List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023

[Mollythedolly]

It creates fake list spots for academy points.

And….

 

[sr36]

And….

I think the matching system is a farce, but after complaints the AFL introduced the rule that you could only take into the draft the number of available picks on your list, clubs found the re-rookieing loophole and then the AFL have left the loophole open. It's just stupid

 

[Bianconeri]

I think the matching system is a farce, but after complaints the AFL introduced the rule that you could only take into the draft the number of available picks on your list, clubs found the re-rookieing loophole and then the AFL have left the loophole open. It's just stupid

The downside is anyone delisted and re rookies is a permanent UFA when out of contract so it has a cost.

 

[Quicky]

I feel like Sofronidis is the player we'll pick if he is one of our SSP selections. I'd like us to look at Tom Highmore and Ethan Phillips personally. As long as it's a tall defender with a chance at seniors in an injury crisis I'll be happy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Happy with a tall defender with our first ssp selection.

A genuine cheap ruck in the right age bracket would also close an age gap and keep the pressure off Begg and steene being asked to step up too soon in case of injury.

I don’t profess to know enough about the players we have invited as run ons but if those two end up getting the nod then it could round off the list nicely if the club thinks they are up to the task.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I’m convinced that Sofronidis is the 45 year old that nominated for the draft

Mr Spindle Legs?! He would take an eternity to develop the physique required of an AFL player.

 

[sr36]

Solid mix of types. I don’t see what Leppa supposedly does with Hustwaite for mine he’s a solid VFL type and I don’t see a need for another development ruck so I’m on the Bytel/ Sofronidis train. Both provide insurance with Bytel as cover in case Macrae doesn’t take the step needed and Sofronidis if anything were to go sideways with Murphy.

I think we'll take Teakle, as I do think we need ruck depth.

 

[Babylove]

If we’re thinking we’ll carry over a list spot for the MSD, is there any reason we can’t go into the season 35-6 and promote on need or 2024 performances prior to the MSD?

It depends on the rule /cut off for rookie upgrades. The last I knew of the rules it had min 36 on the senior list and rookie upgrades had to be confirmed by the list lodgement post the draft. And the fact that we had 3 picks in the rookie draft suggests we have upgraded one of Begg, Carmichael, Dean or Steene. But whether they’ve changed rules to allow for that the list lodgement date has happened yet, whether we can commit to upgrade someone without nominating who or we can now have a 35 & 7 list, or whether the rules haven’t changed, we have upgraded someone but not announced who seems to be anyone’s guess at this point.

 

[sr36]

It depends on the rule /cut off for rookie upgrades. The last I knew of the rules it had min 36 on the senior list and rookie upgrades had to be confirmed by the list lodgement post the draft. And the fact that we had 3 picks in the rookie draft suggests we have upgraded one of Begg, Carmichael, Dean or Steene. But whether they’ve changed rules to allow for that the list lodgement date has happened yet, whether we can commit to upgrade someone without nominating who or we can now have a 35 & 7 list, or whether the rules haven’t changed, we have upgraded someone but not announced who seems to be anyone’s guess at this point.

Who it is is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't make them more likely to get picked or retained at the end of the year.

 

[saverio36]

I think we'll take Teakle, as I do think we need ruck depth.

Our apparent interest in Goldstein and Lycett seems to confirm the club feels the same way.

 

[sr36]

Our apparent interest in Goldstein and Lycett seems to confirm the club feels the same way.

I like your username.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[soreplums]

I like your username.

I just made the connection to your username

 

[sr36]

I just made the connection to your username

I may have made a second account to agree with me.

 

[partypie]

Is it exploitation? Clubs demoting a player also deny themselves adding a potential longer term prospect. Imagine if in 2017 we’d demoted a player and then missed Checkers with our 2nd and last rookie list spot/selection.

The original intent of the rookie draft was to give prospects who didn't make the cut in the national draft a chance at still being picked up in the rookie draft. Now clubs are using it mainly to shuffle current players off their primary list temporarily to create additional national draft pick slots, whether it be for bid matching purposes as mentioned above or just to meet the requirement for the minimum of three additions to the primary list in the ND.

Not sure how you wouldn't call that exploitation tbh whether it be sanctioned or not, but it's all moot if the rumblings are to be believed about rookie rules being firmly in the sights of the new management at AFL house.

 

[DIDAIC0S]

The original intent of the rookie draft was to give prospects who didn't make the cut in the national draft a chance at still being picked up in the rookie draft. Now clubs are using it mainly to shuffle current players off their primary list temporarily to create additional national draft pick slots, whether it be for bid matching purposes as mentioned above or just to meet the requirement for the minimum of three additions to the primary list in the ND.

Not sure how you wouldn't call that exploitation tbh whether it be sanctioned or not, but it's all moot if the rumblings are to be believed about rookie rules being firmly in the sights of the new management at AFL house.

They may need to expand list sizes and make it minimum 2 rookie picks (not upgrades) per team per year.
Maybe first pick 2 year contract, 2nd-3rd pick 1 year contracts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sr36]

They may need to expand list sizes and make it minimum 2 rookie picks (not upgrades) per team per year.
Maybe first pick 2 year contract, 2nd-3rd pick 1 year contracts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do they need to protect the rookie draft? The train on system seems a better way than the rookie draft to me.

 

[The Phantom]

The original intent of the rookie draft was to give prospects who didn't make the cut in the national draft a chance at still being picked up in the rookie draft. Now clubs are using it mainly to shuffle current players off their primary list temporarily to create additional national draft pick slots, whether it be for bid matching purposes as mentioned above or just to meet the requirement for the minimum of three additions to the primary list in the ND.

Not sure how you wouldn't call that exploitation tbh whether it be sanctioned or not, but it's all moot if the rumblings are to be believed about rookie rules being firmly in the sights of the new management at AFL house.

Rookies used to have an age cap as well. I think it was 23.

 

[Gaspard]

I just made the connection to your username

Me too. I guess most usernames have significance that I don't get because they are not obvious enough for me. That said, I don't put a lot of time into analysing them until someone draws my attention to it. Just so that the few with any interest know, mine doesn't mean anything.

 

[manicpie]

I like your username.

Yeah, but he'll never be Fonzie

 

[partypie]

Rookies used to have an age cap as well. I think it was 23.

Spot on, it was also restricted to nominees who hadn't previously been on an AFL list. Since then the age and then AFL-listed restrictions have been removed along with the old "nominated rookie" provision and elevation requirement to replace a primary listed player with an LTI.

In 1997, the AFL introduced the Rookie Draft which enabled clubs to list players between the ages of 18 and 23. These players could be upgraded to primary lists at a time when player lists were lodged with the AFL before the National Draft or during the season as a long-term injury replacement or as a nominated rookie.

In 2007, the AFL introduced a mature-age rookie, over 23 years of age, to be listed if he had not previously been on a primary or rookie list of any club. This was further amended for the 2010-12 seasons with the removal of the maximum age requirement while allowing previously listed AFL players to be rookie listed.

Source: AFL Draft - AFL.com.au

 

[sr36]

Spot on, it was also restricted to nominees who hadn't previously been on an AFL list. Since then the age and then AFL-listed restrictions have been removed along with the old "nominated rookie" provision and elevation requirement to replace a primary listed player with an LTI.

In 1997, the AFL introduced the Rookie Draft which enabled clubs to list players between the ages of 18 and 23. These players could be upgraded to primary lists at a time when player lists were lodged with the AFL before the National Draft or during the season as a long-term injury replacement or as a nominated rookie.

In 2007, the AFL introduced a mature-age rookie, over 23 years of age, to be listed if he had not previously been on a primary or rookie list of any club. This was further amended for the 2010-12 seasons with the removal of the maximum age requirement while allowing previously listed AFL players to be rookie listed.

Source: AFL Draft - AFL.com.au

The AFL has oscillated between wanting to encourage opportunities to blokes from different pathways and wanting to reduce player churn and encourage longer careers within the industry. I think the SSP is going to be a nice balance of both, as it encourages clubs to trial players from different pathways but takes some of the guesswork out of it.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

The AFL has oscillated between wanting to encourage opportunities to blokes from different pathways and wanting to reduce player churn and encourage longer careers within the industry. I think the SSP is going to be a nice balance of both, as it encourages clubs to trial players from different pathways but takes some of the guesswork out of it.

Just get rid of the rookie list, and have one primary list. Wingard who's been in the system for 12 years, doesn't really fall under the meaning of a rookie!!

 

[sr36]

Just get rid of the rookie list, and have one primary list. Wingard who's been in the system for 12 years, doesn't really fall under the meaning of a rookie!!

Agree. I can't see what purpose a separate list serves - except the cat b list.

 

[localfootylegend23]

Never seen Sofronidis play but you wouldn't want to be sharing packets with him.

A few might've seen my posts on other threads but I have seen Sam play and he makes it look very easy, elite hands and reading of the ball. Had some exposure to tac cup and vfl already so he's not some local player whose all of a sudden put it all together. Stronger than he looks as well being 23. Pies have nothing to lose giving him a shot