List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

Remove this Banner Ad

El_Scorcho said:
Then just hold him to his contract. Like Geelong did with Tim Kelly and Ratugolea, or Sydney did with Papley.

I'm sorry but we've got some significant list issues due to mismanagement and poor development, especially with talls. Why is the list in a position where we have to agree to bad trades?

I think ultimately Davies should be sacked because he oversees all of this, but of course, he won't be.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Brian McGee said:
Any butters trade would have to rival the haul that Carlton gave up for Chris Judd. But this is also one of those rumours that everyone jumps on and perpetuates because they want it to be true. The only evidence so far is that he didn’t sign a long term extension last time, and since then has increased his value again.
Click to expand...
When you're talking about picks, you ultimately have to judge that haul by the players they got in with them. A pick in the top x isn't the same from year to year. There's so many factors. In retrospect, the deals we did last year seem like the main cause behind this years choices. Right now last year's deals look pretty average but you won't get the whole.picture until we see what clubs got in return. I think in retrospect those deals will look even worse. You can only judge this years deals on the options available to us this year.
 
In: Rory Atkins (Gold Coast/trade), Jack Lukosius (Gold Coast/trade), Joe Richards (Collingwood/trade), picks 13, 29, 36, 50
Out: Dan Houston (Collingwood/trade), picks 39 and 58, a future first-rounder
Draft picks: 13, 29, 36, 50
Trade grade: B-

They copped more criticism than was warranted when they eventually finalised a deal on the penultimate day of the trade period, where they gained Suns pair Lukosius and Atkins, Collingwood’s Richards, and picks 13, 29, 36 and 50, while losing Houston and a future first-round pick. Once they agreed to let Houston go – despite four years remaining on his contract – they were up against it, particularly once the dual All-Australian cooled on joining the Demons. There is no doubt they wanted a better return for Houston – ideally two first-round picks – but it was impossible. However, with Lukosius and pick 13, they could improve, even with the loss of the star defender. Ruckman Ivan Soldo wanted to play for St Kilda, but the Saints opted against recruiting him after his medical.
www.theage.com.au

Winners and losers: We rank each AFL club’s trade period, and it’s not as easy as A, B or C-

We rate every club’s player movement window – and rank the teams from best to worst – as the draft picture takes shape.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Revan11 said:
Its the Rioli trade that really pisses me off.

Surely, surely we could've got pick 6 instead of 13 out of gold coast, or 23 instead of 29.

Its should've been two options: 6+29 or 13+23 for Houston.

I think Richmond would've definitely taken 13+23 for Rioli considering their haul.

1, 10, 11, 13, 18, 20, 24, 29 would would've been absolutely fine for them.

Would of left us with 6, 29, 36, 50. Much better.
Click to expand...

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.

johnnysix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chewy316 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Honeyboy Wilson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
johnnysix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Honeyboy Wilson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
johnnysix said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
El_Scorcho said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bloody well said.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.
 
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.
 
It Just Is said:
I’ll spew up if Butters ever plays for Geelong
Click to expand...
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
 
Chewy316 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why aren't Richmond saying we had to accept 29 because Port needed 23?

That would have been far more reasonable on both fronts.
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Enviable Tradition said:
Why aren't Richmond saying we had to accept 29 because Port needed 23?

That would have been far more reasonable on both fronts.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
List Mgmt. AFLW List Management 2024-25
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC
RossFC
SANFL List Management 2024-25
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
7K
kgerlach01
K
Holden Hillbilly
List Mgmt. 2024 AFL Draft
203 204 205 206 207
Replies
5K
Views
218K
Comettski_1
Comettski_1
spookism
Toast Ken Hinkley Record Breaking Game - May 25th, 2024 vs. North
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
187
Views
9K
Coobk001
Coobk001
Holden Hillbilly
Brownlow 2024 Brownlow Medal
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
236
Views
6K
Lefti93
Lefti93
davesnothere
List Mgmt. 2025 AFL Draft
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
RangaInTeal
RangaInTeal
RussellEbertHandball
List Mgmt. AFLW Draft Monday 16 December 2024 - Port Adelaide picks 17, 33, 40, 47, 53
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
4K
philthy05
philthy05

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top