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

 

[fairdinks]

Funny but as Tassie will probably mean a bye at least each week, the same number of players as now will be playing each weekend.

Having a sub 5 on the bench added more players. Did that dilute the ‘talent’?

Yes it did. I am referring to the total pool, not the number actually playing each week.

Once Tassie come in, the total competition pool increases by 44 or more if they get additional list size numbers in the first few years.

If we stay at 18 teams but each team has an additional 2 spots, that is 36 additional players.

If lists increased by two and a new team comes in, the total pool increases by 80. That, IMO is too many and significantly dilutes the total pool talent.

Consider an extra 80 players being drafted this year so that around 130+ players are drafted, many of those players will not be up to the level.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Yes it did. I am referring to the total pool, not the number actually playing each week.

Once Tassie come in, the total competition pool increases by 44 or more if they get additional list size numbers in the first few years.

If we stay at 18 teams but each team has an additional 2 spots, that is 36 additional players.

If lists increased by two and a new team comes in, the total pool increases by 80. That, IMO is too many and significantly dilutes the total pool talent.

Consider an extra 80 players being drafted this year so that around 130+ players are drafted, many of those players will not be up to the level.

The rookie lists need more structure. 20 rookies under 22 / under 50 AFL games. The idea is to develop talent!

 

[fairdinks]

The rookie lists need more structure. 20 rookies under 22 / under 50 AFL games. The idea is to develop talent!

I don't disagree CW. but I was only looking at total list spots which are too small IMO.

Maybe it should be simply any player not previously on a main list?

 

[play2win]

We have a salary cap, why limit list numbers at all? Clubs that go with higher list numbers will be developing and pay less, I don’t see the issue.

 

[hawkinoz]

With Tassie coming in, teams need to be told that all list increases by 2 starting this year
That means 36 extra players in system & developing for 2-3 yrs.

All rookie listed players can talk to Tassie and be headhunted, no contract restrictions. Teams reimbursed with draft picks as currently but lower the Band calculations and No Band 1 compo

The list sizes should be pared back if needed when Tassie start in comp but ideally no limit on list sizes, just salary cap. Or let the non finals team have larger lists as I mentioned before, put in safeguards if player welfare is an issue.

 

[tl92]

We didn’t want to delist anyone this year. Would have been happy to give them all another 12 months.

I suspect we wanted to delist Cooper Stephens last year let alone this year

 

[danielG]

With Tassie coming in, teams need to be told that all list increases by 2 starting this year
That means 36 extra players in system & developing for 2-3 yrs.

All rookie listed players can talk to Tassie and be headhunted, no contract restrictions. Teams reimbursed with draft picks as currently but lower the Band calculations and No Band 1 compo

The list sizes should be pared back if needed when Tassie start in comp but ideally no limit on list sizes, just salary cap. Or let the non finals team have larger lists as I mentioned before, put in safeguards if player welfare is an issue.

Think it won’t be long after tassie comes in that an NT side is introduced so the bye won’t be needed for long..
I heard Nathan Buckley talking about the introduction of a team from Darwin, he sounded so buoyant about the idea.. Could really transform the region and bring hope to the area and open a new pathway for young indigenous kids into footy..


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[peetoo]

Yes it did. I am referring to the total pool, not the number actually playing each week.

Once Tassie come in, the total competition pool increases by 44 or more if they get additional list size numbers in the first few years.

If we stay at 18 teams but each team has an additional 2 spots, that is 36 additional players.

If lists increased by two and a new team comes in, the total pool increases by 80. That, IMO is too many and significantly dilutes the total pool talent.

Consider an extra 80 players being drafted this year so that around 130+ players are drafted, many of those players will not be up to the level.

Some players never play a senior game

 

[bigmaxi]

With Tassie coming in, teams need to be told that all list increases by 2 starting this year
That means 36 extra players in system & developing for 2-3 yrs.

All rookie listed players can talk to Tassie and be headhunted, no contract restrictions. Teams reimbursed with draft picks as currently but lower the Band calculations and No Band 1 compo

The list sizes should be pared back if needed when Tassie start in comp but ideally no limit on list sizes, just salary cap. Or let the non finals team have larger lists as I mentioned before, put in safeguards if player welfare is an issue.

Love the rookie idea, makes so much sense to enlarge the pool and give those 36 players a few pre-seasons.
OH, I forgot its the AFL, good ideas go there to die.

 

[streetspirit]

With Tassie coming in, teams need to be told that all list increases by 2 starting this year
That means 36 extra players in system & developing for 2-3 yrs.

All rookie listed players can talk to Tassie and be headhunted, no contract restrictions. Teams reimbursed with draft picks as currently but lower the Band calculations and No Band 1 compo

The list sizes should be pared back if needed when Tassie start in comp but ideally no limit on list sizes, just salary cap. Or let the non finals team have larger lists as I mentioned before, put in safeguards if player welfare is an issue.

Great idea to prepare an excess of 21-22yos with AFL level programme experience by the time the Tassie team needs to fill out the roster.

 

[CHUBBSS]

Clubs should just get 60 list spots, all this moving things around to fit a list cap is stupid, only the afl would make things so hard to manage

 

[Big Hotdog]

Clubs should just get 60 list spots, all this moving things around to fit a list cap is stupid, only the afl would make things so hard to manage

Yeah but GEE whizz....How LONG until someone rorts that list number with multiple star recruits?

 

[CHUBBSS]

Yeah but GEE whizz....How LONG until someone rorts that list number with multiple star recruits?

Theirs still the salary cap though, clubs need to have more long term players in development to build larger talent pools.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

IMO, list sizes should be unlimited as long as you are below the salary cap.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'd go significantly further - reward loyalty for those that forego the FA wallet-stuffing. Allow clubs to have Unlimited Veterans - they still takes a spot on the Primary list of 40.

To qualify as Veteran is simple: 9 years completed service with the club, or 150 games (Life Member) - eligible the season after reaching targets. Clubs get a salary cap discount: 5%pa of the players total prior earnings (eg a player earns $4,000,000 over their first 9 years, then the first $200kpa of all future contracts are outside the cap).

I'd also introduce a Legend/"Franchise" category: 12+ Years, and 250 games. Limited to one player per club per year. 100% of career average salary is outside the cap.

I thought they did have something like this, but it was rorted by Geelong (who seem to be able to keep veterans on park longer than other teams)

 

[hawkinoz]

IMO, list sizes should be unlimited as long as you are below the salary cap.

I would say it needs minimum salary rules, say 100k.

Else clubs will sign up every available State league player for $1 and have them as backup incase a need arises.

We would have kept Cyril on the books for 10 yrs and when we make finals we roll him out if he is fit and we have a need.

Club legends won't retire and remain on books and lots of such loopholes.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I would say it needs minimum salary rules, say 100k.

Else clubs will sign up every available State league player for $1 and have them as backup incase a need arises.

We would have kept Cyril on the books for 10 yrs and when we make finals we roll him out if he is fit and we have a need.

Club legends won't retire and remain on books and lots of such loopholes.

Sorry I did have that as an assumption (minimum wage similar to draftees)

 

[Simon Crawshay]

IMO, list sizes should be unlimited as long as you are below the salary cap.

I don’t mind this, free up list spots but maintain a hard salary cap.

I think they would still need to set a base wage though to ensure players don’t get taken advantage off (say $250k).

 

[Alite]

Here is an out of the box question. Which line in the Hawks best team is under the most pressure to perform?

To answer this I asked myself, "Where on the playing field are the Hawks spending their money?"

Here is a Best 22 (don't hold me to it, this is just a concept). And yes I am fully guessing the salaries.

FB: Hardwick (700k), Barrass (850k), Frost (450K)
HB: Amon (600k), Battle (850k), Sic (900k)
C: D'Ambrosio (250k), Newcomb (700k), Weddle (500k)
HF: C McDonald (450k), Lewis (600k), Moore (700k)
FF: Ginnivan (400k), Chol (500k), Watson (150k)
Fol: Meek (400k), Day (800k), Worpel (550k)

Int: Dear (150k), Nash (500k), Scrimshaw (500k), McKenzie (350k)

Sub: Breust (400k)

In the mix: most other players on our list.

Be clear, I fully guessed the salaries and I know they will be wrong. I was just going for ballpark numbers. The point is to see, in general, into which line the Hawks have put their money.

Backline = 4.35mill
Centre and Followers = 3.2mill
Forwards = 2.8mill
Interchange and Sub = 1.9mill
Total = 11.25mill

Salary Cap = 15.8mill

This 11.25 mill goes to 25 of 38 players. The 13 other players receive up to 4.55mill which averages out at 350k each. That includes Ward, Gunston, Reeves, Serong, Butler, Mitchell, Maginness, Blank, Ramsden, HH, BMac, Scaife, McCabe, Ryan, Harry, and the 2 new Cat B + 3 ND guys.

350k is maybe a bit high for the average and so I likely under-shot the salaries of the players in the best 22. But that does not matter for the purpose of this exercise.

The point is, the Hawk's backline is now by far the highest paid part of our best team.

And I am EXPECTING them in 2025 to be a near impenetrable wall.

 

[FB19]

Here is an out of the box question. Which line in the Hawks best team is under the most pressure to perform?

To answer this I asked myself, "Where on the playing field are the Hawks spending their money?"

Here is a Best 22 (don't hold me to it, this is just a concept). And yes I am fully guessing the salaries.

FB: Hardwick (700k), Barrass (850k), Frost (450K)
HB: Amon (600k), Battle (850k), Sic (900k)
C: D'Ambrosio (250k), Newcomb (700k), Weddle (500k)
HF: C McDonald (450k), Lewis (600k), Moore (700k)
FF: Ginnivan (400k), Chol (500k), Watson (150k)
Fol: Meek (400k), Day (800k), Worpel (550k)

Int: Dear (150k), Nash (500k), Scrimshaw (500k), McKenzie (350k)

Sub: Breust (400k)

In the mix: most other players on our list.

Be clear, I fully guessed the salaries and I know they will be wrong. I was just going for ballpark numbers. The point is to see, in general, into which line the Hawks have put their money.

Backline = 4.35mill
Centre and Followers = 3.2mill
Forwards = 2.8mill
Interchange and Sub = 1.9mill
Total = 11.25mill

Salary Cap = 15.8mill

This 11.25 mill goes to 25 of 38 players. The 13 other players receive up to 4.55mill which averages out at 350k each. That includes Ward, Gunston, Reeves, Serong, Butler, Mitchell, Maginness, Blank, Ramsden, HH, BMac, Scaife, McCabe, Ryan, Harry, and the 2 new Cat B + 3 ND guys.

350k is maybe a bit high for the average and so I likely under-shot the salaries of the players in the best 22. But that does not matter for the purpose of this exercise.

The point is, the Hawk's backline is now by far the highest paid part of our best team.

And I am EXPECTING them in 2025 to be a near impenetrable wall.

I would say Breust under real pressure on a $ to minutes played basis. Can’t see him lasting on the list into 2026.

 

[Alite]

I would say Breust under real pressure on a $ to minutes played basis. Can’t see him lasting on the list into 2026.

Is the wink saying you are joking? I am crap at reading jokes. So I'll take it as serious.

I see where you are coming from but Breust is an impactful sub as well as being an on-and-off field coach. $ to on-field minutes do not apply. On the metric of $ to positive impact on the team, I think Breust is worth every cent.

I'm not sure Breust goes into 2026, but if his on-field impact does not diminish, I cannot see why not.

 

[FB19]

Is the wink saying you are joking? I am crap at reading jokes. So I'll take it as serious.

I see where you are coming from but Breust is an impactful sub as well as being an on and off field-coach. $ to on-field minutes do not apply. On the metric of $ to positive impact on the team, I think Breust is worth every cent.

I'm not sure Breust goes into 2026, but if he does not slow down, I cannot see why not.

Yes joking obviously.

 

[Alite]

Yes joking obviously.

Sorry. I thought as much ... but I sort of wanted to defend him.