List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[johnnysix]

Do you really think Cripps is going to say publicly "yeah we think the deal isn't good enough, we aren't happy with it." ??
That would almost be as good as Houston telling 5AA he would be at Port next year.

Oh, I 100% understand this. Whether we are happy with it or not, we made the call. What I can trust, is that we made the deal. So ultimately, without knowing all the ins and outs and who did what, when, behind closed doors, evidence suggests we adjudged the deal we got more than keeping Houston. What combination of factors resulted in that, we will likely never know. I do know that JC works for the Port Adelaide Football Club, has decent track record and I severely doubt it got past a list management group without being adjudged the best option available to us at the time. Unless you really think the board or some such are trying to please the AFL by making Collingwood more powerful, which is a wild conspiracy btw.

I guess it depends on what this thread is arguing about. Are we debating whether this was a bad deal in isolation, or whether it was the best move for the club to make given the circumstances?

We don't even know what the picks we got are worth? We have some idea based on history what Jack is worth, even less with Richards. There's way too many unknowns.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Here's what pisses me off the most now I've thought about it. Gold Coast were willing to be bent over by Richmond, but were happy to twist our nuts in trade negotiations.

Consider this... The trade with Collingwood woulda been done early as if the trade was for Gold Coast pick 6 instead of 13.

Bang, do the trade and force Richmond's hand.

Richmond, you now get 13 and 23 for Rioli.

Are they gonna hold Rioli to his contract? Piss off a premiership hero with one of the most famous Richmond names?

I mean maybe they would. They've certainly got bigger rocks than our limp dick recruiting team.

 

[johnnysix]

Here's what pisses me off the most now I've thought about it. Gold Coast were willing to be bent over by Richmond, but were happy to twist our nuts in trade negotiations.

Consider this... The trade with Collingwood woulda been done early as if the trade was for Gold Coast pick 6 instead of 13.

Bang, do the trade and force Richmond's hand.

Richmond, you now get 13 and 23 for Rioli.

Are they gonna hold Rioli to his contract? Piss off a premiership hero with one of the most famous Richmond names?

I mean maybe they would. They've certainly got bigger rocks than our limp dick recruiting team.

Pick 6 is a different story. Would Collingwood have parted with it for Houston? I know what McCrae has said, but kind of doubt it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If you listen to Cripps they don't consider it a bad trade. This is the disconnect. They looked at the best deal they were offered and decided it was worth it vs keeping him. Says something about how important they see getting into this draft. Also, clearly Cripps isn't the only one who sees getting into this draft as a priority because otherwise other clubs would have been offering better picks for a 2xAA. The market is what it is. I think the timing is bad. This season people clearly see the potential of the draft as massive. Especially when ideally we are asking for 2 first round picks. Clearly other clubs made the decision that they'd rather have those picks (or not trade out players or picks to get them). Yes, we could have kept him. Evidence suggests (and what they say publicly) is that we preferred to take the deal.

I don't agree, I think they know we got screwed here due to their poor positioning at the start of the trade week.

(and if we don't think we got screwed, we're incompetent, or maybe Dan has a degenerative knee condition that has been kept a secret)

What Cripps and Davies have said since is just spin to cover for their poor performance. Standard practice for this club.

We were weak in negotiations and Houston and Collingwood saw that weakness and tightened the screws. If we'd been clear from the start of the week that we weren't accepting less than 2 first rounders, we'd have either gotten them or Houston would have come to terms with the fact that he was staying.

 

[It Just Is]

Here's what pisses me off the most now I've thought about it. Gold Coast were willing to be bent over by Richmond, but were happy to twist our nuts in trade negotiations.

Consider this... The trade with Collingwood woulda been done early as if the trade was for Gold Coast pick 6 instead of 13.

Bang, do the trade and force Richmond's hand.

Richmond, you now get 13 and 23 for Rioli.

Are they gonna hold Rioli to his contract? Piss off a premiership hero with one of the most famous Richmond names?

I mean maybe they would. They've certainly got bigger rocks than our limp dick recruiting team.

Yes, Gold Coast are generally terrible at trading and list management but it was Collingwood who didn’t pay a fair price.

Collingwood never had enough to give and shouldn’t have been in the running for Houston at all.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Pick 6 is a different story. Would Collingwood have parted with it for Houston? I know what McCrae has said, but kind of doubt it.

Collingwood didn't have anything to give to Gold Coast to get pick 6 from them.

The only way it was involved in the Houston trade was as a three club deal. And then, in exchange for gaining pick 6, we'd probably be removing Jack Lukosius from the deal.

And then Gold Coast would need to get something from a Lukosius trade to get Rioli. So we'd pay more Luko anyway, and not have a future first to spend because we'd sent to Gold Coast for as part of the Houston mega deal.

 

[powerfan07]

Nathan Kreuger delisted by Collingwood anyone think he's worth a punt on ?

 

[VineValerian]

I don't agree, I think they know we got screwed here due to their poor positioning at the start of the trade week.

(and if we don't think we got screwed, we're incompetent, or maybe Dan has a degenerative knee condition that has been kept a secret)

What Cripps and Davies have said since is just spin to cover for their poor performance. Standard practice for this club.

We were weak in negotiations and Houston and Collingwood saw that weakness and tightened the screws. If we'd been clear from the start of the week that we weren't accepting less than 2 first rounders, we'd have either gotten them or Houston would have come to terms with the fact that he was staying.

Bloody well said.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

What Cripps and Davies have said since is just spin to cover for their poor performance. Standard practice for this club.

Yep.

 

[QPower]

My takeout from trade period is that Port has prioritised not bottoming out over trying to win a flag.

They sold Houston at below market value to get into the 2024 draft before next years’ compromised draft and Tasmania’s entry concessions.

Collingwood by contrast, with players over 30 and Tasmania coming in, have put all their chips in for a flag in 2025 - they have a cliff coming after that.

Port lacks ambition and wants to define success as being thereabouts without ever winning a flag.

The list management reflects that strategy.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I don't necessarily want Cripps sacked, but someone needs to be held responsible for the list being in a state where we have to repeatedly take unfavourable deals to plug holes.

That person is Davies, fairly obviously. He oversees coaching, he oversees development, he oversees drafting and trading. It's him. He's bad at his job and needs to go.

Hinkley as well, obviously, but Hinkley and Davies come as a pair.

 

[Lefti93]

Deal with it bastards.

 

[GoPorts]

I’ll spew up if Butters ever plays for Geelong

He'll accept unders in his salary but expect Zak's Butters (direct from the farm) to be the best selling dairy products within the next 10 years. All delivered directly to stores on the back of a fleet of Ford Rangers

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Port tried to get 23 instead of 29 - was a non-starter because Richmond weren't doing the Rioli deal without 23.

GC fücked Richmond over when they got Hardwick out of Punt road - there's more bad blood there than any layperson realises. It's why GC folded like origami on the Rioli deal in particular.



Do you really think Cripps is going to say publicly "yeah we think the deal isn't good enough, we aren't happy with it." ??
That would almost be as good as Houston telling 5AA he would be at Port next year.

Why aren't Richmond saying we had to accept 29 because Port needed 23?

That would have been far more reasonable on both fronts.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I think this is a false narrative we keep telling ourselves. We don’t fail to develop them as basically never draft KP. We only ever draft them at pick 50+ and the odds of them ever making it are only at about 10% from the start.

It’s a list management failure not to invest at the pointy end of the draft and target the top talent in those positions which we can then develop. We’re continuing to try and skip that first step and just hoping we find one of those diamonds in the rough at the bottom of the 9. Which we have never been able to actually identify.

Many give the list management a golden pass for the last few years as the best aspect of the club. Our list management has been shit house for the best part of the last decade as well along with the coaching.

Dunno where I originally posted this but here it is again.

I've been banging on about the development of key position players for a while now. It started as just defence but eventually overflowed to forwards and then to rucks.

During Hinkley's reign he's struggled to develop the majority of tall players and the LIst Development haven't given him any favours.

We've got year, player, draft selection, then brackets game played.
If no, number then traded in.

2012, Tom Clurey 29 [124], Mason Shaw 30 [0], Jack Hombsch [89]
2013, Mitchell Harvey 45 [0], Brent Renouf R44 [16]
2014 Dougal Howard 56 [45], Logan Austin 59 [13], Billy Frampton 84 [3], Paddy Ryder [73]
2015
2016, Todd Marshall 16 [116], Peter Ladhams R9 [32], Bretty Eddy R26 [3], Jarrod Lienert R42 [23], Charlie Dixon [156]
2017, Sam Hayes 47 [11], Jack Watts [21], Trent McKenzie [58]
2018, Riley Grundy 73 [0], Scott Lycett [71]
2019, Mitch Georgiades 19 [69], Jake Pasini R8 [0], Wylie Buzza [9]
2020, Ollie Lord 49 [19], Aliir Aliir [92]
2021, Dante Visentini 56 [6], Jeremy Finlayson [54], Sam Skinner [2]
2022, Tom McCallum 36 [0], Tom Scully 53 [0], Kyle Marshall 59 [0] Brynn Teakle M8 [6]
2023, Xavier Walsh R13 [0], Esava Ratugolea [23], Brandon Zerk-Thatcher [26], Ivan Soldo [8], Jordon Sweet [17]

From the home grown talent, we have three lower draft picks in Clurey, Marshall and Georgiades getting games. Next is Dougal Howard. Then not a lot after.

With trades we have clear winners in Dixon, Aliir, Hombsch, Ryder, Lycett, Finlayson, McKenzie and recently Sweet and Zerk-Thatcher.

It is around 2020 when we started to get some issues with the tall timber. In 2020, by all accounts, we luck upon Aliir. In 2021, we try out Skinner. In 2022, all of the picks we bring in are key position players, including Teakle. By 2023, we are super desperate and overpay for four missing key position players.

I'm not going to go super deep into analysis but you can see the lack of key position players being picked in the first or second round and when we have invested it has been pretty good with Clurey, Marshall and Georgiades. After those early picks, the majority of our tall stocks have come from trading.

In recent times, the poor list management and development coaching has meant we've had to pay overs to be at least competitive with our tall players.

KEY FORWARDS

Mitch Georgiades - looking great
Todd Marshall - serious injury issues
Esava Ratugolea - honest tryer
Jeremy Finlayson - soft, more backup
Ollie Lord - young and unknown
Tom Scully - yet to debut for the Power

There is Mitch and five question marks. Hopefully Lukosius can play that third tall. He will give us a good, second tall option.

KEY DEFENDERS

Aliir Aliir - very good, 30 but a young 30
Brandon Zerk-Thatcher - pretty good
Miles Bergman - excellent up and coming 3rd tall
Tom Clurey - Clayton's delisting
Kyle Marshall - yet to debut
Xavier Walsh - yet to debut

We should be happy with our tall defenders but we could always upgrade Zerk but he's pretty good.

RUCK

Jordon Sweet - number 1 but would love a bit more around the ground
Ivan Soldo - wanting to be traded
Dante Visentini - talented and waiting in the wings

We should be happy with our ruck situation. Once again, it could be better but we have rucks. I guess another developing ruck should be brought in.

 

[Chewy316]

Why aren't Richmond saying we had to accept 29 because Port needed 23?

That would have been far more reasonable on both fronts.

If the Hardwick stuff hadn't happened, Port would have got 23.

Richmond were going to hold Rioli as a fück you to Hardwick and the Suns. They had Gold Coast by the balls.
I personally don't think the difference between 23 and 29 is going to be the difference between getting a good player vs a bad one though.

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

We’ll get a late first rounder from Geelong for butters

 

[Enviable Tradition]

If the Hardwick stuff hadn't happened, Port would have got 23.

That's easy to say after the event. They always seem to have a ready made excuse as to why we bent over.

 

[Long live PAFC]

Dogs, Eagles, Port - all ended up accepting poor deals.

Maybe player managers have too much power here. So less about Cripps, Davies etc and more about the AFL needing to rein in the power of managers.

 

[PortAdelFC1997]

Will the next set of delisting happen in the next 24-48 hours?

 

[Peninsula Boy]

That's easy to say after the event. They always seem to have a ready made excuse as to why we bent over.

And so does Chewy.

 

[Chewy316]

That's easy to say after the event. They always seem to have a ready made excuse as to why we bent over.

I was literally told this days before the trade deadline so has nothing to do with being after the fact.

What incentive did Gold Coast have to give 23 to Port as opposed to 29?

 

[bringbackbucky]

So frustrating to read the articles about Crows getting Draper.

Losing a 2xtime AA at the peak of his powers definitely should've had us ending up at the very pointy end of the draft...

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I was literally told this days before the trade deadline so has nothing to do with being after the fact.

What incentive did Gold Coast have to give 23 to Port as opposed to 29?

None because Port didn't demand it, unlike Richmond.

 

[Grave Danger]

How to assess which clubs improved or failed in the AFL trade period

After a week and a half of furrowed brows and frantic paperwork, the dust has begun to settle on a new footy future for all 18 AFL clubs.

www.abc.net.au