List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading

[1970crow]

I remember at the time of Burgess signing to the Crows, it was two years ....isn't 2 years the standard main list Contract minimum ?

No, the only mandated contract lengths are for draftees.

 

[ABAB]

I think he is bundling laird and crouch as the same which isnt fair.
I would be shocked if laird can have impact on the ball again. I agree so much on the borlase bond bit though.

they need him more yes

but they cant get the deal done unless one of their A graders leaves

If they give a 1st rounder for Lukosius and take on a majority of his lucrative remaining contract then it will as worst as us giving pick 25 for a 29 year old ANB.

 

[1970crow]

There's no set minimum when trading for players... but few players would transplant themselves to a different state without the security of a 2-year (minimum) contract.

He was returning home though.

 

[1970crow]

Another club might take a punt on Schoenberg but probably not

I'd suggest the player with the least value is probably Murphy, a dime a dozen forward that every side has one of (usually better). But he wouldn't be paid out due to his extremely high standing at the club.

Brodie Smith another good candidate, would have no interest as a 33 year old

But those are ruthless list decisions that we wouldn't make

To be honest, they're not even really all that ruthless. Smith delisting should have been the easiest list management call this year. All we needed to do was tell him what was going to happen and he could either retire or seek a trade. He only went public about playing on very late in the year, so we had plenty of time to sort this out. Murphy no real difference, tell him his AFL career is over with us and seek a trade, would be a risk that he doesn't get anywhere, but if we pay his contract, surely someone will park him on their list for a year.

 

[1970crow]

View attachment 2109628

His manager sure fleeced us lol.

How has he not been frontloaded? Criminal list management.

 

[Crow till I die]

The 2 year bit is strange for sure.
But he’s hardly a backup to a backup.
He played 9 games including a game with, Butts, Keane and Murray.

Maybe they have seen the improvement in his game and are keen to see him develop further?

 

[1970crow]

Those are just what a journalist/journalists think, there's no way they have every payers salary available to them. They're simply spitballing.

Pretty sure the AFL provide number of players in salary bands per club. They guess who the player is, but not the number in each range.

 

[1970crow]

We think we have all the elite young talent we need and just need to top up with some more experience.
I strongly disagree.

There is no doubt that we believe the build is finished. Which if designed to compete for a spot in the 6-10 range, it probably is. We've done exactly what I feared we would do.

 

[1970crow]

The 2 year bit is strange for sure.
But he’s hardly a backup to a backup.
He played 9 games including a game with, Butts, Keane and Murray.

He shouldn't have played a game with those 3 though. Was that the game he got moved forward for a half?

Our backline should be

Bond. Butts/Keane. Worrell
Hinge. Murray. Nank.
Bench - Jones, Curtin, Ryan, Milera

Next in for a tall is whichever of Butts/Keane isn't picked and then there's Borlase. How many teams play 3 slow, cumbersome style KPFs? I'd argue 2 195cm players is enough, it's easier to spoil than it is to mark and reality is that it's rarely contested marks in the F50 that are the difference, it's the uncontested and running goals that cause the most grief.

 

[rabidcrow]

There is no doubt that we believe the build is finished. Which if designed to compete for a spot in the 6-10 range, it probably is. We've done exactly what I feared we would do.

If we nail pick 4 this year there is no reason why we won’t be good enough to contend. Unfortunately with how our build is done we have 3-4 players 30 and over who have been b Greta players but are all falling away. 4-5 between 26-29 of which only a couple are quality and then we are pretty much 23 and under. Our list balance is totally out of whack. Hawks have around a dozen in that 25-29 space that are all good contributors
So it’s going to take time for our 20-22 yr olds to get the list back in shape


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[FR0GGY]

He shouldn't have played a game with those 3 though. Was that the game he got moved forward for a half?

Our backline should be

Bond. Butts/Keane. Worrell
Hinge. Murray. Nank.
Bench - Jones, Curtin, Ryan, Milera

Next in for a tall is whichever of Butts/Keane isn't picked and then there's Borlase. How many teams play 3 slow, cumbersome style KPFs? I'd argue 2 195cm players is enough, it's easier to spoil than it is to mark and reality is that it's rarely contested marks in the F50 that are the difference, it's the uncontested and running goals that cause the most grief.

Selection is a different issue, but given butts is regularly injured, Murray is coming off a serious knee (and injured it again) and Keane could be a chocolate or a boiled lolly very easily, I don’t see it as a big risk at all.

 

[1970crow]

If it was (pick 4), GC would have bitten off our arm for it

Gut feel is that Suns aren't negotiating based on having to quit him. They're valuing him as a contracted past pick 2 that has barely missed a game, has distinctive positive attribute, is in his prime and has many years ahead of him. I know he was recently dropped, but that's about lacking value in their system, not lack of value in the overall market.

 

[Crow till I die]

He shouldn't have played a game with those 3 though. Was that the game he got moved forward for a half?

Our backline should be

Bond. Butts/Keane. Worrell
Hinge. Murray. Nank.
Bench - Jones, Curtin, Ryan, Milera

Next in for a tall is whichever of Butts/Keane isn't picked and then there's Borlase. How many teams play 3 slow, cumbersome style KPFs? I'd argue 2 195cm players is enough, it's easier to spoil than it is to mark and reality is that it's rarely contested marks in the F50 that are the difference, it's the uncontested and running goals that cause the most grief.

Where is Max?

 

[Crow till I die]

If we nail pick 4 this year there is no reason why we won’t be good enough to contend. Unfortunately with how our build is done we have 3-4 players 30 and over who have been b Greta players but are all falling away. 4-5 between 26-29 of which only a couple are quality and then we are pretty much 23 and under. Our list balance is totally out of whack. Hawks have around a dozen in that 25-29 space that are all good contributors
So it’s going to take time for our 20-22 yr olds to get the list back in shape


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[1970crow]

If we nail pick 4 this year there is no reason why we won’t be good enough to contend. Unfortunately with how our build is done we have 3-4 players 30 and over who have been b Greta players but are all falling away. 4-5 between 26-29 of which only a couple are quality and then we are pretty much 23 and under. Our list balance is totally out of whack. Hawks have around a dozen in that 25-29 space that are all good contributors
So it’s going to take time for our 20-22 yr olds to get the list back in shape


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

There is no way that adding a successful pick 4 to our list results in us having a multi-year top 4 contending group. That said, the current crop of contending teams don't look like they'd stack up too well against the Cats or Hawks 3peat groups. It does seem more even, except Brisbane and Dogs, who's fully fit lists are incredibly stacked. They must benefit from the Costa living allowance too.

 

[1970crow]

Maybe they have seen the improvement in his game and are keen to see him develop further?

And a 1 year extension aligns perfectly with that.

 

[GreyCrow]

4-5 between 26-29 of which only a couple are quality and then we are pretty much 23 and under. Our list balance is totally out of whack. Hawks have around a dozen in that 25-29 space that are all good contributors

We have 9 in that age bracket - which I noticed you shrunk after I showed your previous 25-30 was also incorrect

Now as to the quality I wont argue that point - but Hawks would also say the same

 

[1970crow]

Selection is a different issue, but given butts is regularly injured, Murray is coming off a serious knee (and injured it again) and Keane could be a chocolate or a boiled lolly very easily, I don’t see it as a big risk at all.

It's uneccessary, we've also got Burgess who we touted as a swing man. We made the minimum number of changes last year and are doing it again this year. We'll keep Borlase for 2 years and then he'll be gone and he'll not have contributed to a flag push at all. If we get enough injuries and choose to keep playing 3 talls, maybe his selection helps us win a game or 2 and we finish 10th instead of 12th. There's just zero value in retaining known depth given where we presently sit.

 

[FR0GGY]

It's uneccessary, we've also got Burgess who we touted as a swing man. We made the minimum number of changes last year and are doing it again this year. We'll keep Borlase for 2 years and then he'll be gone and he'll not have contributed to a flag push at all. If we get enough injuries and choose to keep playing 3 talls, maybe his selection helps us win a game or 2 and we finish 10th instead of 12th. There's just zero value in retaining known depth given where we presently sit.

I think burgess is gone.

 

[1970crow]

I think burgess is gone.

A poster here has stated they know as a matter of fact that he is contracted for 2025. And it's not one of those look at me people. We just gave Borlase 2 years, it's not hard to see us adding a year to Burgess if he asked. And even without him, we need 2 injuries to 4 players before playing him and even then, we'd be playing 3 key talls and I'm not convinced that's ever necessary.

 

[1970crow]

Where is Max?

I initially had him in a back pocket, deleted him to move to half back and and then forgot about him altogether. Bond to bench options and Max to pocket. Even more obvious that Borlase spot should have been used on a speculative key back. Doubt there’s much difference in height between Max and Botlase, who is only 192cm anyway.

 

[crow2crow]

You seriously reckon that we have a list management committee that includes Roo, Kelly &Nix and JR just decides all by himself that we should extend Borlase by 2 years?

he has to sign it off.... they all as bad as each other

problem is with borlase its clearly objective because some on here think hes as good as butts murray and keane

 

[Crow till I die]

I initially had him in a back pocket, deleted him to move to half back and and then forgot about him altogether. Bond to bench options and Max to pocket. Even more obvious that Borlase spot should have been used on a speculative key back. Doubt there’s much difference in height between Max and Botlase, who is only 192cm anyway.

Body strength wise, borlase is much the stronger hence why he can play key back. Max is suited to the mid sized forwards and small forwards but he should be first picked in any backline we have...absolute quality player

 

[crow2crow]

A poster here has stated they know as a matter of fact that he is contracted for 2025. And it's not one of those look at me people. We just gave Borlase 2 years, it's not hard to see us adding a year to Burgess if he asked. And even without him, we need 2 injuries to 4 players before playing him and even then, we'd be playing 3 key talls and I'm not convinced that's ever necessary.

fiveaa have reiterated three times this week that burgess is out of contract. maybe he is maybe he isnt but they probably know hes going and don't understand the intricacies of contracts. it is very odd that footywires data changed three days ago...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Actually FWIW, I think we might have a similar setup re cumming and Hamill. If we don't get cumming Hamill will be retained.

These suggest that the club doesn't consider Luko or Cumming to be done deals. Far from it.

We should be retaining Hamill over Smith!