List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[gringo2011]

My recollection is that they did not nominate him because they couldn't get him so didn't see the need. It doesn't matter because there was no way they could ensure he ended up at North Melbourne, which was my point.

So they moved onto Horne-Francis, which while not exactly a success for North Melbourne to say the least, they managed (in a convoluted way in a very complicated draft ) to turn into picks 2 & 3 (which, after not being able to select Ashcroft, became Wardlaw and Sheezel).

The media pressured North to call out JHF first to show that they loved him and get him the first pick bonus. Worked well.

 

[gringo2011]

North didnt nominate to draft him with pick 1, nor did the next 3 teams.

He was first nominated by Gold Coast.

Now you can argue North didnt wanna waste pick 1 with a nom that would be matched but pick 2 was a Sam Darcy nomination and from my recollection JHF was just about a consensus number 1 pick from a while out.

Yep, he was talked about as the best kid ever seen coming through for a couple of years before the draft. Matt Rendell reckoned he was the best kid he'd ever seen and talked him up for years before the draft.

 

[gringo2011]

Just get rid of the flipping academies .... its a nationwide sport played now in all states with an established national U18 comp

Also North should have been pushed to Tassie (to keep it at 18 teams) and the fixture could then be 17 games + Finals ..... all play each other once (home one year / away the next)

Or make it a 18 game fixture comp with the extra game being a Derby game... ie- Adelaide v Port / Freo v Eagles / Brions v Suns / Swans v GWS / Melbourne teams can swap who they play each year depending on ladder positions (top teams play each other .... bottom sides play each other) .... this extra game can be fixtured as a mid year game .... each team gets 2 byes ... one after 6th round and one after 12th round

Unfortunately North won't be going to Tassie ... but in a 19 Team comp the AFL should still revert back to an 18 game fixture where all teams play each other once ..... but money rules so it probably won't happen

Or make the academy player a financial benefit where clubs have two home grown players who can have 10% discount in your salary cap. Incentivise development but not at the cost of destroying the integrity of the draft.

Cap the academy sections at one FS or academy player per year. If Lions want Ashcroft and their academy kid they need to get into the picks to get the others by trading.

Surely they already get go home factor from having home grown players. That gives them a Geelong like advantage already.

The academy concessions are worse than COLA. They are designed to syphon bulk talent into GWS and GC.

 

[True Believer]

Well actually, I DO get it. I know how free agency works. No need to get snarky!
We have a choice to offer him more to stay.

But as I edited my post, obviously after you read it, it’s very, very tempting not to, if it does in fact land up being band 1.

It's not about getting a draft pick. Everyone bleated when we found out our salary cap was a mess and we were paying something like 55% of it to about 8 top line players and missed a flag anyway!

It's been sorted out properly now, and as soon as a reasonable player gets a good offer and may go, the first reaction is "well we should just up our offer".

So then what, when we don't have the space in our cap to offer appropriate money to attract a top line free agent, the same people start bleating "well why are we paying players like Battle $1.15m per year, he's not worth that!!"

 

[stavro#4]

Thanks Stav, appreciate the insight as always. Not stalking you but had a few points...



Back in the day Big Boy McEvoy was considered by many Saints fans including me to be a "good not great" player - and even that was generous. How foolish that opinion looks now. Top five, you say? Still not sure, he's got something which screams future premiership Saints leader and icon to me, call me crazy...



We're not as good as we were in the first half of last year, but with our best players back, plus Dow and Henry, I fully believe we're not as bad as we were in the middle of last year either. I'd be hugely surprised if we weren't about 5 picks further back by October, sorry to say.



I have to admit that is pretty tempting. If we DID finish in the bottom four, it would be really hard to not let Josh walk if it were to give us that band one pick.



Definitely not the only one. I'm a strong believer in taking trading risks, I advocated trading Armo, Stuv, Billings, Gresh, Ross and Membrey long before they lost value. I just think in the situation we are now, and Battle being leadership material it would be a poor move from us.



Disagree about dollar value, but broadly agree: If we want to keep him, we offer overs. If he gets a better offer than that you just have to be philosophical about these things and make the best of it. Yes, I'd still be offering significant overs to keep him a Saint. But not unlimited overs.

If Hawks or whoever are offering him that much, he must have significant value for them. Ask yourselves why that is and why we don't hold similar value for him. The answer cannot be Arie or Coops, surely?

The flaw with last time and this has now been evident by the modus operandi of all clubs since. Was that we thought having multiple first round picks would lead to success.

Top 10 picks is where a good list build starts. Top 5 if you are serious.

We had teen picks for Bj and McEvoy. Luke Delaney and crap for Dal

As the salary cap is currently positioned, which player of similar ilk has received an extension greater then our reported offer to Battle? Ralph and Twomey said we offered 6 years /800+k per season.

In 10 years that might be normal. I’m not sure that looks like normal salary for someone like Battle and I don’t see why we should be signing him up to any value to retain - there are better players who will come out of contract that will then want more and your starting base is 900k/1m. Thats not sustainable from a salary cap.

Hawthorn and clubs securing free agents are willing to overpay to land talent. It’s like us offering 1.5m to LDU/Weitering. They aren’t worth that much but you want to knock their existing club and others out of the discussion so that they are forced to walk for free.

“with our best back”. If people want to advocate for wins in a dead season - that’s up to them. On the same hand I’m sure you can appreciate the next to Impossible task that leaves us if we pull off a few unexpected wins.

You’re not landing the cream onball talent. That ones that exit front of stoppage. Kick a goal hit a target in f50. Open space for the rest of the team and get tagged to avoid hurting the opposition. Without that talent your not winning anything.

Maybe Josh stays. I’ve said multiple times I don’t know what he will do. Just what the talk is in Moorabbin and internally they don’t feel he is. Big ****ing jungle drums when Twomey and Cleary are talking he could go.

Again, Twomey is the best in the business. He hears the numbers and the real talk. He backed up what I said last week and called battle/band 1 compo a “watch”. That’s what the club believes is likely. It isn’t me making it up. I’m telling you what I’ve been told.

Is cooper or Arie the answer? No idea. I think Arie has something though.

I can tell you what isn’t the answer, another middle of the first round pick that doesn’t inject the talent and class we need onball.

It’s perfectly acceptable to look past the next 12 weeks and think a better future awaits if we accept our medicine this season.

 

[bergholt]

If Hawks or whoever are offering him that much, he must have significant value for them. Ask yourselves why that is and why we don't hold similar value for him.

Meh, every club has different time horizons, different list needs, different game plan, etc otherwise no trade wold ever get done.

Not to mention that - as we know very well - when you’re in the bottom half of the ladder you always have to offer overs to get a player to move.

 

[EconomicDecline]

1st round and Paton for LDU

 

[The Punter]

Just a few points:

• the "lets get a top 5 pick" strategy is problematic in one way: what happens if we don't get that midfield talent? We've already had reports that this is a deep draft with a low top end and not much drop off as the draft progresses.
• it certainly looks like the club's list strategy is "don't overpay for anyone under any circumstances until we are ready to really compete" (with Max King
  12

  Max King

  Age

  24

  Ht

  202cm

  Wt

  100kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  7.3

  2star

  K

  4.7

  2star

  HB

  2.6

  2star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  0.7

  3star

  G

  1.4

  5star

  D

  7.3

  2star

  K

  4.7

  2star

  HB

  2.6

  2star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  0.7

  1star

  G

  1.4

  5star

  D

  8.0

  2star

  K

  5.2

  2star

  HB

  2.8

  3star

  M

  2.8

  3star

  T

  0.6

  3star

  G

  1.4

  5star

  perhaps the only player this does not apply to)
• McEvoy was a good not great player. Still was at Hawthorn. The issue wasn't letting him go, it's what we ended up getting for him, and the fact he was apparently a leader
• I'm not enamoured by Hawthorn's talent. I think they are at that bit of development where the game plan is working and they're not rated highly enough by other teams to put real work into stopping them (it will happen soon though). North have a more talented list, but they are now in the habit of losing (which is why as a supporter of a sporting team that is built to win, I enjoyed last Saturday on at least some level - I like seeing my team win games of football)

 

[stavro#4]

Just a few points:

• the "lets get a top 5 pick" strategy is problematic in one way: what happens if we don't get that midfield talent? We've already had reports that this is a deep draft with a low top end and not much drop off as the draft progresses.
• it certainly looks like the club's list strategy is "don't overpay for anyone under any circumstances until we are ready to really compete" (with Max King perhaps the only player this does not apply to)
• McEvoy was a good not great player. Still was at Hawthorn. The issue wasn't letting him go, it's what we ended up getting for him, and the fact he was apparently a leader
• I'm not enamoured by Hawthorn's talent. I think they are at that bit of development where the game plan is working and they're not rated highly enough by other teams to put real work into stopping them (it will happen soon though). North have a more talented list, but they are now in the habit of losing (which is why as a supporter of a sporting team that is built to win, I enjoyed last Saturday on at least some level - I like seeing my team win games of football)

The top 5-6 of this draft looks like being all midfielders besides Trainor.

Like genuine onball mids. Who rack up touches

 

[The Punter]

The top 5-6 of this draft looks like being all midfielders besides Trainor.

Like genuine onball mids. Who rack up touches

Do they exit front of stoppage? Hit targets inside 50?

We don't need another good mid, which is my point. I don't see the benefit (and can certainly see the pitfalls) of not taking winning seriously for the rest of the year if the prize is not a Bont-Cripps-Danger-Dusty type who puts us over the top when he hits maturity. It will just leave us having the same discussions in 12 months time.

Meanwhile we've wasted that 12 months not devising and implementing a innovative game plan to succeed with who we already have, and to develop the players we already have (like the really good teams always seem to do).

 

[stavro#4]

Do they exit front of stoppage? Hit targets inside 50?

We don't need another good mid, which is my point. I don't see the benefit (and can certainly see the pitfalls) of not taking winning seriously for the rest of the year if the prize is not a Bont-Cripps-Danger-Dusty type who puts us over the top when he hits maturity. It will just leave us having the same discussions in 12 months time.

Meanwhile we've wasted that 12 months not devising and implementing a innovative game plan to succeed with who we already have, and to develop the players we already have (like the really good teams always seem to do).

Do your own research.

The names likely at our pick before the carnival begins for the metro and country guys are Jagga Smith (I desperately want him)Sid Draper

(Last 2 minutes of the below are exceptional)






And the best tall in the draft

 

[gringo2011]

I think it would be kinda cool but i cant see it happening personally. The travel distances arent that extreme (west coast to east coast in the US is 6 hours) plus as mentioned discrepancy in quality for 20 teams could be enormous.

An NT team could get a lot of talent that doesn't want to move south playing up there. Even raiding the Tiwis would find 22 players that are of the standard. Not many want to move to the cold away from family. I reckon it would be the best team to watch in footy.

 

[L_W_P]

Say we finish bottom 4 above NM, WCE and RICH.

Battle leaves.

We get picks 4 + 5.

That gives us two of the following: https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_...ncluding-levi-ashcroft-jagga-smith-sid-draper

What would two of Draper, Moreas or Lalor do for the squad?

North may look to trade down and take a tall rather than one of the top mids so there's a possibility of moving up and grabbing a Smillie or Smith.

If we trust Sharman/Arie to play that role as well as Battle then so be it but, personally, I'd rather see those guys replacing Bonner this week to show us that they can handle the role. Shit, I'd take Pou playing that wing/hbf role for the back half of the season over Bonner.

The other side of this is that, if we lose Battle, I think we have to go all in on the rebuild. Trade out RoMa while he's at top value (and make a play for Moyle or maybe even ROB from the Crows) and publically reset expectations about where the list is really at.

 

[gringo2011]

What’s the point of setting and managing your salary cap if you are going to crumble because you are losing a good … not great player?

How about you answer this question.


If you were offered a top 5 pick for Battle would you trade him?

If we bottom out again don't expect anyone to stick with the club. Most people are over them and this was promised as a clean up and repaint, not a bottom out again. If they get this wrong they might as well fold the club.

 

[stavro#4]

If we bottom out again don't expect anyone to stick with the club. Most people are over them and this was promised as a clean up and repaint, not a bottom out again. If they get this wrong they might as well fold the club.

I don’t think this is a rebuild at all and that wasn’t mentioned to me once.

There was genuine conversation about we are down here the ladder is clustered up and we have the Battle situation playing out.

Lots of close losses. Etc etc.

The theme was very much about do we take a hit to improve ourselves s

 

[gringo2011]

What’s the point of setting and managing your salary cap if you are going to crumble because you are losing a good … not great player?

How about you answer this question.


If you were offered a top 5 pick for Battle would you trade him?

What could wrong? We haven't drafted a first round pick that has been as good as Battle is since B Goddard in 21 drafts.

Giving us draft picks is like giving an alcoholic gambling addict $100. The only thing you can guarantee is that you won't have anything to show for it in the future.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Just a few points:

• the "lets get a top 5 pick" strategy is problematic in one way: what happens if we don't get that midfield talent? We've already had reports that this is a deep draft with a low top end and not much drop off as the draft progresses.
• it certainly looks like the club's list strategy is "don't overpay for anyone under any circumstances until we are ready to really compete" (with Max King perhaps the only player this does not apply to)
• McEvoy was a good not great player. Still was at Hawthorn. The issue wasn't letting him go, it's what we ended up getting for him, and the fact he was apparently a leader
• I'm not enamoured by Hawthorn's talent. I think they are at that bit of development where the game plan is working and they're not rated highly enough by other teams to put real work into stopping them (it will happen soon though). North have a more talented list, but they are now in the habit of losing (which is why as a supporter of a sporting team that is built to win, I enjoyed last Saturday on at least some level - I like seeing my team win games of football)

That was the problem back in the Pelican days.
They made this plan about how they would revitalise the list, but no-one actually read the drafts that were involved.
It was totally formulaic.
If we really really wan't a good kid from the draft , we need to identify him and find a way to go after him.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What could wrong? We haven't drafted a first round pick that has been as good as Battle is since B Goddard in 21 drafts.

Giving us draft picks is like giving an alcoholic gambling addict $100. The only thing you can guarantee is that you won't have anything to show for it in the future.

I thought that prime Armitage was under-rated and probably as good in his area as Battle is in his.
McEvoy wasn't the slouch we thought either.

 

[CursingFijian]

Meh, every club has different time horizons, different list needs, different game plan, etc otherwise no trade wold ever get done.

Not to mention that - as we know very well - when you’re in the bottom half of the ladder you always have to offer overs to get a player to move to St Kilda

Edited for accuracy.

 

[phantom13]

I don’t think this is a rebuild at all and that wasn’t mentioned to me once.

There was genuine conversation about we are down here the ladder is clustered up and we have the Battle situation playing out.

Lots of close losses. Etc etc.

The theme was very much about do we take a hit to improve ourselves s

Your list cull on the other page is full rebuild though. That’s not a lick or paint and some new fixtures, that’s tear the whole thing down.

 

[kernelT]

What’s the point of setting and managing your salary cap if you are going to crumble because you are losing a good … not great player?

How about you answer this question.


If you were offered a top 5 pick for Battle would you trade him?

Weren’t we meant to be contending next year - 2025?

If we keep shedding best 22 players in the 25 - 28 YO demographic we just keep getting worse rather than start challenging… then we’ll have players wanting out.

Does this mean Ross needs a few more years added to his contract?

If we aim for two 18 year old mids next year, they are not coming into their prime till 2028+… it’s a never ending game of chasing your tail.

 

[The Punter]

Do your own research.

The names likely at our pick before the carnival begins for the metro and country guys are Jagga Smith (I desperately want him)Sid Draper

(Last 2 minutes of the below are exceptional)






And the best tall in the draft

I take your post and your thoughts in good faith. But you have said:

• hit the draft
• there's no benefit in winning games this season from here on in
• we need top notch mids rather than the merely good ones we already have

and I ask you to provide evidence and you say "do it yourself"?

The onus is on you to convince me this is the way to go. Because I've seen us do this before and we're still not in contention more than a decade down the road. My children are growing up and I want to, at the end of my 90 minute drive to Marvel, see my bloody team win games of football. If you don't to bother making your case, I won't bother spending any more time thinking about it.

We need a specific, rare kind of midfielder. Anything else is kicking the can down the road draft wise. Perhaps it's time to devise a different way to win, because the rules are stacked against us (as I've made the point many times on the perversions of the draft).

 

[stavro#4]

What could wrong? We haven't drafted a first round pick that has been as good as Battle is since B Goddard in 21 drafts.

Giving us draft picks is like giving an alcoholic gambling addict $100. The only thing you can guarantee is that you won't have anything to show for it in the future.

Every club turns it around at the draft.

Melbourne and Richmond did.

It takes one great pick.

 

[stavro#4]

Your list cull on the other page is full rebuild though. That’s not a lick or paint and some new fixtures, that’s tear the whole thing down.

And as I posted last week. This is very much a SOS 101 for list management.

Did the same at Carlton as they built. Everyone who wasn’t a guarantee of the future had short term deals. Kept the cap flexibility.

I said if Brisbanes pick 7 or whatever it is and the suns first are on offer. Do whatever we can to land them.

 

[stavro#4]

Weren’t we meant to be contending next year - 2025?

If we keep shedding best 22 players in the 25 - 28 YO demographic we just keep getting worse rather than start challenging… then we’ll have players wanting out.

Does this mean Ross needs a few more years added to his contract?

If we aim for two 18 year old mids next year, they are not coming into their prime till 2028+… it’s a never ending game of chasing your tail.

We have lost 5 games under 2 goals. You don’t need these kids to be jets in year 1 to improve. You just need a few classier possessions.

Alternatively they might take the hypothetical battle pick and ask North if they will trade it for LDU right now