List Mgmt. 2017 Final List 39 + 5 + 2 ?

[MyManLynch]

Now we have 39 senior players? Including Rookie upgrades Keeffe & Smith.
So do we:
- add a DFA & go with 40 & 4 (draft 3 new rookies)
- Go with 39 & 5 with a nominated rookie upgrade prior to season kickoff (draft 4 new rookies)

 

[barrackers]

I'd rather nominate Cox than sign a DFA as I can't see a similar level KPF available elsewhere. I suspect this is the clubs plans otherwise we'd have signed a DFA before the draft or drafted them last night. 4 rookie draftees is a lot, but there's still a bit of talent left.

 

[Bay Pie]

I'd rather nominate Cox than sign a DFA as I can't see a similar level KPF available elsewhere. I suspect this is the clubs plans otherwise we'd have signed a DFA before the draft or drafted them last night. 4 rookie draftees is a lot, but there's still a bit of talent left.

1st pick will be pick 7, so should get a decent player there and I expect a mature age ruckman for one of the other picks.

Definitely take 4 rookies, IMO.

 

[Apex36]

Now we have 39 senior players? Including Rookie upgrades Keeffe & Smith.
So do we:
- add a DFA & go with 40 & 4 (draft 3 new rookies)
- Go with 39 & 5 with a nominated rookie upgrade prior to season kickoff (draft 4 new rookies)

The final list spot will be reserved to upgrade Cox, so we won't be getting a DFA.

 

[the_champ_2004]

Keefe?

 

[mike123]

Keefe?

Who?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I'd like to see us Upgrade Cox and go with 4 Rookie Selections
Smith paid off last year, so if we get another Senior Player out of the 4, I think we will have done well

 

[Bad Horse]

Keefe?

Already upgraded to senior list along with smith.

 

[MyManLynch]

At the moment we have 39 on senior list.
Plus 2 rookies (Thomas Cat A & Cox Cat B)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'd like to see us Upgrade Cox and go with 4 Rookie Selections
Smith paid off last year, so if we get another Senior Player out of the 4, I think we will have done well

My understanding that being a cat B rookie Cox is not taking a rookie spot away from anybody. Best to go in with 39 on the full list and promote Cox into that vacant spot 40 when we need.

We need a Minson and arguably an experienced kpp as well. Apart from that, best available!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The final list spot will be reserved to upgrade Cox, so we won't be getting a DFA.

Completely. If we want a DFA at this stage we can just rookie list him

 

[the_champ_2004]

Also talk that the Rookie list may be abolished before the start of the season so it could be that all rookie list players upgrade to senior list.

I get why the AFLPA don't want it and they complain about the reduced pay and playing restrictions but it does allow clubs to take a bigger gamble on players they can spend 12 months looking at rather that the two years required in the draft.

I don't think clubs would draft the same group knowing that they need to commit for two years and that they are taking the spot of a player who is eligible for round one.

I think there needs to be an allocation on the list for one year draftee contracts if they get rid of the rookie list.

 

[soreplums]

Also talk that the Rookie list may be abolished before the start of the season so it could be that all rookie list players upgrade to senior list.

I get why the AFLPA don't want it and they complain about the reduced pay and playing restrictions but it does allow clubs to take a bigger gamble on players they can spend 12 months looking at rather that the two years required in the draft.

I don't think clubs would draft the same group knowing that they need to commit for two years and that they are taking the spot of a player who is eligible for round one.

I think there needs to be an allocation on the list for one year draftee contracts if they get rid of the rookie list.

They should have just one draft- no rookie or pre-season draft.

Scrap the rookie list completely (except cat B) and extend the national draft with increased playing lists. If taken after round 6 then perhaps a 1 year contract with a lower base payment but increased bonuses for games played is an option.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

My understanding that being a cat B rookie Cox is not taking a rookie spot away from anybody. Best to go in with 39 on the full list and promote Cox into that vacant spot 40 when we need.

We need a Minson and arguably an experienced kpp as well. Apart from that, best available!

Plus added bonus Cox salary has no cap stretch if he stays Cat B.
I think next season, 2017, is last such season for him on Cat b.
Happy to stand corrected.

 

[barrackers]

Also talk that the Rookie list may be abolished before the start of the season so it could be that all rookie list players upgrade to senior list.

I get why the AFLPA don't want it and they complain about the reduced pay and playing restrictions but it does allow clubs to take a bigger gamble on players they can spend 12 months looking at rather that the two years required in the draft.

I don't think clubs would draft the same group knowing that they need to commit for two years and that they are taking the spot of a player who is eligible for round one.

I think there needs to be an allocation on the list for one year draftee contracts if they get rid of the rookie list.

Although the rookie list has been shifting to more AFL ready and often recycled players I agree that 1 year contracts need to be maintained in some form to encourage speculative picks. Even allowing all rookies to play seniors compromises speculative picks, which means players lacking the right application and determination to make their way through state leagues maybe lost to AFL.

 

[sr36]

Also talk that the Rookie list may be abolished before the start of the season so it could be that all rookie list players upgrade to senior list.

I get why the AFLPA don't want it and they complain about the reduced pay and playing restrictions but it does allow clubs to take a bigger gamble on players they can spend 12 months looking at rather that the two years required in the draft.

I don't think clubs would draft the same group knowing that they need to commit for two years and that they are taking the spot of a player who is eligible for round one.

I think there needs to be an allocation on the list for one year draftee contracts if they get rid of the rookie list.

That appeared to be the original intention and it's the way that it worked for the first few years, but these days it's often used to draft mature state leaguers and AFL guys in order to offer more depth.