And the third one’s Port Adelaide I think?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
News Farewell, and thank you for your service thread
- Thread starter dogs105
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's almost as if not being certain yet how many players are coming to your club might have an impact on which players you want to delist!
Seriously, I don't get the obsession with wanting the club to delist players ASAP. It's not a race. It's not like trade week where doing one early gives you time to focus on another. The club will already know which players it is happy to cut. They just needs to work out how many players they are bringing in.
There is plenty to be upset with the club about without worrying about us not delisting players early enough.
Brenton Davy
Premium Gold
Too many we need to get rid of. I’m guessing we’re trying to figure out who’s going to be less bad…
If we had snagged Lukosius, for example, we probably would have pushed Gollant up the order in the "delist ASAP" category.
We have more delist-worthy players than players we are likely to recruit this year. Knowing who is coming impacts which ones we delist.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,794
- 161,992
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #80
I think it's reflected in how we treat our players with selection, with contracts and with list spots.
We are close to them, value them as people, don't want to hurt feelings. I'm not sure we're able to make tough, brutally frank player assessments.
We're too concerned with relationship building and wrongly confuse that with strong culture.
It might create a happy culture but I'm not sure it's a winning culture.
I don't really see it, to be honest. Does delisting players later in the delisting period make them feel better than if we do it earlier?
If your argument is that we've historically retained players that we should have delisted, I agree. But that's not what the posters in this thread are complaining about now. They're complaining that other clubs have started delisting players before us. I don't see why that is an issue.
FR0GGY
From a cartel villa in Tuscany
Surely the players want to know where they stand so they can get on with the rest of their careers or lives.
And if the players do know, why not announce it?
If that's the strategy it's clearly not working given we've lost close to the most quality players that have chosen to leave the club and also failed to attract quality players as well so not sure the nice guy routine is working as hoped. Much more likely we are just incompetent and have found a way to complicate and mess up even the simplest of tasks
Lack of turnover is our problem, not the timing of delisting announcements. Geelong culling 9, we can’t pick a single player that we’re moving on from. That’s the problem.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,794
- 161,992
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #85
I think we're clinging to hope that we won't need to cut the Ben Davis's of the world, so hang on as long as possible before making a call.
Instead of just deciding that he's not quite up to it and delisting him, understanding that Rnd 4 draft pick or delisted free agent or whoever is a better option
Because we love the Ben Davis's.
Delisting a player prior to the B&F is enough to make us sick to our stomachs.
Lack of turnover has been a problem for us, I agree. But the notion that we "can't pick a single player" that we're moving on from is fanciful. We're obviously going to delist a number of players. The timing of our announcement has no bearing on how many get delisted, other than to the extent that more information about who is coming here may come to light.
If you want to have a discussion about how we seem determined to delist only a few players this year, that's a separate topic where we're probably on the same page.
The first two paragraphs seem a bit silly to me. Holding off as long as possible for what? There is no new information to come in about the proverbial Ben Davis between now and next week.
I can certainly see us wanting to hold off until after the B&F just from a decency standpoint, but honestly, I think it's a simpler equation than that. I think we've already worked out how many new players we intend to bring into the club next year, based on our draft hand and trade targets. The only open question is, can we get anyone to commit to the club in advance? If so, that may shift the equation slightly - for example, if Cumming chooses us, it doesn't impact our draft hand at all, so perhaps we will bring in one additional player to the club.
Again, there is no opportunity cost for delaying announcing our delistings. There's no harm associated with it. I think we have a collection of players already identified that we are prepared to delist. Now we're just working out how many of them will go.
Last edited:
I'm sure the players in question are desperate to know. That's not our problem, though. They'll find out in due time.
FR0GGY
From a cartel villa in Tuscany
But you said does delisting them earlier make them feel better?
Yes I’m sure they want to know what’s going on.
No, I asked if delisting them later makes them feel better.
DABM suggested that we were holding off on announcing our delistings because we're too close to the players. As you correctly identified, I'm sure the players would prefer to know now.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,794
- 161,992
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #90
Maybe our trade target falls through
Maybe Hamill's doctor tells him to call time
Maybe Curtin gets a dream offer from WCE
Maybe Tex decides to call it a day after all
Maybe there's two spots for four fringe guys and we keep them all dangling on the line even though we've decided
Letting all the dust settle
Delaying a feel-bad announcement
We're either smarter than all the other clubs, or the other thing.
ok Liam Gallagher
My opinion on the number of delistees is that the club should be asking two questions.
The first question should be, what is the maximum number of high-quality players we can bring in this year? And the answer should be a function of our draft hand, trades, and free agents. I would argue the number is five - Cumming, ANB, our first two picks, and a father/son pick in Welsh. So we should absolutely delist at least five players.
The second question should be, once those five players are delisted, out of the players who are left, how many of them would we be better simply replacing with a speculative pick? Is someone like Parnell, for instance, realistically any more likely to become a quality AFL player than a random rookie selection? If the answer is probably not, then he should be delisted as well.
Unfortunately, it seems the club has been prepared to ask the first question, but not the second. Hence we have very few options when it comes to delisting more than the five we unquestionably should.
The first question should be, what is the maximum number of high-quality players we can bring in this year? And the answer should be a function of our draft hand, trades, and free agents. I would argue the number is five - Cumming, ANB, our first two picks, and a father/son pick in Welsh. So we should absolutely delist at least five players.
The second question should be, once those five players are delisted, out of the players who are left, how many of them would we be better simply replacing with a speculative pick? Is someone like Parnell, for instance, realistically any more likely to become a quality AFL player than a random rookie selection? If the answer is probably not, then he should be delisted as well.
Unfortunately, it seems the club has been prepared to ask the first question, but not the second. Hence we have very few options when it comes to delisting more than the five we unquestionably should.
If Hamill is medically retired, Curtin leaves, or Tex retires, those are additional delistings. It wouldn't be a case of not having announced them soon enough. Not relevant here.
Worrying about a trade target falling through certainly could have an impact on when we delist players. If we're planning on kicking an extra player out to make room for Cumming, and then Cumming chooses Port instead, we no longer need to clear up that extra list space. (Whether we should do it anyway and hit the draft is a separate question).
We are in a different situation to most other clubs this year. It's not like waiting until the last moment to announce our delistings is a trend our club has displayed over the years or anything.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,794
- 161,992
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #94
What I mean is that McHenry's spot depends on one of these 0.1%ers eventuating and that's what we are hanging out for
Fair enough. I can understand the logic of that at least.
Personally, if I had my way, there would be around ten players going from the club this year and we'd be looking for gems late in the draft. If we end up accidentally delisting one too many, oh well.
But the timing of the announcements means nothing whatsoever to me.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 61,676
- 164,916
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #96
I actually think the club asks the second question all the time and this is why we constantly land on keeping players for two long.
The question shouldn't be "is player 35 on our list or a speculative pick better?"
It should be "is this player on our list up to AFL standard?"
If the answer is no, you should cut them even if there is a risk the speculative pick ends up a worse player. Not AFL standard, and not AFL standard but worse, are basically the same.
What we do is judge the chance of pick 40 landing us a player better than a Parnell type, and conclude that we probably won't, so we keep Parnell. It shouldn't matter what the chance of pick 40 being better is if Parnell will never be up to it
I agree with you. In my opinion, they should look at someone like Parnell and say, there is essentially no chance that he becomes a quality AFL player. Depth player who ekes out a modest career maybe, but not a quality player.
Whereas any draft pick is some percentage chance of becoming a quality AFL player, even out late in the rookie draft.
Yes, it takes 2-3 years to see if a draft pick is a good player, and in the meantime we lose 2-3 years of Parnell on our list potentially surprising us with his development. Is that a good exchange? I think so. The club seems less convinced.
I'd love it if we were a bit more ruthless about moving on players who don't appear up to it. Yes, you occasionally end up terfing someone too early and they then go onto being a good player (Ed Curnow comes to mind), but even then they very rarely end up being a top-liner. Just a good player. And in the meantime, you get to roll the dice on hitting gold at the draft table more often.
Of course, in order to actually do that, we would need to change our selection policies as well, so we could actually find out what we've got earlier on instead of waiting for years to give players a small handful of games that do little to inform us about their future prospects.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 16,391
- 42,257
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Jeez you'd think Parfitt would be a better fit than Murphy
Talent identification within our list has been below AFL standard and the selection policies and our results reflect this. One of the most overlooked stats in the whole narrative of the last 5 years is that as of round 1 2024 the Crows had 20 players in the squad who were on the list in 2019. Sydney, Collingwood had around 13 (from memory when I did the stat mid season)
I would easily rank this area of our club the worst in the AFL and by a long way.
you could put a ham sandwich in murphys position on the field and the ball would hit it more times than murphy touches it.
