Prediction 2016 Rookie Draft

[hendo8888]

They still haven't answered the question. They've explained why we went one-short on the senior list. There is still no explanation as to why we went one-short on the rookie list.

"Going with 39 (listed players) gives us the flexibility with the rookies," Reid said.

"We've made a fair investment with Alex Keath, Hugh Greenwood, Jono Beech, who's won our (state league) best and fairest and Paul Hunter, they're all 24 years of age or older.

"In 2018, a bit of an assumption, but we're hearing it may become one list.

"Whether that's 44, 42 or 40, we've got to manage how the list looks in 12 months' time."

It's not the best explanation, but it's an explanation nonetheless.

 

[hendo8888]

So is that the reason?

Leaving our list as is means that we can promote Keath/Greenwood onto the senior list during the season, whereas if we'd taken an extra player in the rookie draft we couldn't?

If so that does make sense.

Although it then paints the Shaw decision in a different light. When it was a compassionate use of a list spot we weren't planning on using that's one thing but if it prevents us from taking a rookie...?

It does kind of beg the question whether it would have been better to just not de-list him in the first place. Keep him on the main list, put him straight on the long term injury list, then upgrade a rookie if we wanted. Draft another Rookie.

 

[Vader]

Cat B and Cat A have different rules.
The number of Cat A players you can have are directly related to how many players you have on your senior list.
When you promote a Cat B player to your senior list you are not reducing the number of Cat A rookies you have.
If we promote a Cat B player to the senior list, giving us 40 senior listed players, the rule is that you can only have 4 Cat A rookies if you have 40 senior listed players.
The promotion of a Cat B player to the senior list doesn't reduce the number of Cat A players we have, we still have 4 Cat A players.
If we promoted a Cat A player to the senior list we would automatically have one less Cat A player which would fall in line with the rules.
In Keath and Greenwood's case, if one is promoted we wouldn't reduce the number of Cat A rookies we have because they aren't Cat A rookies.
The rule basically is you're allowed a maximum of 44 players on your Senior list and Category A list added together (with a maximum of 6 Cat A rookies). Cat B list is a maximum of 3 and operates outside of the 44 player rule while they remain on the Cat B list.
If we did pick the max number of 5 Cat A rookies we are allowed with our current 39 senior players, we would have a total of 44 senior + Cat A rookie players.
The promotion of a Cat B would blow that number out to 45.
We currently have a total of 43 because we went 1 short with our Cat A rookie capacity.
The promotion of Keath would make that number 44 which is the maximum allowed.
If we had 44 right now, we couldn't promote Keath and make that number 45.
Maxing out the capacity of Cat A rookies means we don't have the ability to promote Keath or Greenwood at any stage next season barring long term injury.

In other words, if we do promote Keath or Greenwood, the current number of 4 Cat A rookies would become the maximum number of Cat A rookies we are allowed to have because our senior list would increased from 39 to 40. You're not allowed to increase your senior list + Cat A number to over 44 just because you decide you want to promote a Cat B rookie. You need that extra space on the Cat A list (or 2 senior list vacancies instead of our current 1 vacancy) to possibly go from 43 total player to 44 if you promote a Cat B rookie.

I should point out here that I'm not talking about promoting a Cat B rookie to a Cat A rookie. If we did fill our Cat A rookie list to capacity of 5, we still have had the ability to promote a Cat A rookie to the senior list. We chose to have the flexibility to also possibly promote a Cat B rookie.

It probably makes more sense to think of it the way you described it, a Cat B rookie must be promoted to a Cat A rookie before they can be promoted to the senior list. However, the actual rule is that Cat B rookies can be promoted directly to the senior list, but a club can't have over 44 senior listed + Cat A rookie listed players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm able to explain this better than I have. Also, this rule makes sense to me, AFL club's are not allowed to have more than 44 players total on their senior list and Cat A rookie list added together. You don't get to increase your list numbers above 44 by promoting Cat B rookies to the senior list, it's the reason they have this rule.

Thanks for that. Makes a whole lot more sense now.

 

[DD#23]

so in other words Greenwood and Keath are definitely on the radar and coming into the clubs long term plans, which is great to hear.

 

[Mattrox]

The club did not do what they did for no good reason.

It will unfold during preseason.


It is confusing on face value. But at the same time I don't expect we will be telegraphing our plans to competitors.

Maybe we have another couple Cat Bs in mind and will move the current ones onto Cat A or main list? Wishful thinking.

 

[LiamPickering]

so in other words Greenwood and Keath are definitely on the radar and coming into the clubs long term plans, which is great to hear.

Reckon you'll find that Greenwood plays games this year.

 

[Vader]

Reckon you'll find that Greenwood plays games this year.

I doubt it very much. Next year is a strong possibility though!

 

[DD#23]

Reckon you'll find that Greenwood plays games this year.

I reckon he's going to put himself there for sure, I just can't see the selectors going for it. Fingers crossed.

 

[cammo6556]

May have been asked already... but where does us being short leave us cap wise? We'd have a fair bit up our sleeves, right?

 

[Bring back Bas]

Okay, just got an answer from the club which makes sense (finally). By having one less spot filled on the rookie list, the club can upgrade any rookie, Cat A or Cat B to their senior list at anytime. For example, if they want to upgrade Keath, they can do this because we would then have 40 players on our senior list and as per the rules, if we have 40 players on our senior list we are only allowed to have 4 Category A rookies instead of 5 when the senior list capacity was at 39. This means we don't have to wait for the off chance that someone is put on the long term injury list.

I get the feeling the club thinks there is a chance they will want to upgrade Keath or Greenwood at some stage next season. They wouldn't be able to do this unless someone is put on the long term injury list and had filled all the Cat A rookie spots.

This still doesn't make sense though. The club will have the ability to add Shaw to the Long Term Injury (LTI) list at any time next year which would open up a spot on the Category A rookie list and allow either Greenwood or Keath to be upgraded to the primary list. Given that Shaw will be on the LTI all year, forfeiting a Category A rookie position only helps if the club are anticipating upgrading both of Greenwood and Keath which seems unlikely.

It also doesn't explain why other clubs have done the same thing with their lists. I think there is more to it!

 

[Vader]

May have been asked already... but where does us being short leave us cap wise? We'd have a fair bit up our sleeves, right?

Completely unknown. We now know that the decision to go one short was influenced by a few factors (ability to upgrade Greenwood, new CBA), but salary cap concerns does not appear to have been one of them.

On the one hand, it could be cheaper to pay 39 players rather than 40 (rookie salaries are outside the cap). On the other hand, they could just be paying the remaining players more. We just don't know.

 

[Vader]

This still doesn't make sense though. The club will have the ability to add Shaw to the Long Term Injury (LTI) list at any time next year which would open up a spot on the Category A rookie list and allow either Greenwood or Keath to be upgraded to the primary list. Given that Shaw will be on the LTI all year, forfeiting a Category A rookie position only helps if the club are anticipating upgrading both of Greenwood and Keath which seems unlikely.

It also doesn't explain why other clubs have done the same thing with their lists. I think there is more to it!

It also means that Shaw's salary doesn't count against the salary cap, which it would if we'd left him on the senior list.

 

[cammo6556]

Completely unknown. We now know that the decision to go one short was influenced by a few factors (ability to upgrade Greenwood, new CBA), but salary cap concerns does not appear to have been one of them.

On the one hand, it could be cheaper to pay 39 players rather than 40 (rookie salaries are outside the cap). On the other hand, they could just be paying the remaining players more. We just don't know.

In theory we haven't spent whatever we offered Gibbs... and yes it's guesswork, but I'd like to think we have enough in the bank to have a dip at an A grader at seasons end. Or at the very least retain all our high quality players

 

[Vader]

In theory we haven't spent whatever we offered Gibbs... and yes it's guesswork, but I'd like to think we have enough in the bank to have a dip at an A grader at seasons end. Or at the very least retain all our high quality players

I would like to think so to.. but there was the Tippett money, then the Dangerfield money, now the Gibbs money. The reality is that most of it ended up going to the existing players on our list, as they showed natural improvement and rightly demanded bigger contracts.

 

[Thetrader15]

I would like to think so to.. but there was the Tippett money, then the Dangerfield money, now the Gibbs money. The reality is that most of it ended up going to the existing players on our list, as they showed natural improvement and rightly demanded bigger contracts.

"Organic growth'

 

[cammo6556]

I would like to think so to.. but there was the Tippett money, then the Dangerfield money, now the Gibbs money. The reality is that most of it ended up going to the existing players on our list, as they showed natural improvement and rightly demanded bigger contracts.

theoretically a decent chunk of Tippett's money ended up in Dangers pocket over the years. Where is Dangers money going? Evenly dispersed perhaps? Maybe we can squirrel enough away.

 

[hendo8888]

May have been asked already... but where does us being short leave us cap wise? We'd have a fair bit up our sleeves, right?

Hopefully they re-jigged some contracts, so that we use the full cap this year, and keep that space for next year, to try recruit someone.

 

[cammo6556]

Hopefully they re-jigged some contracts, so that we use the full cap this year, and keep that space for next year, to try recruit someone.

you'd like to think we had the foresight to do that if a big name player was in our plans...

 

[DD#23]

May have been asked already... but where does us being short leave us cap wise? We'd have a fair bit up our sleeves, right?

rumoured that 400kay's contract is back-ended and we owe him 1mil for next season

 

[Vader]

theoretically a decent chunk of Tippett's money ended up in Dangers pocket over the years. Where is Dangers money going? Evenly dispersed perhaps? Maybe we can squirrel enough away.

Fair chunk of it ended up with JJ. I think he got a much bigger contract than they were planning on giving him this time a year ago.

 

[Bring back Bas]

It also means that Shaw's salary doesn't count against the salary cap, which it would if we'd left him on the senior list.

I'm not saying that we should have kept Shaw on the primary list. I am saying that we could have picked 3 rookies and gone into the season with 39 primary listed players + 5 Cat A rookies (including Shaw) giving us 44 in total. Going into round 1 we could have put Shaw on the LTI list giving us 39 + (5 -1) = 43 then upgraded one of Greenwood/Keath giving us a total of 44 players still.

Given that Shaw will be on the LTI, unless the club is planning on upgrading both of Greenwood and Keath (which would be unlikely), having an extra Cat A rookie list position available doesn't achieve anything.

 

[Vader]

I'm not saying that we should have kept Shaw on the primary list. I am saying that we could have picked 3 rookies and gone into the season with 39 primary listed players + 5 Cat A rookies (including Shaw) giving us 44 in total. Going into round 1 we could have put Shaw on the LTI list giving us 39 + (5 -1) = 43 then upgraded one of Greenwood/Keath giving us a total of 44 players still.

Given that Shaw will be on the LTI, unless the club is planning on upgrading both of Greenwood and Keath (which would be unlikely), having an extra Cat A rookie list position available doesn't achieve anything.

That's not going to work. You can't put a rookie listed player on the LTI list. Here's the rule, taken from the AFL Player Rules May 2016:

26.1 Long Term Injury List
(a) Where a Player is suffering from a Long Term Injury, a Club may, in accordance with this Rule 26, apply to the AFL to remove the Player’s name from its Primary List and include the Player’s name on its Long Term Injury List.

Primary List = Senior List

 

[Thetrader15]

rumoured that 400kay's contract is back-ended and we owe him 1mil for next season

So he only averaged 200k for the last 3 years - that explains a few things. looking forward to a million dollar performance in 2017 cos we sure got the 200k version over the last 3 years

 

[crowsup]

I'm not saying that we should have kept Shaw on the primary list. I am saying that we could have picked 3 rookies and gone into the season with 39 primary listed players + 5 Cat A rookies (including Shaw) giving us 44 in total. Going into round 1 we could have put Shaw on the LTI list giving us 39 + (5 -1) = 43 then upgraded one of Greenwood/Keath giving us a total of 44 players still.

Given that Shaw will be on the LTI, unless the club is planning on upgrading both of Greenwood and Keath (which would be unlikely), having an extra Cat A rookie list position available doesn't achieve anything.

We would need to find out if LTI for a rookie is considered the same way as a LTI on the main list. I get the impression that if a rookie cat. B is elevated, he will need to go back to cat. 'A' or stay on the main list. If we had a full compliment of cat. 'A' rookies, the elevated player will have to be absorbed in the main list. If that is the case, would it be worth taking that chance?

 

[Jarman3]

Cat B and Cat A have different rules.
The number of Cat A players you can have are directly related to how many players you have on your senior list.
When you promote a Cat B player to your senior list you are not reducing the number of Cat A rookies you have.
If we promote a Cat B player to the senior list, giving us 40 senior listed players, the rule is that you can only have 4 Cat A rookies if you have 40 senior listed players.
The promotion of a Cat B player to the senior list doesn't reduce the number of Cat A players we have, we still have 4 Cat A players.
If we promoted a Cat A player to the senior list we would automatically have one less Cat A player which would fall in line with the rules.
In Keath and Greenwood's case, if one is promoted we wouldn't reduce the number of Cat A rookies we have because they aren't Cat A rookies.
The rule basically is you're allowed a maximum of 44 players on your Senior list and Category A list added together (with a maximum of 6 Cat A rookies). Cat B list is a maximum of 3 and operates outside of the 44 player rule while they remain on the Cat B list.
If we did pick the max number of 5 Cat A rookies we are allowed with our current 39 senior players, we would have a total of 44 senior + Cat A rookie players.
The promotion of a Cat B would blow that number out to 45.
We currently have a total of 43 because we went 1 short with our Cat A rookie capacity.
The promotion of Keath would make that number 44 which is the maximum allowed.
If we had 44 right now, we couldn't promote Keath and make that number 45.
Maxing out the capacity of Cat A rookies means we don't have the ability to promote Keath or Greenwood at any stage next season barring long term injury.

In other words, if we do promote Keath or Greenwood, the current number of 4 Cat A rookies would become the maximum number of Cat A rookies we are allowed to have because our senior list would increased from 39 to 40. You're not allowed to increase your senior list + Cat A number to over 44 just because you decide you want to promote a Cat B rookie. You need that extra space on the Cat A list (or 2 senior list vacancies instead of our current 1 vacancy) to possibly go from 43 total player to 44 if you promote a Cat B rookie.

I should point out here that I'm not talking about promoting a Cat B rookie to a Cat A rookie. If we did fill our Cat A rookie list to capacity of 5, we still have had the ability to promote a Cat A rookie to the senior list. We chose to have the flexibility to also possibly promote a Cat B rookie.

It probably makes more sense to think of it the way you described it, a Cat B rookie must be promoted to a Cat A rookie before they can be promoted to the senior list. However, the actual rule is that Cat B rookies can be promoted directly to the senior list, but a club can't have over 44 senior listed + Cat A rookie listed players.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm able to explain this better than I have. Also, this rule makes sense to me, AFL club's are not allowed to have more than 44 players total on their senior list and Cat A rookie list added together. You don't get to increase your list numbers above 44 by promoting Cat B rookies to the senior list, it's the reason they have this rule.

I've been trying to figure out what the hell was going on, and this finally made it clear.

Thanks. I want to make sweet, sweet love to your brain.