Remove this Banner Ad

Rumour Bluemour Discussion thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smegger said:
How do you see the proposed changes to rookie lists effect our "reset"? Would it help or hinder us?
Click to expand...
It helps us, because it implies players from the national draft can be signed on one-year deals.

Rather than ****ing around with listing rules, shuttering away certain players to squeeze cap values, everything starts to become a lot more flexible. Whether they want to stick with an active and inactive roster component, who knows.

It sounds like Evans wants to keep the quick-turnover component, which means maybe there's tags or something? Not so sure on that part, so I hope someone talks him out of it.

The rookie list really has no relevance any more in terms of its original goals, save for Cat B rookies, which could easily still exist beyond this. Personally I really would love to see an expanded national draft through this change, and a whole lot less knuckle-dragging on the coverage.
 
Jimmae said:
It helps us, because it implies players from the national draft can be signed on one-year deals.

Rather than ******* around with listing rules, shuttering away certain players to squeeze cap values, everything starts to become a lot more flexible. Whether they want to stick with an active and inactive roster component, who knows.

It sounds like Evans wants to keep the quick-turnover component, which means maybe there's tags or something? Not so sure on that part, so I hope someone talks him out of it.

The rookie list really has no relevance any more in terms of its original goals, save for Cat B rookies, which could easily still exist beyond this. Personally I really would love to see an expanded national draft through this change, and a whole lot less knuckle-dragging on the coverage.
Click to expand...
It is pretty simple. Should just be any draft pick after 90 can be offered a 1 year deal . Teams might pass on there 5th round pick to pick up someone in the 6th on a shorter contract. The upside for rookies is that they might have a good year and then their second contract could be significantly higher than the second year of someone drafted earlier in the draft.
 
Sector 7G said:
It is pretty simple. Should just be any draft pick after 90 can be offered a 1 year deal . Teams might pass on there 5th round pick to pick up someone in the 6th on a shorter contract. The upside for rookies is that they might have a good year and then their second contract could be significantly higher than the second year of someone drafted earlier in the draft.
Click to expand...
That sounds awful. You shouldn't have to concede draft position to re-negotiate contract rights.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Teams should be able to determine the contract length for all draftees signed outside of say the first three rounds. Then you're dealing with project caliber talent. First three rounds should be automatic 2-year contracts. Rounds 4+ should be 1 or 2 year option as negotiated by club and player (or player agent).

The risk with signing a draftee to a one-year contract is that another team comes along and offers much more money at the end of their first year than you're willing to negotiate forcing a trade (which is essentially what happens now before free agency) but those would be rare cases of A) 17 other AFL clubs undervaluing player before draft B) draftee team undervaluing him by only offering a 1-year contract
 
Jimmae said:
That sounds awful. You shouldn't have to concede draft position to re-negotiate contract rights.
Click to expand...
But why should a player have to take a 1 year deal at one club when other clubs are keen to offer the player a 2 year deal.

Carlton did this with our list management this year . We could have taken JMcKG on our list with a late pick but chose to take him as a rookie. That may have well been part of wanting give Byrne a game (hopefully that nonsense will be over), but more likely as a speculative pick we didn't want to be tied up for 2 years

Most teams were finished with the draft after 4 rounds last season but then took rookies
 
Wickzki said:
Teams should be able to determine the contract length for all draftees signed outside of say the first three rounds. Then you're dealing with project caliber talent. First three rounds should be automatic 2-year contracts. Rounds 4+ should be 1 or 2 year option as negotiated by club and player (or player agent).

The risk with signing a draftee to a one-year contract is that another team comes along and offers much more money at the end of their first year than you're willing to negotiate forcing a trade (which is essentially what happens now before free agency) but those would be rare cases of A) 17 other AFL clubs undervaluing player before draft B) draftee team undervaluing him by only offering a 1-year contract
Click to expand...

Problem there is that once the kid has been drafted, he loses all negotiating power. And as has been pointed out, the next club in line may have been happy to give him a two-year deal. And beyond that first year, which club is going to offer big money or a long-term deal to a late, speculative pick who has only got one season under their belt, and that in the 2's?

If it was going to be implemented, you'd need to have a set point (round 5 or 6 sounds about right) at which 1-year contracts become mandatory. Clubs could then offer extensions mid-season if they so desired.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
Didnt realise there was only 22 players on our list smh

Never heard of injuries?
Never heard of depth?
Click to expand...
When did I say we don't need depth? I said he wouldn't be the player we need in our best 22 and that we should be fixing that first before worrying about depth, as I said before, you get players who will win you premierships and then you start acquiring depth players...
 
BlueJet said:
Plowman's draft position is largely irrelevant, swap him for Sumner, Wright Lamb or Phillips and the point remains.
As for Kedge, there have been worse players win premierships but for the time being he's a handy pickup for us.

Sent from my SM-N915G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I just mentioned Kedge beacuse you did but I wasn't trying to single him out, we have plenty of depth players hence why we don't need anymore of them... Kedge is only a little better then depth and I think Jack is not far off that, just my opinion though... As for trusting Sosos Judgement, I'm definitely on that bandwagon!!
 
Moe B said:
When did I say we don't need depth? I said he wouldn't be the player we need in our best 22 and that we should be fixing that first before worrying about depth, as I said before, you get players who will win you premierships and then you start acquiring depth players...
Click to expand...

I'm confused - why can we only do one at a time?

It's not like grabbing Jack with a 4th rounder or as a DFA somehow prevents us doing a separate deal for Marchbank or Prestia, or drafting a Will Brodie type.
 
Blue__Balls said:
I'm confused - why can we only do one at a time?

It's not like grabbing Jack with a 4th rounder or as a DFA somehow prevents us doing a separate deal for Marchbank or Prestia, or drafting a Will Brodie type.
Click to expand...
Ok put it this way, what's the point of having depth if you do not have a decent team? I'd like to think you pick your best team before worrying about depth, I didn't say you can't do it at the same time, but what's more important. For example this year, I wouldn't worry too much about depth as I beleive we have a few of them already, developing on the other hand is different and we should be doing that all the time, again depth is pointless if you haven't filled your team with 22 starters, then you can think about improving your side or getting backup depth players, we have 4-5 depth players playing tommorow... What's the point of getting more... But if we can get him for a 4th rounder (which won't happen) then great I'm all for it... Jack could be anything but right now he's depth!!
 
Moe B said:
I just mentioned Kedge beacuse you did but I wasn't trying to single him out, we have plenty of depth players hence why we don't need anymore of them... Kedge is only a little better then depth and I think Jack is not far off that, just my opinion though... As for trusting Sosos Judgement, I'm definitely on that bandwagon!!
Click to expand...
That's all I'm after, I haven't seen much of many of the players mentioned in these threads but if SOS and co. deem them capable of taking the next step I'm fine with that - provided of course there's not a massive outlay to get them across.
Keeping in mind Carrots and Curnow were discarded by other clubs before going on to become invaluable players for us, there's no certainty that anyone recruited is purely for depth. :thumbsu:
 
Moe B said:
Ok put it this way, what's the point of having depth if you do not have a decent team? I'd like to think you pick your best team before worrying about depth, I didn't say you can't do it at the same time, but what's more important. For example this year, I wouldn't worry too much about depth as I beleive we have a few of them already, developing on the other hand is different and we should be doing that all the time, again depth is pointless if you haven't filled your team with 22 starters, then you can think about improving your side or getting backup depth players, we have 4-5 depth players playing tommorow... What's the point of getting more... But if we can get him for a 4th rounder (which won't happen) then great I'm all for it... Jack could be anything but right now he's depth!!
Click to expand...

"I didn't say you can't do it at the same time".

That's kinda what you are saying.

"you pick your best team before worrying about depth"
"depth is pointless if you haven't filled your team with 22 starters"

We can improve our Best 22 by drafting or trading for high end players, using high picks. If Brandon Jack wants to come to Carlton, and Carlton sees value in and a role for Brandon Jack, then we should be able to recruit him without impacting our ability to improve our Best 22.

"we have 4-5 depth players playing tommorow... What's the point of getting more"

Not all depth players are equal. Some will only ever be depth, others have scope for improvement.

Hypothetically, Brandon comes to us as a delisted free agent (agrees to part ways with Sydney). If he's an improvement on Clem Smith, and bringing him in allows us to offload Clem to another club in return for a late pick, then we can both improve our depth and our draft position without giving anything up. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Blue__Balls said:
"I didn't say you can't do it at the same time".

That's kinda what you are saying.

"you pick your best team before worrying about depth"
"depth is pointless if you haven't filled your team with 22 starters"

We can improve our Best 22 by drafting or trading for high end players, using high picks. If Brandon Jack wants to come to Carlton, and Carlton sees value in and a role for Brandon Jack, then we should be able to recruit him without impacting our ability to improve our Best 22.

"we have 4-5 depth players playing tommorow... What's the point of getting more"

Not all depth players are equal. Some will only ever be depth, others have scope for improvement.

Hypothetically, Brandon comes to us as a delisted free agent (agrees to part ways with Sydney). If he's an improvement on Clem Smith, and bringing him in allows us to offload Clem to another club in return for a late pick, then we can both improve our depth and our draft position without giving anything up. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...
Ok but what do we have to give up? As I said I'm all for it if we get him really cheap, I can't see that happening, dfa is perfect and I'd be pretty happy with that, doesn't sound right though. If we can get depth players for close to nothing then great I have no issues, but to give up picks makes me uncomfortable, especially with the position we're in now.
 
Sector 7G said:
But why should a player have to take a 1 year deal at one club when other clubs are keen to offer the player a 2 year deal.

Carlton did this with our list management this year . We could have taken JMcKG on our list with a late pick but chose to take him as a rookie. That may have well been part of wanting give Byrne a game (hopefully that nonsense will be over), but more likely as a speculative pick we didn't want to be tied up for 2 years

Most teams were finished with the draft after 4 rounds last season but then took rookies
Click to expand...
There's also cap considerations with the rookie draft move, but I totally get where you're coming from.

In other systems like the one I described, you're typically looking at agents/managers taking over and dictating contract terms, but the draftees are usually 21 and over, and thus are expected to come in and make an immediate impact.

I'd rather it be 1+1, but it's a unilateral option exercised by the club (currently this isn't allowed by the CBA). The delisted free agency market and trade period can take care of the rest.

If clubs want more flexibility in terms of cap numbers than that, just have live trading so they can move down a round (but this means nothing from the third round onwards currently).
 
BlueJet said:
That's all I'm after, I haven't seen much of many of the players mentioned in these threads but if SOS and co. deem them capable of taking the next step I'm fine with that - provided of course there's not a massive outlay to get them across.
Keeping in mind Carrots and Curnow were discarded by other clubs before going on to become invaluable players for us, there's no certainty that anyone recruited is purely for depth. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
The problem i have with the rumoured GWS super dooper trade is that none of the 3/4 players are an guarntee to be an A grade/Elite player, whereas odds are we could pick up a future elite and quick midfielder with the first rounder we would have to cough up.

So we would be trading away a near certain opportunity to draft an A grader for depth/collection of B Graders.

Is that actually the right approach for a rebuilding club to take ? I'm not convinced
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

DaVillaBlues said:
The problem i have with the rumoured GWS super dooper trade is that none of the 3/4 players are an guarntee to be an A grade/Elite player, whereas odds are we could pick up a future elite and quick midfielder with the first rounder we would have to cough up.

So we would be trading away a near certain opportunity to draft an A grader for depth/collection of B Graders.

Is that actually the right approach for a rebuilding club to take ? I'm not convinced
Click to expand...

If Jack Steele is guaranteed to be a part of the trade then I'd do it in a heartbeat. If he maximizes on his potential he has the ability to be a game breaking goal scoring midfielder who has more than enough of a defensive side to his game to boot. If Cripps can ever get his kicking at goal to an average or above average level that combination would be scary good.

He's the player in the quartet that I would move heaven and earth to get.
 
DaVillaBlues said:
The problem i have with the rumoured GWS super dooper trade is that none of the 3/4 players are an guarntee to be an A grade/Elite player, whereas odds are we could pick up a future elite and quick midfielder with the first rounder we would have to cough up.

So we would be trading away a near certain opportunity to draft an A grader for depth/collection of B Graders.

Is that actually the right approach for a rebuilding club to take ? I'm not convinced
Click to expand...

Firstly, pick #8 or whatever, then pushed back to #12 or so due to academy picks, is faaaaaaaar from being 'near certain' to be an A grade/elite player.

Secondly, Steele, Tomlinson, Marchbank & Stewart are all relatively high draft picks who have shown glimpses of talent and A grade talent.
The first 3 i particular have as much chance of becoming A graders than pick #12
 
The McCarthy rumour has been around for ages. It's one of those that sounds believable but could easily be invented because...well... It sounds believable.

Something is up with the kid though. Homesickness is one thing, potentially torpedoing your career by sitting out a year is something else entirely. Must be bad, whatever it is.

The other point, that others have alread made, is that addiction and mental illness often go hand in hand
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top