View Full Version : Our senior list: Who will be culled?
Cupestar
16 Oct 2003, 23:10
We HAVE to delist players since we have FULL list at the moment
a
Looks like it'll be:
Retirements: Alessio and Barnard (-2)
Rookie Elevations: Haynes and Johns (+2)
Harvey quit, so that frees up ONE extra spot
I'm guessing the club would want to draft at least 3 youngsters
Assuming that by this time tomorrow we lose a player (most likely Bolton) but gain another (Allan) We will still have to cull two more names to make way for the draftees.
Here's my list of expendables. Pick two. ANY two. 2002 draftees are exempt because of the minimum 2 year period for draftees
Jordan Bannister
James Davies
Robert Forster-Knight
Aaron Henneman
Cory McGrath
I think it's goodbye Cory and RFK, I think Sheeds is loathe to let go of first rounders like Davies. Another one of his famous 'project' players.
If Bolton and/or Jacobs gets traded then Henneman has to stay.
Its time Davies is delisted, maybe we can redraft him in the rookie draft.
In the end we may lose:
Allessio
Barnard
Bolton
Jacobs
Harvey
Davies
Bannister
RFK
McGrath
and gain:
Allan
Alvey
Johns
Haynes
And have draft picks 5 and 6
Assuming we had a full list this year:
OUT: Barnard, Alessio, Jacobs, Harvey, McGrath (-5)
IN: Johns, Haynes, Murphy, Allan, Alvey (+5)
Picks: 6, 13, 28, 44. That is four selections. This means four must be delisted.
RFK
Bannister
Davies
who else?:confused:
Can't and won't be Henneman
The AFL stipulates that a club must have a maximum of 35 players on its senior list to participate in the draft. We've got to delist a minimum of three players, but we'll probably delist four.
Ken Hall can't go back on the rookie list, I think he's too old. So he might go, along with Forster-Knight, Davies, and Bannister. But if we want to use four picks, we'll need to delist another player.
We might only end up using three picks.
Originally posted by Stevo
We might only end up using three picks.
Doubt it - Pick 44 is still a 3rd round, no doubt some quality there.
Originally posted by bozza
Doubt it - Pick 44 is still a 3rd round, no doubt some quality there.
Agreed. But who gets delisted? Perhaps we don't re-sign Misiti...
chasing Amy
17 Oct 2003, 17:11
Shane (im a sook ) Harvey will be the 4th
Talktothehand
17 Oct 2003, 17:22
A good question.
Bannister: out
Davies: out
RFK: possible (He may yet stay if I know Yoda)
Harvey: A loud "Who" came from my Dad the other day when I asked him the same question. Huge impact on the club obviously.
Originally posted by Stevo
Agreed. But who gets delisted? Perhaps we don't re-sign Misiti...
Enough of that Stevo
Originally posted by chasing Amy
Shane (im a sook ) Harvey will be the 4th
We're already assuming Harvey has left. Someone else needs to leave.
Originally posted by bozza
Enough of that Stevo
It'll probably be Misiti or Hunt. Possibly Henneman, but probably not.
Either that or we only use three draft picks.
Edit: Our other option is to delist one of our young ruckmen, but that's a huge risk since they are all very raw and we don't really know which will turn out to be our number two ruckman. We could always pickup another ruckman in this year's draft, but apparently it is light on in talls already.
when do clubs have to announce their delistments?
Originally posted by Ralf
when do clubs have to announce their delistments?
Fri 31 Oct - List 1 lodgement: 2004 Draft
Fri 14 Nov - List 2 lodgement: 2004 Draft
Wed 12 Nov - Draft nominations close
Wed 19 Nov - Delisted Player Nomination Deadline
Sun 23 Nov - National AFL Draft. 11am Melbourne Park Function Centre
Tues 2 Dec - Uncontracted Listed Player Nominations
Fri 5 Dec - International Rookie Nominations
Fri 5 Dec - List 3 Lodgement: 2004 Draft
Fri 12 Dec - Delisted Player Nominations
Tues 16 Dec - National AFL Pre-Season Draft
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aflfocus
Cupestar
17 Oct 2003, 23:17
As we stand: Full List
Retirements - Alessio, Barnard (-2)
Rookie Elevations - Johns, Haynes (+2)
Players Walking Out - Harvey (-1)
Players Traded - McGrath, Jacobs (-2)
Players Gained from Trade - Alvey, Allan, Murphy (+3)
Still breaking even. For each pick we take in the draft, a senior has to go!
My expendables (In order):
James Davies
Robert Forster-Knight
Jordan Bannister
Aaron Henneman
Hope to god we keep Joey...
I think I would go with these 34:
ALLAN
ALVEY
Bolton, Mark
Bullen, Marc
Cartledge, Tristan
Cupido, Damian
Fletcher, Dustin
Forster-Knight, Robert
Haynes, Ben
Henneman, Aaron
Hille, David
Hird, James
Johns, Courtney
Johnson, Jason
Johnson, Mark
Laycock, Jason
Lloyd, Matthew
Lucas, Scott
McPhee, Adam
McVeigh, Mark
Mercuri, Mark
MURPHY
O'Keefe, Simon
Peverill, Damien
Ramanauskas, Adam
Reynolds, Joel
Richards, Ted
Rioli, Dean
Solomon, Dean
Walsh, Darren
Watson, Jobe
Wellman, Sean
Welsh, Andrew
Winderlich, Jason
Which means these guys are out:
Alessio, Steven
Bannister, Jordan
Barnard, Paul
Davies, James
Harvey, Shane
Hunt, Sam
Misiti, Joe
Hall, Ken
Which gives us 4 spots left for the draft. I would consider taking Hall back if there was not much around when we got to our 4th pick.
I don't think Joe will make it, I reckon RFK is a bit more versatile, he can play in the back pocket as well as the cetre (not that I really see either of them being in our best 22 next year). Joe doesn't seem to be able to get rid of it quickly enough these days and RFK has been doing alright in the reserves.
bOmBeR_BoY1
18 Oct 2003, 11:21
Originally posted by Speuge
Which means these guys are out:
Alessio, Steven
Bannister, Jordan
Barnard, Paul
Davies, James
Harvey, Shane
Hunt, Sam
Misiti, Joe
Hall, Ken
There is absolutely no way Essendon will be getting rid of Sam Hunt - he will be Essendon's No. 1 defender by the end of the decade (the future replacement for Fletcher he has been dubbed by most, and I fully agree with this prediction in the games I've seen him play).
Expect to see quite a bit in 2004, after the loss of Danny Jacobs.
babydoll
18 Oct 2003, 17:19
i agree with cupestar, the math is going to be one for one in the national draft.
we need to ask ourselves, can we win a flag next year, and if not, should we plan for the future. realistically i dont think we can win a flag next year so we need to be mindful of delisting young players.
my 4 to go will be:
Hall (a lot of similar types)
Davies (nuff said)
Harvey (either walks or couldnt give a rats)
Bannister (unlucky but havernt really performed) or
Misti (big call, but i dont think he is an impact player anymore)
I like RFK, tough and can-do a job.
that said, our 4th pick is 44 or something liek that. if they think the draft is a bit light and 44 isnt as good as banno or misti then we shouldnt use it.
Getting rid of Hall doesn't give us senior list space. He was originally on the Rookie List at the start of the year.
I'd get rid of:
RFK
Bannister
Davies
Cartledge
Cupestar
18 Oct 2003, 19:33
Is Cartledge delistable? I heard there was some rule with first-year draftees...
Originally posted by Cupestar
Is Cartledge delistable? I heard there was some rule with first-year draftees...
That's what I thought too, until I noticed Richmond delisted Daniel Sipthorp.
Henneman
Davies
Harvey
Either Forster-Knight or Bannister (although going either way, it would send the wrong message...delisting Bannister after a long term injury is just not done, whilst in RFK, you delist a guy who proved his worth to the team by playing for Bendigo on the Saturday and Essendon on the Sunday).
Cupestar
19 Oct 2003, 18:59
RFK's played that one good game in 3 years. You'd have hoped he'd show more than that by now. He's disappointing but I'm afraid he's missed the boat, and should be replaced by another youngster.
Bannister I'd like to see get another chance. He was one who's showed glimpses of class but then faded away just as quickly. Perhaps he deserves a little more time, but might have to make room for another talented youngster.
Henneman looks like he'll be staying. Shaw was talking about him taking Jacobs' place in the backline. I'd rather see Hunt play there, but it might be good for Henno to play where he was drafted to play.
I'd imagine at the very least we'd want to use our first 3 picks in the draft (6, 13, 28) so at least 3 to go....... :-/
Now I'm more than a little confused about this, but on the EFC forum, it has been mentioned that veterans listed players are not primary (senior listed) players.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement states that a club's total list can consist of a maximum of 44 players; the primary list consists of a maximum of 38 players. The remaining six are filled by rookies and veterans listed players.
My initial thought was that the veterans list is only for salary cap concessions, and that veterans listed players are still senior listed players. But after reading that I'm not sure. If it's true, then after putting Hird and Mercuri on the veterans list, we won't need to delist as many players. Haynes and Johns will swap with Hird and Mercuri which will mean we can use more draft picks or not delist as many players.
If you want to read the collective bargaining agreement, go to http://www.aflpa.com.au/
Just read it Stevo and agree 100%.
Vets
Hird
Mercuri
Primary
Allan
Alvey
Bannister
Bolton
Bullen
Cartledge
Cupido
Fletcher
Haynes
Henneman
Hille
Hunt
Johns
J.Johnson
M.Johnson
Laycock
Lloyd
Lucas
McPhee
McVeigh
Misiti
O'Keefe
Peverill
Ramanauskas
Reynolds
Richards
Rioli
Solomon
Walsh
Watson
Wellman
Welsh
Winderlich
Delisting Harvey, Davies and RFK gives us 33 primary list players - meaning we can have 5 picks in the draft, more if we choose to delist anybody else. Draft pick would be 6, 13, 28, 44, 76, 92, 108, 124 etc but obviously we wouldn't go past 92 at the very most.
Good work Stevo, when I was putting together my list (above) I just couldn't work out why I had to get rid of so many players. Anyway, I think it means I can take 2 players off the delisted list: Hunt would come back first (it was a tough decision letting him go in the first list) and then I would probably elevate Hall or give Judas another chance, I mean Shane Harvey.
Originally posted by bozza
Delisting Harvey, Davies and RFK gives us 33 primary list players - meaning we can have 5 picks in the draft, more if we choose to delist anybody else. Draft pick would be 6, 13, 28, 44, 76, 92, 108, 124 etc but obviously we wouldn't go past 92 at the very most.
Sorry, left Muphy off the list. This means delisting 3 players gives us 4 draft selections. Harvey, RFK and Davies go, then we use picks 6, 13, 28, 44. Easy.
Cupestar
20 Oct 2003, 20:36
Originally posted by bozza
Just read it Stevo and agree 100%.
Vets
Hird
Mercuri
Primary
Allan
Alvey
Bannister
Bolton
Bullen
Cartledge
Cupido
Fletcher
Haynes
Henneman
Hille
Hunt
Johns
J.Johnson
M.Johnson
Laycock
Lloyd
Lucas
McPhee
McVeigh
Misiti
O'Keefe
Peverill
Ramanauskas
Reynolds
Richards
Rioli
Solomon
Walsh
Watson
Wellman
Welsh
Winderlich
Delisting Harvey, Davies and RFK gives us 33 primary list players - meaning we can have 5 picks in the draft, more if we choose to delist anybody else. Draft pick would be 6, 13, 28, 44, 76, 92, 108, 124 etc but obviously we wouldn't go past 92 at the very most.
Sonafagun!!!
Saved by the veterans list =)
why dont we delist bloody joel reynolds, he is a disgrace
Id like to delist your head pepi...
Cupestar
20 Oct 2003, 20:49
Originally posted by Pepi
why dont we delist bloody joel reynolds, he is a disgrace
How many Essendon games did you go to this year when this kid played?
This kid is a touch of class.
Originally posted by Pepi
why dont we delist bloody joel reynolds, he is a disgrace
this bloke has no ****ing idea
Pepi called for Joel's head a little while ago. Didn't provide any argument. I'm surprised he can lift those knuckles off the floor to type on a keyboard.
Originally posted by Pepi
why dont we delist bloody joel reynolds, he is a disgrace
Are you a little tipsy? Tell me you didnt mean that. Your the ****ing disgrace, have you even seen this boy play?
mongrelpunt
20 Oct 2003, 23:35
I posted on here a week ago about Joel Reynolds. Watch for him in 2004, he's the dark horse.
He's gonna be the 2004 version of Marc Bullen from 2003.
He is scrawny, soft as butter, and only ever got drafted because of his name. Has never got over 10 possesions in a game and is much too easily pushed off the ball. I dont why you guys all suck his D*ck he has never done anything to ever gain any credibility. Name one good thing he has ever done in an AFL game...
Originally posted by Pepi
He is scrawny, soft as butter, and only ever got drafted because of his name. Has never got over 10 possesions in a game and is much too easily pushed off the ball. I dont why you guys all suck his D*ck he has never done anything to ever gain any credibility. Name one good thing he has ever done in an AFL game...
You're right there on two counts, and half right on another.
Firstly, you're right that he is scrawny, and you're right that he is much too easily pushed off the ball. Once he bulks up that won't be a problem.
You're half right that he was drafted because of his name. We all know that Sheedy is a football romantic. But Joel did show a fair bit of ability for Geelong in the TAC cup. Plenty of pace, nice skills, good overhead. He played a lot on a wing and off a half back flank.
You're wrong that he is soft as butter. This kid attacks the football. Of course, he doesn't have the size at the moment, but his effort and hardness can't be denied.
Games where he picked up over 10 possessions:
13 against Melbourne in round 2
13 against Geelong in round 13
12 against Collingwood in round 5
11 against Fremantle in round 6
Not great stats, but the game against Geelong he started to put it all together. When he had the ball in the clear he looked deadly. He delivered some fantastic passes to our forwards. There's no doubt, his kicking skills are first rate. Not sure how good he is on his wrong side, though.
Cupestar
22 Oct 2003, 21:39
I can't believe we're debating Reynolds' effectiveness on the culling thread
Oh yeah i forgot to mention, he got beaten with the ugly stick as a child
Cupestar
23 Oct 2003, 19:43
Haha...now that's just petty!
I've seen his girlfriend. He doesn't do too badly for a guy who looks like he's 60.
Longy13
24 Oct 2003, 08:06
Firstly, I don't know what some of you are thinking but mark my words there is absolutely no chance Henneman will be delisted. Shaw has already made it clear that Henneman will be given the chance to fill Danny's vacant spot in the backline so you can forget that theory.
The delistees will be:
- RFK
- Shane Harvey
- Davies
- Bannister/Misiti (depends on whether Misiti will accept the base salary I'd imagine we are offering him. It will most likely be Bannister which as Pazza says is not sending out a great message to the other boys.)
Pevers-Legend
24 Oct 2003, 10:21
I very much doubt Joey will go. He knows he will have to accept a smaller contract, but I believe that as long as Essendon aren;t a bunch of pr@cks, then he will be with us again next year. His experience should never be under-rated with such a young on ball unit. While he is not the player he once was - losing him would be a huge loss as without him, in the wet, we would be even worse than we are now (which is pretty hard to comprehend).
I would like to see Davies and Bannister go as neither have done enough (Davies - what a fcking log he is)
Henneman doesn;t deserve another season, but will get one more chance. I would give him one year as a KPP and then thats it.