
Top 30 - 1 from 3, 1 fringe (+4 too early)
Top 40 - 3 from 6, 1 fringe (+3 too early)
Late/ Rookie - 7 from 34, 9 fringe (+16 too early)

The story with trades is more positive:
Top 5 - 1 from 1
Top 10 - 0 from 0
Top 20 - 2 from 3
Top 30 - 1 from 6, 3 fringe
Top 40 - 1 from 2, 1 fringe
Late/ Rookie - 6 from 11, 1 fringe
Player - 1 from 2

Key takeaways:
  • If you can trade in an existing top 22 ruck, it doesn't matter that they are older than 24. Otherwise, stay young.
  • It doesn't matter which pick you use to trade in a youing ruck, but after pick 30 has a 50% chance of getting a top 22 player, so look better bang for buck than an earlier picks
  • But there were only 25 trades for young rucks in the last 15 years, so leaving our next ruck to this option might be a bit risky
  • Rucks drafted from picks 31 to 40 have a 50% chance of getting a top 22 player, so look better bang for buck than earlier picks (unless there's a Luke Jackson or Nic Nat). It also looks better value than picking a non-ruck in this range. Avoid picks in the 20's.
  • Most drafted rucks are taken with late/ rookie picks and most of those fail. But it also doesn't cost you much to try.
  • Most drafted rucks take several years to become regular players, with the exception of ruck-fwds. So we might alreadty be out of time to draft ROB's replacement
 
The age demographics of first rucks is also interesting.

All but 2 first rucks are 25 to 33 years old, with between 1 and 3 first rucks for just about every age (3x 25yo, 3x26, 1x27, 3x29, 3x30, 1x32, 3x33).

It’s unusual for a ruck under 24 to be getting more than a handful of games, unless they primarily play a position other than ruck. Jackson (23) and Bailey Williams (24) are the only younger rucks holding down a first ruck position.

Suggesting 23 years old is where rucks start being able to hold down a first ruck spot and 25 is where even the third best ruck of that age could hold down that spot. They then hold that spot through to their 30s (unless a gun ruck comes through, as happened to 28 year old Marc Pittonet at Carlton). But only if they go past the ruck ahead of them (or one can hold down a key forward post, like Jackson). Otherwise, they will need to move clubs to become a first ruck.

We have been linked with Sam Draper, who is 26 and already a first ruck. Just not a very good first ruck. But we might be better off going a little younger.

Nine rucks aged 23 or under played games in 2023. Some better prospects to consider:

There is definite movement underway in Geelong’s ruck approach. But if Conway (21, 5 games in 2024 at 13.6 disposals, 2.4 marks) isn’t favoured by the end of 2025, he might be looking for more senior opportunities (and will be out of contract).

Ned Moyle (22, 8 games at 13.5 disposals, 2.6 marks) is clearly behind Witts and has the highly rated Read (19, 4 games in debut year) developing below him. Having just signed a 4-year extension, he probably isn’t on the table in 2025, but might be on offer the following year if Read catches up to him and Witts is (as expected) still leading the ruck.

If Nick Bryan (23, 5 games at 12.2 disposals, 2.2 marks) sees himself going past Draper in a year or 2, which he could, he might be hard to shake free. We might need to wait until 2026 or later to have a crack.

While none of these rucks are above average or elite yet, each are the best of their age group and should continue to improve through to 25 years old.

But if we are waiting that long, newer SA born rucks like Barnett (20, already getting games), Henry Smith (22, already getting games), Verrall (20), Goad (19), Dodson (18), Keeler (20) or Oscar Steene (21) might have shown enough by 2026. Vigo Visentini (19) might also be open to a move to the same town as his brother, if he comes on and Draper/ Bryan are ahead of him at Essendon.
 
Big Dub said:
The age demographics of first rucks is also interesting.

All but 2 first rucks are 25 to 33 years old, with between 1 and 3 first rucks for just about every age (3x 25yo, 3x26, 1x27, 3x29, 3x30, 1x32, 3x33).

It’s unusual for a ruck under 24 to be getting more than a handful of games, unless they primarily play a position other than ruck. Jackson (23) and Bailey Williams (24) are the only younger rucks holding down a first ruck position.

Suggesting 23 years old is where rucks start being able to hold down a first ruck spot and 25 is where even the third best ruck of that age could hold down that spot. They then hold that spot through to their 30s (unless a gun ruck comes through, as happened to 28 year old Marc Pittonet at Carlton). But only if they go past the ruck ahead of them (or one can hold down a key forward post, like Jackson). Otherwise, they will need to move clubs to become a first ruck.

We have been linked with Sam Draper, who is 26 and already a first ruck. Just not a very good first ruck. But we might be better off going a little younger.

Nine rucks aged 23 or under played games in 2023. Some better prospects to consider:

There is definite movement underway in Geelong’s ruck approach. But if Conway (21, 5 games in 2024 at 13.6 disposals, 2.4 marks) isn’t favoured by the end of 2025, he might be looking for more senior opportunities (and will be out of contract).

Ned Moyle (22, 8 games at 13.5 disposals, 2.6 marks) is clearly behind Witts and has the highly rated Read (19, 4 games in debut year) developing below him. Having just signed a 4-year extension, he probably isn’t on the table in 2025, but might be on offer the following year if Read catches up to him and Witts is (as expected) still leading the ruck.

If Nick Bryan (23, 5 games at 12.2 disposals, 2.2 marks) sees himself going past Draper in a year or 2, which he could, he might be hard to shake free. We might need to wait until 2026 or later to have a crack.

While none of these rucks are above average or elite yet, each are the best of their age group and should continue to improve through to 25 years old.

But if we are waiting that long, newer SA born rucks like Barnett (20, already getting games), Henry Smith (22, already getting games), Verrall (20), Goad (19), Dodson (18), Keeler (20) or Oscar Steene (21) might have shown enough by 2026. Vigo Visentini (19) might also be open to a move to the same town as his brother, if he comes on and Draper/ Bryan are ahead of him at Essendon.
Click to expand...
Very extensive run down. It's the definition of 'success' that is the issue in our case. ROB is best 22, 1st ruck, plays vast majority of games but given his lack of basic skills, he doesn't successfully contribute to the team. I'd like to see us break the mould and prioritise a player in that position that contributes to the team in terms of general play within the game style and de-prioritise winning taps, given that doesn't help wins games.
 
Captain Furious said:
Very extensive run down. It's the definition of 'success' that is the issue in our case. ROB is best 22, 1st ruck, plays vast majority of games but given his lack of basic skills, he doesn't successfully contribute to the team. I'd like to see us break the mould and prioritise a player in that position that contributes to the team in terms of general play within the game style and de-prioritise winning taps, given that doesn't help wins games.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.

The difference between a good and great tap ruck is outweighed by 2 more marks and 5 more kicks around the ground.
 
Big Dub said:
Absolutely agree.

The difference between a good and great tap ruck is outweighed by 2 more marks and 5 more kicks around the ground.
Click to expand...
Agree, a Rohan Marshall type is my preference.
An athlete around the ground, a massive threat when forward ( expect more goals from him this coming season ) and very competent at ground level.
Can see Sam Darcy doubling his CBA’s this year to around 25%, having either him or English forward at all times .
And although unpopular I would have Thilthorpe doing the same if we had a decent ruck to replicate that set up.
 
Floating Doughnut said:
Agree, a Rohan Marshall type is my preference.
An athlete around the ground, a massive threat when forward ( expect more goals from him this coming season ) and very competent at ground level.
Can see Sam Darcy doubling his CBA’s this year to around 25%, having either him or English forward at all times .
And although unpopular I would have Thilthorpe doing the same if we had a decent ruck to replicate that set up.
Click to expand...
Yep, no room for dinosaurs any more.
 
spenze said:
What about clumsy Shrek like oafs?
Click to expand...
Just my 2 cents on the xtra big guys.

Sean Darcy has just the wrong body by 10 kgs and he can’t get rid of it, Great tap ruck , around the ground and forward mark and accurate kick. Not built for the modern game, teams cut back into the corridor when he plants himself down the line now. Injury issues with his bulk only 12 and 14 games last two years.

Briggs : I was expecting a dominant year just didn’t happen.

Preuss : too big and continually injured

Witts : Bit like Sean Darcy in mobility, injuries and teams go around him now, that’s why he is statistically getting half the marks of Max or Marshall, replaced by Moyle next couple of years much more mobile.

Tristan Xerri : Big but also becoming a lot more mobile, starting to provide an option around ground now and still learning.
Really like him.


The change in ruck rules was meant to help these guys but I’m not sure that played out as thought.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2

Similar threads

1990crow
List Mgmt. 2025 List Mismanagement and Trading
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
731
Views
28K
GreyCrow
GreyCrow
1990crow
  • Locked
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading
400 401 402 403 404
Replies
10K
Views
520K
Vader
Vader
ams4crows
  • Locked
Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 2
409 410 411 412 413
Replies
10K
Views
445K
Jarman3
J
George Kramer
2024 AFL Trade Period
Replies
6
Views
663
Crow-eater
Crow-eater
ams4crows
Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 3
143 144 145 146 147
Replies
4K
Views
107K
Danger in Texas
Danger in Texas
NTRabbit
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management Resource Compilation Thread with Key Post-Season Dates
Replies
13
Views
1K
NTRabbit
NTRabbit
Crows I Am
List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading (Part 2)
143 144 145 146 147
Replies
4K
Views
189K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top