Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Doggy]

Reading through the fox footy breakdown of each teams trade rumours is quite depressing. All the teams around us targeting best 23 players to improve and minimising what they lose.

Our rumours are all outs apart from that we were into Barrass and a hypothetical would we look a Tomlinson (god no).

It seems us, Richmond, Melbourne, Essendon and GWS are going to stand still or go backwards while everyone else gets stronger.

On the flip side it is said that not much gets out with the dogs so that might not be true..

 

[MaxiBont]

Reading through the fox footy breakdown of each teams trade rumours is quite depressing. All the teams around us targeting best 23 players to improve and minimising what they lose.

Our rumours are all outs apart from that we were into Barrass and a hypothetical would we look a Tomlinson (god no).

It seems us, Richmond, Melbourne, Essendon and GWS are going to stand still or go backwards while everyone else gets stronger.

The season is still not over yet, it’s way too early for this sort of discussion.

Also, we have confirmed interest in Houston so it’s just plain wrong as well.

Give it time.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Question for those who have watched the Suns.

Could Lukosius play on the wing?

Owed $2m for the remaining two years of his deal, no under any circumstance.

 

[bobs head soup]

Have I missed something with all the Cleary hate and wanting to delist/pay out as he has a contract?

He’s been solid in the VFL, he has always performed when called upon to play AFL.

Is he a starter in our best team? No

Is he a liability when called on at AFL level? No

Is he decent depth that can be relied upon for a game now and then? Yes

You can’t have 40 best 23 players you need depth and role players on minimum money contracts.

So true.

If Duryea's absence in a year or so leaves a gaping hole in our utility defensive stocks, the idea of delisting Cleary and hoping for a better option in a rookie/dfa pick seems highly improbable.

 

[geoffjennings79]

The issue is he is very outside and uncontested.

Very. People called Schache 'soft'. They'd be apoplectic if Lukosius played for us. Which he won't. Isn't he definitely S.A. (homeward) bound?

 

[Here we go dogs]

I’m not giving up on Clarke yet. He improved a lot at vfl level this year. We shouldn’t be giving up on young players showing improvements.

Definitely has some work to do on his ball handling, tank and footskills.

Glad that his close to Treloar, he can be a really positive influence on his career. His a larrikin but from afar he looks like a lad that wants to get the most out himself.

 

[BLACAE]

Serious question did you watch Rypstra in the vfl at all?
Also two hamstrings after a serious leg injury I think shows his body can’t stand up to the riggers of full time football.
I’d be shocked if he is kept ahead of Clarke.

I watched some VFL, and whilst I don't think Rypstra was shooting the lights out, I'm happy to give the kid a preseason to have a real go. I would be telling him that we want him to tackle and hit those front and centres consistently. That needs to be the nuts and bolts of his game. If he can't do that, delist him next year.

On SM-G990E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Al dente]

Owed $2m for the remaining two years of his deal, no under any circumstance.

Lukosius is incredibly soft, big no for me as well

 

[Mojorisin]

Very. People called Schache 'soft'. They'd be apoplectic if Lukosius played for us. Which he won't. Isn't he definitely S.A. (homeward) bound?

I believe he will be at Adelaide next year but the media are saying he is open to a move to Victoria.

 

[Testekill]

Lukosious is bloody talented but doesn't have a competitive bone in his body. So yeah he could kill it on the wing but we expect our wings to drop into defence and to expect contact.

 

[redmania]

Reading through the fox footy breakdown of each teams trade rumours is quite depressing. All the teams around us targeting best 23 players to improve and minimising what they lose.

Our rumours are all outs apart from that we were into Barrass and a hypothetical would we look a Tomlinson (god no).

It seems us, Richmond, Melbourne, Essendon and GWS are going to stand still or go backwards while everyone else gets stronger.

There's always a left field player we pick up who's a bit of a spud and we convince ourselves they'll be alright. Love trade period.

 

[Dogs Rule]

There's always a left field player we pick up who's a bit of a spud and we convince ourselves they'll be alright. Love trade period.

Taylor Duryea has bucked that trend a bit. I did have a WTF moment at the time but he's proved me wrong.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

So true.

If Duryea's absence in a year or so leaves a gaping hole in our utility defensive stocks, the idea of delisting Cleary and hoping for a better option in a rookie/dfa pick seems highly improbable.

I wouldn't pay Cleary out, but I'm finding the board's stance on him quite surprising.

He's played four games in three years while upwards of 12 players have been cycled through those parts of the ground. In those games he's been fine if unspectacular. Ditto at VFL level, where he has played pretty much the same as he was 12 months ago.

If we genuinely want to improve the list, we have to cut the "fringe" players that actually aren't really fringe and work towards replacing them with ones that are genuinely on the cusp of selection or better. As an example, I find the resignation towards trading out contributors like Daniel and Macrae, contrasted with the 'must keep Cleary' attitude baffling. Similarly, I'd much prefer to keep Clarke, a first round pick playing one of the hardest positions on the ground, than Cleary, who has plateaued and was always an outside chance to make it.

Frankly, I think there is a disconnect between the results people want on-field and the list management suggestions they're making.

 

[Mofra]

Reading through the fox footy breakdown of each teams trade rumours is quite depressing. All the teams around us targeting best 23 players to improve and minimising what they lose.

Our rumours are all outs apart from that we were into Barrass and a hypothetical would we look a Tomlinson (god no).

It seems us, Richmond, Melbourne, Essendon and GWS are going to stand still or go backwards while everyone else gets stronger.

With our young KPFs, and another pre season into Sanders, Freijah and Gags we do have the facility to improve just internally.

Sanders will cover Libba's slowdown and Buss is closer to ready to help cover Jones.

I'd really want us to draft a small defender and target a small forward though.

 

[Chalky White]

Reading through the fox footy breakdown of each teams trade rumours is quite depressing. All the teams around us targeting best 23 players to improve and minimising what they lose.

Our rumours are all outs apart from that we were into Barrass and a hypothetical would we look a Tomlinson (god no).

It seems us, Richmond, Melbourne, Essendon and GWS are going to stand still or go backwards while everyone else gets stronger.

Hasn’t helped grossly overpaying for Sanders. Not much different to what Geelong paid GWS for Jeremy Cameron.
Let that sink in

 

[Freshwater]

People on SEN this morning saying we should ask for Sam deKonning for Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

24

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

. Then others saying Geelong won’t do that? They’re the same age and Bailey is a walk up start and deKonning doesn’t even seem to be in their best 22 at the moment, but somehow that’s not fair to Geelong?

 

[Unorth]

I wouldn't pay Cleary out, but I'm finding the board's stance on him quite surprising.

He's played four games in three years while upwards of 12 players have been cycled through those parts of the ground. In those games he's been fine if unspectacular. Ditto at VFL level, where he has played pretty much the same as he was 12 months ago.

If we genuinely want to improve the list, we have to cut the "fringe" players that actually aren't really fringe and work towards replacing them with ones that are genuinely on the cusp of selection or better. As an example, I find the resignation towards trading out contributors like Daniel and Macrae, contrasted with the 'must keep Cleary' attitude baffling. Similarly, I'd much prefer to keep Clarke, a first round pick playing one of the hardest positions on the ground, than Cleary, who has plateaued and was always an outside chance to make it.

Frankly, I think there is a disconnect between the results people want on-field and the list management suggestions they're making.

If paying out/actively trading out contracted depth players was on the table for us I would have a couple on the block before Cleary. Not many, and I wouldn’t be upset to lose him, but he wouldn’t be first on the list at all. Hell, clean out of a few of them and I’d be happy.

i kind of question our list management in that space though. We’re in this position where tough decisions have to be made while 2025 is going to see substantial turnover. There are numerous players we would be delisting now if they were out of contract. That delisting Clark may have to happen while Cleary, Baker, Poulter, Scott etc are safe is poor planning.

Hindsight can play some part but not to this scale imo. We handed out two year deals way too freely. Think we may have learned something with the Bramble one year extension.

 

[Rookie]

The following players are in the delist zone but are still contracted:

Poulter
Baker
Gardner
Jones
Cleary
Scott

I'm sure we'd retain 2-3 of those guys if all were uncontracted, but that's a lot of list spots taken up by players who didn't do much at AFL level this year.

 

[stefoid]

We are in a good spot list management wise. This list can and should be able to do better - there is a lot of improvement left in bedding down a decent gameplan.

Id be using Smiths pick to draft the best mid/wing available.

We dont need to desperately chase = overpay for any particular trade targets unless some star player opportunistically falls into our path.

Not sure what our F/S situation is next year, but would it be crazy to trade next years 1st into this year somehow?

 

[TommyD13]

Yeah not sure why everyone is worried about ‘no trade targets’.

Ultimately our list will improve from within (we hope) and I’m not sure recruiting role players from other clubs will make a difference. I’d prefer we just hit the draft and keep developing (and keeping) our own.

Sure, if another Adam Treloar

1

Adam Treloar

Age

31

Ht

185cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

28.2

5star

K

12.9

5star

HB

15.3

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

30.3

5star

K

16.3

5star

HB

14.0

5star

M

2.0

2star

T

3.3

4star

CL

5.8

5star

D

18.0

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

6.8

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

1.6

4star

scenario presents itself - go for it. But I don’t think just because you recruit someone you become a better list.

 

[Libbaaaa]

The following players are in the delist zone but are still contracted:

Poulter
Baker
Gardner
Jones
Cleary
Scott

I'm sure we'd retain 2-3 of those guys if all were uncontracted, but that's a lot of list spots taken up by players who didn't do much at AFL level this year.

All bar Gardner are coming off the books at the end of 2025, $$$ wise would be on peanuts but its the list spot they are taking up like you said. I assume you just have to eat the final year of their deal in your cap were you to delist them?

The Gardner one is the shocker, Power's worse decision by far in his tenure to date.

 

[maddog37]

If a club poaches our players I hope we are targeting their players with good offers to ensure they are forced to pay market rates across their list.

Whoever we draft or trade the number one attribute (apart from speed which is a given nowadays) needs to be competitiveness and aggression.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

If paying out/actively trading out contracted depth players was on the table for us I would have a couple on the block before Cleary. Not many, and I wouldn’t be upset to lose him, but he wouldn’t be first on the list at all. Hell, clean out of a few of them and I’d be happy.

i kind of question our list management in that space though. We’re in this position where tough decisions have to be made while 2025 is going to see substantial turnover. There are numerous players we would be delisting now if they were out of contract. That delisting Clark may have to happen while Cleary, Baker, Poulter, Scott etc are safe is poor planning.

Hindsight can play some part but not to this scale imo. We handed out two year deals way too freely. Think we may have learned something with the Bramble one year extension.

The players you list have played 24 (6 in 2024), 16 (7 in 2024), and 38 (2 in an injury-affected 2024) games in the same time as Cleary's 4 (and in the cases of Baker and Poulter, one year less). They are the very definition of depth/fringe. This is what I'm talking about - removing these players is cutting from the middle, not the bottom, irrespective of your views on them. Cleary is being treated as if he's right on the cusp because every time a defender goes out the board calls for him to come in, and yet almost every time he is overlooked. He's young, yes, but that is only an advantage if you're showing an upward trajectory towards featuring in the team, and I don't feel that is happening. He's also older than Poulter if that's an example we're running with.

But all of that said, I do agree with your overall list management sentiment. Unfortunately we're doing it again with Khamis and McNeil. I suspect we're right back here next year bemoaning how we can't delist both of them.

 

[ossie_21]

People on SEN this morning saying we should ask for Sam deKonning for Bailey Smith. Then others saying Geelong won’t do that? They’re the same age and Bailey is a walk up start and deKonning doesn’t even seem to be in their best 22 at the moment, but somehow that’s not fair to Geelong?

SDK got injured, only just returning.

100% first team and should be untouchable from their view, so this is an odd suggestion.

Would snap their hands off for it.

 

[Unorth]

The players you list have played 24 (6 in 2024), 16 (7 in 2024), and 38 (2 in an injury-affected 2024) games in the same time as Cleary's 4 (and in the cases of Baker and Poulter, one year less). They are the very definition of depth/fringe. This is what I'm talking about - removing these players is cutting from the middle, not the bottom, irrespective of your views on them. Cleary is being treated as if he's right on the cusp because every time a defender goes out the board calls for him to come in, and yet almost every time he is overlooked. He's young, yes, but that is only an advantage if you're showing an upward trajectory towards featuring in the team, and I don't feel that is happening. He's also older than Poulter if that's an example we're running with.

But all of that said, I do agree with your overall list management sentiment. Unfortunately we're doing it again with Khamis and McNeil. I suspect we're right back here next year bemoaning how we can't delist both of them.

I get what you’re saying but I just don’t agree on games played necessarily indicating a player is, say, a C grader instead of a D grader. Even though that leans into Bigfooty armchair selection stuff (I will never claim to be more than a Bigfooty nuff). It’s subjective when objectively we know Cleary has been a non factor while others have played roles asked of them to some degree hence an arguably more valuable use of a list spot.

I view it as more that we have failed to address certain positions and that they have lucked into games due to our own list management woes. Particularly on the wing and at small/half forward, issues that have persisted for a number of years addressed only by cycling through multiples of the same type.

An extreme example but I’d point to McComb - he played 18 AFL games but that was out of desperation and a misguided attempt to mould a very below average player into something he couldn’t be. That total should have been closer to 0. Unfortunately he played 15 games, got only 1 year extension, then played 3 early next season - then fortunately delisted.

Cleary comparisons, well that goes into the concept of ‘ceilings’, draft picks vs DFAs etc. There is a balance there and maybe because of Marra and Darcy draft costs we have gone too far in a certain direction.

But yes I think overall we get carried away by the fact that fringe players can fill a role for one season therefore - two year extension. Power himself has witnessed multiple examples of these kinds of players going from, say, ~15 games to 0-3 games and irrelevant very quickly.

More so than these players themselves I take issue with how Power and co keep on repeating the same mistakes, and have failed over a few years to fix up the same positional weaknesses.

(Disclaimer, not saying the Bakers, Scotts etc of the world are why we haven’t won a final, or are killing our salary cap, and so on - just that it’s a recurring issue).

To me it’s particularly strange we very sensibly gave Bramble one year and McNeil two. Bramble had a better year even! But it’s fair to ask him to back it up before committing for longer.