Opinion Category A rookie list, why is it still around?

[Mikevk123]

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

Yes it is. Gives clubs a chance to check our certain players before picking them.

We’ve done extremely well through the SPP/Mid season draft lately

 

[eth-dog]

Yes it is. Gives clubs a chance to check our certain players before picking them.

We’ve done extremely well through the SPP/Mid season draft lately

And that would be different to players signed or drafted through those methods going on the senior list how exactly?

 

[HTPunter]

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.

I just don't get what you're saying.

At the moment, there's the 42 spots. 38 senior 4 rookies or whatever it is. There's no difference apart from cap room on the rookie list. The players are competing the same. In the proposed change it just gets rid of the "rookie" naming and the senior list is extended so there's more spots so there's no competition? Think about it. There's no increase in competition for senior spots...

 

[HTPunter]

If you just have a senior list with no "category A rookie" you have the same spots, and you have the same opportunity to draft prospect guys, guys you're not sure who will make it. Just without this loophole delisting and redrafting thing to make sure they can draft the arbitrary 3 players.

 

[Lore]

I just don't get what you're saying.

At the moment, there's the 42 spots. 38 senior 4 rookies or whatever it is. There's no difference apart from cap room on the rookie list. The players are competing the same. In the proposed change it just gets rid of the "rookie" naming and the senior list is extended so there's more spots so there's no competition? Think about it. There's no increase in competition for senior spots...

It's an equity issue. You seem to think that if you just change the label from "rookie" to "senior" nothing will change.

What it will most likely do is cause a reduction in player movement, with mature depth being able to stay at the clubs they are already at. It will also mean that cutting a bottom 6 player yields a round 4 pick instead of a rookie draft pick – which is actually massively more important than you might believe given the way the draft currently works.

So for example, at the end of the trade period last year Geelong had picks 22, 30, 32, 34, 50, 91. If they have cut the minimum 3 senior players, and up to 6 rookies, then they take picks 22, 30 and 32 to the national draft, and the other three picks they had are removed from the draft order with the other clubs moving up. They can then pick up 6 more players as rookies through the rookie draft, supplemental selection period or mid-season draft.

Those later picks that Geelong didn't need being removed from the order means a club like North, who might have had picks 1, 20, 42, 47, 77 and 95, has all of their picks after 32 move up by 1 or more spots in the draft. Now if 15 clubs have done what Geelong did and only take 3 picks, then North's picks end up moving 15, 30, and 45 spots in the draft respectively. Picks 47, 77, and 95 becomes picks 35, 42, and 50 – they can take 6 players in the top 50 to replace the 6 senior players that they cut, as well as up to 6 more as rookies.

Now if you take the rookie list out of it and add those spots to the senior list, one of two things can happen.

Either Geelong re-signs up to six additional senior players in July, which is six fewer senior mature players open to a new home in October (which crappy teams need so they can be less crappy), and six more helping Geelong cover injuries in August. The gap between good teams and bad teams becomes larger.

Or, Geelong takes 9 picks in the national draft while North, cutting an extra three senior players, has to take 12 picks to the draft. Instead of Geelong taking 3 picks and then having to wait for North to fill their list before selecting their rookie-equivalent last 6 players, they can now fill those list spots before North's first 38 are filled.

So instead of North having the opportunity to pick up mature players that have been told by Geelong that they're in the bottom 6 on a strong list, or more selections in the top 50 of the draft, those pick 35, 42, and 50 players end up potentially at Geelong or another club that already has a strong list, while North have three extra picks at the end of the draft in rounds 10, 11 and 12 – players that otherwise might have been rookies at Geelong.


And you can swap "Geelong" and "North" for whatever other teams you want, it's just an example and it's easier to keep track if the team has a name. But ultimately it is a lot more involved than simply saying "why don't we just call them senior players LOL"

 

[eth-dog]

Bump.

15 players taken in the rookie draft this year. 6 new players, split evenly between under 18 and over age.

I know Lore thinks there's still a point to the rookie list but there really isn't anymore. SSP players and MSD players should go onto the senior list and expand the salary cap.

Since I created this thread there have been 21 players in their draft year taken in the rookie draft. That's on average 5 a year.

The AFL are talking about not needing to delist a player to send them to the rookie list Why is it still there? Teams are preferring to use the SSP period to take these "rookies".

Just abolish the Category A part of the list. Keep the Cat B list.

 

[Yoda_]

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.

I’ve said for a while,

Round 1 draftees = 4 year deals
Round 2 draftees = 3 year deals
Round 3 draftees = 2 year deals
Round 4 onwards = 1 year deal

Rookie and pre season drafts should not exist. You want a player (Ah Chee), club gets it done or you’re open to anything where

 

[Vindicater]

42 player main list.

4 Rookie spots that can only be held by players with zero AFL games.

If a player plays a game in the season then they need to be upgraded in the next off-season.

Players can remain on the list indefinitely if they don't play a game. (This you can take a full blown project and run him in the reserves for three to four years if needed)

 

[Lore]

42 player main list.

4 Rookie spots that can only be held by players with zero AFL games.

If a player plays a game in the season then they need to be upgraded in the next off-season.

Players can remain on the list indefinitely if they don't play a game. (This you can take a full blown project and run him in the reserves for three to four years if needed)

Under 10 or something would be reasonable. There are blokes that have played like a game, or three games that are still extremely raw for a variety of reasons. Including the likes of Alastair Lord.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I’ve always assumed it still exists because the minimum salary for rookies is lower.

If it’s disbanded then those rookies have to get a primary list base salary.

Ie, it’s just a money saving device.

 

[THE_GUN]

List sizes are too small imo

45 +3 Cat B should be the list sizes
Also get rid of PP and assistance totally

If a club finishes bottom 4 for 3 years running they should then get what could be names assistance list of 5 players to improve quicker and have that for 3 years thats not in their cap with a max of $150k per player

 

[Reddit Refugee]

I think there is a place for an extra list for clubs to use on fringe and developing players on low-risk contracts, but the current rookie list system isn't ideal.

If it was up to me, I would change the name to the Supplementary list. Category B would be unchanged, while Category A would only be open to players under 21 at the start of the season, or have played fewer than 10 AFL games at the start of the season. I'd also allow clubs to freely move players to and from the supplementary list without needing to delist and redraft them.

That way, the list is only being used on fringe or developing players, and you won't see players such as Lincoln McCarthy

11

Lincoln Mccarthy

Age

32

Ht

176cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.6

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.9

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

9.1

2star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.7

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.3

4star

G

0.9

4star

D

9.2

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

1.6

2star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.0

1star

or Dane Rampe

24

Dane Rampe

Age

35

Ht

187cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

2.5

4star

MG

358.8

5star

D

14.1

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.1

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

284.5

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

being delisted and redrafted as "rookies".

 

[Millsie69]

Are there even any salary cap concessions around rookie-listed players anymore? As in, is any percentage of their salary counted outside the cap, like the old veterans list?

Genuinely no point to it in its existing state now.

 

[NeutralFan]

44 player list
1 intl spot
1 nga spot both optional

Feels pointless and its usage is mocked.