List Mgmt. AFC - 2014 Drafting and Trading

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnnypanther

BigFooty Phantom
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
4,086
Likes
2,595
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
South Adelaide, Kenilworth
I dont think its being pessimistic but rather more of a realist, I just cannot see how the Crows could engineer the trade with the GWS regarding Cameron.

.

Of course we can engineer a trade for Cameron (or anyone) - the hard part is convincing him to come to the Crows solely.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

johnnypanther

BigFooty Phantom
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
4,086
Likes
2,595
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
South Adelaide, Kenilworth
Don't know any specifics this year. All I can say is we are in some discussions with GWS (no specifics on what over) and that Nobes went to watch Jono Giles the other week and the consensus was he was pretty ordinary.

Too far ahead to be looking at draft targets, think it's more likely than not that we won't have pick 9 though.
Giles is only a slight upgrade on Graham - we would be much better off in all ways by picking up Keagan Brooksby under the father/son rule.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Not sure we can pick up sons of state league 200 gamers anymore. Didn't that expire in 2010?
They dropped the 20-year sunset clause on that rule when they introduced the "Grandfather" rule. Yes, we can still sign the sons of 200+ SANFL game players under the F/S rule.
 

tinman

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 1, 2002
Posts
2,032
Likes
2,531
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Kilkenny Cats, WWT Eagles
Danger would be nuts to go to Geelong. They have 9 players who played 20+ Games this year who are over 30 years old. He would be leaving the crows just when our suite of young guys are hitting the 50 to 100 game mark and playing with a team half full of rookies for the next 5 years.
True from a winning perspective, but as players like Johnson & Bartel retire, one would think it will open up a lot of space in the cap. Their ageing stars would be on pretty decent coin.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
True from a winning perspective, but as players like Johnson & Bartel retire, one would think it will open up a lot of space in the cap. Their ageing stars would be on pretty decent coin.
Depends on whether his priority is $$$ or winning a premiership. All indications are that success is his primary motivator, rather than $$$.
 

DangerSloane

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Posts
39,876
Likes
18,434
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
True from a winning perspective, but as players like Johnson & Bartel retire, one would think it will open up a lot of space in the cap. Their ageing stars would be on pretty decent coin.
Johnson, Bartel, Kelly, Enright, McIntosh, Stokes, Rivers all over 30.
Geelong is not the destination if you want to win going forward(as you've said)

They'll have plenty of money, but Geelong wont splash the cash as much as say a Melbourne who need to reach the minimum 95% or whatever the rules are now.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Which Victorian Club asked for this (grandfather rule) so they could gain an advantage over the rest of the competition I wonder?
They had a committee look at the F/S rule, as it applied to the SA/WA clubs as a result of the Bryce Gibbs debacle. From memory, the committee recommended adding 5 years to the eligibility window, noting that it took 5 years before our first player reached 100 AFL games with the AFC (and thus became eligible under the AFL's F/S rules). This would have resulted in Bryce Gibbs becoming eligible for selection by Adelaide. The AFL rejected the recommendation, at the insistence of the Victorian clubs, introducing the "Grandfather Rule" instead.

Under the "Grandfather Rule" players need to have played 200 SANFL games, for one club (no good if they played 130 for club X and 70 for club Y) and they had to have reached this milestone by 1990 (Adelaide joined the AFL in 1991). Originally they had to have played these 200 games between 1971-1990, the 1971 cut-off was removed. They also removed the 20-year sunset clause, so Adelaide are still able to draft the sons of SANFL players, where originally they were not allowed to do so after 2010.
 

1990crow

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Posts
17,842
Likes
21,086
AFL Club
Adelaide
They had a committee look at the F/S rule, as it applied to the SA/WA clubs as a result of the Bryce Gibbs debacle. From memory, the committee recommended adding 5 years to the eligibility window, noting that it took 5 years before our first player reached 100 AFL games with the AFC (and thus became eligible under the AFL's F/S rules). This would have resulted in Bryce Gibbs becoming eligible for selection by Adelaide. The AFL rejected the recommendation, at the insistence of the Victorian clubs, introducing the "Grandfather Rule" instead.

Under the "Grandfather Rule" players need to have played 200 SANFL games, for one club (no good if they played 130 for club X and 70 for club Y) and they had to have reached this milestone by 1990 (Adelaide joined the AFL in 1991). Originally they had to have played these 200 games between 1971-1990, the 1971 cut-off was removed. They also removed the 20-year sunset clause, so Adelaide are still able to draft the sons of SANFL players, where originally they were not allowed to do so after 2010.
Interesting. You'd have to think that statistically speaking the likelihood of a player coming through in the next decade who had a grandfather who played 200 SANFL games for their club would have to be relatively high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom