List Mgmt. 2024 Trade & List Management Thread

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Think that only last 1 season from memory.

Must’ve affected the Northern clubs too much.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I like the romance of the father son rule. It's a real unique part of our game.

I just think you should have to play fair value with a pick that is within 3-4 picks of where they are bid on. Can't just get them by hoarding picks. Same should apply for academy players too.

I agree that'd be a better compromise.

Even then tho... one man's idea of romance is another guy's idea of nepotism.

 

[Lomas]

Must’ve affected the Northern clubs too much.

I think that is how we got Greenwood, clubs were freeing up spots and then intending to redraft with crap picks at the end.

 

[big_e]

St Kilda's issue isn't that their players keep having daughters, it's that they don't have as many 100-game players.

Since 1897, Collingwood has had 184 players get to 100 games for the club, St Kilda have just 135. And the Saints have had almost 500 more players than Collingwood in that time (1648 to 1193). (FWIW, we've had 134 from 1066.)

Even if you only include players who debuted between 1980 and 2005 (to roughly make it the potential F/S pool currently and in the next few years), Collingwood both have 46 100-game players, and St Kilda 37. It's a significant-enough gap to make a difference.

That said, father-son was fine in a suburban/amateur competition but those days are long gone, and it should be phased out. Give it 5 years so clubs that have invested some time in developing these kids get some return on their investment, but it's had its day.

 

[Sphynx]

Think that only last 1 season from memory.

It's still active and enforced.

However teams generally have trades organized and arranged within the opening seconds of the draft to automatically circumvent them.

They trade in a net positive number of picks during the draft. Which doesn't count.

The rule is number of picks at final list lodgement.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

St Kilda's issue isn't that their players keep having daughters, it's that they don't have as many 100-game players.

Since 1897, Collingwood has had 184 players get to 100 games for the club, St Kilda have just 135. And the Saints have had almost 500 more players than Collingwood in that time (1648 to 1193). (FWIW, we've had 134 from 1066.)

Even if you only include players who debuted between 1980 and 2005 (to roughly make it the potential F/S pool currently and in the next few years), Collingwood both have 46 100-game players, and St Kilda 37. It's a significant-enough gap to make a difference.

That said, father-son was fine in a suburban/amateur competition but those days are long gone, and it should be phased out. Give it 5 years so clubs that have invested some time in developing these kids get some return on their investment, but it's had its day.

I don’t want it phased out, just made fair. It’s a good point that having first dibs on a player is enough of an advantage, you don’t get crazy draft discounts as well.

And it will suck for clubs that miss out when rules change, but that’s happened every time changes have come in - some clubs made hay before the change, others didn’t get those chances. This change will be the same, everyone will grumble and then get on with it.

 

[big_e]

I don’t want it phased out, just made fair. It’s a good point that having first dibs on a player is enough of an advantage, you don’t get crazy draft discounts as well.

And it will suck for clubs that miss out when rules change, but that’s happened every time changes have come in - some clubs made hay before the change, others didn’t get those chances. This change will be the same, everyone will grumble and then get on with it.

That's a fair point, but every time the rules are changed, they are thought to be made more fair, but then a year or two later we start complaining about the new rules, too.

I think it's fundamentally flawed, and given everybody's definition of "fair" is different anyway, you'll never get everyone to agree.

If players want to get to their parent's club that badly, they can do it via a trade, although it's interesting to note how many choose not to do that. And if a club desperately wants the child of a former player, nothing is stopping them from trading draft picks to get to a point where they can select that player.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

That's a fair point, but every time the rules are changed, they are thought to be made more fair, but then a year or two later we start complaining about the new rules, too.

I think it's fundamentally flawed, and given everybody's definition of "fair" is different anyway, you'll never get everyone to agree.

If players want to get to their parent's club that badly, they can do it via a trade, although it's interesting to note how many choose not to do that. And if a club desperately wants the child of a former player, nothing is stopping them from trading draft picks to get to a point where they can select that player.

That’s fair. And there is no way a system makes it fair when it randomly benefits some clubs and not others.

 

[King Corey]

Rather than arbitrary points I wouldn't mind a variation of the system at the time of Luke McDonald.

Father-Son and academy bids occur pre-draft.

You have to match bids with the same round pick. You can bring a future pick into play for this if you meet R1 usage rules.

If you cop more than 2 bids in the same round, stiff shit.

You CANNOT trade back into that round. So no getting "under" the bid.

Yes clubs will get the odd bargain but it will balance the other way too.

Scenario:
West Coast bid 1 on Walter. GC pay pick 6.

Geelong then bid pick 17 on Read. GC pay F1 to get him.

North Melbourne then bid pick 18 on Rogers (Yes we're premiers in this hypothetical). GC cannot match, North get the player.

 

[pupstar]

It implies we need to be extremely careful forking out shit tonnes of money for journeyman footballers in the next few years.

The likes of Fisher, Corr, Stephens etc would be on good wickets.

One of the biggest jobs over the next 5 years is going to be salary cap management with the amount of first rounders and young talent we have.

We can't keep recruiting these journeyman types of guys in the near future. If we recruit big wages it has to be quality, not punts looking for a payday, because we want "experience"

Even the level we go to for our own current role players like Zurhaar.

At some point we are going to have to pay through the nose to maintain our young talent like Wardlaw, McKercher, Duursma, Powell etc Particularly Colby with Tassie impacting his likely next contract.

Comben has been an afterthought for most the last few years, he's out of contract in 2025, he's going to get offers of $900k-$1m a season that we are going to have to come within a fair and reasonable range of, I guarantee you.


The cap has increased but LDU at even $1.3m a season is still around 8% of the cap. Even front loading it significantly, you are going to be carrying a big wage at the back end.

Im not at all saying he's not worth it, I'm saying re-signing at that level will impact what we should be spending on others.

You would have to seriously think about whether Zurhaar is worth $800k over 5 years if you are required to fork out $1.3-$1.4m a season for LDU.

Comben, McKercher, Wardlaw are much bigger priorities long term than Zurhaar.

It's also why the contracts of Simpkin and McDonald are fairly criminal.

We still need to be able to target the FA space as we move up the ladder.

Yes Clarko has already implied exactly this.

 

[Merlin007]

Yes Clarko has already implied exactly this.

Not implied - stated unequivocally

 

[outwecome2play]

Jason McCartneys son is in Sydney s academy.
What are the odds he picks them.

 

[R00StaR]

According to Fox Sports - https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...n/news-story/01a51a611c6b05a7622ae888eec86bd3 - Freo is willing to offer Sydney's Chad Warner $1.5 to $1.6 M for multiple years.

Obviously, we don't know whether there's any truth or accuracy about the statement, but assuming it's true, what does that imply for LDU's value?

This why we dont go shopping for any big money targets, save our bullets to keep this list together. LDU 1.2 for 6/7. Maybe he could get a smidge more after tax elsewhere, but he's gonna have a great team to play with over those 6/7 years with North.

 

[ohmygewd]

Jason McCartneys son is in Sydney s academy.
What are the odds he picks them.

I too like the FS but this is the same situation as Nick Blakey where he rejected us and Brisse to join Sydney via academy, sadly what occurs is the FS team won't chose him with a higher pick and would rather allow an oppo to force a bid in probably some weird way of honoring their wish - always believed in make a team pay and hurt their draft hand.

The DVI needs to change and get rid of discounts - just not this year as it's really short notice and quite absurd to penalise teams that have planned selections this year, over 12-18mths ago. I'd rather like the small change in ridding discount in 2024 and then announce for 2025 what concoction the AFL will make a mess of!

 

[Chewy Chewman]

Cadman dropped for the Giants this weekend.

In words of Chom, i think he’s gettable!

 

[LB2Snake]

Cadman dropped for the Giants this weekend.

In words of Chom, i think he’s gettable!

Would you give pick 1 for him……if we have it? That’s what they’d want.

 

[GoRoos2023]

Cadman dropped for the Giants this weekend.

In words of Chom, i think he’s gettable!

Would you trade pick 1 for him this year?

He was a pick 1, although probably an inflated one.

It has merit.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I would, he can play. 2 years in the system closer to ready to go. Could keep Chom in the back half if we did.
Yes for me.

Yes for me, as well. But I don't think he's gettable at all.

Had a very good first couple of months, then like many second-year players, his form has fallen off. He'll be back in the team soon and they need him if they're going to go deep into the finals.

In terms of recent high draft pick KPFs, Cadman is a significantly better footballer than Logan McDonald.

 

[shinboner magic]

Yes for me, as well. But I don't think he's gettable at all.

Had a very good first couple of months, then like many second-year players, his form has fallen off. He'll be back in the team soon and they need him if they're going to go deep into the finals.

In terms of recent high draft pick KPFs, Cadman is a significantly better footballer than Logan McDonald.

And Walter will be better than both

 

[LB2Snake]

I would, he can play. 2 years in the system closer to ready to go. Could keep Chom in the back half if we did.
Yes for me.

I’m with ya as well. Definitely would.

 

[chubbspeterson]

My only worry with Cadman is his set shot kicking.

 

[ohmygewd]

Should we enquiry about Matt Jefferson's status? Like Busslinger, seems to be languishing in Melbournes 2's even though they are screaming for a KPF?

 

[RossHenshaw]

Should we enquiry about Matt Jefferson's status? Like Busslinger, seems to be languishing in Melbournes 2's even though they are screaming for a KPF?

Yep & what does that tell you about him then ?

 

[RossHenshaw]

My only worry with Cadman is his set shot kicking.

A skill that can be improved with maturity & age. I think we should at least enquire.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Should we enquiry about Matt Jefferson's status? Like Busslinger, seems to be languishing in Melbournes 2's even though they are screaming for a KPF?

Has been told he needs to build up more. Every player wants to play seniors, though, so it’s hard to stay patient indefinitely, especially when he’s put some decent VFL performances in.