The List Management Thread

[Red and Blue Flame 142]

The club won't delist anyone that is contracted.

Could someone tell me the contract situations of Healey, Hughes, Martin, Meesen and Newton

Cheers

[DeezMan 4]

Could someone tell me the contract situations of Healey, Hughes, Martin, Meesen and Newton

Meesen until end of 2010.

Newton end of 2010 - hence demoted to rookie list start of the year I think.

Martin is end of 2011 I think.

Unsure of Healey and Hughes.

[Guest hangon007]

ND pick 16, ND pick 33, ND pick 50

Personally I'm hoping we can find a way to considerably improve these picks.

[old55 21,611]

... but GC poaching and trading is entirely reliant on third parties so not as realistic to propose in this context.

Agree that it complicates the issue but it can't be ignored in the calculation - if we lose a required uncontracted player to GC or trade out an unrequired contracted player it completely changes the equation. We probably need 5 senior list vacancees for 2 rookie promotions and 3 picks and some may come via these means.

[Inner Demon 1]

The club won't delist anyone that is contracted.

Could someone tell me the contract situations of Healey, Hughes, Martin, Meesen and Newton

Cheers

All rookies are on 1 year contracts.

Martin is 2011.

Personally I'm hoping we can find a way to considerably improve these picks.

We could lose the last two matches??

We have our fill of high draft picks now. Cutting loose quality players just to go chase yet another low draft pick won't see us progress. The drafting phase of the rebuild is done, now comes the development of players.

[Inner Demon 1]

Agree that it complicates the issue but it can't be ignored in the calculation - if we lose a required uncontracted player to GC or trade out an unrequired contracted player it completely changes the equation. We probably need 5 senior list vacancees for 2 rookie promotions and 3 picks and some may come via these means.

You're completely right.

What I'm trying to get at is using that Player X will be traded or Player Y will be GC poached as a bail-out option for not making a decision on how you feel should be delisted doesn't add much to the discussion. It's wishful thinking. If we were actually in a List Management meeting at the Club, the first thing to be decided would be what moves will we make if we lose nobody to GC and receive no interest in any trades. There would then obviously be any number of contingencies planned for in the event either of these things happen.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if someone includes making trades or having someone go to GC in their post, it would be worth their while also considering a scenario where our list moves are purely delistings as a way of challenging their thoughts on the structure of the list and value of the players.

[mdemonski2 403]

Senior List

In: McKenzie (rookie promotion), Spencer (rookie promotion), ND pick 16, ND pick 33, ND pick 50

Out: Bell (delist), Miller (delist), Johnson (delist), McNamara (delist), Green (veteran status)

Veterans' List

In: Green

Out: McDonald (retire)

Rookie List

In: Six picks in Rookie Draft

Out: McKenzie (rookie promotion), Spencer (rookie promotion), Healey (delist), Hughes (delist), Meesen (delist), Newton (delist)

Spot on. I can see this happening. Only one I wonder about is jnr mac. But not sure he can go on for a full year next year. If that is the case, he deserves a massive win against the roos in final round. Would be a great tribute to a true unsung hero...

[old55 21,611]

You're completely right.

What I'm trying to get at is using that Player X will be traded or Player Y will be GC poached as a bail-out option for not making a decision on how you feel should be delisted doesn't add much to the discussion. It's wishful thinking. If we were actually in a List Management meeting at the Club, the first thing to be decided would be what moves will we make if we lose nobody to GC and receive no interest in any trades. There would then obviously be any number of contingencies planned for in the event either of these things happen.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if someone includes making trades or having someone go to GC in their post, it would be worth their while also considering a scenario where our list moves are purely delistings as a way of challenging their thoughts on the structure of the list and value of the players.

Agree with that. But I think GC and trade will come before we need to make a final call on the hard re-contracting decisions and I think they start after Bell and Miller. A trade can be an effective delist of a contracted player for a late pick we have no intention of using. And while I agree that "demoting to rookie list" doesn't exist (as you say - if we do that we must be prepared to delist the player) - it is an option with contracted players to promise to re-draft them with our last rookie pick, so effectively we can delist contracted players without trashing our reputation - the point is we have to have rookie space to do it - which wont be a problem because we need that primary list space to promote rookies. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know. Fascinating [© C.Wilson] time of year.

Edited August 18, 2010 by old55

[Guest hangon007]

We could lose the last two matches??

Hehehe ... that was last year ... I hope ... dont even know if that will make that much difference anyway ... not this year at least.

We have our fill of high draft picks now.

Yes & No. The numerical value of the draft pick for all intense purposes are irrelevant. Its the position of the pick overlaid by the make-up, quality & depth of the draft.

So in essence dont judge a player on his draft pick number ... judge him on his quality as a footballer or does he suit your needs.

Thats based on the concept that all drafts are not the same ... (somewhat of a concept many posters around here struggle with. Now dont get me wrong that not what I think about you - You have an excellent understanding of drafting & trading)

Cutting loose quality players just to go chase yet another low draft pick won't see us progress. The drafting phase of the rebuild is done, now comes the development of players.

I never called for the "Cutting loose quality players" -

I'm suggesting if we want to improve our list - we will need "low draft picks" in this draft to progress our list.

Edited August 18, 2010 by hangon007

[Inner Demon 1]

I never called for the "Cutting loose quality players" -

I'm suggesting if we want to improve our list - we will need "low draft picks" in this draft to progress our list.

Well how else would we get our hands on low draft picks without trading quality players???

As has been well covered in countless other threads, the other Clubs aren't fools who will just accept a heaping pile of our trash in return for their precious low draft picks. If you look through the history of trades, there are precious few Top 10 draft picks that change hands, and they only ever move in exchange for high quality players.

[Guest hangon007]

Well how else would we get our hands on low draft picks without trading quality players???

As has been well covered in countless other threads, the other Clubs aren't fools who will just accept a heaping pile of our trash in return for their precious low draft picks. If you look through the history of trades, there are precious few Top 10 draft picks that change hands, and they only ever move in exchange for high quality players.

ahhh ... Yes you are right. But tell me the last time in "history" one club had picks 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 then the first pick in every round.

So yes you are spot on when it comes to history. But this draft is different (without stating the obvious).

You have to bare in mind what "strategy" you think they (GC17) will pursue. You have to consider the major player first. Especially looking at what they have already done, and what they are saying they are going to do.

One of the biggest skills in drafting is trying to pick your opponents pockets by picking their "strategy".

[4jacks 0]

Why do people keep calling for Bartram's head? How much must he do to prove himself? Yes, it's likely he'll be pushed out of the team in the next few years, but ATM he's our best small defender by a fair way. Give the man some credit.

[Redleg 38,003]

Why do people keep calling for Bartram's head? How much must he do to prove himself? Yes, it's likely he'll be pushed out of the team in the next few years, but ATM he's our best small defender by a fair way. Give the man some credit.

Clint has had a great year but still needs to work on his kicking. The odd clanger hurts in modern possession football.

[Inner Demon 1]

ahhh ... Yes you are right. But tell me the last time in "history" one club had picks 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 then the first pick in every round.

So yes you are spot on when it comes to history. But this draft is different (without stating the obvious).

You have to bare in mind what "strategy" you think they (GC17) will pursue. You have to consider the major player first. Especially looking at what they have already done, and what they are saying they are going to do.

One of the biggest skills in drafting is trying to pick your opponents pockets by picking their "strategy".

You think their strategy might be to let go of their Top 10 picks to secure the services of players that aren't good quality???

I still don't see how it is you're hoping we might significantly improve our draft position without losing quality players.

[Inner Demon 1]

Clint has had a great year but still needs to work on his kicking. The odd clanger hurts in modern possession football.

Considering Clint is actually 23rd in our "skill errors per game" stat and 27th in our "critical errors per game" stat, I'd say he's going OK in that area.

This is yet another example of people making up their minds on a player's deficiencies despite the situation changing or evidence to the contrary.

[rpfc 27,633]

Considering Clint is actually 23rd in our "skill errors per game" stat and 27th in our "critical errors per game" stat, I'd say he's going OK in that area.

This is yet another example of people making up their minds on a player's deficiencies despite the situation changing or evidence to the contrary.

You know what they say about statistics...

I know Batram is an ordinary kick.

I believe my lying eyes...

[Inner Demon 1]

You know what they say about statistics...

I know Batram is an ordinary kick.

I believe my lying eyes...

Well this is precisely what I'm talking about.

While the statistics which are not influenced by any preconceived bias that any one player is any better than another tell us that Clint Bartram average 0.7 kicks to opponents per game, it will not be believed that he is less guilty of kicking the ball straight to the other team than Colin Sylvia who does it 1.7 times per game.

I can go all day on stats which clearly illustrate that Bartam uses the ball quite competently, but there are those of you who if told that one day he had 50 touches at 100% with 10 goals straight would still insist he's a bad kick.

[rpfc 27,633]

Well this is precisely what I'm talking about.

While the statistics which are not influenced by any preconceived bias that any one player is any better than another tell us that Clint Bartram average 0.7 kicks to opponents per game, it will not be believed that he is less guilty of kicking the ball straight to the other team than Colin Sylvia who does it 1.7 times per game.

I can go all day on stats which clearly illustrate that Bartam uses the ball quite competently, but there are those of you who if told that one day he had 50 touches at 100% with 10 goals straight would still insist he's a bad kick.

Nonsense.

The majority of Batram's kicks are 20-25m kicks at the back to players standing on their own. Sylvia and Davey and others get their possessions under pressure at the business end of the ground.

Stats have their own bias.

Hoped for better from you, ID.

But, Batram is an ordinary kick.

He's having a great BTW, a career year, really.

[Inner Demon 1]

Nonsense.

The majority of Batram's kicks are 20-25m kicks at the back to players standing on their own. Sylvia and Davey and others get their possessions under pressure at the business end of the ground.

Stats have their own bias.

Hoped for better from you, ID.

But, Batram is an ordinary kick.

He's having a great BTW, a career year, really.

Well which is it?? Does Bartram just kick the ball short to uncontested situations or does he chronically turn it over with bad kicking???

Nobody is trying to label him as some kind of playmaking laser boot. But to suggest that his spot on the list would be under threat due to some kind of atrociously high level of poor kicking would be wrong.

[Inner Demon 1]

But enough of that circular argument.

Now, back closer to the topic at hand. Anybody with even a passing interest in the mechanics of list management, in this case how the 'frontloading' of contracts works in regards to paying a certain proportion of the salary cap absolutely must go to the MFC website and check out this week's Whiteboard Wednesday presented by Tim Harrington.

Very eductional.

[titan_uranus 22,731]

Am I the only person here who thinks Strauss is just as insecure for 2011 as McNamara is?

Both are young. Both have had injuries at some stage. Both have shown a bit in their 2/3 games at AFL level. Both have had some good VFL games but haven't really dominated.

Are people's judgements clouded by their draft positions (Pick 19 vs Pick 60-something)?

PS: I'm not having a go at Strauss, just trying to defend TMac somewhat.

[Guest hangon007]

You think their strategy might be to let go of their Top 10 picks to secure the services of players that aren't good quality???

I still don't see how it is you're hoping we might significantly improve our draft position without losing quality players.

No I never said that ...

However, I will point out as a side issue "quality" is a mis-used term in any trading process.

You can have the "best" quality hamburger in the world but if I'm not hungry ... I'm not interested.

(& may I say visa-vera)

You can have the "worst" quality hamburger in the world if I'm hungry ... I'm interested.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Am I the only person here who thinks Strauss is just as insecure for 2011 as McNamara is?

Both are young. Both have had injuries at some stage. Both have shown a bit in their 2/3 games at AFL level. Both have had some good VFL games but haven't really dominated.

Are people's judgements clouded by their draft positions (Pick 19 vs Pick 60-something)?

PS: I'm not having a go at Strauss, just trying to defend TMac somewhat.

No, you're not. He's had a couple of games off half back and shown that while he is a great kick his defensive side is sadly lacking. He needs to really work on his contests if he wants to make it into the team. Has to be able to stop a man as well as run off them and set up play.

[jayceebee31 671]

Question: Based on 2010... what has Stef Martin done to deserve delisting?

What happens with Healey, Hughes, Macnamara, Meesen, Newton, Miller...?? Surely they are ahead of Martin in being delisted??

I'm waiting for Martin to be fully fit in 2011 so he can really show us what he's got!! He has talent galore so could be a gem. He is only 20 years old... :/

What has Martin done to stay.?

[Red&BlueBlood 61]

Why has no one mentioned TRADING BARTRAM?????????

IMO we have many same type players to cover (or players that could develop into)... James Strauss is being developed as a similar type in the VFL, difference is he kicks the ball very well.

Before people have a go, lets look at his disposal and try and remember the last time you were not nervous when he had the ball.

I will miss his heart, and never give up attitude, but we need a touch of class coming out of the backline.