Prediction 2016 Rookie Draft

[Vader]

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?

It's very simple. You can't put a rookie listed player on the LTI list - only players on the "Primary List" (i.e. senior list).

 

[macca23]

What are Hunter / Osborn but a couple of 'Hail Marys'

Osborn??

He was de-listed in 2015.

 

[Bring back Bas]

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:

Primary List = Senior List

Okay thanks. Surely though if the club is wanting to leave open the option of promoting a Cat B rookie, the better way to achieve that would be to: Draft Shaw on the primary list and take 2 rookies, which would give us 40 (primary) + 4 (Cat A) + 2 (Cat B). We could then add Shaw to the LTI before the season and upgrade one of Greenwood or Keath (or a Cat A rookie) at any time. The only negative in this would be, like you said, Shaw's salary would be included in the TPP but I don't imagine that Shaw would be on much.

 

[Vader]

Okay thanks. Surely though if the club is wanting to leave open the option of promoting a Cat B rookie, the better way to achieve that would be to: Draft Shaw on the primary list and take 2 rookies, which would give us 40 (primary) + 4 (Cat A) + 2 (Cat B). We could then add Shaw to the LTI before the season and upgrade one of Greenwood or Keath (or a Cat A rookie) at any time. The only negative in this would be, like you said, Shaw's salary would be included in the TPP but I don't imagine that Shaw would be on much.

Hence why I think that 2018 list sizes, under the new CBA, is also likely to be a consideration.

 

[Shaz2012]

The only negative in this would be, like you said, Shaw's salary would be included in the TPP but I don't imagine that Shaw would be on much.

But why not do this if we can. Surely every little bit counts. Being able to offer that additional minimum wage might be the difference between keeping a 2nd tier player or losing him. It looks to me like the club have been active in squeezing the best out of this situation, while still taking care of Shaw. It looks like clever work from the club. The only slight would be on the communication side. But even then, I have since seen some explanation from the club which probably clears them from that point of view as well. Its just that in today's social media age, the news cycle has us too impatient to give the media department even a few days to explain what they have done. They probably do need to tighten this up, but I dont think the club have done too bad now in hindsight.

 

[Bring back Bas]

But why not do this if we can. Surely every little bit counts. Being able to offer that additional minimum wage might be the difference between keeping a 2nd tier player or losing him. It looks to me like the club have been active in squeezing the best out of this situation, while still taking care of Shaw. It looks like clever work from the club. The only slight would be on the communication side. But even then, I have since seen some explanation from the club which probably clears them from that point of view as well. Its just that in today's social media age, the news cycle has us too impatient to give the media department even a few days to explain what they have done. They probably do need to tighten this up, but I dont think the club have done too bad now in hindsight.

The issue is that by doing it in the way they that they have, they missed out on taking another player in the rookie draft. The people in charge of this decision aren't stupid and they would have thought it through thoroughly. Therefore I think that there must be more to it - like the uncertainty around the CBA which was mentioned by the club - I just want to know what it is.

 

[Vader]

The issue is that by doing it in the way they that they have, they missed out on taking another player in the rookie draft. The people in charge of this decision aren't stupid and they would have thought it through thoroughly. Therefore I think that there must be more to it - like the uncertainty around the CBA which was mentioned by the club - I just want to know what it is.

It's definitely a combination of 2 factors, possibly 3 - maybe more.

1. List Management with a view to reduced list sizes in 2018.
2. Ability to upgrade a Cat B rookie (i.e. Greenwood) if required
3. Salary cap - building a warchest for a 2017 FA raid (fingers crossed)

 

[Cleric]

Yes: St Kilda, GWS and Sydney as well

Did those sides also have one less on their main list and rookie a player who retired and will not play again?

 

[Shaz2012]

The issue is that by doing it in the way they that they have, they missed out on taking another player in the rookie draft. The people in charge of this decision aren't stupid and they would have thought it through thoroughly. Therefore I think that there must be more to it - like the uncertainty around the CBA which was mentioned by the club - I just want to know what it is.

But isnt it now clear that there is a good reason for this. I thought that if we added even one more rookie then this would have blocked our ability to upgrade our Cat B rookies to the senior list? Isnt that what the jist of all this is? We now have 39 players, plus 4 cat A rookies and 2 cat B rookies. That means that we have a list of 43 (seniors plus cat A) and we now have the option of upgrading either Greenwood or Keath if we want. Looks to me like Greenwood may be at the top of our current list. If we added an extra rookie then we would not have been able to do this. Isnt that what was posted earlier?

If so our moves have made sense. We have:

A) Protected Shaw but taken him off the salary cap - it is this act of good will that has really blocked us from having a free shot at another rookie, but I like it.
B) Added Jars (our only free punt for 2016)
C) Enabled us the flexibility to upgrade Greenwood or Keath

Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

[Vader]

Did those sides also have one less on their main list and rookie a player who retired and will not play again?

St Kilda has a full senior list, and is one short on the rookie list.
Sydney, GWS (and several other teams) are all short on the senior list, and didn't take the extra rookie list player they were entitled to.

No, they don't also have a non-player listed as well.

 

[Sanders]

No he wasn't. Back in 2007 the national and rookie drafts had different age restrictions, and Sloane was too young to be eligible for the rookie draft. I remember thinking it was stupid as hell that the so-called "rookie" draft had a higher minimum age than the national draft.

We were intending to take him in the ND but the way the draft unfolded, we ended up with a lot of smalls, so for the last live pick (not counting Walker since he was able to be selected with the final pick) Rendell went to the next tall on his talent order which ended up being Aaron Kite.

Fortunately, he slid through to us in 2008. Even then, it's not like he was a Pavlich case that went at #4 next year. Obviously plenty of clubs still didn't like him for whatever reason.

Fair enough

 

[Sanders]

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.

No you're doing fine. That makes sense

 

[dude316]

It's definitely a combination of 2 factors, possibly 3 - maybe more.

1. List Management with a view to reduced list sizes in 2018.
2. Ability to upgrade a Cat B rookie (i.e. Greenwood) if required
3. Salary cap - building a warchest for a 2017 FA raid (fingers crossed)

Thanks. Between you and 6BTS, I think I'm finally understanding the club's thinking.

 

[Thetrader15]

Osborn??

He was de-listed in 2015.

Worked out well didn't it. my point exactly - he had very little chance of making it (i.e. a Hail Mary)

 

[cmndstab]

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...?

You'd think if that was the reason we would have just said so instead of giving several alternative reasons (nobody left on the talent order, concerns about rookie list rules changing, etc) for doing it.

 

[cmndstab]

Are you serious??

Not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions Hamish is on record as saying this was a particularly strong and deep National draft, ask anyone that's taken even just a cursory glance at the proceeding over the last month or so.

I'm not commenting on the quality of the draft. I've barely had time to scratch myself lately, let alone think about how strong the draft is or read what Hamish thinks about it. I'm just trying to think of reasons that make sense for the Crows' action beyond them simply being uselessly incompetent or negligent.

 

[ad victoriam]

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:

Primary List = Senior List

Vader not sure about the LTI for a rookie, it not covered in the rules because there was never been a need, Its a simple case of there is no rule saying it cannot happen and given the circumstances, the AFL would be inclined to OK it.
Its Probably a non-event, And they would only need to look at it if they upgraded Greenwood early and the following week on of the KPD's went down with 6-weekek injury, Or they want to upgrade both Cat B one at the start and one mid-year.

 

[crowsup]

You'd think if that was the reason we would have just said so instead of giving several alternative reasons (nobody left on the talent order, concerns about rookie list rules changing, etc) for doing it.

It's just my opinion but I would have thought that they would then put a lot of expectation or too much hope on the Cat. B rookies. As well as the fact that they may want to promote Beech also. Maybe they want the pre season to find out for sure if either of Keath or Greenwood will be good enough to be upgraded.

 

[Bring back Bas]

But isnt it now clear that there is a good reason for this. I thought that if we added even one more rookie then this would have blocked our ability to upgrade our Cat B rookies to the senior list? Isnt that what the jist of all this is? We now have 39 players, plus 4 cat A rookies and 2 cat B rookies. That means that we have a list of 43 (seniors plus cat A) and we now have the option of upgrading either Greenwood or Keath if we want. Looks to me like Greenwood may be at the top of our current list. If we added an extra rookie then we would not have been able to do this. Isnt that what was posted earlier?

If so our moves have made sense. We have:

A) Protected Shaw but taken him off the salary cap - it is this act of good will that has really blocked us from having a free shot at another rookie, but I like it.
B) Added Jars (our only free punt for 2016)
C) Enabled us the flexibility to upgrade Greenwood or Keath

Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

We could have acheived all of this by by picking Shaw with pick 90 in the national draft and then putting him on the long term injury list - effectively giving us 43 players on the primary list. That way we could have picked an extra rookie and still ended up with 39 + 4 + 2 + 1 on the LTI list enabling us to upgrade Greenwood or Keath at any time.

The downside of this though is that Shaw's salary would be included in the TPP. This makes me think that the club has either done it this way to save the extra salary from the TPP or there is some other reason to do with the CBA that they only want a total list size of 45.

 

[Bring back Bas]

It's definitely a combination of 2 factors, possibly 3 - maybe more.

1. List Management with a view to reduced list sizes in 2018.
2. Ability to upgrade a Cat B rookie (i.e. Greenwood) if required
3. Salary cap - building a warchest for a 2017 FA raid (fingers crossed)

There is a smarter way to go about upgrading a Cat B rookie so I think that is just a positive side effect of whatever else they are doing. The other two reasons sound feasible. The fact that other clubs have done the same thing - with St Kilda not even receiving salary cap relief for the way they have done it - suggests that it is more to do with list sizes and the CBA.

 

[Vader]

Vader not sure about the LTI for a rookie, it not covered in the rules because there was never been a need, Its a simple case of there is no rule saying it cannot happen and given the circumstances, the AFL would be inclined to OK it.
Its Probably a non-event, And they would only need to look at it if they upgraded Greenwood early and the following week on of the KPD's went down with 6-weekek injury, Or they want to upgrade both Cat B one at the start and one mid-year.

There might not be any rule saying that it can happen - but the rule is very specific. It states that only Primary List players can be put on the LTI list.

In any case, if Greenwood were upgraded and they needed to upgrade Keath, then they could just downgrade Greenwood again.

 

[Vader]

There is a smarter way to go about upgrading a Cat B rookie so I think that is just a positive side effect of whatever else they are doing. The other two reasons sound feasible. The fact that other clubs have done the same thing - with St Kilda not even receiving salary cap relief for the way they have done it - suggests that it is more to do with list sizes and the CBA.

I think it's a bit of this, and a bit of that. Multiple reasons, all drawing to the same conclusion.

 

[Mismatched]

It's definitely a combination of 2 factors, possibly 3 - maybe more.

1. List Management with a view to reduced list sizes in 2018.
2. Ability to upgrade a Cat B rookie (i.e. Greenwood) if required
3. Salary cap - building a warchest for a 2017 FA raid (fingers crossed)

Yeah, I think if it were just one of these factors, we might not worry, but given there's a few, plus with all the uncertainty surrounding lists, we've decided to go short. Can't say this is something I'm getting my panties in a twist over, I suspect if thee were a hidden gem Ogilvy would have put up a fight, or even gone in the ND, hence Davis with our 5th pick.

 

[Shaz2012]

We could have acheived all of this by by picking Shaw with pick 90 in the national draft and then putting him on the long term injury list - effectively giving us 43 players on the primary list. That way we could have picked an extra rookie and still ended up with 39 + 4 + 2 + 1 on the LTI list enabling us to upgrade Greenwood or Keath at any time.

The downside of this though is that Shaw's salary would be included in the TPP. This makes me think that the club has either done it this way to save the extra salary from the TPP or there is some other reason to do with the CBA that they only want a total list size of 45.

Well no, we couldn't have achieved all of the above. This was the only way to free up some room in the TPP, which was point (A). If the minimum wage is say $80k then this allows us to offer a guy like McGovern an extra $20k over four seasons, provided we are able to load that $80k to someone in 2017 and take it from them later. We probably have already done this, maybe with JJ? It would make sense as these decisions were probably done at the same time.

Personally, I am massively impressed with the initiative Greenwood has shown this off season. From what I have read, it was he that actually set up this high altitude UFC training camp that he and CEY just completed. Did you see their pics, they look ripped. This is in addition to the brilliant SANFL season he put together last season. What we have done basically gives us a free look at Greenwood in the first half of 2017 and a free hit at adding him to the senior squad if things go well with him. And it also gives a similar free look at Keath at the same time. I find the move inspired and if somebody posted on here that they could have done this instead of what you are suggesting, I suspect many of us, including myself would be agreeing with that post and criticising the club for not doing it. I am very impressed with what this move has given us, because I am really excited by Greenwood and I have him ahead of all of our current rookies. A free hit at Greenwood with the ability to pull him in at any time, while keeping him and Shaw out of the TPP is genius.

 

[Ozzie]

That doesn't make any sense, unless you have to promote a Cat B rookie to Cat A before promoting them to the senior list. This would require a vacancy on the Cat A rookie list, for the Cat B to pass through - albeit instantaneously.

Is there a rule saying that a Cat B rookie can't be promoted directly to the senior list? It's a seriously dumb rule if it does exist - but then again, the AFL specialises in monumental stupidity. Gil & Vlad both seem to have PhDs in monumental stupid decisions and poor judgement.

Amen brother to your thoughts on Gillon and Dimwit.