List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2

[George Kramer]

This argument comes up time & time again. It pisses me off, because it is so ****ing dumb!

Every single club can point to a selection most years, and say player X was taken 1-2 picks after we selected player Y... Player X turned out to be a gun, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, 4 years after the fact, while player Y never made it. There is nothing to be gained by this - some players make it, others don't. That's the nature of AFL football - it always has been, and it always will be.

The argument has some relevance when discussing failed picks at the top end of the draft (e.g. McAsey), but it makes no sense at all when discussing speculative picks waaay down the order - like Davis (pick 75), or anyone taken in the RD or PSSP.

Picks taken at 70+ (including the RD & PSSP) have less than a 10% chance of making it to 100 games. Every one of these players has fundamental flaws in their game, which is why they are taken so late in the draft. Some will be able to overcome those flaws, but most won't. It's a total craps shoot, with luck being the main determinant on draft day.

It’s pisses you off? Adelaide board, you know what to do.

Can’t believe we took Matthew Signorello at 62 over Luke Ryan at 66 in the 2016 draft.

 

[crow2crow]

I don't know how you can say we didn't need a ruckman in 2016, when we drafted one in 2018 who was 23 years old.

Taking a 21/22 year old like Marshall or McInerney in 2016, and taking the 23 year old Strachan in 2018, is virtually the same thing. It's just figuring out you need one earlier, and developing that player over a couple of years, compared to drafting a ruckman who is more mature later.

Even if we "didn't need" one in 2018 and only needed a backup... well if we had taken a better ruckman in 2016 and developed them for a couple of years, guess what? We would have had a better backup.

When nine clubs took ruckman in 2016, two of which took more than one, do you reckon they were just speculating on some late picks or had identified the draft as particularly strong for that type of player and acted accordingly? The clubs that correctly identified where it was better to speculate won, and that's the art of drafting in the later rounds.

its taking it when the talent is available to be taken not when you need it... which is why not getting dodson now after missing goad is a crime. i can only think they look at goad and think they will get him for virtually nothing end of next year as the developing ruck.

 

[Vader]

I don't know how you can say we didn't need a ruckman in 2016, when we drafted one in 2018 who was 23 years old.

Yeah... a low cost SANFL-based backup ruckman, who was never expected to be anything more than that.

Taking a 21/22 year old like Marshall or McInerney in 2016, and taking the 23 year old Strachan in 2018, is virtually the same thing. It's just figuring out you need one earlier, and developing that player over a couple of years, compared to drafting a ruckman who is more mature later.

But we didn't want or need to pick another ruckman earlier. They were already committed to ROB as Jacobs' heir apparent. All they needed was a replacement for Graham, as the cheap SANFL backup.

Even if we "didn't need" one in 2018 and only needed a backup... well if we had taken a better ruckman in 2016 and developed them for a couple of years, guess what? We would have had a better backup.

I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense at all.

When nine clubs took ruckman in 2016, two of which took more than one, do you reckon they were just speculating on some late picks or had identified the draft as particularly strong for that type of player and acted accordingly? The clubs that correctly identified where it was better to speculate won, and that's the art of drafting in the later rounds.

Good for them. We took ROB in 2014, and had no need for another developing ruckman in 2016. By that stage they knew that they had a decent player on their hands, and had no need to spend valuable resources on another developing ruckman.

We'd also drafted Paul Hunter in 2015...

 

[cmndstab]

Not taking an extra ruck back in 2016 or 2018 makes sense. You can see the argument for it.

Not having taken one in the last four years is pretty hard to square.

 

[Vader]

its taking it when the talent is available to be taken not when you need it... which is why not getting dodson now after missing goad is a crime. i can only think they look at goad and think they will get him for virtually nothing end of next year as the developing ruck.

We absolutely have a need now, for a developing ruckman - and 2023/24 would have been good drafts to land one. If the club were to delist a contracted player, trade back into the 2024 ND and grab Dodson, then I would be very happy. It's not going to happen, but I would be very happy if it did.

... but that's not what's being debated here.

This argument is about historic decisions, with Scorpus wanting to make arguments based on 6-8 years of hindsight, completely ignoring the needs of our team list back then.

 

[George Kramer]

We absolutely have a need now, for a developing ruckman - and 2023/24 would have been good drafts to land one. If the club were to delist a contracted player, trade back into the 2024 ND and grab Dodson, then I would be very happy. It's not going to happen, but I would be very happy if it did.

... but that's not what's being debated here.

This argument is about historic decisions, with Scorpus wanting to make arguments based on 6-8 years of hindsight, completely ignoring the needs of our team list back then.

ROB has sucked for the last 3 years and been dropped for the last 2. Taking a developing ruckman 6 years would have seen him in a position to challenge ROB in the last 2 years.

Of course there was a need.

Scorpus perhaps you can spell that out to him as he has me on ignore

 

[crow2crow]

We absolutely have a need now, for a developing ruckman - and 2023/24 would have been good drafts to land one. If the club were to delist a contracted player, trade back into the 2024 ND and grab Dodson, then I would be very happy. It's not going to happen, but I would be very happy if it did.

... but that's not what's being debated here.

This argument is about historic decisions, with Scorpus wanting to make arguments based on 6-8 years of hindsight, completely ignoring the needs of our team list back then.

Im not getting into that we cant fix history

I just want to win another flag(s) and soon.

If we are not mitigating the risk of ROB going down we are clearly happy to play TT in ruck next year and bring in Turray in his spot if ROB goes down. Strachan cant do it. Still burgess is a list clogger, on low money and could be paid out to give us the spot we need to trade back into this draft. But maybe they will do it.

Just tell burgers we are delisting you and will rerookie you if we dont trade back in and if youre not selected by another club.

 

[Scorpus]

We absolutely have a need now, for a developing ruckman - and 2023/24 would have been good drafts to land one. If the club were to delist a contracted player, trade back into the 2024 ND and grab Dodson, then I would be very happy. It's not going to happen, but I would be very happy if it did.

... but that's not what's being debated here.

This argument is about historic decisions, with Scorpus wanting to make arguments based on 6-8 years of hindsight, completely ignoring the needs of our team list back then.

Yeah I just fundamentally disagree that it's a hindsight call. Nine clubs taking ruckman in 2016, majority late in the draft, is not a coincidence. There were just four rucks drafted in 2015 (a bunch were traded).

We traded for Lowden in 2014, we drafted O'Brien in 2014, we drafted Hunter in 2015, we missed the best ruck draft of that era (2016) then later took Strachan in 2018 and traded for Frampton in 2019

Recruiters are paid to identify which drafts are strong for which types of player and position accordingly. I think it's a clear talent ID fail to bring in five new ruckman between 2014 and 2019, but miss the strong ruck draft where 11 rucks were taken and about half of them were first AFL ruck quality.

And the club clearly disagrees that during that period we didn't need a ruck

 

[Soggy2112]

i would have taken that for berry tbh
he would need to improve his disposal massively next year to be best 23 IMO

I too would have taken it but it doesn’t really get us into the top end of this draft that is being talked up.

Trade Berry for a pick in the 30-40s, give that for ANB or package it with 45 and later picks and trade up with one of the clubs that needed points to move up a bit.

This probably should have been our move. Don’t know whether Melbourne would have taken it but worth a shot.

The Swans delisted one of their young rucks, the 209cm McAndrew.

Worth a shot as one of our SANFL listed players? I haven't seen him play but picking up a ruck for our SANFL side might be a way to find one cheaply.

We should be rolling the dice on 2-3 cheap young ruck options until we find a serviceable ROB replacement. McAndrew definitely worth a rookie list spot I would say.

We just don’t seem to be making moves to free up that spot for some reason.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Seeing as ROB is an unrestricted free agent next year, I am expecting he will go back to Melbourne and Draper will come to us.

 

[crow2crow]

Yeah I just fundamentally disagree that it's a hindsight call. Nine clubs taking ruckman in 2016, majority late in the draft, is not a coincidence. There were just four rucks drafted in 2015 (a bunch were traded).

We traded for Lowden in 2014, we drafted O'Brien in 2014, we drafted Hunter in 2015, we missed the best ruck draft of that era (2016) then later took Strachan in 2018 and traded for Frampton in 2019

Recruiters are paid to identify which drafts are strong for which types of player and position accordingly. I think it's a clear talent ID fail to bring in five new ruckman between 2014 and 2019, but miss the strong ruck draft where 11 rucks were taken and about half of them were first AFL ruck quality.

And the club clearly disagrees that during that period we didn't need a ruck

What you're bringing up is that actually our ruck recruitment and trading has been shit. We tried again and again and everyone we get is useless. I be amazed if hamish and his team isnt gone after the draft

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How has Toby Murray gone in ruck in the SANFL?

 

[crow2crow]

I too would have taken it but it doesn’t really get us into the top end of this draft that is being talked up.




This probably should have been our move. Don’t know whether Melbourne would have taken it but worth a shot.




We should be rolling the dice on 2-3 cheap young ruck options until we find a serviceable ROB replacement. McAndrew definitely worth a rookie list spot I would say.

We just don’t seem to be making moves to free up that spot for some reason.

Its not the player its the list spot! So we can get a developing ruck

 

[crow2crow]

How has Toby Murray gone in ruck in the SANFL?

Minimal but yes

 

[Scorpus]

Not taking an extra ruck back in 2016 or 2018 makes sense. You can see the argument for it.

Not having taken one in the last four years is pretty hard to square.

I mean in 2015 we had Jacobs as our main ruck, Lowden as a mature backup (25 years old), the year prior we'd taken O'Brien as a developing ruck and we still decided to draft Hunter as a 22 year old

It would have been stupid to draft another ruck in 2016 but that's only because we made a mistake taking on so many other rucks before then and not putting in the work to identify ahead of time when the best year was for ruckman.

It was a random scattergun approach to replacing Jacobs that delivered us O'Brien but missed other potentially superior opportunities

 

[Scorpus]

What you're bringing up is that actually our ruck recruitment and trading has been shit. We tried again and again and everyone we get is useless. I be amazed if hamish and his team isnt gone after the draft

It's also interesting that we started this ruck recruiting when Jacobs was just 26 years old.

ROB is 29 years old and we have zero developing ruckman on the list. Maybe Toby Murray even though he seems more a forward-ruck. Even Lowden back in 2015 was just 24 years old. Our backup in Strachan is 29!

 

[El Doederino]

You really need 2 developing rucks to hedge your bets in case one doesn't work out.

 

[crow2crow]

You really need 2 developing rucks to hedge your bets in case one doesn't work out.

Spot on list shape is just wrong on ruck

 

[BrissyCrow]

At this point we have 2 options available to us (plus 2 variations), depending on where they see Welsh being drafted.

Option 1 - Match Welsh bid in ND
This requires us to upgrade 1 rookie (probably Keane) and move 2 players from the senior list to the rookie list (probably 2 of Schoenberg/Smith/Burgess). This will leave us with a 36+4 list structure going into the ND. We would then make a "live" selection with pick #4. We would then use pick 64 + 82 to match any bid on Welsh, or just take him at 64 if no bid eventuates.

Option 2 - Take Welsh in RD
This requires us to upgrade 2 rookies (probably Keane & Borlase) and move 2 players from the senior list to the rookie list. This would leave us with a 37+3 list structure going into the drafts. We would be unable to match any ND bids on Welsh, but would be able to pre-list him if he makes it through the ND & PSD unscathed. They wouldn't do this unless they were VERY confident that Welsh would not be selected in the ND/PSD.

Variation A - Changing to a 37+5 List Structure
This requires moving an extra player from the senior list to the rookie list (in addition to the previously identified list changes). The only benefit is that it gains us a little bit of extra money in the 2025 salary cap. Highly unlikely to happen.

Variation B - Changing to a 36+6 List Structure
This requires moving 2 extra players from the senior list to the rookie list (in addition to the previously identified list changes). The only benefit is that it gains us a little bit of extra money in the 2025 salary cap. Extremely unlikely to happen.

However, to answer your question...

Making a 3rd Live Selection in the ND/PSD/RD
The only way that this can happen is if a contracted player is traded or delisted (in addition to those being delisted as part of the process of moving them from the senior list to the rookie list). Silvers has stated that they are not expecting this to happen.

Really appreciate your updating us with your knowledge. Understanding all this stuff is getting too complicated. The concern I have is if we have a full list after the draft that means when the Mid Season draft comes around we dont have any room for taking someone in that draft. So are we allowed to delist someone to accomodate us taking a selection mid year if there is a player we want or need. A young ruck would be nice.

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

My hope would be that he plays 3 years at his current level (I think that’s realistic), then 2 years with a lesser output/role

With his fitness levels and training standards, I think that’s both realistic, and would be a win given what we gave up

And a lesser impactful, older ANB is still a better option than a Super Saiyan, evolved, spinach eating, transformed by the power of the Matrix version of Murphy.

 

[Vader]

Yeah I just fundamentally disagree that it's a hindsight call. Nine clubs taking ruckman in 2016, majority late in the draft, is not a coincidence. There were just four rucks drafted in 2015 (a bunch were traded).

We traded for Lowden in 2014, we drafted O'Brien in 2014, we drafted Hunter in 2015, we missed the best ruck draft of that era (2016) then later took Strachan in 2018 and traded for Frampton in 2019

Recruiters are paid to identify which drafts are strong for which types of player and position accordingly. I think it's a clear talent ID fail to bring in five new ruckman between 2014 and 2019, but miss the strong ruck draft where 11 rucks were taken and about half of them were first AFL ruck quality.

And the club clearly disagrees that during that period we didn't need a ruck

... and recruiters also have to take into account the list's actual needs. In 2016, that did not include a ruckman.

 

[Vader]

I mean in 2015 we had Jacobs as our main ruck, Lowden as a mature backup (25 years old), the year prior we'd taken O'Brien as a developing ruck and we still decided to draft Hunter as a 22 year old

It would have been stupid to draft another ruck in 2016 but that's only because we made a mistake taking on so many other rucks before then and not putting in the work to identify ahead of time when the best year was for ruckman.

It was a random scattergun approach to replacing Jacobs that delivered us O'Brien but missed other potentially superior opportunities

So, what you're saying is that we had 4 ruckmen on the list, and you think we should have added a 5th. 5 senior list positions used, to fill 1 position in the team.

Yeah... nah!