List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Post Season

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #2


Quick links



Latest news and rumours

Done deals:



  • Zane Trew, Jamaine Jones and Jordyn Baker delisted


Ongoing discussions:




  • List Manager Matt Clarke appeared on Sept 11 Gettable - Click spoiler below for summary
    On the draft: "We predicted that the draft was strong, but it's probably gotten stronger during the year."

    On top end of draft: "You could probably make five or six different choices and get it right."

    On Pick 3: "I reckon there's five (players) around that mark."

    On splitting: "I think you want to hold an early selection if you can. The depth of this group allows you to maybe have some movement there, and see what you can do to bring in more talent in the first 20-25 picks. Easier said than done, and I think most clubs would be saying the same thing. We'll see what we can do."

    On Liam Baker: "He's still yet to make a decision. They're still weighing up a few things. We'd love to get Liam on board from what he offers from a talent and leadership point of view. We understand where we're at as a group, we're rebuilding our group, we need to add some guys in the middle tier to support our young group."

    On Jack Graham: "We've got a number of players that we're speaking to. A bit of a wait and see on that one as well. We'll talk to a number of guys."

    On Shai Bolton: "I think it will be difficult for anybody, really. He's heavily contracted and a high quality player."

    On James Peatling: "He's heavily involved in a finals series at the moment so I don't want to comment too much on it, but I think there's a number of guys that have been playing really good footy this year that could suit what we do and what other clubs do. He's taken his footy to another level this year."

    On Tom Barrass: "We've had an early discussion with Hawthorn about it, they understand where we're at. He's nominated Hawthorn as his ideal destination. We want what we think he's worth, as a genuine key back in the competition that can do what he can do. We're obviously mindful of getting an appropriate deal for West Coast."

    On Tom Clurey: "Maybe (note: sounded very non enthused). We'd probably need some key back depth, whether that's through the draft or trade and free agency."

    On Jack Darling: "We've had initial discussions with his management group about (moving). We're open to talking, as we are with all of our players, but Jack's contracted with us."

    On Liam Ryan: "I expect him to be at West Coast next year, yes." (The most definitive answer of the day by a mile, a non-starter of a talking point.)

    On out of contact players e.g. Rotham, Witherden, Jones: "We're still working through what it looks like from a list point of view, and how many selections we'll want to have, and players that may come in and potentially may go out. You might want to give a coach an opportunity to look at these guys."

    On Harley Reid: "We've had discussions most of the year with his management group. I think it sits in a really good place. We're open to doing really whatever they want to do to be honest. We're really confident in building the right system around Harley, on and off field, to make sure that he's really comfortable, that he's going to play his best footy, and his long term future."

    On Jake Waterman's new deal: "Yep, really close. We're working really closely with his management on that. I expect that we'll have something done pretty soon."

    On Oscar Allen: "We've been talking with Oscar and his manager most of the year on that one. We're going through some stuff at the moment. I think we'll be ok with that one."



Past rumoured targets:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. Forget the small change, 90% of the deal is swapping #3 for #8. To trade #3, my limit is any pick 6 and better, and another pick 10 or better. Otherwise, GTFO.
Dude, this is pie in the sky stuff. This is just take Reid territorial. Who is it you actually want at 3? There is a serious and valid argument to be made for splitting if the price is right
 
Again, you need to look at the points factor, the only metric which we have to determine somewhat objective value.

8 + 27 = 2254 pts

3 + 63 = 2346 pts

12 + 14 = 2429 pts

So while objectively, yes, Carlton have the better offer and we rejected it outright, we also have to look at objectives.
Carlton's offer wasn't trash per se, just not the best use of our pick
I wouldn't swap #3 for 8 and 10, let alone 8 and 27.
 
Last edited:
confused-golden-globes-GIF-downsized.gif
It's a stupid system, but the only one we currently have.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's a stupid system, but the only one we currently have.
It has zero application to us and I can't imagine a single list manager (who is unaffected by matching bids) would consider it before making a trade.
Anyway my point was that the trade proposed by the St Kilda supporter was worse than the purported Carlton offer.
Doesn't your pick calculator corroborate this?
 
It has zero application to us and I can't imagine a single list manager (who is unaffected by matching bids) would consider it before making a trade.
Anyway my point was that the trade proposed by the St Kilda supporter was worse than the purported Carlton offer.
Doesn't your pick calculator corroborate this?
How many list managers do you know though?

I don't dispute it, yes, Carlton's offer was better, I'm merely arguing the point that while pick 12 and 14 sounds crap, for teams with no leverage it is - objectively - fair. Trades don't need to be fair, but we have one tool to measure "objectivity" in the eyes of the AFL and this is it.

I'd just add that IIRC the AFL threatened to intervene or did intervene in a trade that was too lopsided in points, but the finer details escape me. It was probably a Gold Coast trade.
 
Dude, this is pie in the sky stuff. This is just take Reid territorial. Who is it you actually want at 3? There is a serious and valid argument to be made for splitting if the price is right
I said in my post: Smith, Draper, Sully. I'd trade #3 if we were getting a pick back that was inside 6: Lalor, Smillie, Langford.

Who's going to give us a top 6 pick and top 10 pick? Dees will have 5 and 9. They're not going to do it because 5 and 9 is better than 3. Same with Saints 7 and 8. I'm probably not even doing that deal.

On the subject of Reid, I was in the "just take him" basket because North were never going to cough up 2 and 3.
 
Also I doubt we'd consider pick 8 unless we were comfortable with missing out on the first tier of midfielders in this draft.
As we need a midfielder at our first selection I'd be very surprised if we were prepared to move down to 8.
So, to be clear on where you stand, you're anti split?
 
I said in my post: Smith, Draper, Sully. I'd trade #3 if we were getting a pick back that was inside 6: Lalor, Smillie, Langford.

Who's going to give us a top 6 pick and top 10 pick? Dees will have 5 and 9. They're not going to do it because 5 and 9 is better than 3. Same with Saints 7 and 8. I'm probably not even doing that deal.

On the subject of Reid, I was in the "just take him" basket because North were never going to cough up 2 and 3.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to use the pick at near all costs as long as there is an actual plan, I'm just actively trying to avoid this thread being an echo chamber so many other threads on other boards become where people unironically expect stupid trades (See the North Melbourne thread about us accepting 3 and scraps for 1 last year as prime example).

Don't feel singled out, I'm almost playing devil's advocate - as per last year I'm open to the few scenarios.


Baker for a first round pick isn't one of them though. Can't drink that kool aid.
 
So, to be clear on where you stand, you're anti split?
Not necessarily, and pick 8 would suit me if we pick Tobie Travaglia (due to my own personal biases towards picking him).
My point was simply that I suspect if we are in discussions with St Kilda for a trade of pick 3 we will insist on pick 7 as we'll be likely to have one of Draper/Langford/Smillie available to us.
I doubt at pick 8 we'd have the same certainty.
 
Not necessarily, and pick 8 would suit me if we pick Tobie Travaglia (due to my own personal biases towards picking him).
My point was simply that I suspect if we are in discussions with St Kilda for a trade of pick 3 we will insist on pick 7 as we'll be likely to have one of Draper/Langford/Smillie available to us.
I doubt at pick 8 we'd have the same certainty.
Yeah boy, can get my head around this.
 
Yeah boy, can get my head around this.
I'm not certain he's the best prospect at that pick, however, due to my interactions with him on basically a weekly basis over the last six months I certainly would prefer we select him, because I've seen his character and the way he acts off the field with his teammates and the coaching staff and I have the utmost respect for how he has gone about his year and taking all opportunities he had available to him this year. Ditto James Barrat.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm not certain he's the best prospect at that pick, however, due to my interactions with him on basically a weekly basis over the last six months I certainly would prefer we select him, because I've seen his character and the way he acts off the field with his teammates and the coaching staff and I have the utmost respect for how he has gone about his year and taking all opportunities he had available to him this year. Ditto James Barrat.
You clearly have more skin in the game than us drafttime armchair experts who watch a few youtube highlights - do you see him ever cracking the midfield full time, or is his future best defined as an attacking "quarterback" type?
 
There's nothing wrong with wanting to use the pick at near all costs as long as there is an actual plan, I'm just actively trying to avoid this thread being an echo chamber so many other threads on other boards become where people unironically expect stupid trades (See the North Melbourne thread about us accepting 3 and scraps for 1 last year as prime example).

Don't feel singled out, I'm almost playing devil's advocate - as per last year I'm open to the few scenarios.


Baker for a first round pick isn't one of them though. Can't drink that kool aid.
I wouldn't want to swap past pick 6 and 10. No one is doing that swap this year. Just pick the best available and hope you get a Rolls Royce. Build team around Harley, #3, OO. Don't forget Hewett. I think he'll be an A-grader.
 
Again, you need to look at the points factor, the only metric which we have to determine somewhat objective value.

8 + 27 = 2254 pts

3 + 63 = 2346 pts

12 + 14 = 2429 pts

So while objectively, yes, Carlton have the better offer and we rejected it outright, we also have to look at objectives.
Carlton's offer wasn't trash per se, just not the best use of our pick
1728809873328.png
 
We already have Hall and Hewett to bring into the midfield mix next year, we can afford to delay a year on taking another top pick mid. Cant bring in that many kids at once.
Other parts of the ground are just as important than a strong midfield mix

The whole "need a mid at pick3" idea is outdated tbh
Cool, let's get a half back flanker.

Unless there's a standout KPF, you have to take a ball-winning mid. You don't choose any other player with a top 3 pick.
 
We already have Hall and Hewett to bring into the midfield mix next year, we can afford to delay a year on taking another top pick mid. Cant bring in that many kids at once.
Other parts of the ground are just as important than a strong midfield mix

The whole "need a mid at pick3" idea is outdated tbh
Hewett may be a busy, Hall may not be AFL standard. If the Eagles split then the first pick wouldn't be a mid would be Tobie Travaglia. Followed by Langford. Otherwise it would be horrendous.
 
First point.

Baker is worth a pick in the teens because our list manager said so. Everyone knows what Baker is worth because it was publicly stated.

Second point

I agree with those that are saying he’s not worth that and we should offer a second round pick for him but go back to the first point.

Third point

If we use pick 3 in a deal for Baker the club would more than likely be looking at a top 10 pick and one in the teens. Now that pick in the teens would be traded to the tigers because guess what. Read the first point.

Fourth point.

The only other reasonable option the club has is it uses some of what it gets for TB but the Hawks are being campaigners and have so far only offered pick 14 which was knocked back. Then traded.

It’s miles off the popular view in here that TB is worth a top 10 pick or two first rounders. It feels like this deal goes till late in the trade period which means it’s unlikely to be used in a deal for Baker.

Fifth point
I don’t see how Matt Clarke comes out of this looking great and there will be some serious melts on this board because read point two, Three and Four.

That’s all folks.
 
We already have Hall and Hewett to bring into the midfield mix next year, we can afford to delay a year on taking another top pick mid. Cant bring in that many kids at once.
Other parts of the ground are just as important than a strong midfield mix

The whole "need a mid at pick3" idea is outdated tbh

Obviously I hope both go well this year, but neither are the best insurance right now with Hall developing and as yet questionable at the level and Hewett having played only 14 games so far
 
First point.

Baker is worth a pick in the teens because our list manager said so. Everyone knows what Baker is worth because it was publicly stated.

Second point

I agree with those that are saying he’s not worth that and we should offer a second round pick for him but go back to the first point.

Third point

If we use pick 3 in a deal for Baker the club would more than likely be looking at a top 10 pick and one in the teens. Now that pick in the teens would be traded to the tigers because guess what. Read the first point.

Fourth point.

The only other reasonable option the club has is it uses some of what it gets for TB but the Hawks are being campaigners and have so far only offered pick 14 which was knocked back. Then traded.

It’s miles off the popular view in here that TB is worth a top 10 pick or two first rounders. It feels like this deal goes till late in the trade period which means it’s unlikely to be used in a deal for Baker.

Fifth point
I don’t see how Matt Clarke comes out of this looking great and there will be some serious melts on this board because read point two, Three and Four.

That’s all folks.
If we split 3 for 6 and 13 Richmond would still want 6. Let the Dockers have Baker for 11. Lets keep 3 and trade it draft night for something worthy of our time.
 
Well im assuming we split and get pick 6/7/8 + Baker+something else

Whitfield was pick 1 btw, hes the exact type of player we need
The sum of an infinite amount of role players will never equal your top tier players (Daicos, Neale etc). So swapping #3 with another pick and Baker is a terrible idea.

I love Whitfield as a player, but would never choose a player like him with a top 10 pick. He's an outsider. And we don't need a player like Whitfield over a Dawson, Daicos, Heeney type. You don't worry about your outsider and flankers until you have your engine and KPP sorted. You pick them up when your on the way up the ladder and have pick 10-15.
 
Hi sorry for intruding. If you take baker out of the equation ( only worth a r2 or later picks )
Shouldn’t west coast be going hard at extra first rounders even if the barrass trade only gets futures.
Stuff Richmond you guys are looking after west coast.
It’s only the media in my opinion beating baker and Richmond up
It won’t be the done thing but I’d walk away from the baker deal if need be
As I very much doubt freo are offering a first round now ?
He picked you guys and he’s out of contract
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Post Season

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top