List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[stfan]

I believe the commitment to recruit from Sandy is via the rookie list only, which is all bad I feel

Yes it is a rookie pick.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Don't bottom out for a start.

Which there is no indication the club is doing.

They’re literally doing exactly what they said they would do. Draft, trade for needs, keep building.

Losing the occasional free agent is going to happen from time to time. Fortunately there’s still a compensation system in place that will hopefully give us something valuable in return.

We now have a recruiter in place who you have wanted for years too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gringo2011]

Ok, but we're gonna need more than that........

Based on that, I'm guessing you're coaching would be along the lines of

"Ok boys, go out there and footy really good! Like, the best you've ever footied !!"

If Lyon hasn't got any idea of how to fix it, he needs to find someone else who can. His job is to make the side he has play the best footy they can and develop an tier of talent coming in behind while staying competitive. The idea that we are just waiting to see how things go after the year we have had isn't good enough.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

Errr, that is exactly why band 2 FA compo for Battle will be unders. Battle's "effective" pick will be devalued. We will not be getting Pick 19 to select a player, but a pick much later than that.

Those with Academy or FS selections in the first round/early second round will trade out and use junk picks to pay for them. ie Picks after Band 2 Compo.



Err see above, it pushes our pick back if compensation is Band 2 or less. So is very relevant

WTF??

I am talking about if Battle fails to generate Band 1 Compensation.

Band 2 is end-of-first-round pick.

But Norths Compos make that pick 21.

Academy matching and FS matches will then push that pick 21 back many picks.


PS: I just checked the calendar as I thought it may be Groundhog Day.

He means the same 21st ranked player (excluding the academy & fs picks) will be available at 28, 32 or wherever that pick eventually lands.

Don’t know why everyone is arguing… we all agree that Battle leaving for band 2 would be shithouse.

We have zero control over his decision other than offering him great money & selling him the vision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stavro#4]

Well as I have stated "Works well if we get Band 1, but without Band 1 it is a negative.
...and this is based on where Band 2, or worse , compensation pick would slide to.




Well as it has not yet happened yet, then yes you got me, I made it up.

As you must have a time machine you obviously have popped forward in time and so can enlighten us. So do tell us what the facts from the future are?

Or are you like me just going to make it up too, for we can only speculate.

However IMO, if he does not go for Band 1 as I have already clearly stated in posts in this thread, he will go for well under what what he is worth to us for as I have already mentioned the FS/Academy matches and North's 2 extra end of Round 1 picks (since traded), are going to push whatever his Band 2 (or worse) FA Compo is backwards. So North compo picks are 2, there are a number of FS's likely before then. Suns evidently may have 3 more Academy players. Lions may have Marshall. Not sure what GWS have in the works.

Battle is just reaching his prime, is proven quality, is not yet 26 and by my valuation is worth to us more than whatever end of first round compensation ends up sliding to. If he stayed he would most likely play 100+ more games

So I am more than happy to go with: "Works well if we get Band 1, but without Band 1 it is a negative" and yes I made that up.

You act like the club have a choice right now to guarantee Battle stays and are forcing him out.

Effectively the clubs only decision is to increase from 800/6 and based on rumours we are going to need to hit 1m/6.

Absolutely we should not be going near those numbers.

Outside of that - the club can do nothing else.

So all the carrying on from you and others is abit over dramatic. There is little option and if you are a fan of just pumping up our offer. Where do we draw the line? When a a non fan favourite leaves?

Under RTB and SOS we experienced this with Gresham and they did everything they could to extract max value. Including having a deal axed by the AFL to include Shiel.

It’s not like we are coming from a history of bending over. The only other example12 months ago says a) they did everything possible to maximise the return for the asset and b) didn’t overpay for an asset clearly not worth it.

Battle isn’t worth the rumoured figures to guarantee him staying. By the same token, where is the loyalty to us?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Gringo we had 56 i50s on the weekend which is well above the league average

 

[gringo2011]

Which there is no indication the club is doing.

They’re literally doing exactly what they said they would do. Draft, trade for needs, keep building.

Losing the occasional free agent is going to happen from time to time. Fortunately there’s still a compensation system in place that will hopefully give us something valuable in return.

We now have a recruiter in place who you have wanted for years too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After finally finding one of our own. A lot of you guys just adjust to the club setting standards lower and lower. We were plateauing under Ratts, we are actually going backwards under Lyon with better players and better staff.

We should offer Lyon a job a a director of footy and get some up to date assistants to do the matchday planning and coaching. Get rid of Gubby and get a minder for Sos.

This is starting to smell like Malthouse going to Carlton.

 

[stavro#4]

If Lyon hasn't got any idea of how to fix it, he needs to find someone else who can. His job is to make the side he has play the best footy they can and develop a tier of talent coming in behind while staying competitive. The idea that we are just waiting to see how things go after the year we have had isn't good enough.

We have one part of our game horrifically broken.

Our Inside 50 connection.

Outside of that, our game is standing up with lesser talent in the middle of the ground.

So clearly Lyon has and is being effective.

There was never a mandate about attractive football.

 

[gringo2011]

You act like the club have a choice right now to guarantee Battle stays and are forcing him out.

Effectively the clubs only decision is to increase from 800/6 and based on rumours we are going to need to hit 1m/6.

Absolutely we should not be going near those numbers.

Outside of that - the club can do nothing else.

So all the carrying on from you and others is abit over dramatic. There is little option and if you are a fan of just pumping up our offer. Where do we draw the line? When a a non fan favourite leaves?

Under RTB and SOS we experienced this with Gresham and they did everything they could to extract max value. Including having a deal axed by the AFL to include Shiel.

It’s not like we are coming from a history of bending over. The only other example12 months ago says a) they did everything possible to maximise the return for the asset and b) didn’t overpay for an asset clearly not worth it.

Battle isn’t worth the rumoured figures to guarantee him staying. By the same token, where is the loyalty to us?

Shouldn't need to match. Most players stay for less but if it's $50 to $100k a year, that might be better. Especially considering that we'd lose out on chasing Stengle as a FA. That $50k could set us back years.

 

[gringo2011]

We have one part of our game horrifically broken.

Our Inside 50 connection.

Outside of that, our game is standing up with lesser talent in the middle of the ground.

So clearly Lyon has and is being effective.

There was never a mandate about attractive football.

Even our wins are like getting half a hand job. Just don't make us an embarrassment. That's not much to ask. Melbourne were 12 years prelim to prelim. Saints are 15 years in and look like we are still years away. I'd sack the whole board and start again if we aren't heading towards top 4 midway through next year. They've had a good go.

 

[gringo2011]

Gringo we had 56 i50s on the weekend which is well above the league average

Yay, do we get a participation badge?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Yay, do we get a participation badge?

We got a hard fought win against a side in the 8 .... is that enough?

 

[stavro#4]

Shouldn't need to match. Most players stay for less but if it's $50 to $100k a year, that might be better. Especially considering that we'd lose out on chasing Stengle as a FA. That $50k could set us back years.

Your entire belief is the club short changing Battle here. We went big early and thought we had a deal.

If he can get more then what he is worth then go for it. We shouldn’t need to get in bidding wars that over price good not great players.

It won’t set us back half as much as you believe.

 

[stfan]

You act like the club have a choice right now to guarantee Battle stays and are forcing him out.

See my post below which is the opposite of that.

Effectively the clubs only decision is to increase from 800/6 and based on rumours we are going to need to hit 1m/6.

Absolutely we should not be going near those numbers.

Outside of that - the club can do nothing else.

So all the carrying on from you and others is abit over dramatic. There is little option and if you are a fan of just pumping up our offer. Where do we draw the line? When a a non fan favourite leaves?

Under RTB and SOS we experienced this with Gresham and they did everything they could to extract max value. Including having a deal axed by the AFL to include Shiel.

It’s not like we are coming from a history of bending over. The only other example12 months ago says a) they did everything possible to maximise the return for the asset and b) didn’t overpay for an asset clearly not worth it.

Battle isn’t worth the rumoured figures to guarantee him staying. By the same token, where is the loyalty to us?

With respect Stavro, you seemed to have missed that I have posted that club has to grasp this chance to get Band 1 Compo, even if part of the risk is only getting Band 2 Comp.

That I support it, does not mean that I have to do so blindly and ignore its possible cons, as well as what is possible pros can be.

Our other opportunities to gain the quality mids we need are a lot more problematic than this tactic. The club has no other viable path forward IMO.

 

[WhiskySaint]

If we look at what’s wrong with where we’re at….

Top 4 for scoring from D50 (tick)
Bottom 2 for scores from front half and centre clearance.

Majority of scores are from turn overs, we don’t do it where it counts. Middle and forward.

We are also bottom 2 for scores per inside 50 and last for marks on the lead (which I’ve linked with no evidence other then what I see)

So we need to fix

• mids winning it out of the centre
• front half turn over game
• forward structure

First one for the recruitment team and the other two for the coaches to fix….

 

[stfan]

If we look at what’s wrong with where we’re at….

Top 4 for scoring from D50 (tick)
Bottom 2 for scores from front half and centre clearance.

Majority of scores are from turn overs, we don’t do it where it counts. Middle and forward.

We are also bottom 2 for scores per inside 50 and last for marks on the lead (which I’ve linked with no evidence other then what I see)

So we need to fix

• mids winning it out of the centre
• front half turn over game
• forward structure

First off one for the recruitment team and the other two for the coaches to fix….

Elite mids greatly helps with all three.

 

[stavro#4]

See my post below which is the opposite of that.



With respect Stavro, you seemed to have missed that I have posted that club has to grasp this chance to get Band 1 Compo, even if part of the risk is only getting Band 2 Comp.

That I support it, does not mean that I have to do so blindly and ignore its possible cons, as well as what is possible pros can be.

Our other opportunities to gain the quality mids we need are a lot more problematic than this tactic. The club has no other viable path forward IMO.

View attachment 2016452

I did. Apologies

 

[Joffaboy]

Shouldn't need to match. Most players stay for less but if it's $50 to $100k a year, that might be better. Especially considering that we'd lose out on chasing Stengle as a FA. That $50k could set us back years.

Stengle isn't coming to us.

Pie in the sky.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[akaifu]

Don't bottom out for a start.

It sounds like you focus too much on w/l and neglect to look at any numbers nor forecast into the future. Yes we are going bad right now, but doesn't mean you extrapolate that over next few years and assume that things won't change

Regarding the list: the staff have already spelled it out for all fans. We are refreshing the list over '23 and '24 before hitting draft and free agency beyond that. Clearly that implies that onfield results aren't the priority this year - we are still exploring the list and that doesn't just mean looking at fringe players, it also means looking at which players are expendable and have currency

Regarding game plan: continuing this exploratory phase, Ross and co are figuring out the best way to work with the talent on the list. Right now, anyone in the AFL industry can agree that we are probably a bottom 6 side on talent. Therefore, the defensive game plan is based on hard work, and the attacking side of it is obviously dependent on skill and talent - something that we cannot execute properly at this stage. It's no coincidence that our transition game from defensive half is worthy of top 6 in the comp - our most skilled players (Nas, Sinc) play in that position. In forward half transition, most of our scores come through Henry who is a talent, but he's all we have. Butler and Higgins aren't the best users, and clearly our mids aren't good enough either, except maybe Clark who's missed most of the season. This is why Collard has played more games than he would've at any other club - he could be the solution to our forward woes if he wasn't so lightly built, and the coaches have identified that problem.

Can't forget that for most of the season, we've had no midfield. As soon as Dow and Clark have come in, anyone noticed that the complaints about our midfield have died down? And this is all without our leading midfielder of last year. Hard to do anything without half of your first choice midfield that was already below par to begin with

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If we look at what’s wrong with where we’re at….

Top 4 for scoring from D50 (tick)
Bottom 2 for scores from front half and centre clearance.

Majority of scores are from turn overs, we don’t do it where it counts. Middle and forward.

We are also bottom 2 for scores per inside 50 and last for marks on the lead (which I’ve linked with no evidence other then what I see)

So we need to fix

• mids winning it out of the centre
• front half turn over game
• forward structure

First one for the recruitment team and the other two for the coaches to fix….

We won the centre clearances despite losing the hitouts. ( 7 vs 4).
We also won the total clearances.

We had less turnovers.
We had more tackles inside 50.

 

[crawfords cat]

We have no mids in the top 20 in the league. Could be further.

I love Jack Steele but this is true (assuming we're not counting Sinclair is a mid). Even top 40 could be too generous.

 

[kernelT]

You act like the club have a choice right now to guarantee Battle stays and are forcing him out.

Effectively the clubs only decision is to increase from 800/6 and based on rumours we are going to need to hit 1m/6.

Absolutely we should not be going near those numbers.

Outside of that - the club can do nothing else.

So all the carrying on from you and others is abit over dramatic. There is little option and if you are a fan of just pumping up our offer. Where do we draw the line? When a a non fan favourite leaves?

Under RTB and SOS we experienced this with Gresham and they did everything they could to extract max value. Including having a deal axed by the AFL to include Shiel.

It’s not like we are coming from a history of bending over. The only other example12 months ago says a) they did everything possible to maximise the return for the asset and b) didn’t overpay for an asset clearly not worth it.

Battle isn’t worth the rumoured figures to guarantee him staying. By the same token, where is the loyalty to us?

We have TWENTY players out of contract and the mythical war chest, why would you lose another 25 year old gun who can play at either end for the sake of some arbitrary "worth"?

I thought our plan was to be contending 2025 - 2026, but instead we are literally weakening our list year on year and hoping that draft talent will get us in contention in maybe 3-4 years.

We're just kicking the can down the road and no doubt Ross will need a few more years to nurture these draftees before we can make a call on the list quality.

Just Jones, Membrey, Ross & Webster would free up 2 million, why would we lose Battle for the sake of 100k/year or 200k/year? It's ****ing terrible business, hard enough for us to find talent in the draft, then we piss it away for some scratchies.

 

[stavro#4]

We have TWENTY players out of contract and the mythical war chest, why would you lose another 25 year old gun who can play at either end for the sake of some arbitrary "worth"?

I thought our plan was to be contending 2025 - 2026, but instead we are literally weakening our list year on year and hoping that draft talent will get us in contention in maybe 3-4 years.

We're just kicking the can down the road and no doubt Ross will need a few more years to nurture these draftees before we can make a call on the list quality.

Just Jones, Membrey, Ross & Webster would free up 2 million, why would we lose Battle for the sake of 100k/year or 200k/year? It's ****ing terrible business, hard enough for us to find talent in the draft, then we piss it away for some scratchies.

Because the AFL is ruled by the same core group of agents.

So overpaying Battle to stay we lose our bargaining position and potentially means overpaying the next OOC and so forth.

The war chest is there to make us better. Not maintain the status quo.

Same reason we didn’t give Gresham the same deal he got at Essendon.

The same reasons above allow us to offer 1.5m to bring in LDU Or a Weitering. To get better.

Battle won’t send us into a rebuild. He won’t be the key to a flag either.

 

[stavro#4]

I love Jack Steele but this is true (assuming we're not counting Sinclair is a mid). Even top 40 could be too generous.

I had Sincs as the best HBF in the league. So no.

 

[StFly]

We had injuries and excuses but so do Collingwood. The issue for me is how ugly the football looks. I'm seriously uninspired to go to games at the moment. I've attended the least amount of games in a year in probably 20 years. Even wins are so excruciating that I end up frustrated watching us. I've been frustrated before but I actually don't like the club at the moment. I have ill will towards them.

Lyon promised that he'd make the fans proud of how we play. I have the opposite feeling.

So, Pies, long and short they shit gold, can do no wrong, even when they do do wrong they get applauded, we may be in the same competition, but we have no dog in their fights club wise.

Long story short, this is the why Blues straight book kept some flags and cheated the system, this is the Dons straight tried eugenics, this is why the Cats since their deals and niche outside of Melbourne CBD throw literal farms at players and it's also why the Pies had the HGH banner flying above them whilst players cavorted with cartels. They be big clubs or wannabe big clubs that can cop the flak as they drive the competition, it needs them, the comp only needs us for the joke and the dream.

Me, previously I was offloading Coff and you were one that told me to essentially STFU about it, I was only wrong to think Highmore would be part of the reason. I like Battle, future captain material, man you can bank on giving a contest in either third of the ground, if he walks he's also replaceable and I'll wish him luck. I also wouldn't really care that much if we, for example, sold a Steele or Crouch with something to nab a first somehow.

Why, because whilst wins might be a hard watch, we know we have the pieces to get there, we know we have the reasons to be counted, and to get there we might just have to say "you've been a great servant of the club, kindly piss off and get us a benefit thanks" to some people we otherwise would love to keep.

That's how you evolve as a club. We've always been a club that went people first and foremost to our own detriment. I've been rather firm on;

Summers+Finnis = consolidation of assets = no footy spend, tough luck Richo.
Base + Finnis = growth avenues = some spend, find pieces to grow club base, hi Ratts.
This was always the period that was going to be "find our niche" to move forward and demand something. That comes with teething pains.

That's kind of what I expected, us to start making hard almost BS calls to get some standards, specialisation and people in right places to maybe build a dynasty in the end.