View Full Version : Rookie draft
Ford Fairlane
20 Dec 2002, 10:53
Port took Joel Patful and Scott Borlase, both from Norwood. Passed on their second and third round picks. Obviously not an abundance of talent to catch their eye!
Eddie Woloschek
20 Dec 2002, 11:05
Patful, Borlase - info on these please anyone?
I see A Murray, McKenzie and Barham were picked up.
And surprise, surprise, the team for all Sa theatregoers plucked anohter recycled dud from Loserville.
*Corrects* Its Scott Borlace, by the way. The imbeciles at afl.com.au already misspelt it and obviously couldnt give two ****s about what they were typing.
We Port supporters are not like that! :D
A very productive session. [/sarcasm]
Porthos
20 Dec 2002, 11:35
Borlace was hot **** a few years ago as a 17 year old, the scribes figured he'd be picked up, but he wasn't. Looks like this year's Crabb/Hollands in that he's another mature (where mature is 20+ :rolleyes: ) rover that should be ready to fill a gap if necessary.
I don't know anything about Patfull but recognise the name for some reason.
A bit surprised that we only took two rookies. Maybe they figure the financial outlay isn't worth the typical return at this stage?
Also interesting to note that of our dumped players from last year, four are now at other clubs through drafts, and that Melbourne beat the Crows to Adam Fisher.
You Port fans got any info on Allan Murray and Jordan Barham? The Saints picked up both, so i'm fairly interested in your opinions. I can remember Barham playing a blinder in the TAC Cup Final, but thats about it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Grave Danger
20 Dec 2002, 13:30
Collingwood continuing Eddie's promise to provide financial assistance to the Port Adelaide Magpies I see. Good luck to Stephen Eichner.
Originally posted by Porthos
Borlace was hot **** a few years ago as a 17 year old, the scribes figured he'd be picked up, but he wasn't. Looks like this year's Crabb/Hollands in that he's another mature (where mature is 20+ :rolleyes: ) rover that should be ready to fill a gap if necessary.
I don't know anything about Patfull but recognise the name for some reason.
A bit surprised that we only took two rookies. Maybe they figure the financial outlay isn't worth the typical return at this stage?
Also interesting to note that of our dumped players from last year, four are now at other clubs through drafts, and that Melbourne beat the Crows to Adam Fisher.
Borlace was a big deal as you said, his form at Norwood has been reasonable, nothing outstanding though. He's played close to 100 games for Norwood and averages about a goal a game, 176cm rover type, he's 21/22.
Pitiful Joel Patful was training with the cows in the pre-season.
koulagirl22
20 Dec 2002, 14:31
Originally posted by vergs
You Port fans got any info on Allan Murray and Jordan Barham? The Saints picked up both, so i'm fairly interested in your opinions. I can remember Barham playing a blinder in the TAC Cup Final, but thats about it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
You done good with Jordan... he is a talented forward and almost took out the honours for top goalkicker in the SANFL reserves in 2003.
The Power on the other hand, IMO didn't do so good... firstly with just the two rookies (what are they thinking?) and secondly with the choices... not that I'm not happy with Patfull and Borlace, but look who wasn't picked up and who we missed out on...
Macca19
20 Dec 2002, 15:14
Got no idea who Patfull is, but Borlace is a good get in my opinion. If he has another outstanding year like he did this year for Norwood, then i reckon he could be a real big chance of being added to the senior list full time. He was excellent this year, nearly won the Magarey.
There was a big fuss made about him when he was younger but he never got drafted...not too sure why really.
Eddie Woloschek
20 Dec 2002, 16:41
Bring on the season. I'm bored. With drafts over, top ten things to get us through until the real stuff begins . . .
10. Christmas - how much Port paraphernalia will Santa bring?
9. Boxing Day Test - might last until the weekend
8. Australian Open Tennis - HEADLINE: Aussie thru to second round!
7. World Cup Cricket
6. Rumors about Wayne Carey
5. Discussions about how good is Salopek going to be
4. More Carlton strife
3. Will Choco promote the young players for the Wizard
2. We don't care about the Wizard (except rolling ADL) . . . and "You mean Mark Aiston and Chris McDermott have still got jobs on TV?"
1. How long can the two weeks between Wizard Cup and the real stuff last? and "tony shaew is on the tube - AGAIN?
Savatage
21 Dec 2002, 08:38
Originally posted by koulagirl22
You done good with Jordan... he is a talented forward and almost took out the honours for top goalkicker in the SANFL reserves in 2003.
Honestly, is that really a big deal?
Macca19
21 Dec 2002, 11:29
Ok, this Joel Patfull fella is a full forward. Kicked 100 goals in the Under 17s in 2001. So he obviously has a bit of talent. Stewart said he'll need a fair bit of time to develop tho.
Ford Fairlane
21 Dec 2002, 12:52
I think I read that Patful kicked 120 goals at U17 level. Last year he kicked 26 goals for the Norwood reserves, but I don't know how many games he played. He started off with bags of 3 and 5 goals in the first two rounds then didn't kick another for 3 rounds (incl the bye), then kicked another 3 ... at which point looking up round by round reserves scores became kind of tired. He may have had injury problems, don't know.
In his SANFL profile, Scott Borlace lists Port Adelaide as his favourite AFL club, so that's a good start ... altho it didn't do Barry Brooks much good ...
Originally posted by Savatage
Honestly, is that really a big deal?
I agree it is half a step down from Hawthorn but you have to start somewhere.
Originally posted by vergs
You Port fans got any info on Allan Murray and Jordan Barham? The Saints picked up both, so i'm fairly interested in your opinions. I can remember Barham playing a blinder in the TAC Cup Final, but thats about it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Jordan Barham was cut from the rookie list. Just the news that he was top goalscorer in the reserves is not the full story. He finished the season with about 37 goals in 6 games to be top goalscorer so ended in a blaze of glory. I, and a lot of others, were quite surprised Port cut him.
Allan Murray only had 1 game of about 5 minutes. He was drafted in 2000 at no. 35, most of 2001 he was injured and when he got a pretty injury-free 2002 he was in the best players for his SANFL club most weeks. A good prospect and you'd have to put him down as a victim of the draft system.
Originally posted by mic59
Allan Murray only had 1 game of about 5 minutes. He was drafted in 2000 at no. 35, most of 2001 he was injured and when he got a pretty injury-free 2002 he was in the best players for his SANFL club most weeks. A good prospect and you'd have to put him down as a victim of the draft system.
Murray was probably more a victim of the list size in the AFL today, our strong list and the fact that others, unlike himself were still under contract. If The lists were bigger or our list not as strong or he was under contract he'd still be here IMO. He's an intesting player but i've still got my doubts whether he will make it at AFL level.
Originally posted by Eago77
Murray was probably more a victim of the list size in the AFL today
That was mainly what I meant, the fact that we can only have a small list and also that players have to be regularly pruned.
Originally posted by mic59
That was mainly what I meant, the fact that we can only have a small list and also that players have to be regularly pruned.
Fair enough, but i thought you meant that he was unfortunate to be drafted here in the first place and may have been better off being drafted by a Victorian club. He was certainly a victim of list size & the fact clubs must turn over a certain amonut of players.
Asgardian
21 Dec 2002, 16:56
I was surprised that Kellett wasn't picked up by us, or anyone else for that matter
Originally posted by Asgardian
I was surprised that Kellett wasn't picked up by us, or anyone else for that matter
There was some debate about whether he was able to be picked in the rookie draft because of his age, i can't remember the outcome though. If he was able to be picked up i'm really suprised he wasn't.
Carrnage
21 Dec 2002, 17:26
Is there any reason why we wouldn't have picked up the maximum number of rookies? Was there not much to pick from?
Good to see A.Murray getting another chance.
I guess there wasn't much of interest to us for us to pick up. Basically Borlace was picked up to cover the midfield in case of mulitple injuries at once ala Crabb this year and Hollands the year before. Probably picked up Patfull because he is a tall local lad who the cows had an eye on. Not sure why we didn't pick anyone else up, money could have something to do with it but rookies don't really cost much, especially if they are locally based.
Originally posted by Carrnage
Is there any reason why we wouldn't have picked up the maximum number of rookies? Was there not much to pick from?
Apparently you are having a spot of bother with the salary cap.
koulagirl22
22 Dec 2002, 10:43
Originally posted by noddy
Apparently you are having a spot of bother with the salary cap.
Apparently rookies don't count in the salary cap unless they're promoted.
Porthos
22 Dec 2002, 10:59
Rookies don't count in the salary cap.
My guess why we didn't pick more is because the chances of a rookie performing well enough in that year to get onto our list are pretty low. We had 3 pretty good rookies this year, but none of them warranted a spot on the senior list....its a $70,000 saving only taking two instead of four.
dreamkillers
22 Dec 2002, 11:09
Originally posted by noddy
Apparently you are having a spot of bother with the salary cap.
Since when do rookies affect the salary cap..............:rolleyes:
The club's quite happy with our list...........and more importantly the depth.........
After having four rookie-listed players in 2002 (Jaxon Crabb, Mark McKenzie, Nick Jackman and Jordan Barham), who were let go at the end of the year, Stewart said the club was comfortable with its decision to have two in 2003.
“We’re happy with the depth of our senior list,” Stewart said. “We’re looking to give Thurstans, Morgan, Koulouriotis, Cassisi, Hall and so on their chance and we feel they’re ready for it. Therefore we haven’t taken as many rookies as we could have.”
Given the club has a free spot on its 2003 primary list, either rookie could be promoted during the season, as long as they fit under the salary cap. If there isn’t room, a player would need to be added to the long-term injured list for either Borlace or Patfull to get their go.
dreamkillers
22 Dec 2002, 11:13
Originally posted by Porthos
Rookies don't count in the salary cap.
My guess why we didn't pick more is because the chances of a rookie performing well enough in that year to get onto our list are pretty low. We had 3 pretty good rookies this year, but none of them warranted a spot on the senior list....its a $70,000 saving only taking two instead of four.
Exactly..........the club's just continuing it's position on running a tight ship expenditure wise. I'm sure if there were any 'good' potential key position players they would have used more picks but the market's always a bit thin in these type of players..........
Originally posted by noddy
Apparently you are having a spot of bother with the salary cap.
Not the reason as so many have already stated, besides the Power salary cap will have plenty of room if we decide to put say a Primus or Wanganeen on the veterans list, that should free up a couple of 100k, not a bad position really.
Originally posted by Porthos
Rookies don't count in the salary cap.
My guess why we didn't pick more is because the chances of a rookie performing well enough in that year to get onto our list are pretty low. We had 3 pretty good rookies this year, but none of them warranted a spot on the senior list....its a $70,000 saving only taking two instead of four.
Well financial problems then,
Originally posted by Eago77
Not the reason as so many have already stated, besides the Power salary cap will have plenty of room if we decide to put say a Primus or Wanganeen on the veterans list, that should free up a couple of 100k, not a bad position really.
Surely if both these players were eligible they would already be listed as veterans,
Originally posted by noddy
Surely if both these players were eligible they would already be listed as veterans,
Wangas is, Primus isn't.
Once someone is on the list, they stay there. You can't take em off. I think Primus is eligible next year (??) so we would be better off waiting till then to list him (in case Packo stays) as Matty would be worth more $$$'s than Wangas.
But if Port were in "salary cap strife" as you put it, then yes, I'm sure Wanganeen would be on the veterans list.
But he aint. The rest should be obvious.
Originally posted by noddy
Surely if both these players were eligible they would already be listed as veterans,
You think wrong then, nothing like planning for the future is there? Primus isn't eligible today but is as of 12/1/03, which is 19 days before the cut off for the Veteran's list has to be finalised. Wanganeen is eligible. However, as has been the case at NM for example it isn't always the best move to just automatically put your two oldest (eligible) players on it as once they are on it they can not be removed unless delisted and then redrafted, ala Mick Martyn. So sometimes for future planning (something the cows don't seem interested in, see their recruiting policy ;) ) it is best if you can swing it, which we obviously just can, to keep a spot open.
Keep trying Noddy.
PAfolwr
23 Dec 2002, 16:37
Originally quoted by dreamkillers quote
Given the club has a free spot on its 2003 primary list, either rookie could be promoted during the season, as long as they fit under the salary cap. If there isn’t room, a player would need to be added to the long-term injured list for either Borlace or Patfull to get their go.
Is that correct, or does a player still need to go on the long term injury list for a rookie to be promoted.
dreamkillers
23 Dec 2002, 17:03
Originally posted by PAfolwr
Is that correct, or does a player still need to go on the long term injury list for a rookie to be promoted.
Well I'm gathering as that was from an article on Port's site (Power picks two local rookies (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=69980)) that it's correct. It certainly sounds quite reasonable as long as the salary cap is satisfied.......
PAfolwr
23 Dec 2002, 17:13
Originally posted by dreamkillers
Well I'm gathering as that was from an article on Port's site (Power picks two local rookies (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=69980)) that it's correct. It certainly sounds quite reasonable as long as the salary cap is satisfied.......
I pretty much thought of the same, for of the same reason.
However if that is the case we will see more teams with a short list and full rookie lists. Not sure if the AFL would like to see that.
dreamkillers
23 Dec 2002, 17:21
Originally posted by PAfolwr
I pretty much thought of the same, for of the same reason.
However if that is the case we will see more teams with a short list and full rookie lists. Not sure if the AFL would like to see that.
After what happened at the draft and pre season draft in regard to non selections I'm sure the AFLPA will be lobbying for changes as a lot of players missed out on a chance due to reduced lists at most clubs.......
Originally posted by dreamkillers
Well I'm gathering as that was from an article on Port's site (Power picks two local rookies (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=69980)) that it's correct. It certainly sounds quite reasonable as long as the salary cap is satisfied.......
Yep i'd say they can be added to the main list, but only on a permenant basis, as long as the salary cap wasn't breeched. They could still "replace" a long term injury listed player the same way as in any other year when we had a full list.
On the issue of vacant places on the list & the use of rookie lists why not just go back to lists of 42 or 44 and reduce the minimum wage, because in essences thats what we've got.
Porthos
23 Dec 2002, 20:58
I'd just make a rule that you can have 5 draftees not count in your salary cap for their first year.
Originally posted by Porthos
I'd just make a rule that you can have 5 draftees not count in your salary cap for their first year.
Same sort of thing, i guess that would atleast get rid of the "long term" injury list. Although if they just brough back bigger lists then players would have more chance to prove themselves, a player like A Murray could still be on a main list and even someone like a Fitzgerald or a Lockwood, not to mention older players like Bradley & Knights probably would have played on. It gives more than just the youngsters a chance.
From the same article DK mentioned:
Scott Borlace
DOB: 25/4/1981
176cm, 74kg
76 SANFL games
From Norwood
Pick No. 30 2002 Rookie Draft
Midfield / Small Forward
Joel Patfull
DOB: 7/12/1984
189cm, 80kg
From Norwood
Pick No. 14 2002 Rookie Draft
Leading Forward
Borlace was equal fourth in the Magarey Medal in 2002.