List Mgmt. The 2024 Draft (Nov 20/21)

[Keys]

Quick links

• Player contract status
• Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)
• Provisional 2025 Draft order

---

Drafted

• Bo Allan - Pick 16
• Jobe Shanahan - Pick 30
• Tom Gross - Pick 46
• Lucca Grego - Pick 48
• Hamish Davis - Pick 65
• Malakai Champion - Cat B

List Spots Available

• One on either main OR rookie list to be filled as a SSP selection following train on assessments

Trade and draft period

In: F1, F2, F3, Baker, Owies, Graham, Allan, Shanahan, Gross, Grego, Davis, Champion
Out: 3, 63, F3, F4, Barrass, Darling

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I'm curious, If the pie-man was still around leading the draft strategy who would we have taken this year instead?

I’m also intrigued at how the drafting strategy changed with the change in coach.

WCE_phil able to share any insight on if the draft board changed after Simpson or ROb left the club?

 

[Obeanie1]

Well thats interesting. A NT Palmerston lad.

Hope he has a good crack at it.

 

[Keys]

List managers are judged by there trading and ability to stay within the salary cap
By resigning players to contract's good for player and club
And by also making sure age range is good

They are not judged on the quality of the list, that's the recruiting teams job

Duane has basically saved Clarke arse with his drafting,
because Clarke ability to negotiate has been brought into question
by his own work colleagues

Clarke’s (in)ability to negotiate trades has been called into question but the same poster you’re referring to has also acknowledged that his work on player contracts and other areas of list management is sound

He’s been in the job for less than a year but he’s shown a willingness to let a player like Barrass walk because it was in the club’s best interests. Same with Darling

Other players were delisted that may have been retained by a previous list manager

Players have been recontracted appropriately for the most part so far

So the list management part of his job isn’t really an issue

He got caught out this trade period in part due to his inexperience in that role. Didn’t help that Pyke was also in his first trade period as a CEO either

Got blindsided by Hawthorn being dicks then had to scramble.

When you look at other deals getting 12 and 14 for pick 3 wasn’t a bad trade - Allan and Reid over Smith would’ve been a decent outcome.

We also held our nerve with Hawthorn to get a good result for Barrass

Trading 14 for Baker was the real misstep though and his decision making was arguably compromised by his relationship with not only Baker and Graham but also with Blair Hartley. He over committed early and then telegraphed what he was willing to pay.

It was a harsh lesson for him, and Pyke, that hopefully they’ve learned from because on the horizon we have two transactions that will shape the future of the club - Harley’s new contract and the Warner trade should he decide to join West Coast

 

[dinnaz]

I am really struggling to understand the clubs who refuse to bid on club tied players at their value. Thank goodness for Geelong and Sydney.

The majority of experts had Ashcroft at No 1 while some had him at 2. I do not agree on bidding and taking a risk The acid test is if you bid, would you like the outcome if you got him.

Firstly Richmond - I understand why they wanted Lalor to be No 1 and I have no drama in them not bidding. But Norf??? Then Carlton then Crows?? Thank goodness for Jason Taylor and common sense at the Demons.

I just did the maths.

If Norf had bid on Ashcroft at pick 2 plus the Dogs bid on Marshall at pick 20 (roughly where he was rated and I expected some spite for Lions underpaying for Dunkley), the Lions would have been close to being wiped out on picks and points.

Instead, they were sucked on the old codpiece.

They finished up with Ashcroft, Marshall and Gallop (they would have had to sell a F3 to cover this NGA) plus they added 3 x F3 (Eagles, Suns and Dogs) and a F4 (Saints)

Oh well, I hope this tradition continues in 2025 when we have Charlie Banfield, Walley and Evans.

Well no one bid on Waterman in 2017 and he was much better that year than #77. Should have gone somewhere 2nd round.

 

[Corn69]

I know it didn't work out the first time around but I really hope we give Winder another go at some point.

Seems really committed this time and obviously has the talent to perform at Afl level.

Still only 22 and could be another Tim Kelly

11

Tim Kelly

Age

30

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.6

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

10.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

4.0

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

19.9

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.6

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.6

4star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

11.2

5star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

3.8

5star

like situation in a few years time if we let it develop that way.

Thoughts?

 

[Keys]

I know it didn't work out the first time around but I really hope we give Winder another go at some point.

Seems really committed this time and obviously has the talent to perform at Afl level.

Still only 22 and could be another Tim Kelly like situation in a few years time if we let it develop that way.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I’d love to give Winder another crack

Doesn’t look like it’ll be for us this year though- only one spot left that if Burgiel doesn’t get, likely goes to a KPD

Clubs might be wanting to see if he can back this year up or if it was an aberration

 

[Deplorable trumpster]

It would be easier for the afl to scrap the whole academy thing and just spend the millions to fund the youth development pathways themselves they're rich enough and there would actually be more kids come through the system instead of clubs just cherry picking the 2 or 3 best kids and ignoring the rest.

Either that or grossly simplify it by giving each club a zone area of roughly equal population size and allow them to have one player a year from their zone or as a father/son prior to the draft each year.

Instead they have got the most ridiculously complicated system imaginable. So complicated that very few AFL fans even understand it. And it does nothing to achieve what it is supposed to achieve which is getting the clubs with academies to pay what the players they are taking through their academy are worth.

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

I am really struggling to understand the clubs who refuse to bid on club tied players at their value. Thank goodness for Geelong and Sydney.

The majority of experts had Ashcroft at No 1 while some had him at 2. I do not agree on bidding and taking a risk The acid test is if you bid, would you like the outcome if you got him.

Firstly Richmond - I understand why they wanted Lalor to be No 1 and I have no drama in them not bidding. But Norf??? Then Carlton then Crows?? Thank goodness for Jason Taylor and common sense at the Demons.

I just did the maths.

If Norf had bid on Ashcroft at pick 2 plus the Dogs bid on Marshall at pick 20 (roughly where he was rated and I expected some spite for Lions underpaying for Dunkley), the Lions would have been close to being wiped out on picks and points.

Instead, they were sucked on the old codpiece.

They finished up with Ashcroft, Marshall and Gallop (they would have had to sell a F3 to cover this NGA) plus they added 3 x F3 (Eagles, Suns and Dogs) and a F4 (Saints)

Oh well, I hope this tradition continues in 2025 when we have Charlie Banfield, Walley and Evans.

Yeah, same with NDaicos going 4th in 2021 and Will Ashcroft going behind Cadman in 2022. No idea why this happens. I assume it’s just clubs scratching each other’s backs so that they’ll get payback when it’s their turn for a father son pick. But it makes the whole system even more of a farce than it already is.

 

[Keys]

Either that or grossly simplify it by giving each club a zone area of roughly equal population size and allow them to have one player a year from their zone or as a father/son prior to the draft each year.

Instead they have got the most ridiculously complicated system imaginable. So complicated that very few AFL fans even understand it. And it does nothing to achieve what it is supposed to achieve which is getting the clubs with academies to pay what the players they are taking through their academy are worth.

There’s merit to this but the problem with it is the perennial one with the AFL of too many Victorian clubs

Making the zones equal, or even if they are getting the clubs to agree that they are, would be problematic

 

[Rowan18]

Then this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is one of the best books on negotiating ever written.

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

Seems like most of the opinions out there have the Eagles among the best drafts, along with Richmond (due to an absolute truckload of first round picks plus North losing their minds to gift them an early first round pick next year). Not that draft grades are the be all, end all but the people who get paid to do this stuff are usually pretty good.

My gridiron team (also the Eagles) were dreadful on pass defence last year and drafted two highly-regarded cornerbacks (skip this post if you need think gridiron is trash) later than they were expected to go last year. Most of the draft report cards gave them along the highest grades and so far this year they are 8-2 with one of the best pass defences in the league. Point being, I’d much rather have the independent experts say you did a great job than asking what the hell you were thinking.

 

[briztoon]

Thank you very much briztoon. Based on your comment above it actually all makes sense now !

In all seriousness though, I was looking back through pages trade news trying to follow Brisbane's trades and it wasn't logical because the live picks kept moving up as bids were made it made it extremely tough to track.

From your explanation, it seems best way to match bids is to trade into multiple lower picks because when/if earlier picks are 'used' to match a different bid, the draft point increase is multiplied over multiple low end picks rather than a single higher pick. This could net a larger draft point increase each time it happens. Not sure if the math/points system supports this but that seems to be what Brissy did and it worked extremely well. Well done to you, smashed it.

Spot on. But that all ends now.

The DVI (Draft pick Value Index) changes next year, and will change bid matching.

Teams can still trade back for multiple picks worth more points, but the trade backs won't be as far, and the points upgrade won't be as great. And it will be harder to find teams willing to give up the required picks to move up only a few spots.

 

[Dark Sharks]

the trade backs won't be as far, and the points upgrade won't be as great. And it will be harder to find teams willing to give up the required picks to move up only a few spots.

Good.

Sick of your shit.

 

[briztoon]

Seems like most of the opinions out there have the Eagles among the best drafts, along with Richmond (due to an absolute truckload of first round picks plus North losing their minds to gift them an early first round pick next year). Not that draft grades are the be all, end all but the people who get paid to do this stuff are usually pretty good.

My gridiron team (also the Eagles) were dreadful on pass defence last year and drafted two highly-regarded cornerbacks (skip this post if you need think gridiron is trash) later than they were expected to go last year. Most of the draft report cards gave them along the highest grades and so far this year they are 8-2 with one of the best pass defences in the league. Point being, I’d much rather have the independent experts say you did a great job than asking what the hell you were thinking.

 

[Keys]

The addition of Malakai to our list as a Cat B rookie has clarified a couple of issues some of us were unsure of

1) Our recruiting team hung around right to the end of the draft last night doing nothing other than pass on multiple picks. The only explanation for this is they stayed in case a club bid on Champion so they could match it. So, it is possible to match a bid if you’ve previously passed on an earlier pick

2) He’s on the Cat B list which means Dewar (or Livingstone) must have been upgraded to the Cat A rookie list overnight or this morning. Had we done so earlier we wouldn’t have been able to match a Champion bid last night AND leave a list spot open for a train on - so we wouldn’t have drafted Davis in that instance. So changes can be made to rookie lists during the draft period

Handy to remember for next year as it’s possible Evans might not be bid in during the main draft - way too early to know for sure

 

[Mr Q]

I thought Ramanauskas came first, I remember arguing how ridiculous it was that they’d allowed an exception for him but not Smith, based apparently on the nature of the exceptionally unlucky medical issue.

You appear to be right, looking at their Draftguru profiles.

It was a long time ago, back when I was young enough to remember stuff .

 

[Mr Q]

Not with you saying Fcuk Geelong.

Always say f*** Geelong at trade/draft time. Because the certainties in life are death, taxes, and Geelong screwing you over in a trade.

 

[twce13]

The addition of Malakai to our list as a Cat B rookie has clarified a couple of issues some of us were unsure of

1) Our recruiting team hung around right to the end of the draft last night doing nothing other than pass on multiple picks. The only explanation for this is they stayed in case a club bid on Champion so they could match it. So, it is possible to match a bid if you’ve previously passed on an earlier pick

2) He’s on the Cat B list which means Dewar (or Livingstone) must have been upgraded to the Cat A rookie list overnight or this morning. Had we done so earlier we wouldn’t have been able to match a Champion bid last night AND leave a list spot open for a train on - so we wouldn’t have drafted Davis in that instance. So changes can be made to rookie lists during the draft period

Handy to remember for next year as it’s possible Evans might not be bid in during the main draft - way too early to know for sure

I've been thinking on this and I wonder if there is a hard limit to cat b vs cat a. I mean maybe you can have 3 cat Bs as long as you don't exceed 44 ? Seems to be a weird grey area anyway.

 

[WCE_phil]

I've been thinking on this and I wonder if there is a hard limit to cat b vs cat a. I mean maybe you can have 3 cat Bs as long as you don't exceed 44 ? Seems to be a weird grey area anyway.

Cat B is 2 normal academy prospects with the potential addition of one overseas cat B which means 3 is possible.

Dewar was upgraded.

 

[06Premiers]

Spot on. But that all ends now.

The DVI (Draft pick Value Index) changes next year, and will change bid matching.

Teams can still trade back for multiple picks worth more points, but the trade backs won't be as far, and the points upgrade won't be as great. And it will be harder to find teams willing to give up the required picks to move up only a few spots.

New points system in article

2025 draft order: Where your club's picks sit after swap frenzy

Check out the final draft order ahead of the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

Using Ashcroft as an example, Brisbane needed 1502 points to match pick 5 bid (1878 minus 20% discount).
They used 40 (429), 42 (395), 43 (378) and 46 (331) to do so.

In 2025 with the new points system & discount reduced to 10%, they'd need 1616 points to match pick 5 bid (1795 minus 10% discount).
Picks 40 (238), 42 (202), 43 (184) and 46 (134) would barely get them half way there and would need equivalent of pick 17 (879) on top to make up the difference.
Removing the discount altogether would mean they'd need pick 14 (1024) instead.

It's not perfect (the discount should be removed entirely and a limit placed on the number of picks used to make up the points value), but the new points system is a big step in the right direction.

 

[Keys]

2025 draft order: Where your club's picks sit after swap frenzy

Check out the final draft order ahead of the 2024 Telstra AFL Draft

www.afl.com.au

Using Ashcroft as an example, Brisbane needed 1502 points to match pick 5 bid (1878 minus 20% discount).
They used 40 (429), 42 (395), 43 (378) and 46 (331) to do so.

In 2025, they'd need 1436 points to match pick 5 bid (1795 minus 20% discount).
Picks 40 (238), 42 (202), 43 (184) and 46 (134) would barely get them half way there and would need equivalent of pick 22 (686) to make up the difference.

It's not perfect (the discount should also be removed and a limit on the number of picks used to make up the points value), but the new points system is a big step in the right direction.
Even just removing the discount would mean they'd need pick 14 (1024) to make up the difference.

Discount has been reduced to the greater of 10% or 84 for next year

 

[We_The_West]

Clarke’s (in)ability to negotiate trades has been called into question but the same poster you’re referring to has also acknowledged that his work on player contracts and other areas of list management is sound

He’s been in the job for less than a year but he’s shown a willingness to let a player like Barrass walk because it was in the club’s best interests. Same with Darling

Other players were delisted that may have been retained by a previous list manager

Players have been recontracted appropriately for the most part so far

So the list management part of his job isn’t really an issue

He got caught out this trade period in part due to his inexperience in that role. Didn’t help that Pyke was also in his first trade period as a CEO either

Got blindsided by Hawthorn being dicks then had to scramble.

When you look at other deals getting 12 and 14 for pick 3 wasn’t a bad trade - Allan and Reid over Smith would’ve been a decent outcome.

We also held our nerve with Hawthorn to get a good result for Barrass

Trading 14 for Baker was the real misstep though and his decision making was arguably compromised by his relationship with not only Baker and Graham but also with Blair Hartley. He over committed early and then telegraphed what he was willing to pay.

It was a harsh lesson for him, and Pyke, that hopefully they’ve learned from because on the horizon we have two transactions that will shape the future of the club - Harley’s new contract and the Warner trade should he decide to join West Coast

Can we all agree that outside of the Liam Baker trade for pick 14, Clarke and his team have done well?

From mid 2024 to now, our list looks significantly better, there's a genuine sense of optimism that we may improve our performance on the field and we also have a stronger draft hand in 2025.

Even though hypothetically it could have been much worse, the fact of the matter is that the situation and all the variables resulted in what we all view as a big net positive for list management.

Trade period is done, lessons have been learned. Failure is not the opposite of success, it is part of success.

 

[Deplorable trumpster]

There’s merit to this but the problem with it is the perennial one with the AFL of too many Victorian clubs

Making the zones equal, or even if they are getting the clubs to agree that they are, would be problematic

Thats one problem.

The other reason they won't change it is that the AFL want to use it as a lever to manipulate the draft to give free kicks to the Northern clubs. So they don't want a transparent and simple system. The complication of the dog's breakfast of a system they have concocted is designed to mask the extent of the free kicks they are giving to the Northern clubs from the casual fan.

 

[UnidentifiedPunch]

Clarke’s (in)ability to negotiate trades has been called into question but the same poster you’re referring to has also acknowledged that his work on player contracts and other areas of list management is sound

He’s been in the job for less than a year but he’s shown a willingness to let a player like Barrass walk because it was in the club’s best interests. Same with Darling

Other players were delisted that may have been retained by a previous list manager

Players have been recontracted appropriately for the most part so far

So the list management part of his job isn’t really an issue

He got caught out this trade period in part due to his inexperience in that role. Didn’t help that Pyke was also in his first trade period as a CEO either

Got blindsided by Hawthorn being dicks then had to scramble.

When you look at other deals getting 12 and 14 for pick 3 wasn’t a bad trade - Allan and Reid over Smith would’ve been a decent outcome.

We also held our nerve with Hawthorn to get a good result for Barrass

Trading 14 for Baker was the real misstep though and his decision making was arguably compromised by his relationship with not only Baker and Graham but also with Blair Hartley. He over committed early and then telegraphed what he was willing to pay.

It was a harsh lesson for him, and Pyke, that hopefully they’ve learned from because on the horizon we have two transactions that will shape the future of the club - Harley’s new contract and the Warner trade should he decide to join West Coast

I think you hit the nail on the head. Clarke did not have a personal relationship with darling, nor Barrass so it was a business decision. He did have one with baker and the ex Richmond list/recruiting team and was blinded by this, falling into simple negotiation mistakes. I’m over it now, as long as he learns from it then all is not lost. If it happens again, it’s on Pyke though in my mind. You can let someone make the same mistake twice, he will need to own it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[footy_basis]

He was saved by the drafting team and other teams refusing to trade on draft night saved him from himself.

I want clarke no where near trade negotiations next off season

Then he needs to be sacked if he's such an incompetent fool