Category A rookie list, why is it still around?

[eth-dog]

So I've had this discussion with some people in general, and I'm struggling to understand why it's still around. It's basically used as cap relief by clubs by shifting some money off the books.

There are no restrictions on playing if you're on it
You get paid the same amount of money as you're contracted for
There are players in there 30's on the rookie list.

Last year's rookie draft had 24 players taken. 9 were new to an AFL list, and two were mature aged recruits.

There's clearly no need for the list anymore, so why exactly is it there?

 

[Virgin Dog]

So I've had this discussion with some people in general, and I'm struggling to understand why it's still around. It's basically used as cap relief by clubs by shifting some money off the books.

There are no restrictions on playing if you're on it
You get paid the same amount of money as you're contracted for
There are players in there 30's on the rookie list.

Last year's rookie draft had 24 players taken. 9 were new to an AFL list, and two were mature aged recruits.

There's clearly no need for the list anymore, so why exactly is it there?

I can see justification for it given it allows for shorter contracts (single year - perfect for players like Sydney Stack who was undoubtedly talented, but had off-field concerns).

I'd like to see a new rule come in that says players cannot move from the main list to the rookie list - any ex-players should have had to sit out an entire year before getting back on.

 

[Lore]

So I've had this discussion with some people in general, and I'm struggling to understand why it's still around. It's basically used as cap relief by clubs by shifting some money off the books.

There are no restrictions on playing if you're on it
You get paid the same amount of money as you're contracted for
There are players in there 30's on the rookie list.

Last year's rookie draft had 24 players taken. 9 were new to an AFL list, and two were mature aged recruits.

There's clearly no need for the list anymore, so why exactly is it there?

It is cap/list spot relief but it isn't without risks as another club can poach them. Also basically the functional equivalent of the pre-season draft, back when players were actually drafted that way for reasons other than a trade falling through once in a blue moon.

And on top of that the SSP and MSD rookies are also Cat A. If the division between the main list and the Cat A list didn't exist, clubs would end up having 45 senior players, which means less opportunities for kids like Baldwin, Martin, Wanganeen, Snelling, Durham. A senior list of 45 would also probably result in more talent-pooling, which given how stretched the talent pool was when GWS and GC entered (and still is to some extent though I think it has recovered somewhat), it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial.


I'm also not convinced the cap relief amounts to much. The rookie base pay is outside the cap but the match fee and any retainer over the rookie pay is included in the cap anyway as best I recall.


Overall I think it does still serve a purpose but there should be a rule that players can't be demoted to a rookie by the club they played with that season. Not sure if that should extend to other clubs or if there should be a games limit on rookies (it would need to account for players that get drafted, play three games, get injured or glandular fever or whatever, get delisted, and play state league for a year or two and then come back – I think those sort of situations are fine as a rookie prospect). Wherever the line is drawn, the rest can go DFA or PSD.

 

[Lore]

I can see justification for it given it allows for shorter contracts (single year - perfect for players like Sydney Stack who was undoubtedly talented, but had off-field concerns).

I'd like to see a new rule come in that says players cannot move from the main list to the rookie list - any ex-players should have had to sit out an entire year before getting back on.

PSD is a one-year minimum contract also.

 

[Lore]

Maybe the argument is to scrap the rookie draft itself, just have the supplemental selection period rookies and the mid-season rookie draft for Category A. If they're good enough to take a punt on in November, draft them.

 

[eth-dog]

I can see justification for it given it allows for shorter contracts (single year - perfect for players like Sydney Stack who was undoubtedly talented, but had off-field concerns).

I'd like to see a new rule come in that says players cannot move from the main list to the rookie list - any ex-players should have had to sit out an entire year before getting back on.

There's an easy way around that though IMO. Any player taken after the fourth round automatically gets a one year contract. Fifteen players have been taken from the 5th round onwards in the last 4 drafts, half of which were either academy or father son selections.

 

[eth-dog]

My argument is literally that there's no actual benefit to it.

 

[Lore]

My argument is literally that there's no actual benefit to it.

Not sure if this is replying to me, but I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. I think there is a place for the Category A rookie list. I think it would be a better argument to scrap the rookie draft that currently happens the day after the actual draft, which would get rid of that demoting of senior players game that they've been playing for the last ten years. The players that currently land in the rookie draft would either go PSD on a 1 year senior contract, or play for an SSP spot.

That leaves the rookie list just for players from alternative pathways, unless you're expecting someone like Betts or Gleeson to go without being paid for three months just to help the club out – which they couldn't do because usually they're still under contract to the club so they'd have to be paid out which would be the opposite of cap relief, and doesn't help their mortgage repayments much either.

 

[eth-dog]

Not sure if this is replying to me, but I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. I think there is a place for the Category A rookie list. I think it would be a better argument to scrap the rookie draft that currently happens the day after the actual draft, which would get rid of that demoting of senior players game that they've been playing for the last ten years. The players that currently land in the rookie draft would either go PSD on a 1 year senior contract, or play for an SSP spot.

That leaves the rookie list just for players from alternative pathways, unless you're expecting someone like Betts or Gleeson to go without being paid for three months just to help the club out – which they couldn't do because usually they're still under contract to the club so they'd have to be paid out which would be the opposite of cap relief, and doesn't help their mortgage repayments much either.

I'm saying that the Cat B list should be unchanged. 2/3 players from Ireland/other sports. Expand the salary cap to 14 million (essentially 100k extra per rookie spot) and get rid of the list. The main list goes to 42 or 44 if they return to full list sizes.

As it stands the rookie list is basically the senior list with 80k outside the cap. There's absolutely no reason to keep it there.

 

[Lore]

I'm saying that the Cat B list should be unchanged. 2/3 players from Ireland/other sports. Expand the salary cap to 14 million (essentially 100k extra per rookie spot) and get rid of the list. The main list goes to 42 or 44 if they return to full list sizes.

As it stands the rookie list is basically the senior list with 80k outside the cap. There's absolutely no reason to keep it there.

I feel like you're completely ignoring the category A rookies that we get from the SSP and MSD. I've mentioned it at least twice and you've completely bypassed it to complain about Eddie Betts and similar...

 

[eth-dog]

I feel like you're completely ignoring the category A rookies that we get from the SSP and MSD. I've mentioned it at least twice and you've completely bypassed it to complain about Eddie Betts and similar...

Okay. As it currently stands we have:

36-38 on the senior list
4-6 on the Category A rookie list for 4s between the two
0-2 on the Category B rookie list

What we had in 2019/20 was:

38-40 on the senior list
4-6 on the Category A rookie list for 44 between the two
0-3 on the Category B rookie list

What I'm proposing is:

42-44 on the senior list
0-3 on the rookie list, which will essentially be the Category B list.

I'm ignoring the SSP and the MSD because they'll go onto the senior list instead of the rookie list. Same list sizes. Any player taken in the 5th round onwards or signed as part of the SSP automatic 1 year contract.

In what way do players on the Category A rookie list differ from senior listed players, for all intents and purposes? They're free to play every round. They get the same match payments. First year players taken outside the first round get paid the same amount I'm pretty sure. So, why is it there?

 

[Lore]

I'm ignoring the SSP and the MSD because they'll go onto the senior list instead of the rookie list. Same list sizes. Any player taken in the 5th round onwards or signed as part of the SSP automatic 1 year contract.

In what way do players on the Category A rookie list differ from senior listed players, for all intents and purposes? They're free to play every round. They get the same match payments. First year players taken outside the first round get paid the same amount I'm pretty sure. So, why is it there?

How do you ensure that SSP/MSD are young players who were affected by injuries or whatever reason and are a second chance prospect? Are you going to make it so the last 6 spots on the list can't be filled until March?

 

[Ticky009]

There's rigging the vote and then there's this! That's hilarious - you really dislike the Cat A rookie hey eth-dog

 

[eth-dog]

How do you ensure that SSP/MSD are young players who were affected by injuries or whatever reason and are a second chance prospect? Are you going to make it so the last 6 spots on the list can't be filled until March?

I don't really care if they do that. Teams sign who they need for the SSP or MSD, I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to label guys like Mitch Brown who's been on an AFL list for 12 out of 13 years as a rookie. Plus it gets rid of the ridiculous process of guys like Jared Polec, Ben Davis, Lochie O'Brien, Bigoa Nyuon, Lewis Taylor, Cameron Ellis-Yolmen, Jez McLennan, Matthew Cottrell, Mitch Crowden, Jacob Wehr, Sam Mayes and Connor Blakely getting delisted and then taken in the rookie list by the same club. For the record, that was just in the last rookie draft.

As far as the organisational stuff goes, if they're so attached to the 3 days of drafting then I'd be doing similar to what happens now. Day 1 is round 1. Day 2 round 2-4. Day 3 round 5 onwards with a 1 year contract minimum instead of 2. Teams can then sign SSP players at whatever time they feel like until the season starts.

There's rigging the vote and then there's this! That's hilarious - you really dislike the Cat A rookie hey eth-dog

View attachment 1384873

It's pointless you light mode fiend.

 

[Lore]

I don't really care if they do that. Teams sign who they need for the SSP or MSD, I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to label guys like Mitch Brown who's been on an AFL list for 12 out of 13 years as a rookie. Plus it gets rid of the ridiculous process of guys like Jared Polec, Ben Davis, Lochie O'Brien, Bigoa Nyuon, Lewis Taylor, Cameron Ellis-Yolmen, Jez McLennan, Matthew Cottrell, Mitch Crowden, Jacob Wehr, Sam Mayes and Connor Blakely getting delisted and then taken in the rookie list by the same club. For the record, that was just in the last rookie draft.

As far as the organisational stuff goes, if they're so attached to the 3 days of drafting then I'd be doing similar to what happens now. Day 1 is round 1. Day 2 round 2-4. Day 3 round 5 onwards with a 1 year contract minimum instead of 2. Teams can then sign SSP players at whatever time they feel like until the season starts.

It's pointless you light mode fiend.

Babies and bathwater…

 

[eth-dog]

Babies and bathwater…

You seem to not be grasping the point, Lore.

List sizes stay the same
Players get paid the same
Players can be signed or drafted in the same fashion

The only difference is that they're all senior listed players. Which, for all intents and purposes, Category A rookies are anyway. In what fashion will it decrease the chances of a Martin or Waterman getting signed? The function will be exactly the same but the only difference is that they're signed onto the main list instead of a non-existant rookie list. It's the same with the MSD, they're drafted onto the main list instead of the rookie list.

 

[Lore]

You seem to not be grasping the point, Lore.

List sizes stay the same
Players get paid the same
Players can be signed or drafted in the same fashion

The only difference is that they're all senior listed players. Which, for all intents and purposes, Category A rookies are anyway. In what fashion will it decrease the chances of a Martin or Waterman getting signed? The function will be exactly the same but the only difference is that they're signed onto the main list instead of a non-existant rookie list. It's the same with the MSD, they're drafted onto the main list instead of the rookie list.

Pretty sure you’re the one missing the point I was trying to make in answering the question that started this whole thing. You’re also invariably stubborn and I have things to do rather than repeat myself. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, go right ahead.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't really care if they do that. Teams sign who they need for the SSP or MSD, I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to label guys like Mitch Brown who's been on an AFL list for 12 out of 13 years as a rookie. Plus it gets rid of the ridiculous process of guys like Jared Polec, Ben Davis, Lochie O'Brien, Bigoa Nyuon, Lewis Taylor, Cameron Ellis-Yolmen, Jez McLennan, Matthew Cottrell, Mitch Crowden, Jacob Wehr, Sam Mayes and Connor Blakely getting delisted and then taken in the rookie list by the same club. For the record, that was just in the last rookie draft.

As far as the organisational stuff goes, if they're so attached to the 3 days of drafting then I'd be doing similar to what happens now. Day 1 is round 1. Day 2 round 2-4. Day 3 round 5 onwards with a 1 year contract minimum instead of 2. Teams can then sign SSP players at whatever time they feel like until the season starts.

It's pointless you light mode fiend.

For the record, Matthew Cottrell has always been a rookie.

The point others are making is that when their rookie contact is up, other clubs can take those players if they are not elevated to the senior list.

Carlton did the same with Matthew Kennedy last year and he started playing well. We risked losing him for nothing by sending him that message.

 

[eth-dog]

Pretty sure you’re the one missing the point I was trying to make in answering the question that started this whole thing. You’re also invariably stubborn and I have things to do rather than repeat myself. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, go right ahead.

I'm really not (throwing the baby out with the bath water). Your point was that players get signed through the SSP and become Category A rookies and the same with the MSD. My point is that instead of becoming rookies, they go onto a senior list with the same wage and everything. As I've pointed out, in the past 4 drafts we've had 15 players taken after the 4th round, so instead of having a rookie draft for 1 year contracts, instead we should just make the 5th round onwards a compulsory 1 year contract instead of the compulsory 2 year contract.

What's the difference between having 36-38 on the main list and 4-6 on the Category A rookie list instead of 42 on the main list with a larger salary cap?

For the record, Matthew Cottrell has always been a rookie.

The point others are making is that when their rookie contact is up, other clubs can take those players if they are not elevated to the senior list.

Carlton did the same with Matthew Kennedy last year and he started playing well. We risked losing him for nothing by sending him that message.

He was taken in the rookie draft again last draft for some reason according to footywire.

I can understand the point (re: messages) but again, you can delist players and sign them in the SSP again if you so choose to also send a message

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He was taken in the rookie draft again last draft for some reason according to footywire.

I can understand the point (re: messages) but again, you can delist players and sign them in the SSP again if you so choose to also send a message

I think in the case of Lochie O'Brien, we still wanted to give him another year to show something more, so didn't want to lose him as such, but we needed the senior list spots and he was the most expendable on form. I have no issue with players who haven't come on and haven't made it as a senior player (6 games total in this 3rd and 4th seasons), the rookie list is more than suitable. If we had put Jack Newnes on the rookie list, that would be different. If we opt to put Ed Curnow on the rookie list next year, that's a player who has made it (200+ games) and we are cynically using the rules.

They just need to close that loophole, but sentimentality towards older players going on can be hard to overcome.

 

[Lore]

I'm really not (throwing the baby out with the bath water). Your point was that players get signed through the SSP and become Category A rookies and the same with the MSD. My point is that instead of becoming rookies, they go onto a senior list with the same wage and everything. As I've pointed out, in the past 4 drafts we've had 15 players taken after the 4th round, so instead of having a rookie draft for 1 year contracts, instead we should just make the 5th round onwards a compulsory 1 year contract instead of the compulsory 2 year contract.

What's the difference between having 36-38 on the main list and 4-6 on the Category A rookie list instead of 42 on the main list with a larger salary cap?

You flipping quoted me and still didn't answer it.

How do you ensure that SSP/MSD are young players who were affected by injuries or whatever reason and are a second chance prospect? Are you going to make it so the last 6 spots on the list can't be filled until March?

 

[footyfan1978]

All they need to do is just remove the label of rookie list for it.
Call the B types the actual rookie list and A types supplemental list if it only for types with 1 year contracts.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Someone made this point, or something similar to this point, during the draft period last season, which is to remove list spots for cat-A rookies, and use them as "veteran list spots". In simple terms, its a rookie list spot with a different name.

This would allow Port to have Tyson Goldsack last season as a 'veteran' instead of a rookie, allow North Melbourne to have Tom Lynch as a 'veteran' instead of a rookie, and any other players that would fit into that heading.

 

[Lore]

Someone made this point, or something similar to this point, during the draft period last season, which is to remove list spots for cat-A rookies, and use them as "veteran list spots". In simple terms, its a rookie list spot with a different name.

This would allow Port to have Tyson Goldsack last season as a 'veteran' instead of a rookie, allow North Melbourne to have Tom Lynch as a 'veteran' instead of a rookie, and any other players that would fit into that heading.

But then your Snelling, Durham, Baldwin, Ambrose, Baguley etc. types - the ones the rookie list was designed to take who are not veterans - are then stuck competing with senior players for spots on the senior list.


I think the Category A rookie list still has a purpose, and most clubs use it for that purpose most of the time, not counting covid demotions. If they want to stop the Shaun McKernan Rinse Cycle and Tyson Goldsack or Tom Lynch or whatever, then they need to put more parameters around who is allowed to go on the rookie list - under a certain number of AFL games, undrafted in the most recent national draft, and signed between March and June or whatever.

 

[eth-dog]

You flipping quoted me and still didn't answer it.

As I said, I don't really care how they use the SSP. It was created to supplement the list in any way the club's see fit. Not for those types of players specifically.

All I'm saying is that instead of being rookies, they're on a senior list instead. It's the exact same system. Nothing changes apart from the list these guys are on.