List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading

[FullyBigKPro]

Our list is dripping in mediocrity and still haven't announced 1 delisting....

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Our list is dripping in mediocrity and still haven't announced 1 delisting....

That's probably your worst take ....just emotional clap trap, with zero analysis

I'll take our list over Ports anyday .....I also think Gold Coast's list is superb

Results don't necessarily reflect list quality ....some are mature, some are developing .....hitching your opinion to a win/loss indicator of list quality, is paper thin

 

[Soggy2112]

That's probably your worst take ....just emotional clap trap, with zero analysis

I'll take our list over Ports anyday .....I also think Gold Coast's list is superb

Results don't necessarily reflect list quality ....some are mature, some are developing .....hitching your opinion to a win/loss indicator of list quality, is paper thin

Correct, we should not assess our list based on win/loss, it is very young still and most of our core will start to peak around 2026-27.

However, there is a lot of dead weight regardless.

Borlase, Gollant, McHenry, Parnell, Hamill are all clearly not part of our long term future. The only reason we would not have delisted them is because we might keep them, and are waiting on the outcome of other moves.

That, is why people would be concerned, why bother handing those guys a pity year (see Ben Davis), when that list spot could be used to invest in our future, e.g. start looking for the ruck that we will need when ROB is done, if he’s not already.

 

[BucketsNj]

So is there a trading strike rate trophy that we won? Or are forced to compare ourselves via win:loss and/or ladder position.
No comparison.

Different issue 1970. I'm specifically talking about the accepted wisdom that Port are so brilliant at bringing players in. They're just not.
Of course they're above us on the ladder.

 

[crow2crow]

If Scott ever leaves Geelong, I reckon it'll be to Tassie as their inaugural coach.

As much as we'd love him here, it's completely unrealistic.

nah brisbane

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Correct, we should not assess our list based on win/loss, it is very young still and most of our core will start to peak around 2026-27.

However, there is a lot of dead weight regardless.

Borlase, Gollant, McHenry, Parnell, Hamill are all clearly not part of our long term future. The only reason we would not have delisted them is because we might keep them, and are waiting on the outcome of other moves.

That, is why people would be concerned, why bother handing those guys a pity year (see Ben Davis), when that list spot could be used to invest in our future, e.g. start looking for the ruck that we will need when ROB is done, if he’s not already.

You have to remember, the list has two additional components to having star players

We need backup players for roles, to cover injuries .....Borlaise, Burgess, and Strachan are in that category, along with a couple of others

The 2nd component are "cheap" role players, that can hold their own (bottom 6 of a team) ....which pays for the stars
Murphy, and Hamill are in this category

Every Club has these players ....you can delist and redraft, but because of the criteria I outlined, you're just shuffling deck chairs .....occasionally you turn over a shell & get a pearl

 

[Samcro24]

Are there extra costs to turnover players? I know we’ve used that excuse to not max the rookie list spots or use the msd.

It’s the only logical explanation I have (and even then it’s a piss poor excuse) as to why we’re not turning the list over more aggressively.

 

[Peter Doherty]

Different issue 1970. I'm specifically talking about the accepted wisdom that Port are so brilliant at bringing players in. They're just not.
Of course they're above us on the ladder.

This accepted wisdom isn't as accepted as it once was.

 

[1970crow]

View attachment 2104703

Second rounder with that salary imo.


View attachment 2104707

Absolut Gun needs support




View attachment 2104708

Would salary dump if possible for 3rd rounder.


View attachment 2104709

Hope like hell we are into this guy.

Most of all hope we are trading for James Peatling with GWS.

Very disappointing if we haven’t frontloaded any of Laird’s contract the last 3 years. Where the hell is our cap space going?????

 

[1970crow]

We will get VanBerlo next.
Nothing surer.

Well we definitely don’t want anyone coming in with fresh ideas and trying to change anything up. We know our system is league leading, we just need a coach that’s even further entrenched in our philosophies. Wonder if Noble will get his mouthpieces to throw his name up as a ‘left field’ option like they did every other senior job that came up.

 

[1970crow]

That's probably your worst take ....just emotional clap trap, with zero analysis

I'll take our list over Ports anyday .....I also think Gold Coast's list is superb

Results don't necessarily reflect list quality ....some are mature, some are developing .....hitching your opinion to a win/loss indicator of list quality, is paper thin

I don’t think many have accused you of providing any form of rational analysis. The view you are wedded to is nothing more than a belief with zero logical assessment behind it. It’s why we get outbursts like the above, you’re emotionally invested in us being well run and Nix being an A grade coach. Evidence aplenty to contradict that belief, but you refuse to see it. No question in your mind at all, it’s quite humorous really.

 

[Scorpus]

You have to remember, the list has two additional components to having star players

We need backup players for roles, to cover injuries .....Borlaise, Burgess, and Strachan are in that category, along with a couple of others

The 2nd component are "cheap" role players, that can hold their own (bottom 6 of a team) ....which pays for the stars
Murphy, and Hamill are in this category

Every Club has these players ....you can delist and redraft, but because of the criteria I outlined, you're just shuffling deck chairs .....occasionally you turn over a shell & get a pearl

I wouldn't want to rely on any of our backup talls to even play a role. I don't think they're capable of that.

Strachan for example is 28 and unable to run out an AFL game fitness wise. We have no other rucks.

Burgess, Gollant and Himmelberg barely even compete in their position. Would be nice to have some depth that could at least be relied on to play a basic role and not lose badly.

Not asking for stars as depth, but competing for a full game should be a minimum requirement

 

[1970crow]

Different issue 1970. I'm specifically talking about the accepted wisdom that Port are so brilliant at bringing players in. They're just not.
Of course they're above us on the ladder.

Surely you accept that the players they bring in are part of the reason they’re continually above us on the ladder. I’m not sure many people are saying they’re brilliant at trading. But the strategy they have keeps them up and around the top few, similar to Geelong. They identify where they think they can improve and try and do so. We’re nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to trading and we hold onto average players for way too long.

We needed high end mids and traded in a half back and small forward. Now we’re getting another small forward and looking at a bruise free forward flanker. It’s not targeted, it’s no more than jumping on returning player opportunity.

 

[1970crow]

You have to remember, the list has two additional components to having star players

We need backup players for roles, to cover injuries .....Borlaise, Burgess, and Strachan are in that category, along with a couple of others

The 2nd component are "cheap" role players, that can hold their own (bottom 6 of a team) ....which pays for the stars
Murphy, and Hamill are in this category

Every Club has these players ....you can delist and redraft, but because of the criteria I outlined, you're just shuffling deck chairs .....occasionally you turn over a shell & get a pearl

You won’t get a pearl if you’re not turning over the shells. And in a rebuild phase, there’s no value in protecting ladder position by locking in too many shells. What we saw with Bond, Dowling and Taylor is that you can trust the talent of the kids even if they haven’t mastered SANFL as long as they’re fit enough and have the right attitude. They’re not going to be difference makers during their first couple of dozen games but nor are they going to bring much less than the mediocre cloggers like Murphy that we lock in ‘coz all teams have Murphys derp derp’

 

[1970crow]

Are there extra costs to turnover players? I know we’ve used that excuse to not max the rookie list spots or use the msd.

It’s the only logical explanation I have (and even then it’s a piss poor excuse) as to why we’re not turning the list over more aggressively.

I think one of the recent changes to soft cap was removing relocation costs. Might be wrong, but vaguely recall that. Other than that you’d think not, apart from opportunity cost in terms of time available for other players. I think we value the IP we train into players way too highly which is why the average/substandard ones seem to get 2 or 3 years too many.

 

[huludicidal]

Has the rumour about Borlase signing for 2 years been confirmed anywhere apart from that Ch.7 piece?

I’m increasingly convinced that they got “Borlase” and “Berry” mixed up.

 

[ABAB]

Surely you accept that the players they bring in are part of the reason they’re continually above us on the ladder. I’m not sure many people are saying they’re brilliant at trading. But the strategy they have keeps them up and around the top few, similar to Geelong. They identify where they think they can improve and try and do so. We’re nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to trading and we hold onto average players for way too long.

We needed high end mids and traded in a half back and small forward. Now we’re getting another small forward and looking at a bruise free forward flanker. It’s not targeted, it’s no more than jumping on returning player opportunity.

And both Dawson and Rankine developed into high end midfielders so "credit" to Nicks lol. We put the work in them early on so targeted them which is why neither of them even thought about joining Port Power, Rankine didn't even speak to them and Dawson visited their facility only very late in the trade period.

 

[jackster83]

We will get VanBerlo next.
Nothing surer.

Goodwin coaching with VB as the senior assistant.

 

[Multiballz]

Goodwin coaching with VB as the senior assistant.

Yesss!
Train hard - Party harder.
Throw in some Brett Burton recover hard and that might actually translate to playing hard.

 

[1970crow]

Goodwin coaching with VB as the senior assistant.

And we can round it out with Neil Craig in a head of footy style consulting role.

 

[Anzacpaul]

I'm concerned at the lack of list spots and seeming lack of list turnover in a side that just finished 15th

Finishing out of the 8 is an event, not a trend as it only happens once a year.

No cause for concern.

 

[Anzacpaul]

That's probably your worst take ....just emotional clap trap, with zero analysis

I'll take our list over Ports anyday .....I also think Gold Coast's list is superb

Results don't necessarily reflect list quality ....some are mature, some are developing .....hitching your opinion to a win/loss indicator of list quality, is paper thin

 

[Soggy2112]

You have to remember, the list has two additional components to having star players

We need backup players for roles, to cover injuries .....Borlaise, Burgess, and Strachan are in that category, along with a couple of others

The 2nd component are "cheap" role players, that can hold their own (bottom 6 of a team) ....which pays for the stars
Murphy, and Hamill are in this category

Every Club has these players ....you can delist and redraft, but because of the criteria I outlined, you're just shuffling deck chairs .....occasionally you turn over a shell & get a pearl

Except by your own admission our list is not ready to compete yet, so why do we need to bother with these depth types?

So if a couple KPPs go down, who cares, why bother with keeping a Borlase type for that, why not chuck in an 18-19 year old rookie who might be okay?

As you say, we’re not gonna win anyway.

Similar with the McHenry, Hamill players. If we need someone to play, why not pick the likes of Edwards, Ryan, or whoever else we draft. Again, we’re not ready to win anyway, so what’s the point in playing guys who are depth at best?

Lastly, do you really think that players 23-28 on the Swans or Cats list aren’t better than McHenry or Hamill?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Except by your own admission our list is not ready to compete yet, so why do we need to bother with these depth types?

So if a couple KPPs go down, who cares, why bother with keeping a Borlase type for that, why not chuck in an 18-19 year old rookie who might be okay?

As you say, we’re not gonna win anyway.

Similar with the McHenry, Hamill players. If we need someone to play, why not pick the likes of Edwards, Ryan, or whoever else we draft. Again, we’re not ready to win anyway, so what’s the point in playing guys who are depth at best?

Lastly, do you really think that players 23-28 on the Swans or Cats list aren’t better than McHenry or Hamill?

Are you seriously suggesting throwing in an 18 yo rookie KPP ....I think you're pulling my leg

My concerns over depth of "experienced" players have been posted the last 2 years in fact ....if there's a bonus on this year, it's that we've played a fair portion of the list due to injuries ....wasn't it 42 players ?

I did hear, at the Round 15 junction, we'd only had 9 players to play every game .....most of the top sides are 14-16

With 2-3 incoming senior players ..plus a couple of returning injured players ...our depth issue should be a thing of the past

You can do what you're suggesting with Ryan & Edwards, when there's more experience around them ....we had games whereby we played 4 X 1st year Rooks in the same team PLUS a few others with less than 20 games .....you're not winning too many games with that mix

Lastly ....IMO McHenry & Hamill are pretty even with GC players 26-28

 

[BunjiMC]

Dyson Sharp. What a gun. Clean, composed runs both ways. Pitty he will go pick #1 to Richmond.