List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management 2023

[The Spirit of Cricket]

I just don't really see the difference between using an F1 on an established player under 25 OR to trade back into the first round this year, Vs taking it to a midfield heavy draft the club doesn't really rate next year

"Base" or no base it's not like if we aren't using our F1 (or even F2-4) we're just giving them away for thirty year olds.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

To anyone that thinks we don't already have a solid base or we need more high draft picks, I really think you need to have a closer look at things.
The point is, the club believes we have not just the nucleus but a list now that will deliver us sustainable success in time as these players naturally develop. With the players we know we're getting in the draft we're comfortable enough to head into 2024 with a full list.

We draft for a purpose. We didn't take Henry at 37 because we thought we'd take a chance and we didn't take Max because we had a spot open so why not? We picked them both because we saw both as becoming integral parts of our next generation success. I've picked those two as examples because the club is very big on both in the next two years. I think you'll see Max playing regular senior footy from early next year and Henry cementing a spot after the bye.
They're precisely the type of players we want - we saw ourselves as needing - and yeah they could turn out to be busts but right now we have faith they'll become what we think they can achieve. That's why we drafted them particularly.

The elite nucleus is there, the base is very definitely there and the talent is coming out. We'll be approaching 2024 with a full list and a fair bit of confidence.

Every team drafts for a purpose.

 

[Platten44]

Every team drafts for a purpose.

Except the Shinbeggers

 

[Brishawk]

Except the Shinbeggers

Their purpose is sucking so the story still checks out

 

[Bugs1977]

Perhaps a good comparison would be to look at the makeup of Collingwood's list?

I was going to post the exact same thing last night. They're carrying about 5-6 ordinary role players in their best starting team. The key with that is that they are perfect fitting role players that play their role to exactly how the team needs them to play. Finding these types of guys is not as easy as it seems because on other teams they'd likely look very ordinary.

 

[Bugs1977]

I just don't really see the difference between using an F1 on an established player under 25 OR to trade back into the first round this year, Vs taking it to a midfield heavy draft the club doesn't really rate next year

"Base" or no base it's not like if we aren't using our F1 (or even F2-4) we're just giving them away for thirty year olds.

I know right. Trading your F1 is just a buy it now pay later situation (ie Zip Money, Afterpay etc) with the gamble being that we're backing ourselves that we'll have a better ladder finish than the season gone by. For example if we traded our F1 to the Cats for pick 8 (likely pick 10 after bids) that we'll finish just outside the 8. I can't see us finishing worse than this season so IMO the gamble would be worth it especially with a mid heavy draft coming up and to tell you the truth I think the Cats wouldn't do that trade with us because I think they too would know that we're more likely to climb the ladder rather than drop down.

 

[KeeperLeaguer]

Every team drafts for a purpose.

No they don't. If you draft the best available player with pick 2 (for eg) and leave a KPB you need but is rated at 5+ that's not necessarily drafting for a purpose, and teams do that all the time.
Even supporters cry out for it - draft the best available!

So should we leave Curtin (a KPP we need) or Watson (a small fwd we need) and draft McKercher because he's the best available?
No, because this year particularly we're drafting with a specific purpose.

 

[arupist]

No they don't. If you draft the best available player with pick 2 (for eg) and leave a KPB you need but is rated at 5+ that's not necessarily drafting for a purpose, and teams do that all the time.
Even supporters cry out for it - draft the best available!

So should we leave Curtin (a KPP we need) or Watson (a small fwd we need) and draft McKercher because he's the best available?
No, because this year particularly we're drafting with a specific purpose.

By that logic, we will not be trading up for pick 1 to take Reid.

 

[derp de derp]

How many senior list spots are open bow that Stephens and Wingard were rookied?

Does it change the number of selections we are looking at in the draft?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Good on you for being the bigger person. For what it's worth, I'm not quite sure we've got the talent yet either. I posted a similar thing to your post above - we have some great midfielders, and we've been lucky with some late picks, but we don't have a squad strong enough to win a flag yet. Particularly KPPs.

This is why the strategy is to move away from the draft and target trades and FA.

We’re not picking up an 18yr old KPP in 2023 or 2024 who’s going to be capable of much in 2026.

Now what if instead, as an example, we have Todd Marshall and Josh Battle land in 2024 as FA’s?

 

[TheFourPillars]

Lake, Frawley, McEvoy Spangher were trades into our side. We will try and emulate this going forward

 

[fairdinks]

No they don't. If you draft the best available player with pick 2 (for eg) and leave a KPB you need but is rated at 5+ that's not necessarily drafting for a purpose, and teams do that all the time.
Even supporters cry out for it - draft the best available!

So should we leave Curtin (a KPP we need) or Watson (a small fwd we need) and draft McKercher because he's the best available?
No, because this year particularly we're drafting with a specific purpose.

Ahhh, by deduction, have you just confirmed we are not taking McKercher but have settled on Watson or Curtain.

I'll add my vote for Curtain please KL and, BTW, really appreciate your input on this forum.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

This is why I keep saying we don’t have a base yet for sustainable success.

We need more first rounders as this is where the talent is to win games big games.

If we had a list of players drafted in the R3 and they were all from that round which we don’t but would that be a base.

No as it doesn’t have the high end talent in it this is what I’m talking about.

You're right and I don't know why people keep arguing with you. You just have to keep hitting the draft for first round picks every.damn.year. Just look at the wonders it has done for teams like Carlton and the Gold Coast!

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

You're right and I don't know why people keep arguing with you. You just have to keep hitting the draft for first round picks every.damn.year. Just look at the wonders it has done for teams like Carlton and the Gold Coast!

Carlton only made the leap after like 5 years of topping up too lol

 

[PT Bar None]

And it's a safety net for the player because it means he's guaranteed to still be on an AFL list next year. We've told both we'll pick them up. No-one will pick Chad from the DFA pool because he's deeply committed to us (and out injured til the bye) but in Stephens' case it gives him the scope of another club taking him before us and giving him the opportunity to be playing senior footy whereas with us the reality would be most of the year at BH. Either way he's good.

I came here to ask if there was a risk that some club could "Gold Coast" us on Wingard.

This appears to be the answer. (unlikely, due to reasons)

Cheers!

 

[play2win]

Thanks for that looks like we need more 1st round talent as we have alot more 3rd and 4th round in this rebuild.

And more talls where in first round picks in the last rebuild where this one is more midfield base.

As so far DGB, Stephens, Scrimshaw haven’t come on really and Wingard is injured and wasn’t playing well last year could be finished taking players out of the R1 list.

This is a reason why we need more first round picks and are missing the top end talent I feel in our base and why we should not trade away our first next year.

So we need to adjust our strategy to get more first round picks? Maybe we should look to trade our 3-4th rnders like Sicily, Lewis, Hardwick and Moore for first round picks next year, we could likely upgrade jai for a first round pick too. Wtf.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

No they don't. If you draft the best available player with pick 2 (for eg) and leave a KPB you need but is rated at 5+ that's not necessarily drafting for a purpose, and teams do that all the time.
Even supporters cry out for it - draft the best available!

So should we leave Curtin (a KPP we need) or Watson (a small fwd we need) and draft McKercher because he's the best available?
No, because this year particularly we're drafting with a specific purpose.

Every team drafts for a purpose, teams don't just pick players willy-nilly. Each team picks who they believe is the best player for them available at that particular spot. You're making it sound like we've cracked some magical drafting code.

In your scenario there; who is saying that McKercher is the best available? Best available according to whose rankings? Maybe our rankings of the players take into account the positional needs at the club, which would favour Watson or Curtin in our calculations in this instance.

I've used this example before. Say McKercher is rated 8.9 on this imaginary "best available" scale, and Watson is rated 8.7. On face value McKercher is slightly higher.

Does the club just ignore the fact we already have a deep midfield rotation for the future, whilst we are lacking in the long-term small forwards department? Do we simply take "best available" because one player is rated slightly higher than the other? Or will it be far more nuanced than that with so many other things taken into consideration?

I understand when there's a player (like Reid) who is far and away the standout. But even in this example WCE were fielding offers in order to trade back because of certain factors. It's wasn't just a case of take the best available."

Edit:

I've just realised we are arguing the exact same thing in the end

I'll leave the post up for posterity

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Lake, Frawley, McEvoy Spangher were trades into our side. We will try and emulate this going forward

I'd say we have already started that with Chol and Ginnivan. McKay would have been another had he not chosen Essendon.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'd say we have already started that with Chol and Ginnivan. McKay would have been another had he not chosen Essendon.

Agreed. Mass also bright into be part of a flag challenging side.

We don’t bring guys in unless they tick that box.

 

[KeeperLeaguer]

Every team drafts for a purpose, teams don't just pick players willy-nilly. Each team picks who they believe is the best player for them available at that particular spot. You're making it sound like we've cracked some magical drafting code.

In your scenario there; who is saying that McKercher is the best available? Best available according to whose rankings? Maybe our rankings of the players take into account the positional needs at the club, which would favour Watson or Curtin in our calculations in this instance.

I've used this example before. Say McKercher is rated 8.9 on this imaginary "best available" scale, and Watson is rated 8.7. On face value McKercher is slightly higher.

Does the club just ignore the fact we already have a deep midfield rotation for the future, whilst we are lacking in the long-term small forwards department? Do we simply take "best available" because one player is rated slightly higher than the other? Or will it be far more nuanced than that with so many other things taken into consideration?

I understand when there's a player (like Reid) who is far and away the standout. But even in this example WCE were fielding offers in order to trade back because of certain factors. It's wasn't just a case of take the best available."

Edit:

I've just realised we are arguing the exact same thing in the end

I'll leave the post up for posterity

Just in a nutshell, firstly McKercher is seen by most clubs including us as being the best available talent after Reid & Walter in that he's AFL-ready, has great skills including great pace, makes very good decisions and basically has a good 'football brain'. Has upside too and looks the type to slot into any midfield/wing rotation and stay there.
That said, we're also in more need of a KPD and/or tall forward not to mention another small forward so we may forego 'best available' for 'best needed' .. and in this case between Colby, Dan & Nick the gap isn't that huge. We see all of them as 200-game players.

 

[Dewnior]

Didn’t North pick up Hugh Greenwood when GC did the exact same thing?

Yep, but I used the word 'clubs' so Norf doesn't qualify

 

[arupist]

Just in a nutshell, firstly McKercher is seen by most clubs including us as being the best available talent after Reid & Walter in that he's AFL-ready, has great skills including great pace, makes very good decisions and basically has a good 'football brain'. Has upside too and looks the type to slot into any midfield/wing rotation and stay there.
That said, we're also in more need of a KPD and/or tall forward not to mention another small forward so we may forego 'best available' for 'best needed' .. and in this case between Colby, Dan & Nick the gap isn't that huge. We see all of them as 200-game players.

I do not want a player on our list with the nickname CHEESE.

 

[Dipper]

I do not want a player on our list with the nickname CHEESE.

Yes, but you're almost guaranteed a dynasty with him.

 

[hawkmang]

Wingard had a medical with the pies this week somehow I think the club wouldn’t be too upset if he gets picked up by another club

 

[Blackhawk42]

Wingard had a medical with the pies this week somehow I think the club wouldn’t be too upset if he gets picked up by another club

Half way through the season I was expecting him to be delisted, but still thought it would be a tough call considering Chad the individual.

This would actually be the best possible way for both parties to move on from one another if it were to happen.