List Management "more than money".

[Redleg 38,430]

Given the amount of talent we have recruited over the last few years, I can see a sitiuation coming where several of our players won't get a game, even though they would if at another club. There could be a lot of disappointment and that will have to be managed. It is not always about money, sometimes it is about careers and game time. We are building a pretty good list and it doesn't stop at 22, it goes to about 40. Certain players know they are fringe players and accept their place, but on our list the talent will go far deeper than 22 and there may be problems in the future. The footy department will need to be proactive in this area. Of course there are always injuries and that will open temporary spots but it is more the permanent spots that will cause problems.

I suppose it is a good problem to have.

[e25 5]

I think this is where we are actually lucky to be faced with the proposition of losing a player to GWS and being assured of "fair" compensation (as opposed to, say, a Bruce situation).

If we can get a high pick in return, then that can be shelved for when we really need it, helping prolong our time at the top.

We will still use the same number of picks, but maybe later longshots, ie. pick 55 instead of pick 18.

Common sense dictates they won't all work out as desired.

I'd rather a bloke like McNamara play at Casey for 3 years and not quite be good enough to keep, then we he goes we get to top up with a high pick,

rather than having another bloke well & truly good enough to be in the best 22 but not getting a game due to economics, wasting away at Casey until he bolts and we take back what we can get.

It's about staging our injections of talent to ensure prolonged success.

[rpfc 27,673]

As long as we don't lose the Flag Core this is just what happens when you develop so much talent.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,439]

How many players actually leave clubs due to being on the fringe and really cost the original club? Most players back themselves particularly if they believe there is a strong chance of success.

[e25 5]

How many players actually leave clubs due to being on the fringe and really cost the original club? Most players back themselves particularly if they believe there is a strong chance of success.

Not heaps, but "fair" compensation for losing someone of their talent level is rarely forthcoming.

We are in the fortunate situation where, if the cards fall the right way, we could be handsomely compensated when this situation eventuates.

Edited November 27, 2010 by E25

[torpedo 33]

We are still a long way from having 22 premiership players. I hope we develop a list with depth but I think one of the key differences between our 40 now and our 40 last decade is media hype... nothing more, nothing less. Plenty of the guys we drafted will turn out to be spuds, thats inevitable.

[Redleg 38,430]

We are still a long way from having 22 premiership players. I hope we develop a list with depth but I think one of the key differences between our 40 now and our 40 last decade is media hype... nothing more, nothing less. Plenty of the guys we drafted will turn out to be spuds, thats inevitable.

Many would have thought the same of the Pies only a year or two ago and now they have 22 of them.

[Guest]

Many would have thought the same of the Pies only a year or two ago and now they have 22 of them.

22 Premiership Spuds!

[Sir Why You Little 35,318]

This form of list management is just as important as the onfield success. What we must hope for is that when players are dropped or let go. Players from outside contact the club to say "Can i join this club". If we can achieve this, we will become a strong Power club that can hopefully keep these Interstate clubs in their place.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Given the amount of talent we have recruited over the last few years, I can see a sitiuation coming where several of our players won't get a game, even though they would if at another club. There could be a lot of disappointment and that will have to be managed. It is not always about money, sometimes it is about careers and game time. We are building a pretty good list and it doesn't stop at 22, it goes to about 40. Certain players know they are fringe players and accept their place, but on our list the talent will go far deeper than 22 and there may be problems in the future. The footy department will need to be proactive in this area. Of course there are always injuries and that will open temporary spots but it is more the permanent spots that will cause problems.

I suppose it is a good problem to have.

I was thinking about this the other day.

When you look at it though, it's a problem EVERY big club has had (except Collingwood, since they have all the money) just before or during a strong period in their history. At least in recent years.

Hawthorn offloaded Hay and Rawlings... Geelong Moloney (which still hurts a lot of cats fans, I'm told) and Prismall... You could argue Essendon let Heffernan go when they wanted to keep him.

You're right when you say it's a good problem to have. It's almost akin to a problem you absolutely HAVE to have, if you're serious about growing a proper flag list. It's that whole phase two, where you HAVE the long list of tasty players and picks, and you have to make sure you get rid of the 23 yr olds who aren't premiership players (but that are respected 200 gamers anyway) in place of things you need. These next two years will teach us a lot, though with GWS coming in and having two years to pick who they want from our list, will be probably the HARDEST period for the next ten years.

In fact... our recruiter's/list managers are going to earn our next flag over the next 18 months as they lock down the Watts/Frawley/Trengove/Scully/Grimes types. They won't get it for a few years yet, but they'll sure as hell earn it. Hopefully.

[GOLF 13]

The risk inherent in players being "on the fringe" is at the start of their careers. If Gysberts, Tapscott, Blease and Strauss don't get at least some senior game time in 2011 they will question the value the club places on them and their future with the Dees. Similarly for Spencer, Gawn and Fitzpatrick by 2012. Also maybe Howe in 2012 and the other young talls we drafted in 2013. That's when Casey won't be a big enough areana any more, and they would start looking around. At the next rung down there are players like Bail, Bennell, Jetta and Maric who haven't yet cemented regular spots.

It needs management, not money. These players must be given a chance to show whether they can make it at the top or not. If they are good enough, but we really can't fit them in, then we should assist their trade aspirations.

We have to regard 2011 at least partly as a development year, and give these players some senior games, even if it means rotating regular "best 22" players out for a week or two.

[western dee 0]

I'll watch Cheney at Hawthorn this year with interest as an example of what you're discussing. I like him as a player but as I think Bailey developed our backline first he is the type of player being pushed off the cart the other end. I also got the impression that their draft recruitment this year was about adding one maybe two good players to the list as they along with a couple from last year Tapscott and Fitzpatrick will be competing for one spot maybe two up forward, other than that they will have to be better than Garland or even Warnock down the backline or they will become the list drop-offs in and around 2013.

Edited November 28, 2010 by western dee