List Mgmt. Contracts, trades, draft - 2022 superstar edition

[Keys]

Link to contract status of all players -

The Contracts Thread

2024 List Changes : Out: Retired- Gaff Delisted - Jones, Trew(R), Baker(R), Witherden, Burgiel, Culley(R), Rotham, L Edwards Traded - Darling (NM) Barrass (Hawthorn) In: Trade/FA acquisitions - Graham (Richmond) Baker (Richmond) Owies (Carlton) Draft - Allan (Pick 16) Shanahan (Pick 30) Gross...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[shooshka]

Like you, I can’t see the need for another ruck.

We’ve enough support cast. Quality moderate but enough.

They’ll only arrive half way through the season. Not enough time for synergy.

Has to be mids, mids and mids.

Mind you not sure if another two changes would be helpful to our list unless they are jets. It is a mid season draft after all.

One only new draftee for mine.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's player profile as well.

Pretty much any ruck we get to play now (and before guys tell me there is a certainty to be selected who is a 19yo ruck in Ramsden, I know) is generally going to be 22/23yo+ and has been developing for a number of years. We surely (surely?) looked at all of those guys on the radar when we were getting Strnadica. So whoever it is would want to have had one hell of a first half of the season (and from reports, no-one has).

Mids are more likely to be 19yo's who were overlooked and have done well (a few have), so guys we haven't run the rule over yet as they weren't on our SSP radar.

On SM-G986B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Goroyals22]

Tony Micale said on Friday there was a rumour we were gong to pick up scott jones as ruck cover in the MSD. Seems pointless to go back to him after we picked up strandica… we should have gone him first

 

[WCE_Talk]

I can really only think of two trade scenarios and both if we finish last. The only other way it happens is if someone quite low picks up a second first rounder.

1. We trade our pick 37 and next years second round pick to brisbane for their first rounder with a handshake deal not to bid on ashcroft saving them a further 350 odd points. I feel the club will back itself like we did against gold coast and brisbane would be confident we don't go back up the ladder at all.

2. Giants or Hawks finish 15th. We trade 1 for 4 and 22.

Let's say Brisbane finish in their current position. We end up with 4, 17, 19, 22 and 27. We then load up on this draft. With those picks we could even have a bet both ways particularly in regards to the top 2 ranked ruckmen in this draft class if both are available at 17.

Hewett, Cowan, D'Aloia or Ryan or Clark, Broadbent, Hagan

I think broadbent will end up being the second true ruck taken now even though I think he is the best ruck in the draft class. He isn't an explosive athlete and recruiters get wet around this shit.

Hagan will slide due to his height and will become a great kicking, run, carry and decision making backman or half forward.

Cowan also picked up as a rebounding medium backman. Composure, plenty of the ball, plenty of pace and a long, strong kick.

I feel one of D'Aloia, Ryan or Clark will slide to late first early second. There's factors for all three.

So brings in 2 Genuine mids, 1 mid who will end up either a forward or defensive flanker, a Ruck and a genuine rebounding flanker with pace, height and skill. I can see 2 or maybe 3 genuine A graders in there, and at worst 2 very serviceable players.

I can genuinely see a team wanting that first pick or even pick 2 if we finish 17th for Wardlaw or Tsatas as I just feel North will go tall and take Lemmey with their first.

Giving up pick 1 for only 4 and 22 in return is pathetic business


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[southcoast]

Tony Micale said on Friday there was a rumour we were gong to pick up scott jones as ruck cover in the MSD. Seems pointless to go back to him after we picked up strandica… we should have gone him first

If that is the case - it’s an absolute indictment on our recruiters and list managers.

In Dixon and Str……… we’ve really had two bites at the ruck position. I accept Dixon was more a key forward to cover Darlings brain fart.

Could have gone with ruckman over Collins last year. Ruck stocks were only hanging on by one NN knee ligament in 2021 anyway. Vardy was meh.

 

[JackOutback]

Giving up pick 1 for only 4 and 22 in return is pathetic business


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

People really overrate pick 1. Pick 1 has not been the best player in the draft pretty much every year since the draft began. Dropping just three spots, particularly if you had your eye on someone who will be available at 4, and adding 22 would be a win. Offers like the one made to NM last year won’t come again any time soon.

 

[Obeanie1]

Looks like 1 minimum spot opening up…possibly 2 for the MSD

How good is this Culley? Or is it hype?

The Culley hype is real.

Just wait until we pass on him and he rips us another new one later this season playing for the Hawks. It will bea blood bath on here.

 

[jaxxon]

Can we convince the club Culley is a ruckman so that take him?

 

[WCE_Talk]

People really overrate pick 1. Pick 1 has not been the best player in the draft pretty much every year since the draft began. Dropping just three spots, particularly if you had your eye on someone who will be available at 4, and adding 22 would be a win. Offers like the one made to NM last year won’t come again any time soon.

That’s not the point? Pick 1 barely ever gets traded, no one is trading it for 4 and 22.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Scotland]

That’s not the point? Pick 1 barely ever gets traded, no one is trading it for 4 and 22.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Last year Adelaide reportedly offered their first round pick (6, Rachele) and a future first for #1 because they wanted Horne-Francis.

I have no idea if there is a consensus pick 1 this year but I wouldn't be putting pick 1 on the table unless multiple firsts were coming back the other way. Right now the only team with 2 first round picks this year is Sydney with 14 and 18. Pass. If Hawthorn offered 6 and 7 (Sicily FA compo, unlikely they would have that) then you'd look at it. 2020 Sydney used 4, 5 (academy) and Essendon 8, 9, 10. 2019 Freo had 7, 8, 9 (NGA). Those are the sort of draft hands we'd love to get our hands on. We don't have any free agents and the AFL aren't giving us shit, so pick 1 (or 2, 3, 4...) is our starting point.

 

[MrWoollie]

Last year Adelaide reportedly offered their first round pick (6, Rachele) and a future first for #1 because they wanted Horne-Francis.

I have no idea if there is a consensus pick 1 this year but I wouldn't be putting pick 1 on the table unless multiple firsts were coming back the other way. Right now the only team with 2 first round picks this year is Sydney with 14 and 18. Pass. If Hawthorn offered 6 and 7 (Sicily FA compo, unlikely they would have that) then you'd look at it. 2020 Sydney used 4, 5 (academy) and Essendon 8, 9, 10. 2019 Freo had 7, 8, 9 (NGA). Those are the sort of draft hands we'd love to get our hands on. We don't have any free agents and the AFL aren't giving us shit, so pick 1 (or 2, 3, 4...) is our starting point.

The draft hands I'd like for the next two years are GC of 2018 and 2019.
2018 picks 2-3-6 Lukosius, Rankine, King
2019 picks 1-2-11 Rowell, Anderson, Ned Flanders

That group is something to build a team around.

 

[Obeanie1]

Giving up pick 1 for only 4 and 22 in return is pathetic business


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

We landed Ports 2nd moving two spots 12 to 14.

1 down to 4 or 5 would need to add more than 22. Think the points drop equates to pick 17. So a late 1st.

Id be chasing two 2nds for dropping 4 spots min. Or a player and a 2nd.

The concept isnt pathetic. Just need the right reward.

 

[The Passenger]

We landed Ports 2nd moving two spots 12 to 14.

1 down to 4 or 5 would need to add more than 22. Think the points drop equates to pick 17. So a late 1st.

Id be chasing two 2nds for dropping 4 spots min. Or a player and a 2nd.

The concept isnt pathetic. Just need the right reward.

If we have to give up 1 I have no problem as long as we come out on top by at least 10% on draft pick value*.

So if it was down to 4 then that means 10 with it which is 3400 points. If we're just getting even value then nope from me.

* I think the points scale is fairly accurate when the number of picks is either even or 1-off either side. So swapping 1 pick for 2 or 2 picks for 3. When it 4 picks for 2 I think the value of the lowest picks is too high. I think it was the Swans (?) who used 4 picks to match number 5 in 2020 (Google not helping me) and that is definitely a bit ridiculous.

 

[Dark Sharks]

If we had pick 1 and a club offered us pick 4 + some other cheese (late first/early 2nd) you'd take that wouldn't you?


IF we rated the midfielders between 1-4 about the same (Hewett, Tsatas, Warddlaw) then it's just free money.

If we don't rate them about the same and there is a legitimate clear BEST midfielder in this draft, everyone can EAD with their pick downgrade.

 

[Cornelius Roy]

Are you suggesting that the AFL corruptly manipulated the draft and priority pick system just to help out one of their charity case teams?
That they abused their power at the expense of the integrity of the system?

They wouldn't have done that! Surely not? Not the AFL under 'spotless Gil, the Teflon CEO'? No way!
I refuse the countenance that the organisation that I respect and love would behave in such a manner.

Seriously, I'd argue that North are as much an AFL charity love child as GC is and that there is every chance of the same sort of thing happening. There may not be the two mates thing, but giving North the option of grabbing the best mid and best tall, both from Melbourne, may be an available option the AFL will be unable to resist.
That would give them, say, Lemmey from Motorhead and Wardlaw. And unlike last year where they played it dumb and didn't force a match from Sydney, they should bid on Ashcroft and force a Brisbane match, dropping us to pick 4.

North should only be given a high priority pick if they agree to use it on Busslinger.

You can't continually try and draft the top midfielder in every draft for half a decade then trade your best defender with no KPD depth and wonder why you get scored on at will only to ask for a priority pick to have another stab at an elite midfielder.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

People really overrate pick 1. Pick 1 has not been the best player in the draft pretty much every year since the draft began. Dropping just three spots, particularly if you had your eye on someone who will be available at 4, and adding 22 would be a win. Offers like the one made to NM last year won’t come again any time soon.

"Pick 1 has not been the best player" is a causal fallacy. You can't use that as an argument to justify trading down the draft.
The advantage of pick 1 over pick 4 is choice. If the best player of the draft has statistically been picked at 4, then logically he was also available at 1.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

If we had pick 1 and a club offered us pick 4 + some other cheese (late first/early 2nd) you'd take that wouldn't you?


IF we rated the midfielders between 1-4 about the same (Hewett, Tsatas, Warddlaw) then it's just free money.

If we don't rate them about the same and there is a legitimate clear BEST midfielder in this draft, everyone can EAD with their pick downgrade.

IF the best rated players in the draft are KPP...
...THEN do we still insist on picking a midfielder?

If WCE_phil's analysis of the top of the order is anything to go by (and I have a lot of respect for his footy knowledge), it may be a decision between picking an A-grade KPP vs a B+ midfielder.

 

[StateOE]

If @WCE_phil's analysis of the top of the order is anything to go by (and I have a lot of respect for his footy knowledge), it may be a decision between of picking an A-grade KPP vs a B+ midfielder.

If it's a decision based on A grade or B grade, you'd pick A grade every day of the week regardless of position.

If the talent difference is negligible, that's a different story.

 

[shooshka]

IF the best rated players in the draft are KPP...
...THEN do we still insist on picking a midfielder?

If WCE_phil's analysis of the top of the order is anything to go by (and I have a lot of respect for his footy knowledge), it may be a decision between picking an A-grade KPP vs a B+ midfielder.

Regardless of list needs, if there are a couple of highly rated key forwards (or even just one standout) then we should probably take him.

If it is a key defender, then we should trade it (I don't think there is a KPD in discussions for #1 anyway this year).

This of course assumes we take a mid in the MSD (as we should).

 

[shooshka]

The Culley hype is real.

Just wait until we pass on him and he rips us another new one later this season playing for the Hawks. It will bea blood bath on here.

Why the Hawks? You don't think Nth would take him?

 

[bUCKET__]

The past couple of weeks should've convinced our list management team that the Jamieson/Williams combo is worth persisting with in the short/mid-term. Obviously haven't come out on top in too many contests, but they already look competitive as a pair and should keep improving over the next couple of years.

Gawn and Jackson might be the best combo going around, and the Dees didn't get a massive lead in hitouts to advantage.

I'll be furious if we take a ruck in any draft this year, tbh.

 

[random260]

People really overrate pick 1. Pick 1 has not been the best player in the draft pretty much every year since the draft began. Dropping just three spots, particularly if you had your eye on someone who will be available at 4, and adding 22 would be a win. Offers like the one made to NM last year won’t come again any time soon.

Mate if we have troubling nailing pick 16-18 the last couple of years throw pick 22 in the trash can.

Or better yet wait next year were we win the flag and get pick 18. Lol such an overrated pick.

We really need to treat mids as ruckman.

Imagine if you get pick 4 and you want ruckman. All of 1, 2, 3 use it on a ruckman. What are we left with? The fourth best ruckman in the draft. What a dud

 

[shooshka]

The past couple of weeks should've convinced our list management team that the Jamieson/Williams combo is worth persisting with in the short/mid-term. Obviously haven't come out on top in too many contests, but they already look competitive as a pair and should keep improving over the next couple of years.

Gawn and Jackson might be the best combo going around, and the Dees didn't get a massive lead in hitouts to advantage.

I'll be furious if we take a ruck in any draft this year, tbh.

Agree with all but your last sentence. But probably only because I would have added an asterisk:

*assuming NN, Dixon and Strnadica are still on our list in 2023.

If we cut 2 (obviously for Nic that would be retirement, which seems unlikely - but sadly he is 1 semi-serious injury off that) then I could deal with us picking up another ruck. Cut 1 and we probably have enough developing players for that positon.

 

[DanWA]

Why are so many people calling pick 1 in the bag?

 

[KERRPOW]

Last year Adelaide reportedly offered their first round pick (6, Rachele) and a future first for #1 because they wanted Horne-Francis.

I have no idea if there is a consensus pick 1 this year but I wouldn't be putting pick 1 on the table unless multiple firsts were coming back the other way. Right now the only team with 2 first round picks this year is Sydney with 14 and 18. Pass. If Hawthorn offered 6 and 7 (Sicily FA compo, unlikely they would have that) then you'd look at it. 2020 Sydney used 4, 5 (academy) and Essendon 8, 9, 10. 2019 Freo had 7, 8, 9 (NGA). Those are the sort of draft hands we'd love to get our hands on. We don't have any free agents and the AFL aren't giving us shit, so pick 1 (or 2, 3, 4...) is our starting point.

Agreed. You would want at least 1x top 5 pick and 1x top 10.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Why are so many people calling pick 1 in the bag?

Because if history is any guide, pick 1 is about 1 million times better than any other pick in the top 5.

Or so I am assuming.