List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[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.

I was one of the first people to deep dive into this area and while it is true, we haven't invested as well with higher draft picks, it remains that the development of 12 years has yielded very little in terms of KPD, KPF and rucks. Rucks are quite telling because you don't usually need high draft picks to develop good rucks.

We are also now seeing the lack of development of small to medium forwards. I might have to look into this as well.

It seems if you're 6 foot and can kick well and play either inside or out, then we can "develop" that into half back flankers, mid or wing but after that, buttkiss.

I personally don't get the List Management jabs when the team has finished in contention for premierships recently with the worst coach possibly in AFL history with that many games under the belt. If you truly want a false narrative then saying List Management is crap when our previous minor round finishes on the AFL ladder are

2024 - 2nd
2023 - 3rd
2022 - 11th - the outlier, transitional year
2021 - 2nd
2020 - 1st

 

[1954]

We can't afford to c*ck up either of the draft picks we got for Houston, and I agree with Cookbook's suggestion that at least one of them needs to be AFL ready from round 1 next season.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

A lot of discussion on other boards that Butters will almost certainly be heading back to Victoria after next season. WBDs & Geelong are rumoured to be his preference.

 

[Rash]

A lot of discussion on other boards that Butters will almost certainly be heading back to Victoria after next season. WBDs & Geelong are rumoured to be his preference.

well if he does we would need two top 10 picks.
I doubt he goes though, we brought in his best mate from back home, that should help him stay.

 

[Brian McGee]

A lot of discussion on other boards that Butters will almost certainly be heading back to Victoria after next season. WBDs & Geelong are rumoured to be his preference.

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.

 

[It Just Is]

A lot of discussion on other boards that Butters will almost certainly be heading back to Victoria after next season. WBDs & Geelong are rumoured to be his preference.

I’ll spew up if Butters ever plays for Geelong

 

[johnnysix]

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.

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.

 

[johnnysix]

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.

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.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

In: Rory Atkins

2

Rory Atkins

Age

30

Ht

185cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.9

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

7.9

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

1.9

4star

MG

367.4

5star

D

9.0

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.0

3star

M

0.3

1star

T

2.7

4star

MG

147.7

3star

D

14.2

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.2

3star

MG

217.8

4star

(Gold Coast/trade), Jack Lukosius

13

Jack Lukosius

Age

24

Ht

195cm

Wt

91kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.8

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

3.3

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

369.3

5star

D

14.8

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

3.3

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

3star

MG

369.3

5star

D

13.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

2.4

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

358.0

5star

(Gold Coast/trade), Joe Richards (Collingwood/trade), picks 13, 29, 36, 50
Out: Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

(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

13

Ivan Soldo

Age

28

Ht

204cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.0

2star

K

3.9

2star

HB

4.1

3star

CL

2.4

4star

HO

24.2

5star

D

7.3

2star

K

3.1

1star

HB

4.1

3star

CL

2.4

4star

HO

23.0

5star

D

6.4

2star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.4

3star

CL

1.6

4star

HO

21.4

5star

wanted to play for St Kilda, but the Saints opted against recruiting him after his medical.

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

 

[Chewy316]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.