2022 List management, trading, drafting

[RogueSwan]

Are we sure about these property deals? ...

Not really but, as I have posted elsewhere, I did hear Ross Lyon one Sunday on MMM allege that property deals can/are done to get players extra cash. I don't remember the specifics but he gave an example along the lines of a player buying a property and getting a "guaranteed" sale a few years later at something like $300,000 more than they bought it for. Some of the commentators on, I think it was the Fox Footy podcast, joke about it like it is an open secret. But I guess without any proof you have treat it like anything else you read on the internet. it could all be true or be completely false.

[Auntie.Gerald]

that has been happening for 40 years is what i have heard over the decades from family friends / family of ex players / ex team mates

there are so many ways

lets play golf for $100k..........sponsor and marque player........marque player wins the $100k game of golf everytime !!!!

[Blood Fever]

Not really but, as I have posted elsewhere, I did hear Ross Lyon one Sunday on MMM allege that property deals can/are done to get players extra cash. I don't remember the specifics but he gave an example along the lines of a player buying a property and getting a "guaranteed" sale a few years later at something like $300,000 more than they bought it for. Some of the commentators on, I think it was the Fox Footy podcast, joke about it like it is an open secret. But I guess without any proof you have treat it like anything else you read on the internet. it could all be true or be completely false.

Fair enough. I supppse we'll never be sure.

[stellation]

A little bit of a guilty pleasure to watch I admit, and I can't see him fitting in our best 22 (and I'm sure someone will reference the "No Dickheads", although apparently he's a nice chap off the field); but after being a little traumatised by our midfield being manhandled by the bigger Geelong mids I'll admit that seeing an article about Rhys Mathieson pondering the chance of a move was a thing that made me (briefly) go "hmmmmm".

[Southern Swan15]

A little bit of a guilty pleasure to watch I admit, and I can't see him fitting in our best 22 (and I'm sure someone will reference the "No Dickheads", although apparently he's a nice chap off the field); but after being a little traumatised by our midfield being manhandled by the bigger Geelong mids I'll admit that seeing an article about Rhys Mathieson pondering the chance of a move was a thing that made me (briefly) go "hmmmmm".

Can anybody tell me.if we have even considered Matt Crouch? Surly his big body and ball winning experience is something we need, would also be dirt cheap trade

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

[liz]

A little bit of a guilty pleasure to watch I admit, and I can't see him fitting in our best 22 (and I'm sure someone will reference the "No Dickheads", although apparently he's a nice chap off the field); but after being a little traumatised by our midfield being manhandled by the bigger Geelong mids I'll admit that seeing an article about Rhys Mathieson pondering the chance of a move was a thing that made me (briefly) go "hmmmmm".

Please no. NO.

Can anybody tell me.if we have even considered Matt Crouch? Surly his big body and ball winning experience is something we need, would also be dirt cheap trade

Please no. NO.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Who does that leave. Cunningham, Ronke, Bell and Naismith. Cunningham has a contract in front of him.

Cunningham is our best lock down small defender (I remember giving Stengle a bath when we played the cats) and remains Out of contract - and had his place taken by more offensively skilled defenders, Ollie etc.
Clarke is our best lock down forward, and has a contract - meanwhile more offensively skilled forwards, Ronke etc. are uncontracted.
There's a weird sort of yang/yang symmetry about it to my eyes.
FWIW I'm still a bit unsure about having a lockdown/forward line tagger as a permanent fixture on the forward line. Especially if the opposition don't have a Sinclair/Daicos type, whose negation might disrupt their route out of defence.

[Ludwig]

Pick 17 isn't going to get Dunkley to the Lions on its own. If the Dogs feel they have few options, they might accept pick 17 and the Lions' first round pick next year. But the Lions can't trade out a future first round pick unless it has all its other future picks in tact (or equivalent round picks traded in from other clubs). I've just had a look at the fantastic resource on BF that tracks current year and future picks traded, which indicates that the Lions hold a single future second round pick at the moment. It's clearly not their own, but I'd have to go digging further to work out whose pick it is and how they got it. But whoever's it is, they can't really trade it if they plan on trading their future first.

Resource - FUTURE PICKS - 2023 Provisional Draft Order (updated throughout the trade period) | Page 2 | BigFooty Forum

I wonder if it occurred to anyone at the Lions that, in a season where you finished in the top four (so don't have a high pick) and you're about to recruit the number one draft selection and another player likely in the late first round, it might not be feasible to try and recruit another established, decent quality player who is going to cost you two late first round picks (at least) or one pretty early first round pick. Not unless you're willing to give up something good (or lose something good, willingly or unwillingly), something better than McStay. Though presumably McStay will get them a second round pick (towards the end of the second round) so long as they succeed in manipulating free agency by trading in Gunston.

I assumed that the deal would include the 2023 1st round pick, and so has every commentator. I hadn't checked on the 1st rounder restrictions, because no one else had raised the issue and just assumed it must be okay. Every club that has been in the 1st rounder bind seems to have extracted themselves from the problem. I suppose if they need to use a 1st rounder next year they can trade their 2024 1st rounder as part of a deal to get one.

And Lore's BF draft resource is really great stuff. I found it a couple of years ago. Very helpful.

[liz]

I assumed that the deal would include the 2023 1st round pick, and so has every commentator. I hadn't checked on the 1st rounder restrictions, because no one else had raised the issue and just assumed it must be okay. Every club that has been in the 1st rounder bind seems to have extracted themselves from the problem. I suppose if they need to use a 1st rounder next year they can trade their 2024 1st rounder as part of a deal to get one.

And Lore's BF draft resource is really great stuff. I found it a couple of years ago. Very helpful.

The rule about having to take a certain number of first round picks to the actual draft over a certain number of years is separate from the restriction on trading all your future picks now. I am not aware of a club that has ever obtained an exemption on the rule that you can't trade your future first now if you don't hold a future second and future third (and maybe future fourth- not sure about that). That's not something the Lions can fix up next year.

[liz]

I would like to keep Ronke if he can't find another club to take him. I think he's good enough to play in our AFL side if we restructure our forward line to exclude a tagger. If we let go Naismith and Bell and bring in Francis, our list size would be 39, which would be enough for 3 ND picks, 1 rookie pick and an open spot for the midseason draft. We might be stuck with Melican for another year, but if we can get him off our books we might look at recruiting a developing ruckman.
.

Not sure that's the case. At the moment we have three retirements from our senior list, one delisting from our Cat A rookie list and one from our Cat B rookie list. But also two Cat A rookies who've been on the rookie list for three seasons so need to be accommodated on the senior list and one Cat B rookie who's been there for two years and so, prima facie, needs to be accommodated on the Cat A rookie list. And one extra rookie picked up in the MSD.

So with no more changes we would have one spot spare on the senior list, no spare spots on the Cat A rookie list and two spare spots on the Cat B rookie list.

[Ludwig]

The rule about having to take a certain number of first round picks to the actual draft over a certain number of years is separate from the restriction on trading all your future picks now. I am not aware of a club that has ever obtained an exemption on the rule that you can't trade your future first now if you don't hold a future second and future third (and maybe future fourth- not sure about that). That's not something the Lions can fix up next year.

I wasn't aware of that rule. I'm surprised it's not being talked about in the media.

[stellation]

Please no. NO.

I tried to add as many caveats as I could!

[Ludwig]

Not sure that's the case. At the moment we have three retirements from our senior list, one delisting from our Cat A rookie list and one from our Cat B rookie list. But also two Cat A rookies who've been on the rookie list for three seasons so need to be accommodated on the senior list and one Cat B rookie who's been there for two years and so, prima facie, needs to be accommodated on the Cat A rookie list. And one extra rookie picked up in the MSD.

So with no more changes we would have one spot spare on the senior list, no spare spots on the Cat A rookie list and two spare spots on the Cat B rookie list.

I haven't been following the numbers on Cat B rookies. I don't even know who they are. I thought Sheather and McAndrew were Cat B. The AFL seems to be giving CAT B Extensions if you ask, see:

AFL statement - Category B Rookie Extensions

I've been working toward a list size of 44 and assuming the categories will take care of themselves. I doubt Naismith or Bell will retain a senior list spot, either delisted or rookie listed.

My count starts at 45 with the HHK addition. We have 5 going out: BOC, COR, JPK, Taylor and Sinclair, which gets us to 40 total.

I don't know why the AFL just don't get rid of the rookie list. It just causes a lot of time wasting jockeying around players to fit the categories. I think the league can still maintain a 1 year rookie type contract without having a specific category of player.

[707]

I wasn't aware of that rule. I'm surprised it's not being talked about in the media.

Lots of media have NFI about the rules, Trade Radio apparently among the worse for complete lack of knowledge.

You can trade your future first only or if you hold your future first you can trade out the remainder of your future picks. It's to protect a clubs current administration burning their future, a bit like previous administration at Norf made dreadful list management decision the current administration is now wearing.

People do sometimes talk about future picks as if they're all worth the same within a band, but Norf's future second is a world away from Geelong's future second, like 19 versus 37! Trade futures in and out at your own risk.

SOS traded a future first for pick 19 on trade night to grab Stocker, turned out Carlton had a bad season and the future first was a pick 6!

[liz]

I haven't been following the numbers on Cat B rookies. I don't even know who they are. I thought Sheather and McAndrew were Cat B. The AFL seems to be giving CAT B Extensions if you ask, see:

AFL statement - Category B Rookie Extensions

I've been working toward a list size of 44 and assuming the categories will take care of themselves. I doubt Naismith or Bell will retain a senior list spot, either delisted or rookie listed.

My count starts at 45 with the HHK addition. We have 5 going out: BOC, COR, JPK, Taylor and Sinclair, which gets us to 40 total.

Sheather and BOC were our Cat B rookies. I was aware the AFL had given some upgrade exemptions, though thought this was mostly for International players. It might be harder to argue COVID development hardship for an ex-academy player. But I agree there is a possibility that the club could turn a Cat B available spot into a Cat A available spot. It would mean Sheather can't play senior football until we have someone on the LTIL.