List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2

[Dangarman]

So I make the state of play something like this:

Prior to trade period, we had 34 contracts on the primary list and 4 rookies (34/4). We will bring in Cumming, Neal-Bullen and Peatling, taking us to 37/4. Primary list is max 38, and we have to add 3 to the primary list during the ND, whether they be picks, F/S or rookie upgrades. Hence 2 contracted primary list players must be de-listed with the intention of being reselected in the rookie draft. I'm pretty sure there's no candidates for the LTI list at present.

Delisting 2 players and assuming they re-appear as rookies puts us at 35/6.
Pick 4 and Welsh appears to be the current plan, which takes us to 37/6, a total of 43 players of a max 44.

Then the third move in the ND process is to either (1) upgrade a current rookie (38/5 = 43) or (2) another late pick taking us to a full house 38/6.

Option (1) means we can either keep a spot vacant or make a selection in the rookie draft.

 

[Mutineer]

There's no sign of Josh wanting to go anywhere. Got his brother over here now too.

Seems to be pretty close to Izak too..

 

[Vader]

So I make the state of play something like this:

Prior to trade period, we had 34 contracts on the primary list and 4 rookies (34/4). We will bring in Cumming, Neal-Bullen and Peatling, taking us to 37/4. Primary list is max 38, and we have to add 3 to the primary list during the ND, whether they be picks, F/S or rookie upgrades. Hence 2 contracted primary list players must be de-listed with the intention of being reselected in the rookie draft. I'm pretty sure there's no candidates for the LTI list at present.

Delisting 2 players and assuming they re-appear as rookies puts us at 35/6.
Pick 4 and Welsh appears to be the current plan, which takes us to 37/6, a total of 43 players of a max 44.

Then the third move in the ND process is to either (1) upgrade a current rookie (38/5 = 43) or (2) another late pick taking us to a full house 38/6.

Option (1) means we can either keep a spot vacant or make a selection in the rookie draft.

Lots of errors here. Refer to this post in the Rumours and Speculation thread:

I'll spell it out for you in slow time. Here is the list mathematics since the start of the 2024 season.

We started the 2024 season with 38 senior list players and 4 rookie list players. Since then...
Turray (MSD) - IN - 38 senior 5 rookie
This is where we ended the season. Since then...
Sloane (ret) - OUT - 37 senior 5 rookie
Hamill (delist) - OUT - 37 senior 4 rookie
Parnell (delist) - OUT - 37 senior 3 rookie
McHenry (delist) - OUT - 36 senior 3 rookie
Gollant (delist) - OUT - 35 senior 3 rookie
Himmelberg (FA) - OUT - 34 senior 3 rookie
Cumming (FA) - IN - 35 senior 3 rookie
ANB (trade) - IN - 36 senior 3 rookie

When Peatling arrives, it will be 37 senior 3 rookie. That leaves just 2 vacancies combined, across our senior and Cat A rookie lists.

The AFL mandates that clubs make a minimum of 3 selections at the ND, with rookie upgrades counting towards the total. The only way we can satisfy this is by upgrading 1 rookie (most likely Keane), and transferring 2 contracted players from the senior list to the rookie list. This will leave us with 36 senior and 4 rookie.

The process of transferring players from the senior list to the rookie list requires them to be delisted before the ND, and then re-drafted in the RD. Thus, we can look forward to 2 senior listed players being delisted at some point, with the media release noting that we are committed to re-drafting them in the RD.

It is possible that Smith will be one of these transferred players. It is extremely unlikely that Laird will be transferred.

The only way we end up with any additional draft selections is if one of our contracted players is delisted or traded, or if one of the delisted senior players signs with another club as a DFA. None of these are likely outcomes.

** All the above calculations ignore Gallagher, who is a Cat B rookie. Cat B rookies are additional to the maximum 42 senior + Cat A rookie list players.

I will note that the LTI discussion is irrelevant. Players can't be placed on the Inactive List until after the drafts have concluded, and replacements can only be selected in the PSSP or MSD. Placing players on the Inactive List does not create vacancies which can be filled via the ND/PSD/RD, and you rightly point out that we don't have any eligible players anyway.

A "full house" as you put it is 38+4, 37+5, or 36+6 - a total of 42 players, across the senior & Cat A rookie lists. We're also permitted a maximum of 2 Cat B rookies, of which we currently have 1 (Gallagher), in addition to the 42.

 

[TBM]

There's no sign of Josh wanting to go anywhere. Got his brother over here now too.

Girlfriend's from Adelaide as well I believe.

 

[jenny61_99]

spot on and lime darling, welsh will look a lot bigger than that on field

also scott welsh was only 188 and nowhere near the size of tyler

Tyler still has growing years ahead.

 

[crow2crow]

Tyler still has growing years ahead.

exactly i just saw what the auto correct did to my post. too funny

 

[jenny61_99]

exactly i just saw what the auto correct did to my post. too funny

I did wonder!

 

[BRL121]

Tyler still has growing years ahead.

Hopefully, not in the paunch area.

 

[GreyCrow]

It would, but if it was all part of the plan to get Sharp next year, then that would be "aggressive" and I would eat my words.

Once we have Peatling locked in, the plan should be all out how do we get in the best position to draft Sharp next year even if we make finals. Then we can have the next premiership dynasty with Draper & Sharp in midfield. It would take something big though, and you have to give up to get, so the likes of Laird and Jones won't cut it.

We dont do forward thinking

Imagine WC with Reid and Draper for the next 7 years

Look at the history - clubs apart from North - seem to be able to grab 2 players in the one year or in consecutive years

Its basic list strategy

 

[NTRabbit]

Tyler still has growing years ahead.

He may or he may not, not every man keeps growing up to the age of 21, some top out in their mid to late teens like most girls do, it's the genetic luck of the draw

 

[NTRabbit]

Scott was a FF for us ....191 cm FF are normal

Tex is only 194cm & not really the jumper Tyler is

Same thing was said about Jack Darling in his Draft Year ...."an in between size, what's his role at AFL level"

298 games later ......

View attachment 2134818

Scott Welsh was 20 years ago. There are mids running around these days taller than the KPPs of the 90s, and even one or two mids taller than a couple ruckmen of the period. Times change.

And Jack Darling also slid down the draft order in his draft year because he was a tweener. He still made a long career for himself as a medium forward, but that didn't change perceptions at draft time or where he played, which is the entire thrust of what I'm writing that half of you don't seem to want to read.

 

[Bazz_27]

Not sure if anyone else is thinking the same way as me but our current best midfield and wings would be something like the below:

Mids - Crouch, Soligo/Dawson , Rankine/ANB, Berry
Wings - Cumming, Soligo / Dawson, Shol.

We also have to add Peatling & pick 4 into that mix with Curtin, Dowling, taylor, Edwards, Nank (wing?) etc coming.

To me it means that as everyone knows that Harry won't be playing again. Smith as well. Paying out Smith's contract I assume is difficult unless he retires.

What about Shol, I would trade him. Just had his best season but is ultimately going to slip down the order with these young kids coming in. Opens up another spot for us to play a younger kid too.

 

[PeterSalt]

Scott Welsh was 20 years ago. There are mids running around these days taller than the KPPs of the 90s, and even one or two mids taller than a couple ruckmen of the period. Times change.

And Jack Darling also slid down the draft order in his draft year because he was a tweener. He still made a long career for himself as a medium forward, but that didn't change perceptions at draft time or where he played, which is the entire thrust of what I'm writing that half of you don't seem to want to read.

Always thought Darling slid after getting into some mischief with alcohol and girls at a party?

 

[Vader]

Always thought Darling slid after getting into some mischief with alcohol and girls at a party?

It was at a school camp, from memory.

 

[DJ75]

sounds Accurate

Back up what I’ve been saying. We overpaid for ANB, when there was absolutely no reason to.
It was dumb.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Back up what I’ve been saying. We overpaid for ANB, when there was absolutely no reason to.
It was dumb.

Interesting to hear that most media talking heads are saying we got the better end of the deal

I still think 28 was probably a bit of an overpay (IMO he’s worth somewhere between 30-35), but given that pick will slide out to 32-ish on draft night I’m not overly fussed

 

[DJ75]

I still wouldn't be surprised if over the course of this trade period, there is a trade out.

Surprised there is no talk on Rachele. Surely a Melbourne-based club would have made enquiries.

Also think Butts might have some interest now that Keane has been re-signed.

I don't think any of our midfield options would be of interest. I do remember part-way through this year, there was talk of clubs look at Dowling when he wasn't getting a game with us. He would be most likely.

Part of an "aggressive" trade strategy would also mean aggressively turning over players as well. The re-signing of Berry was disappointing as it limited how aggressive we could be.

We absolutely should be encouraging players to explore options.
Laird, Butts, Berry should be high on the list. As should Chayce and Schoenberg.
They should all be looking for opportunities elsewhere.

 

[DJ75]

Interesting to hear that most media talking heads are saying we got the better end of the deal

I still think 28 was probably a bit of an overpay (IMO he’s worth somewhere between 30-35), but given that pick will slide out to 32-ish on draft night I’m not overly fussed

Are most of them Victorian?

 

[Danger in Texas]

Are most of them Victorian?

I mean I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole, even if they did go full Vic bias wouldn’t they be screaming from the mountains that Melb won the trade?

 

[Mutineer]

Scott was a FF for us ....191 cm FF are normal

Tex is only 194cm & not really the jumper Tyler is

Same thing was said about Jack Darling in his Draft Year ...."an in between size, what's his role at AFL level"

298 games later ......

View attachment 2134818

Tyler is good overhead but he's no jumper as you put it, he wins most of his marks on the lead with his acceleration or in a body on body contest.

 

[Betts are off]

Interesting convo on FF heights and how its shifted. I've been wondering for a while whether the shift towards these giants as permanent FFs is actually benefitting teams as much as they think it is.

Or is it just getting a bunch of super tall, bad kickers more shots on goals then they really deserve.

You think to the top 10 goalkickers in history, and they are almost exclusively super talented, mid sized, leading players.
Lockett: 191cm
Coventry: 183cm
Dunstall: 188cm
Franklin: 199cm
Wade: 188cm
Ablett: 185cm
Titus: 175cm
Lloyd: 192cm
Mathews: 178cm
McKenna 191cm

Go further down the list and the really tall players start to pop up a bit, but perhaps its time for a renaissance for the mid size full forward (who can actually kick straight).

 

[rabidcrow]

So I make the state of play something like this:

Prior to trade period, we had 34 contracts on the primary list and 4 rookies (34/4). We will bring in Cumming, Neal-Bullen and Peatling, taking us to 37/4. Primary list is max 38, and we have to add 3 to the primary list during the ND, whether they be picks, F/S or rookie upgrades. Hence 2 contracted primary list players must be de-listed with the intention of being reselected in the rookie draft. I'm pretty sure there's no candidates for the LTI list at present.

Delisting 2 players and assuming they re-appear as rookies puts us at 35/6.
Pick 4 and Welsh appears to be the current plan, which takes us to 37/6, a total of 43 players of a max 44.

Then the third move in the ND process is to either (1) upgrade a current rookie (38/5 = 43) or (2) another late pick taking us to a full house 38/6.

Option (1) means we can either keep a spot vacant or make a selection in the rookie draft.

You can only have 42 players on your list - not 44 (excluding cat B)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Mutineer]

I mean I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole, even if they did go full Vic bias wouldn’t they be screaming from the mountains that Melb won the trade?

I don't think we overpaid given he had 2 years on his contract. We did the fair thing considering at this point the Demons seem to be the big losers re the origin of the original pick and given McAdam's 2024 season.

 

[Danger in Texas]

I don't think we overpaid given he had 2 years on his contract. We did the fair thing considering at this point the Demons seem to be the big losers re the origin of the original pick and given McAdam's 2024 season.

Overall if we can basically get ANB and Peatling for this and next year’s 2nds (and I think we will), it’s good business

Will be interesting to see if McAdam can improve on his 2024 season, or if he crashes and burns

 

[LoBu]

It's not just about the height, it's about how everything else scales up with height - a 7.5cm difference in height (compared to the typical minimum height of emerging KPDs) makes for roughly double that difference in wingspan, and when you're sticking your arms up in the air the difference becomes much more pronounced. Some aspects of that can be overcome with superior athleticism, in particular standing and running verts, which is how Naitanui could hurdle leaden lumps like ROB, but practically speaking guys with that kind of advantage are rare.

e: Not saying Naitanui was too short, just that he's an example of a guy with springs for legs

(Height-length of neck)/Wingspan + (running leap/ vertical leap)= Adjusted Height Ratio