List build - where are we going in the next 10,000 posts?

[bullishish]

First objective - win a (men’s AFL) premiership
Timeframe - 5 years

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

Ok.

[Nocturnal]

It’s why you always trade back when it comes, try and get some value and use later picks.

[RTBC]

@Henry_s_Angry_Pills

@RTBC

It seems it is difficult for some people to accept that the ‘strategy’ might involve both hitting the draft, retention of a contracted core of mature players and targeting of free-agents. The binary ‘full rebuild’ versus ‘topping up’ is a relic in list building. This is probably the new normal.

Sure, but it’s all a matter of degrees.
Nobody’s delisting/trading 30x players in an offseason, but a lot of clubs have traded more than 1x. This is a very, very limp attack on the draft. Goldstein re contracted, Lav retained etc etc - taking the 9th best hand to the draft by total points.

Also interesting that even this very mild approach - trading out 1x old bloke - has upset the boomers…

Yep, mostly agree.

I think it’s tempting to look at seasons/off-season list movements in isolation which is not ideal.

If we look ahead to next year and assume we are taking two first round picks into the 2025 draft, it means over a period of of 6 drafts from 2020-2025 we have brought in 9 first round draft picks.

Now have we selected the right players/balance? that is a legitimate question, but preservation of our blue chip picks is clearly a visible pillar of our medium term list building strategies.

[Henry_s_Angry_Pills]

@RTBC

I think it’s tempting to look at seasons/off-season list movements in isolation which is not ideal.

My main point is that: yes we have to.
Because the over arching plan changes every year. (And often the coach does too).

On the first rounders, I’d be really, really curious how often we were in the top ~6 or 8 for most points in our draft hand (2020 yes).
Doesn’t seem often?

[Deadly]

@Toast

Tassie is going to be forced to trade some of their picks for players

So we’ll need to trade anyone worthwhile in 3 seasons for more picks, man it’s the real long haul huh

[Deadly]

Hope we find a way to address some run and skill in the back half, forward changes are in motion but the back end is still hella scary, and Martin needs to be up the ground

[Riley13w]

Reddog will have a much better season (Run) without Martin down there

[Toast]

@Deadly

@Toast

Tassie is going to be forced to trade some of their picks for players

So we’ll need to trade anyone worthwhile in 3 seasons for more picks, man it’s the real long haul huh

Teams trade out players for picks all the time, it’s not really different cause it’s Tassie. If anything getting a player to want to go there probably gives you a better draft pick in their first few years

[Ants]

@SplitRound

No player arrived at the club in a trade, compared to last year when the Dons imported four – three of them free agents to fill specific holes – without any draft cost.

Essendon’s reticence to chase players wasn’t a sudden decision the club made in late September or October.

It was the beginning of a three-year strategy.

The club’s new list manager Matt Rosa, in concert with chief executive Craig Vozzo, has authored a three-year plan that has been presented to Essendon’s board.

As year one of that three-year plan, this post-season has clearly emphasised the view of Rosa, Scott and Vozzo that the playing list is in need of A-grade talent and that star quality is best found in the national draft.

Hence, the Bombers haven’t chased or spent big on seasoned recruits, saving their draft capital for youth – starting with Kako, who will be acquired with the help of Melbourne’s secondary picks (and future first-round) that were exchanged for Essendon’s pick No 9.

By year three of the Rosa plan, the Bombers will be more willing to splurge on a prized recruit, hoping that, by that stage, they will have assembled more elite talent – and invested games in those kids.

Wow. That article really articulates that the club has no idea. They correctly identify we need more star power and the best source for a middle-table club is the draft. So, do they do anything to get better high picks? Nope. We started with 2 firsts + Kako across 2024/2025 and ended up in the same position.

There seems no realisation you need top end picks.

Plus, in 2026 we’re meant to go back to our top-up ways! I’m sure Kako + the two 2025 first round draftees will have fixed everything!

I loved the line how we hope to have invested games into the kids by year 3 - that is 2026! So at most 46 games for someone drafted this year, but more likely far less (especially for 2025 draftees). Do they realise how stupid that sounds?

[Ants]

@redbull

Good to see we finally have a real plan rather than shooting from hip and changing it from year to year. In Rosa we trust.

You cannot be serious. If this is the plan, it is a terrible one. It’s effectively the “do nothing” plan.

It’s clearly the club spinning that nobody is interested in us, but we’re not willing to trade anyone with value. Plus a dash of justifying Stringer leaving.

[Ants]

@Rhino-D

Exactly why there is clearly some healthy skepticism around this alleged plan.

We effectively gave up a top 5 pick this year in a strong top end draft by trying to scrape into finals late when it was crystal clear we were cooked and absolutely nowhere near it.

Niall’s article suggests this ‘3 year plan’ was NOT a last minute surprise strategy hatched in September/October.

In which case the choices we made now seem very….odd.

Yep. Let’s take what we’ve seen done and review it.

• Pushed for finals despite long odds, prioritising experience over youth. Cost ourselves development and an early pick.
• Traded/delisted Stringer and Hind due to off-field issues. Clearly hand forced.
• Offered Kelly an extension, he chose to retire.
• Heppell was cooked and retired.
• Tried to trade Shiel and Lav, both ageing players who are fringe or depth best 23. Didn’t get any interest.
• Did a good deal to get in value for Kako and give us some flexibility.

None of that speaks of anything more than fringe and forced moves.

Say we’d had this “plan” many Blitzers like at this point in 2021. How would it have diverged from what we did?

• Take picks to the draft in year 1 and 2, check. We took all of our earlish picks to the drafts. Hobbs, Lord, McDonagh, Tsatas and Hayes in rounds 1-3.
• Get some academy/FS players? Check, the Daveys in 2022.
• Get FA/trades in year 3, check. In 2023 we brought in Gresham, Holdy, Duursma and McKay. Still used our first.

The only difference would be theoretically we wouldn’t have brought in Setterfield and Kelly, using very late picks instead. Probably doesn’t move the dial significantly.

So, the 2021-2023 period was almost exactly the plan now being proposed.

[Tagger]

Overall, I few it as an admission that we need to stop this strategy of bringing in average to above average senior guys via trade or free agency and actually hit the top end of the draft a few years.

I think we need to wait to next year before we can assess the strategy. Like maybe they are going to let Draper walk as a free agent next year. If we’re going to let a free agent go, the smart time to do it is when we are bottom 4 and could potentially get a top 5 pick for them

[SplitRound]

@Ants

The only difference would be theoretically we wouldn’t have brought in Setterfield and Kelly, using very late picks instead.

I appreciate you may have repressed this memory for good reason, but we did have pick 37 in 2022 before we traded it out to bring in one Samuel Weideman. Granted, they might have been expecting a Davey bid to eat 37, but it was also Sam Weideman. On a two year contract.

Not that I don’t agree with your point, by and large, but it’s always important to remember Sam Weideman.

We also have the rookie draft, DFA period and SSP to sign up some mediocre delisted plodders from other clubs yet, so there’s plenty of time for the plan to become even more bland.

[Ants]

I forgot it because it’s wasn’t part of our picks, we got it for Francis. So yes, one more slight change.

[Ants]

@Tagger

Overall, I few it as an admission that we need to stop this strategy of bringing in average to above average senior guys via trade or free agency and actually hit the top end of the draft a few years.

I think we need to wait to next year before we can assess the strategy. Like maybe they are going to let Draper walk as a free agent next year

But we haven’t traded out a first round pick for a player since 2018, and only once with a second round pick since 2017. And that player (Caldwell) was 20 and had gone pick #11 two years prior.

If I took your view as correct, the only change in strategy is to take more late draft picks over the top ups. For this year and next year (year 3 it is back in the cards). That is a very minor (if welcome) change that won’t really shift the dial.

[Tagger]

Again, it’s a three year strategy and Rosa wasn’t the one that signed our guys to longterm deals.

We have brought in a bunch of mediocre senior players to the club in recent years, what are you on about?

Wright
Kelly
Phillips
Hind
Weideman
Setterfield
McKay
Gresham
Goldstein

While some of these pickups have been ok, my issue is some of them have played roles that we should have instead given to senior guys (eg Phillips and Goldy over Bryan and Setterfield over Hobbs and Tsatas). It’s short term decision making that has killed development and has pushed us up the ladder at the detriment to the long term benefit of the club

[Kingston_Town]

@Ants

Yep. Let’s take what we’ve seen done and review it.

• Pushed for finals despite long odds, prioritising experience over youth. Cost ourselves development and an early pick.
• Traded/delisted Stringer and Hind due to off-field issues. Clearly hand forced.
• Offered Kelly an extension, he chose to retire.
• Heppell was cooked and retired.
• Tried to trade Shiel and Lav, both ageing players who are fringe or depth best 23. Didn’t get any interest.
• Did a good deal to get in value for Kako and give us some flexibility.

None of that speaks of anything more than fringe and forced moves.

Say we’d had this “plan” many Blitzers like at this point in 2021. How would it have diverged from what we did?

• Take picks to the draft in year 1 and 2, check. We took all of our earlish picks to the drafts. Hobbs, Lord, McDonagh, Tsatas and Hayes in rounds 1-3.
• Get some academy/FS players? Check, the Daveys in 2022.
• Get FA/trades in year 3, check. In 2023 we brought in Gresham, Holdy, Duursma and McKay. Still used our first.

The only difference would be theoretically we wouldn’t have brought in Setterfield and Kelly, using very late picks instead. Probably doesn’t move the dial significantly.

So, the 2021-2023 period was almost exactly the plan now being proposed.

I wonder if this plan has a hidden agenda.
Is it making clear to those on the Board and the Coach that we are going to invest more in youth, rather than pointlessly trying to make finals we can’t win anyway.
If this is the case, to me this is a massive change, and it will be interesting to see how the Board and the Coach react.

[Kingston_Town]

@Tagger

I think we need to wait to next year before we can assess the strategy. Like maybe they are going to let Draper walk as a free agent next year. If we’re going to let a free agent go, the smart time to do it is when we are bottom 4 and could potentially get a top 5 pick for them

I like Draper; but, he would have to have an enormous year to warrant a first round concession.

[SplitRound]

It is a slight change, but if we’d somehow traded out Laverde for pick upgrade, and then traded that upgraded pick out for someone like Matt Kennedy it would definitely and correctly be in the list of reasons why the current plan is no plan at all.