List Mgmt. 2020 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is Part 1

The thread is continued in part 2:

www.bigfooty.com

List Mgmt. - 2020 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread - Part 2

This Part 2 Continued from Part 1: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2020-list-management-free-agency-trade-thread.1241035/ What type of players does our list need? Pace, Skill, Class and and goal threat. A winger, forward flank and forward pocket are the 3 positions that we need, plus...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
freodog said:
Don’t tell me Ethan Hughes is still on our Rookie list??? Surely not. He’s a regular player now.

I thought the Rookie list was for speculative 18 year old players?! It’s just unfair on players
Click to expand...
It was suppose to be a way for mature aged players to get a crack. Now it’s just a way for clubs to manipulate the salary cap. Just get rid of it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It appears people are a little confused re $ and the Rookie lis.

My understanding is the player contracts and associated $ stay the same BUT $80k can come of each players contribution to the Total Salary cap.

It by having 6 contracted players on the Rookie A list we can move $480k off the Total Salary Cap books.

It’s all about salary caps, and enabling draft picks to cover any bids on the NGA but also allowing rookie list spots as well.

It’s a flexible solution!
 
raffrox said:
I thought that too considering that from what I've read we could make that move automatically.
Click to expand...

It isn't automatic as such. Basically, they have to wait until the second DFA period (after the first DFA period but before the Rookie draft) before being re-rookied:

The first list lodgement for each club is due on Wednesday with the first delisted free agency (DFA) window to run from Thursday to Sunday.

Players delisted by Wednesday will still be able to get onto another senior list if given the opportunity by a rival club in the DFA window.

However, those players being 're-rookied' from their existing clubs will be confirmed as rookies in the second DFA period from December 1-2, therefore avoiding having to go through the NAB AFL Rookie Draft.
Click to expand...
www.fremantlefc.com.au

New rule tweak provides relief for clubs on list flexibility

AFL clubs will now be allowed to move two players straight from the senior list to the rookie list, without going through a drafting process
www.fremantlefc.com.au www.fremantlefc.com.au
 
Have I got this right? As it stands we have:
  • 32 on the main list;
  • 5 on the rookie list (Ethan Hughes; Tobe Watson; Banfield; Bewley; Schultz);
  • 1 on the rookie B list (Leno Thomas).
So we will be recruiting:
  • 4 x main list players;
  • 1 x rookie A list player
  • Maybe 1 x rookie B
 
Walkingwounded said:
It appears people are a little confused re $ and the Rookie lis.

My understanding is the player contracts and associated $ stay the same BUT $80k can come of each players contribution to the Total Salary cap.

It by having 6 contracted players on the Rookie A list we can move $480k off the Total Salary Cap books.

It’s all about salary caps, and enabling draft picks to cover any bids on the NGA but also allowing rookie list spots as well.

It’s a flexible solution!
Click to expand...

My issue with it is the players we’re using to do it:
- Schultz is a solid player in our best 25 who now has free agency status next time he’s out of contract. Having Hughes and now Schultz have this status at the end of next season is a risk I’d rather the club do without.
- Hughes finished top 10 in the best and fairest and is clearly an AFL standard player.
- Banfield is a seriously average player who should be cut altogether.
- Whilst Carlton listing Eddie Betts as a rookie is exploiting the system it’s within the rules and I would not have any problem our club doing the same thing. Travis Colyer is probably entering his last season of AFL footy and already has free agency status. You could say the same about David Mundy.
- Giro hasn’t played any footy in two years and wasn’t even that great when he did. He’s contracted and seems like a good kid but I don’t get why he’s on the senior list. Lloyd Meek with zero games in three seasons on the list is similar.

I find the decision to demote Schultz and/or keep Hughes sitting on the rookie list as bizarre tbh. It seems to be we’re making decisions based on what’s easiest rather than what makes sense from a list management perspective.

Probably doesn’t matter long run as we’ll back ourselves to keep the players we want to keep but if Schultz improves like Hughes did after he was delisted and we lose him as a free agent I’ll lose my ****.
 
apuchar said:
It wasn't clear on how they would get to the rookie list.
Click to expand...
Yes it was. They will draft them in the rookie draft. No automatic moves. To me it actually reads as though Schultz and Bewley are some chance of being picked up as DFA by another club. If not they will be drafted via RD.

Bell indicated Hughes is also a rookie which I didn’t know.

So as it stands today we have:
4 ND selections (32> 36)
1 Cat-A Rookie selection (max of 6- Watson, Hughes, Banfield, Bewley, Schultz); if Schultz is picked up as DFA by North then we have two Cat-A selections.
1 Cat-B Rookie selection (max of 2-Thomas)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Walkingwounded said:
It appears people are a little confused re $ and the Rookie lis.

My understanding is the player contracts and associated $ stay the same BUT $80k can come of each players contribution to the Total Salary cap.

It by having 6 contracted players on the Rookie A list we can move $480k off the Total Salary Cap books.

It’s all about salary caps, and enabling draft picks to cover any bids on the NGA but also allowing rookie list spots as well.

It’s a flexible solution!
Click to expand...
Nobody’s confused why the clubs are doing it. It’s just ****ing stupid. Every club will have max rookies to help the salary cap...so if every club does it just add it to the salary cap! It’s so stupid.
 
Docker82 said:
Hughes and Schultz played every game this year... it can’t even be called that.
Click to expand...
Im not sure schultz would have played if switta was fit, depends who JL preferred. Hughes definitely wouldn't have played if it wasn't for injury to half our backline. So it definitely is the fringe list in our case. Hughes had a great year so will likely get elevated at some point I would expect.
 
Docker82 said:
My issue with it is the players we’re using to do it:
- Schultz is a solid player in our best 25 who now has free agency status next time he’s out of contract. Having Hughes and now Schultz have this status at the end of next season is a risk I’d rather the club do without.
- Hughes finished top 10 in the best and fairest and is clearly an AFL standard player.
- Banfield is a seriously average player who should be cut altogether.
- Whilst Carlton listing Eddie Betts as a rookie is exploiting the system it’s within the rules and I would not have any problem our club doing the same thing. Travis Colyer is probably entering his last season of AFL footy and already has free agency status. You could say the same about David Mundy.
- Giro hasn’t played any footy in two years and wasn’t even that great when he did. He’s contracted and seems like a good kid but I don’t get why he’s on the senior list. Lloyd Meek with zero games in three seasons on the list is similar.

I find the decision to demote Schultz and/or keep Hughes sitting on the rookie list as bizarre tbh. It seems to be we’re making decisions based on what’s easiest rather than what makes sense from a list management perspective.

Probably doesn’t matter long run as we’ll back ourselves to keep the players we want to keep but if Schultz improves like Hughes did after he was delisted and we lose him as a free agent I’ll lose my ****.
Click to expand...
Giro, Colyer & Meek are guys I constantly find myself forgetting are even on our list lmao
 
Superkoops said:
Yes it was. They will draft them in the rookie draft. No automatic moves. To me it actually reads as though Schultz and Bewley are some chance of being picked up as DFA by another club. If not they will be drafted via RD.

Bell indicated Hughes is also a rookie which I didn’t know.

So as it stands today we have:
4 ND selections (32> 36)
1 Cat-A Rookie selection (max of 6- Watson, Hughes, Banfield, Bewley, Schultz); if Schultz is picked up as DFA by North then we have two Cat-A selections.
1 Cat-B Rookie selection (max of 2-Thomas)
Click to expand...
There was talk that Schultz was offered a three year deal by Nth. Surely, he would just take the deal with them, if what you said was the case. If we want him we can just have him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

go_the_dockers
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets
251 252 253 254 255
Replies
6K
Views
303K
Snuffaluphagus
Snuffaluphagus
Lore
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2023 List Management thread - Pt2 Now With Added Wailing & Gnashing of Teeth
304 305 306 307 308
Replies
8K
Views
315K
Snuffaluphagus
Snuffaluphagus
DQ 4EVER
Unpopular Freo Opinions
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
thefreodockers
Should we be renamed the Fremantle - Walyalup Dockers?
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
2K
poshman
poshman
vidwhal
Preview PORT VS FREO - ROUND 5 - POWERED BY THE WHISTLE
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
5K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
Lach72
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2023 List Management thread
499 500 501 502 503
Replies
13K
Views
552K
Midnite65
Midnite65
dockerfemme
  • Locked
Game Day Dockers v Crows - 4.30pm Bounce down
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
740
Views
10K
FreoGirl
FreoGirl

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top