List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management for 2025

[Scrads]

Usually do one of these before the trade period but was caught-up with other stuff this year so here is my post-trade period update! This is what I have at the moment. As you can see, firstly the list is STACKED in terms of talent (which we already knew) but is also pretty close to being completely full as it is. If what I have is correct, then we have 36 primary list, 4 Cat A and 1 Cat B locked in for next year which leaves us with limited options in terms of drafting next month and SSP/MSD in 2025.

If I had to guess, I'd say we are likely to delist-then-rookie one or both of Gunston and/or Breust for flexibility. Regardless, we can only intake a max of 2 players to primary/Cat A list at the moment plus the option of another Cat B player if we want (which I suspect we will re-sign Bennetts with).

As usual, if you spot any mistakes then please let me know

 

[Harper_Hawk]

No it's 85% and fluid apparently.

No again. Its capped at 65% and the remaining 35% is allocated for the rookie list to do as they please.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

No it's 85% and fluid apparently.

I'd see a GP if I were you.

 

[mustang]

The Rookie list should be just for rookies, kids like Breust was a speculative pick that could become something, Gunston on the rookie list is wrong the AFL needs to change the criteria.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Asking for a friend- how many picks can we have ?

It was Two first rounders!

 

[tl92]

Clubs may be interested, but older and contracted players usually stay.
Remember Wingard last year? Same situation. Collingwood asked, Chad said he wanted to stay at Hawthorn, so Collingwood left him alone.

The only exception I can think of was Greenwood. Gold Coast delisted him with the intention of re-drafting him. North picked him up but Gold Coast and Greenwood were both happy about that.

That’s not what happened. Collingwood showed interest and so we took him in the PSD rather than the rookie draft, suggesting we were worried pie’s would take him.

 

[Platten44]

That’s not what happened. Collingwood showed interest and so we took him in the PSD rather than the rookie draft, suggesting we were worried pie’s would take him.

We had a pick before Collingwood in the rookie draft. The strong rumour was that North were going to take Chad before us in the rookie draft despite him refusing to meet with them, do a medical and telling them not to.

 

[marklar]

The Rookie list should be just for rookies, kids like Breust was a speculative pick that could become something, Gunston on the rookie list is wrong the AFL needs to change the criteria.

Let's just rename it then, how about "supplemental list"? No wait that's too confusing with the supplemental selection pre and mid season stuff...

How about the "lucky special list"? Players are lucky to still be on a list and get a shot at playing a game, or are likely to be special once they get AFL fit and bring their basketball/rugby/netball/chess/whatever skills to the game?

 

[Bugs1977]

Let's just rename it then, how about "supplemental list"? No wait that's too confusing with the supplemental selection pre and mid season stuff...

How about the "lucky special list"? Players are lucky to still be on a list and get a shot at playing a game, or are likely to be special once they get AFL fit and bring their basketball/rugby/netball/chess/whatever skills to the game?

I’m sure the * would be thrilled to rename it to a supplement list

 

[Kenyan]

No fair point, apologies a bit of frustration

I understand your disappointment but other opportunities will open for Josh. He is a victim of circumstances particularly with the Ginnivan and Wiz trades. Likely that he was going to get limited opportunity so move on to another club. He seems a great kid so I wish him all the best.

 

[mustang]

I’m sure the * would be thrilled to rename it to a supplement list

Should never have got rid of the veteran's list.

 

[Bedi]

That’s not what happened. Collingwood showed interest and so we took him in the PSD rather than the rookie draft, suggesting we were worried pie’s would take him.

so just as per my initial concern, it could backfire – as unlikely as it sounds it might be

 

[Simon Crawshay]

The Rookie list should be just for rookies, kids like Breust was a speculative pick that could become something, Gunston on the rookie list is wrong the AFL needs to change the criteria.

I'm almost of the opinion that we just totally scrap all the special list positions (rookie, cat a, cat b, etc) and just have a flat 44 full time spots. Gunners being placed on the rookie list is just so ridiculous it feels like these special list spots have "jumped the shark" so to speak.

If a club wants to take a punt on a cross code recruit like Matt Hill or keep a vet on like Gunners for leadership then let them use one of their spots to do it.

Its just getting so messy with all these special categories and clubs (including ours) are flat out taking the p..s with some of these moves. Its not cheating as all the clubs do it but it just doesn't look good to my eyes.

 

[eldorado]

I'm almost of the opinion that we just totally scrap all the special list positions (rookie, cat a, cat b, etc) and just have a flat 44 full time spots. Gunners being placed on the rookie list is just so ridiculous it feels like these special list spots have "jumped the shark" so to speak.

If a club wants to take a punt on a cross code recruit like Matt Hill or keep a vet on like Gunners for leadership then let them use one of their spots to do it.

Its just getting so messy with all these special categories and clubs (including ours) are flat out taking the p..s with some of these moves. Its not cheating as all the clubs do it but it just doesn't look good to my eyes.

A lot of it wouldn't happen if the AFL didn't insist that all clubs must have at least 3 empty senior list positions before the draft.

They have created this jiggery-pokery because there are times clubs want to keep their existing players.

 

[hawkinoz]

IMO List sizes should be subject to equalisation logic.

teams with less than 5 wins in a season should be allowed to 4 extra rookie list spots, less than 10 wins 2 extra list spots.

If you had more than 10 wins but didn't make finals, 1 extra list spot.

Salary cap remains as is.

Max list sizes remains as is.

Will give more chances for players like Bennetts to get on a list and for bottom clubs to compete better.

Max 42 list sizes for finals team. Cat B rookies unlimited and need to be elevated to play AFL game.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

A lot of it wouldn't happen if the AFL didn't insist that all clubs must have at least 3 empty senior list positions before the draft.

They have created this jiggery-pokery because there are times clubs want to keep their existing players.

Yes I agree. Just make it a flat 44 list space, a rock solid salary cap and clubs can take as many or as few players in the national draft as they like.

The AFL must have the most convoluted list rules in world sport right now and I don't know what purpose it serves.

 

[Bugs1977]

IMO List sizes should be subject to equalisation logic.

teams with less than 5 wins in a season should be allowed to 4 extra rookie list spots, less than 10 wins 2 extra list spots.

If you had more than 10 wins but didn't make finals, 1 extra list spot.

Salary cap remains as is.

Max list sizes remains at is.

Will give more chances for players like Bennetts to get on a list and for bottom clubs to compete better.

Just a question but in the scenario of those teams that were allowed to have 4 extra rookie list spots then what happens if the team ends up making a huge jump and ends up winning 8 games the following year and by this I mean what happens to those extra rookie list spots? If your answer is that they just lose the extra rookie list spots then I don't think that would be very fair to the rookies that end up being cut as 99% of the time rookies need 2-3 years minimum to develop.

 

[MazHawk]

It's a good point which is why that theory wont work.
Say Saints win only four games next year, get given four extra rookies and make finals the next year (ha! but it happens).
So then they cut four rookies after one season probably without playing a game?
I've said this before, I have no problem with the rookie rule per se but it should be used purely on rookies - young kids being given a taste of AFL, not recycling 30+ year olds.