List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25

[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

 

[1954]

It took me a while to get over the Wingard trade, his time at the hawks wasn't spectacular but the unknown is what he could have done if he had stayed at Alberton for a few more seasons.

Houston is a bit of a strange one, he was in my top 3 or 4 favourite players for quite some time but given he may not be the high quality individual I originally thought he was I have gone right off him.

Re the players we brought in last season.

I still have mixed feelings about Soldo, if he puts in whether it be for the Power or the Maggies then he will gradually win back some brownie points, but for anyone who couldn't see through yesterday's lame attempt to cover up his dummy spit!

Esava is a trier but that is all he will ever be, and it won't surprise me greatly if he plays a fair bit of sanfl next season.

As for the new blokes.

Luko should be an asset, and Richards sounds like he could be a better small forward option than any of McEntee, Evans or Narkle.

Which leaves the Capibara - it's going to be a struggle to warm to him but IF he plays well for the Maggies, kicks the winning goal in a Showdown, and then gives the finger to the tingle's crowd I promise to try!

 

[Us against the rest]

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

FTFY.

 

[Malibu#27]

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?

I would have thought also that GC are more focussed on who they are bringing in getting done, than one helping a deal occur thats largely between Port and Coll.

 

[Chewy316]

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

You're completely missing the point.

What leverage did Port have to extract 23 from Gold Coast?

I would have thought also that GC are more focussed on who they are bringing in getting done, than one helping a deal occur thats largely between Port and Coll.

Precisely!

 

[El_Scorcho]

You're completely missing the point.

What leverage did Port have to extract 23 from Gold Coast?

It shouldn't have been us doing the leveraging. Collingwood should have needed to get better than 13 and 29 for us to give up Houston. The leverage is that we didn't need to trade Houston regardless of how far he was throwing his toys out of the pram.

We flatly state that we won't trade Houston for less than he's worth early in the piece, setting the tone for both Houston and Collingwood, and it's a very different trade period. Instead we show weakness and a willingness to accept a poor deal, and Houston and Collingwood just stared us down until we caved.

 

[Chewy316]

It shouldn't have been us doing the leveraging. Collingwood should have needed to get better than 13 and 29 for us to give up Houston. The leverage is that we didn't need to trade Houston regardless of how far he was throwing his toys out of the pram.

We flatly state that we won't trade Houston for less than he's worth early in the piece, setting the tone for both Houston and Collingwood, and it's a very different trade period. Instead we show weakness and a willingness to accept a poor deal, and Houston and Collingwood just stared us down until we caved.

The 23 or 29 pick stuff comes down to whether or not they believed it was worth kyboshing the deal over a difference of 6 selections in a point of the draft that is very even talent wise.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The 23 or 29 pick stuff comes down to whether or not they believed it was worth kyboshing the deal over a difference of 6 selections in a point of the draft that is very even talent wise.

The answer is yes, it was worth it, especially when 13+23 was already unders. We needed to make a stand at some point, and it needed to be a long time before we were deciding between taking 29 or pushing for 23.

Do we know what happened in the 20 odd hours between rejecting the deal and then accepting the same deal? Was it just a "are we really doing this?"

 

[FishingRick04]

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.

We should have sent Houston to Suns instead

 

[snozulu]

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

I'm assuming he'll be a restricted free agent when he comes out of contract next.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

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.

Again, the difference between us and another ruthless club in Richmond.

Good on Richmond for milking as much as they could from Gold Coast.

That’s what supporters are expected list management to do.

Why can’t we be like that? Seriously, it’s not that hard. CD and Crippa could have came out looking like gangsters instead of being viewed as idiots munching on pies like CD was.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'm assuming he'll be a restricted free agent when he comes out of contract next.

Just as the AFL remove FA compensation

 

[Chewy316]

The answer is yes, it was worth it, especially when 13+23 was already unders. We needed to make a stand at some point, and it needed to be a long time before we were deciding between taking 29 or pushing for 23.

Do we know what happened in the 20 odd hours between rejecting the deal and then accepting the same deal? Was it just a "are we really doing this?"

On Monday night they didn't necessarily pull out of the deal but they said they wanted more time to think things over.

That night Dan made it clear to people at Port directly that he had no intention of returning to Port. Do I think that influenced them into accepting the deal? No.

Port wanted to extract more out of the deal. Haggling between 29 and 23 is something that went on for the better part of a week. Monday morning they tried to get more from the deal (I'm not sure what). Gold Coast then blew up and put a deadline on the deal because so many teams wanted pick 13, and they could have gotten a much better deal for 13 elsewhere via North who had offered their future first round pick.

Port and North had a further discussion that morning where North offered 13 and a late round sweetener for Houston, but would not trade pick 25 to Port as that was going out for Caleb Daniel. So that was a non starter.

Port also had a discussion with Carlton and they pulled out saying they no longer had interest.

In the end they took the deal on offer because it was clear there was nothing more to extract and they saw the benefits of getting into this draft (the last uncompromised draft of the next few years) and exposing more youth across half back (particularly Logan Evans and Josh Sinn) was not ideal, but it was worth doing when taking a longer term view in mind.

From my perspective I get that Houston is a great kick and is the best in the league at his position from an attacking sense - defensively he's bog average and that's being nice. I also don't think losing him is going to make any difference in the world to their overall record next season. Half back is the easiest position to plug and play young players. I'd be far more pissed off if Port were trading out an All Australian KPP or inside mid for the return they got.

 

[JUSTWORK]

What leverage did Port have to extract 23 from Gold Coast?

We had leverage over Collingwood.
“Trade something out to get us another first rounder for Houston or we are keeping him”

 

[JUSTWORK]

That night Dan made it clear to people at Port directly that he had no intention of returning to Port. Do I think that influenced them into accepting the deal? No.

He’s contracted, do you recon he’s going to sit of out of the AFL until his contract with us expires?

No, obviously not.

He’d come back here and be motivated to put in an other good year to attract big money offers from Victoria.

 

[El_Scorcho]

He’s contracted, do you recon he’s going to sit of out of the AFL until his contract with us expires?

No, obviously not.

He’d come back here and be motivated to put in an other good year to attract big money offers from Victoria.

Yep.

Can anyone tell me the last player who sat out a season because a trade didn't get done? Or who dropped their bundle at all? It just doesn't happen.