List Mgmt. Brady Rawlings | Head of Football Talent (Recruitment, LM & TPP)

[The Nostradamus]

IDK if it's driven by Brady, but it does seem like we have a trend of not caring too much about what we spend in order to acquire talent we have identified as needing.

On the player trading side of it I think 3/4 of the issue is that there simply aren't many good players that want to cross over to us, less options means less chance of grabbing hold of a good deal and then the clubs we do trade with know they have us slightly by the balls because we have **** all options to fall back on (while needing to acquire talent because the list isn't getting the job done).

The draft side of it hasn't been too bad overall? This year arguably being the first where a first rounder has been involved in a really ??? decision, if memory serves.

My gut says that he isn't great at negotiating trade deals but the rest is alright. The question becomes, why isn't he good at it? Is it because he's just shit, or because the club keeps finding itself is in too compromised of a position, or a bit of both?

This is a really good call out

Once they lock in on a target it’s tunnel vision

They need to put a max price on every player and be prepared to walk away if it is going to exceed that

 

[chubbspeterson]

I have it on word, a fairly reliable word.. he was shopping it around on every pick.

The world of Riley Beveridges? He confirmed it was from pick 8 onwards.

He just threw it away. There was no strategy, there was no making people’s interest, in fact, it was a fire sale.

There was a strategy, whether we agree with it or not, to get a tall in with the F1 and lock in the player they rated the best at 2 (FOS), but as Will said once it started heading into the teens we wanted a F2 back.
Hartley said they'd had discussions before the draft. I suspect it was likely around pick 11, but Tigers may have heard other teams were chasing Hotton, Faull and Armstrong, so the pick they were willing to trade drifted further out.
No doubt F1 for 27 and F2 is not a good deal.

 

[DuckYeah]

Imagine having that big a nose and never getting a sniff

 

[My Left Foote]

so we were rated equil last for the draft with swans,

Every AFL club’s draft graded, with four big winners... and two who confused everyone: Report Card

Every AFL club’s draft graded, with four big winners... and two who confused everyone

www.foxsports.com.au

Could not give a f*ck where we’re rated, means jack shit.

 

[My Left Foote]

Let me preface this by saying this information has come to me 3rd hand. But if it’s true, it makes the F1 deal look even worse.

During the trade period Richmond offered 11 & one of their 2nd round picks for our F1 and Current 4th round pick. We held our ground because we thought there would be better offers….on draft night we went to Richmond and wanted the same deal they said no, because they were really keen to get those talls on their list.

By holding out thinking we were going to get a better deal we essentially cost ourselves a top 15 pick.

Rawlings ability to negotiate fair value is genuinely shit, and it’s costing us far too much in terms of opportunities lost at both the draft table and the trade table.

Sorry to burst the “Brady is shit bubble” but this is categorically untrue. Hartley states in his interview that “10 and 11 were never really on the table”, your third hand information is making shit up.

 

[Pravda Roo]

Could not give a f*ck where we’re rated, means jack shit.

Agree if no one liked the trade about from us their wrong.

 

[Sillygit]

Sorry to burst the “Brady is shit bubble” but this is categorically untrue. Hartley states in his interview that “10 and 11 were never really on the table”, your third hand information is making shit up.

but if the hypotheticals that didn't happen aren't concrete evidence to shit on him WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH ALL THESE FEELINGS?!?!

 

[Zondor]

Sorry to burst the “Brady is shit bubble” but this is categorically untrue. Hartley states in his interview that “10 and 11 were never really on the table”, your third hand information is making shit up.

I can’t say I know but that’s not what RF08 posted. 11 and a Second Round Pick is different to 10 and 11. :stern look

 

[Kangas_11]

I have it on word, a fairly reliable word.. he was shopping it around on every pick.

He just threw it away. There was no strategy, there was no making people’s interest, in fact, it was a fire sale.

Found the footage from the North draft hub after pick 11.

 

[perplexed]

The world of Riley Beveridges? He confirmed it was from pick 8 onwards.

There was a strategy, whether we agree with it or not, to get a tall in with the F1 and lock in the player they rated the best at 2 (FOS), but as Will said once it started heading into the teens we wanted a F2 back.
Hartley said they'd had discussions before the draft. I suspect it was likely around pick 11, but Tigers may have heard other teams were chasing Hotton, Faull and Armstrong, so the pick they were willing to trade drifted further out.
No doubt F1 for 27 and F2 is not a good deal.

I think 'strategy' is a generous description. It was more a salvage operation. We had a plan going into the draft, but we obviously weren't in the position we intended at the start of the trade period.

We had expected that before the draft we would be able to either split 2 or trade in our F1 for a decent return. Neither happened, we had both misread the demand for these picks and traded out a pick we needed. At this point we could have gone several different ways. Sit and just take the picks we had (missing out on all the talls), trade back and out for the cheap future picks, take whatever awful deal Richmond were offering us for 2, or spend our F1 to buy back at a loss the pick spent on Daniel. I don't think we chose wisely.

 

[Gasometer]

I heard that Brady said no to 10 first round picks for our pick 72. Can you believe it? Ah he's just the worst!

I heard this ninth hand but the cat requests no onion on his Big Mac AT THE RECEIVE window of Maccas Drive Thru and it has to be scraped off before he exits.

 

[Samsquanch]

Could not give a f*ck where we’re rated, means jack shit.

It seems that the media are always going to rank everything related to the footy industry and publish their opinions as if these are important and actually measurable facts.

I suspect that clubs make recruiting decisions based on a widely ranging set of factors, especially after the first round of the draft, such that what is perfectly reasonable for one club might make no sense for another.

The article by Rick18 during the season where our list profile in terms of age and experience was called out as a significant contributing factor to our poor onfield results meant that we either had to choose between years of organic rebuilding or we had to bite the bullet and try to find mature trade-ins that were (a) willing to come and (b) bring qualities that will help develop and improve the team. In addition to the gaping age profile gaps, we had gaping positional holes so I suspect that any decision to address problem one meant that a solution to problem two would be difficult to address.

The post by Devington above also points out that we didn't exactly have a conga line of free agents or other players banging on the doors of Arden St offering their services either. To get anybody we wanted almost certainly meant we had to pay full retail price or over.

The ranking of the drafting period might appear to be easy, by simply assessing the relative talent pools acquired by each club divided by the draft points they paid, with an X factor applied to boost or reduce the rating based on whether a trade deal was favourable or otherwise but realistically, there's way more to it than that. And in any case, the real winners and losers of any trade and draft period can probably only be assessed a number of years after.

 

[Gasometer]

Rick18 is the Know

 

[Twangler]

It seems that the media are always going to rank everything related to the footy industry and publish their opinions as if these are important and actually measurable facts.

I suspect that clubs make recruiting decisions based on a widely ranging set of factors, especially after the first round of the draft, such that what is perfectly reasonable for one club might make no sense for another.

The article by Rick18 during the season where our list profile in terms of age and experience was called out as a significant contributing factor to our poor onfield results meant that we either had to choose between years of organic rebuilding or we had to bite the bullet and try to find mature trade-ins that were (a) willing to come and (b) bring qualities that will help develop and improve the team. In addition to the gaping age profile gaps, we had gaping positional holes so I suspect that any decision to address problem one meant that a solution to problem two would be difficult to address.

The post by Devington above also points out that we didn't exactly have a conga line of free agents or other players banging on the doors of Arden St offering their services either. To get anybody we wanted almost certainly meant we had to pay full retail price or over.

The ranking of the drafting period might appear to be easy, by simply assessing the relative talent pools acquired by each club divided by the draft points they paid, with an X factor applied to boost or reduce the rating based on whether a trade deal was favourable or otherwise but realistically, there's way more to it than that. And in any case, the real winners and losers of any trade and draft period can probably only be assessed a number of years after.

Good post. I think what is also clear based on looking at the whole trade and draft period in totality is that we have improved our playing list and list demographic/balance. Unlike many teams this year we have not lost any best 22 or even important depth players. Let’s see how this translates to next year but I’m feeling cautiously optimistic

 

[Flawed Genius]

crumpets
gronk
nuffmuppet
intellectually challenged dribblers
nuffies
poor little dears

Interesting way to refer to our 2020/21 midfield group but you do you

 

[Gasometer]

If Caleb Daniel makes the 2025 All-Australian squad, do we get to revise the "catastrophic" rating of his trade?

Or are the value of individual trades utterly separate from the business of actual football.

If Caleb Daniel can defend with accuracy and accountability we have won this Draft

 

[The Brady Bunch]

If Caleb Daniel can defend with accuracy and accountability we have won this Draft

The three players we brought in will obviously provide leadership and they will address needs in our team on a short term basis. Longer term, they will ideally teach the intricacies and nuances of their specific role. Daniel as the accountable rebounding defender, Parker as the accountable defensive midfielder, and Darling as the accountable, highly mobile key forward who drags opponents away from our other tall forwards with smart leading patterns whilst also offering manic tackling pressure to lock the ball in.

We keep trying to fit square pegs in round holes with each of these positions and it isn't working. Players who have played most of their lives in one role and we have tried to convert them into something unnatural to them and without success.

I agree with you, I hope Caleb Daniel fulfills that rebounding defender need with accuracy and accountability. Because every player we've sent back there in recent years has only managed one skill or the other at times, but never both. And sometimes neither. If Daniel gives us that, and teaches the next gen to do the same, then not only do we win this draft as you say, but some of our recent drafts also start to look even better.

 

[My Left Foote]

I can’t say I know but that’s not what RF08 posted. 11 and a Second Round Pick is different to 10 and 11. :stern look

I guess it’s open to interpretation, the way I took it was picks 10 and 11 were never really on the table as individual picks (not a package). It would have been negligent of them to trade both and even to trade one of them we’ve since learned wasn’t really in their thinking.

So based on that how is it that one of those picks was “offered” to us in a deal for our F1? It’s a bullshit story like so many others.

 

[Zondor]

I guess it’s open to interpretation, the way I took it was picks 10 and 11 were never really on the table as individual picks (not a package). It would have been negligent of them to trade both and even to trade one of them we’ve since learned wasn’t really in their thinking.

So based on that how is it that one of those picks was “offered” to us in a deal for our F1? It’s a bullshit story like so many others.

Is it? I can’t say it is or it isn’t based on that evidence. If Hartley had said 10 or 11 were never on the table well then different story. While we are at it what are the many other “bullshit” stories you think have been posted about Rawling? :stern look

 

[Zondor]

I think 'strategy' is a generous description. It was more a salvage operation. We had a plan going into the draft, but we obviously weren't in the position we intended at the start of the trade period.

We had expected that before the draft we would be able to either split 2 or trade in our F1 for a decent return. Neither happened, we had both misread the demand for these picks and traded out a pick we needed. At this point we could have gone several different ways. Sit and just take the picks we had (missing out on all the talls), trade back and out for the cheap future picks, take whatever awful deal Richmond were offering us for 2, or spend our F1 to buy back at a loss the pick spent on Daniel. I don't think we chose wisely.

But we had a plan. :stern look

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

I think 'strategy' is a generous description. It was more a salvage operation. We had a plan going into the draft, but we obviously weren't in the position we intended at the start of the trade period.

We had expected that before the draft we would be able to either split 2 or trade in our F1 for a decent return. Neither happened, we had both misread the demand for these picks and traded out a pick we needed. At this point we could have gone several different ways. Sit and just take the picks we had (missing out on all the talls), trade back and out for the cheap future picks, take whatever awful deal Richmond were offering us for 2, or spend our F1 to buy back at a loss the pick spent on Daniel. I don't think we chose wisely.

Pretty much spot on.

Brady said post season we will go after some experienced players ...but not at the cost of impacting our draft hand.

In the end the pursuit of Daniel in particular severely impacted our 2024 draft hand flexibility and in the end has now impacted our 2025 draft hand.

We have been in 'cover our ass' mode from the minute the Daniel trade was completed. The competition knew it and took advantage of our position (as they should).

When decisions are made on the fly - like paying 25 for Daniel - then there will always be a bigger price to pay - and we have just paid that bigger price in that our 24 and 25 draft hands have been compromised.

 

[My Left Foote]

Is it? I can’t say it is or it isn’t based on that evidence. If Hartley had said 10 or 11 were never on the table well then different story. While we are at it what are the many other “bullshit” stories you think have been posted about Rawling? :stern look

RF said himself the information was third hand and yet when you’re presented with a quote, from the Richmond List Manager saying the picks weren't on the table, you still want to argue they were.

So while we're at it find me a story posted about Brady that can be 100% proved true? Show me a story from a poster who actually spoke to Brady themselves. A story from a poster who was involved in the meeting while draft negotiations took place.

The Brady stories in this thread are at Caroline Wilson levels of sources, where people will corroborate anything to suit their narrative. Stern look indeed.

 

[ferball]

Nope. My opinions are not absolute, I’m just not a cheerleading idiot. He has been at the club since when? And how has the club fared in that time? Should we keep just giving him a free pass because he is well connected at the club? He is one of the biggest reasons we are in the position we’re in.

That's like saying Tasmania is one of the biggest land masses on the Australian continent.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I think the most important part was that we brought in experience without diluting our draft hand….

 

[hilly]

It seems that the media are always going to rank everything related to the footy industry and publish their opinions as if these are important and actually measurable facts.

I suspect that clubs make recruiting decisions based on a widely ranging set of factors, especially after the first round of the draft, such that what is perfectly reasonable for one club might make no sense for another.

The article by Rick18 during the season where our list profile in terms of age and experience was called out as a significant contributing factor to our poor onfield results meant that we either had to choose between years of organic rebuilding or we had to bite the bullet and try to find mature trade-ins that were (a) willing to come and (b) bring qualities that will help develop and improve the team. In addition to the gaping age profile gaps, we had gaping positional holes so I suspect that any decision to address problem one meant that a solution to problem two would be difficult to address.

The post by Devington above also points out that we didn't exactly have a conga line of free agents or other players banging on the doors of Arden St offering their services either. To get anybody we wanted almost certainly meant we had to pay full retail price or over.

The ranking of the drafting period might appear to be easy, by simply assessing the relative talent pools acquired by each club divided by the draft points they paid, with an X factor applied to boost or reduce the rating based on whether a trade deal was favourable or otherwise but realistically, there's way more to it than that. And in any case, the real winners and losers of any trade and draft period can probably only be assessed a number of years after.

I agree we need to pay overs for a player ($, duration or both) but I don't think that extends to what we give to that player's club in a trade.