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

[Keys]

Quick links

• Player contract status
• Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)
• AFL retirements and delistings
• Provisional 2025 Draft order

---

Trade period
In: 12, F1, F2, F3, 73, Baker, Owies, Graham*
Out: 3, 63, F4, Barrass, Darling

*Free agent

Done deals

• Jai Culley, Alex Witherden
  23

  Alex Witherden

  Age

  26

  Ht

  188cm

  Wt

  85kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  20.7

  5star

  K

  15.2

  5star

  HB

  5.5

  4star

  M

  6.2

  5star

  T

  1.8

  4star

  MG

  386.5

  5star

  D

  13.0

  3star

  K

  10.0

  4star

  HB

  3.0

  2star

  M

  7.0

  5star

  T

  0.0

  1star

  MG

  201.0

  3star

  D

  24.0

  5star

  K

  15.4

  5star

  HB

  8.6

  5star

  M

  5.8

  5star

  T

  2.2

  4star

  MG

  380.2

  5star

  and Coby Burgiel delisted
  • Burgiel to be considered as a train on player

• Tom Barrass traded to Hawthorn
  • In: F1, F2, F3 (HAW)
  • Out: Barrass, F4

• Liam Baker and Matt Owies join West Coast in Pick 3 trade
  • In: Baker, Owies, 12, 73
  • Out: 3, 63, 68

• Jack Darling traded to North Melbourne for Pick 67

• Jack Graham joins West Coast as UFA

• Jake Waterman re-signs with West Coast until at least 2029

• Zane Trew, Jamaine Jones
  31

  Jamaine Jones

  Age

  26

  Ht

  180cm

  Wt

  80kg

  Pos.

  D/F

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  9.0

  2star

  K

  4.8

  2star

  HB

  4.2

  3star

  M

  2.1

  2star

  T

  3.8

  5star

  MG

  159.6

  3star

  D

  10.5

  3star

  K

  6.5

  3star

  HB

  4.0

  3star

  M

  2.5

  3star

  T

  4.0

  5star

  MG

  196.5

  3star

  D

  9.0

  3star

  K

  4.2

  2star

  HB

  4.8

  4star

  M

  2.4

  3star

  T

  4.2

  5star

  MG

  166.0

  3star

  and Jordyn Baker delisted

• Archer Reid (2027), Loch Rawlinson (2025), and Coen Livingstone (2025) sign extensions

 

[Cuzz09]

pick 12:

TT or Lindsay

pick 26:

Hannaford or Moraes

Sent from my SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ruben Grubarb]

Oh come on

Not many go on about it as much as you, but most of us don't like the fact we traded 3.

But if it happens to work out for the best, nearly everyone will have to give credit to Clarke and the club.

Not you. It's just dumb luck and you're right regardless

Jeepers

Ah, you don't understand hindsight.

Without the benefit of hindsight, some decisions are bad. Doesn't matter how they turn out, they're bad decisions.

example: The TK trade was a good decision at the time. If we had a time machine and went back there (meaning we go back to a place where we don't know what the future holds), most people are happy with it. Fast forward to when we realised we weren't in fact competing for a flag, it's a bad decision.

Unless someone has an amazing track record of beating the index, decisions need to be judged on what data was available at the time.

Bad outcome: Why did you make that decision? Oh, I see, that made sense at the time. It will be rare we lose again.
Good outcome: Great decision. Let's try it again. Why did I get a bad outcome?

 

[WA footy mad]

Prior & Carrol way ahead of Clurey

 

[Dark Sharks]

I know a lot of the SSP talk is rightly around a key defender (DGB, Clurey) and midfield depth (Carroll) but surely we’d at least look at a mature age ruckman?

We have Bailey Williams, Flynn (injury prone), Jamieson (key defender) and Barnett (not ready).

I agree, however i feel given the contract situations of all the above players the club is just going to suck it and see (which is annoying) and roll through another season with it being a clear weakness for our side.

Flynn is still well and truly contracted. Jamieson is on his final year. Barnett just got extended for 2 more.

Which leaves Williams, who i thought would've been a sensible choice to trade.. however we didn't. You can't deny the bloke is at least durable, which the others are not. He gets on the park and you know what you're getting more often than not.

Until Jamieson gets delisted, or Williams is traded (RFA at the end of 2026) i doubt the club will add anymore rucks.

All we can do is double down and hope Flynn firstly gets on the park, then stops playing like an unfit potato that doesn't resemble the player we initially recruited from GWS to fill this void, when he does.


I'll back Flynn in with a pre season. It'll be intriguing watching if Williams plays in the WAFL, when they once again try and fail to turn him into a forward.

 

[THE A5]

Things might have been different for Melbourne if they'd taken Dusty at two instead of Trengove....

Having said that they probably just ruin Dusty's career as well.

Dusty and Trac in one midfield for would have been anything. Also would have meant that it would have been Trac/dusty that Harley would have double fended off

 

[Mattman93]

Cam’s latest rankings. Very interesting indeed.

Cal Twomey's Phantom Form Guide: Top draft prospects' October ranking

AFL.com.au's draft guru Cal Twomey delivers his fourth Phantom Form Guide ahead of the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

01: LEVI ASHCROFT.
02: FINN O'SULLIVAN.
03: HARVEY LANGFORD.
04: SAM LALOR.
05: JAGGA SMITH.
06: MURPHY REID.
07: SID DRAPER.
08: JOSH SMILLIE.
09: ALIX TAURU.
10: HARRY ARMSTRONG.
11: TOBIE TRAVAGLIA.
12: BO ALLAN.
13: LEONARDO LOMBARD.
14: ISAAC KAKO.
15: TAJ HOTTON.
16: XAVIER LINDSAY.
17: LUKE TRAINOR.
18: JOE BERRY.
19: JACK WHITLOCK.
20: JOBE SHANAHAN.
21: COOPER HYNES.
22: SAM MARSHALL.
23: MATT WHITLOCK.
24: JESSE DATTOLI.
25: JONTY FAULL.
26: HARRISON OLIVER.
27: TOM GROSS.
28: OLLIE HANNAFORD.
29: ALEX DODSON.
30: CHRISTIAN MORAES.

We won’t pick Hotton so going off that looks like Lindsay and Moraes.

Interesting to see remain Langford so high, above putative pick 1 favourite Lalor, since (I assume) Cal's rankings are basically just a consensus compilation of what he's hearing from recruiters.

Ironically the way things are shaping up I'd prefer to trade down even more from 12 if it meant two picks in the teens/early 20s range. Two of Berry/Hynes/Hannaford beats one of (eg) Allan/Lindsay.

 

[Dark Sharks]

pick 12:

TT or Lindsay

pick 26:

Hannaford or Moraes

Sent from my SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm trying not to even bother with the draft at this point. Still plenty can happen with our picks before the national draft so it's a moot discussion.

Remember how many pages were wasted talking about who we'd take with pick 3 and pick 14?



TT at 12 would be huge, but i doubt we'll get that lucky.

Lindsay if available is the actual realistic choice for mine. Fills a clear need, replaces the Gaff role.

 

[Obeanie1]

First-round AFL Phantom Draft: Who your club could pick on night 1

With six bids and 28 picks, this is ESPN draft expert Jasper Chellappah's first-round phantom mock, a month out from the 2024 AFL Draft. Who will your club pick on the first night?

www.espn.com.au

That’s not a great result imo.

Lazy journalism.

Anyone surprised?

 

[Obeanie1]

Just an FYI Warner will only be a year younger than Kelly was when we traded for him

The team is obviously at different stages, but just a thought when we look at making the trade.

Well when we got Kelly we fell off the cliff.

If we get Chad next year we are at least climbing the cliff!

 

[amazingjoshy]

Ah, you don't understand hindsight.

Without the benefit of hindsight, some decisions are bad. Doesn't matter how they turn out, they're bad decisions.

example: The TK trade was a good decision at the time. If we had a time machine and went back there (meaning we go back to a place where we don't know what the future holds), most people are happy with it. Fast forward to when we realised we weren't in fact competing for a flag, it's a bad decision.

Unless someone has an amazing track record of beating the index, decisions need to be judged on what data was available at the time.

Bad outcome: Why did you make that decision? Oh, I see, that made sense at the time. It will be rare we lose again.
Good outcome: Great decision. Let's try it again. Why did I get a bad outcome?

It is possible for different drafts to be different though, no?

So our recruiters whose job it is to spend months and even years monitoring this year's draftees, make a huge call to trade down because they think the draft is that even, and get absolutely reamed from all angles about it

And even then, even if they get it right and it works out for the best, instead of crediting them for being good at their jobs and nailing it, according to you it's just dumb luck and was still the wrong call

I think that's incredibly simplistic at best

 

[eaglevision]

Interesting to see remain Langford so high, above putative pick 1 favourite Lalor, since (I assume) Cal's rankings are basically just a consensus compilation of what he's hearing from recruiters.

Ironically the way things are shaping up I'd prefer to trade down even more from 12 if it meant two picks in the teens/early 20s range. Two of Berry/Hynes/Hannaford beats one of (eg) Allan/Lindsay.

Langford is a very Norf pick. Mid/HFF would be in the mix with Lalor if they don’t trade down.

I’d trade down with Sydney if TT and Lindsay are off the board. Berry I’d be 50/50 and Allan I’d definitely prefer split.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

I am thinking about what and why Tigers would burn R1 picks just to get to pick 2.

Cal mentioned on Gettable that the offer for pick 2 is only likely to be 6 and 18. Well short of the Tin Rattlers thinking that it will be 6 and 10.

In theory it makes our 12 and 14 more acceptable but I think there is a clear top 6 and then a gap. I actually think that Richmond can afford to wait at 6 to see which of the mids will be available. There will be 2 of the top end. Just go with 1 of the 2 at 6 and then go for pieces that balance who they take at 1 and 6. They will have enough KPP to choose from at 18, 20, 23 and 24 or even go early at 10 if you see what you want. The likes of Hynes, Gross, Hannaford, Oliver and Moraes will all be available by the 8th pick so they can just relax.

I would be tempted to offer Norf 6 and 10 for 2 and their F1.

 

[Jukes]

I agree, however i feel given the contract situations of all the above players the club is just going to suck it and see (which is annoying) and roll through another season with it being a clear weakness for our side.

Flynn is still well and truly contracted. Jamieson is on his final year. Barnett just got extended for 2 more.

Which leaves Williams, who i thought would've been a sensible choice to trade.. however we didn't. You can't deny the bloke is at least durable, which the others are not. He gets on the park and you know what you're getting more often than not.

Until Jamieson gets delisted, or Williams is traded (RFA at the end of 2026) i doubt the club will add anymore rucks.

All we can do is double down and hope Flynn firstly gets on the park, then stops playing like an unfit potato that doesn't resemble the player we initially recruited from GWS to fill this void, when he does.


I'll back Flynn in with a pre season. It'll be intriguing watching if Williams plays in the WAFL, when they once again try and fail to turn him into a forward.

Yeah makes sense…we are tied to the contracts.

The frustration is that it felt like we trained all preseason last year to have a midfield setup around a tap ruckman. Then when our only tap ruckman (who is injury prone) went down so close to the start of the season, we were back at square one (2023 style).

 

[ghostbat12]

I am thinking about what and why Tigers would burn R1 picks just to get to pick 2.

Cal mentioned on Gettable that the offer for pick 2 is only likely to be 6 and 18. Well short of the Tin Rattlers thinking that it will be 6 and 10.

In theory it makes our 10 and 12 more acceptable but I think there is a clear top 6 and then a gap. I actually think that Richmond can afford to wait at 6 to see which of the mids will be available. There will be 2 of the top end. Just go with 1 of the 2 at 6 and then go for pieces that balance who they take at 1 and 6. They will have enough KPP to choose from at 18, 20, 23 and 24 or even go early at 10 if you see what you want. The likes of Hynes, Gross, Hannaford, Oliver and Moraes will all be available by the 8th pick so they can just relax.

I would be tempted to offer Norf 6 and 10 for 2 and their F1.

We got 12 and 14…not 10 & 12 (sorry).

 

[ghostbat12]

It is possible for different drafts to be different though, no?

So our recruiters whose job it is to spend months and even years monitoring this year's draftees, make a huge call to trade down because they think the draft is that even, and get absolutely reamed from all angles about it

And even then, even if they get it right and it works out for the best, instead of crediting them for being good at their jobs and nailing it, according to you it's just dumb luck and was still the wrong call

I think that's incredibly simplistic at best

Well it’s also simplistic to analyse recruiters on correct/incorrect calls and then, as some do, go on to list who came after and “who we could have drafted”.

Recruiters can only be judged against their peers, not expectations of pie eaters on the couch. This is by listing sum of all successes/failures and how it compares to every other club.

Of course failures of bigfooty favourites never gets remembered. Remember when everyone lost their shit for not drafting valente?

 

[Ruben Grubarb]

It is possible for different drafts to be different though, no?

So our recruiters whose job it is to spend months and even years monitoring this year's draftees, make a huge call to trade down because they think the draft is that even, and get absolutely reamed from all angles about it

And even then, even if they get it right and it works out for the best, instead of crediting them for being good at their jobs and nailing it, according to you it's just dumb luck and was still the wrong call

I think that's incredibly simplistic at best

Different draft qualities, differences in where top end talent finishes, etc - of course. The historic data shows as such. Apparently this draft is deep. Anyone of 6 or 7 kids could go #1..

I didn't say anything about dumb luck. I just said decisions also need to be judged on the data they had at the time of making the decision, rather than just the outcome. Good decision makers don't get every decision right. They just get a higher percentage right compared to their peers. These people aren't winging it and going on a whim, they're playing percentages.

I don't think anyone thinks Clarke was thinking, "the draft is even through #3 to #12". His motivation was getting Baker in and he went to extreme lengths to do it.

I'm sure we both agree that who we pick at 12 could be elite. And who we would have chosen at 3 ends up a dud. Entirely possible. We've seen it happen, although not so much in recent drafts. But I'm sure we can also agree that it's a low percentage play (and therefore bad decision), regardless of the outcome.

 

[plays tall 1]

The Richmond style has many HFF pushing up around the ball .

Our connection between our mid and forwards has been poor for a long time .

Berry looks a beauty.

And Hannaford…

 

[Off Tap]

Sure, but it's gone from all the time, to rare. Go have a look at the Tsatas draft. There's me saying, "wouldn't take this kid with a top 10 pick". No one is taking Tom Scully these days with #1.

Scully is a bad example for you as he was universally the undisputed #1 pick of his year. Nobody didn't have him going at that pick.

 

[WCEswift]

We won’t pick Hotton so going off that looks like Lindsay and Moraes.

me gusta

 

[Obeanie1]

I am thinking about what and why Tigers would burn R1 picks just to get to pick 2.

Cal mentioned on Gettable that the offer for pick 2 is only likely to be 6 and 18. Well short of the Tin Rattlers thinking that it will be 6 and 10.

In theory it makes our 10 and 12 more acceptable but I think there is a clear top 6 and then a gap. I actually think that Richmond can afford to wait at 6 to see which of the mids will be available. There will be 2 of the top end. Just go with 1 of the 2 at 6 and then go for pieces that balance who they take at 1 and 6. They will have enough KPP to choose from at 18, 20, 23 and 24 or even go early at 10 if you see what you want. The likes of Hynes, Gross, Hannaford, Oliver and Moraes will all be available by the 8th pick so they can just relax.

I would be tempted to offer Norf 6 and 10 for 2 and their F1.

The rumor was / is Tigers want Jagga and FOS.

 

[Ruben Grubarb]

Scully is a bad example for you as he was universally the undisputed #1 pick of his year. Nobody didn't have him going at that pick.

But is he going to be universally #1 in 2024? I don't think so. I think most clubs have wised up.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Well it’s also simplistic to analyse recruiters on correct/incorrect calls and then, as some do, go on to list who came after and “who we could have drafted”.

Recruiters can only be judged against their peers, not expectations of pie eaters on the couch. This is by listing sum of all successes/failures and how it compares to every other club.

Of course failures of bigfooty favourites never gets remembered. Remember when everyone lost their shit for not drafting valente?

Couldn't agree more with this and have always argued this point, particularly in regards to the Kelly trade

 

[amazingjoshy]

Different draft qualities, differences in where top end talent finishes, etc - of course. The historic data shows as such. Apparently this draft is deep. Anyone of 6 or 7 kids could go #1..

I didn't say anything about dumb luck. I just said decisions also need to be judged on the data they had at the time of making the decision, rather than just the outcome.

Even if we the kid we draft at 12 is a gun, and the 2 or 3 kids at 3 are duds, it'll be a case of luck.

No you didn't say the "dumb" part. You did say it would be luck. I disagree strongly

They made a big call. If it works out for the best they get the credit, if it doesn't I'm sure as shit we will never hear the end of it on here

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

The rumor was / is Tigers want Jagga and FOS.

I’ve heard 3 different rumours!!!

 

[Off Tap]

But is he going to be universally #1 in 2024? I don't think so. I think most clubs have wised up.

In that draft pool?

Absolutely yes, without a doubt. Based on his junior output there was not 1 person who didn't have him going at 1.

He was a ball pig that ran both ways, all day.

If you think otherwise you need to change your name to Harry Hindsight.