Draft Crystal Ball

[ImperialPurple]

How can you question Bell's commitmment to his footy over his career, and that given he is a former captain and 270 game player and he is a top 5 player at the club - and he is contracted for 2008 - that he can't be given a bit of leeway and trust to prepare himself appropriately in the final year of his career? To compare Bell's situation to Dunn/Collard/Mourish's situation is ludicrous and insulting. When they have earnt the right to be able to do what Bell is doing - but get cut anyway - then we can talk about comparing their situations. But they are about a million miles / galleons* of respect away from earning that right at this point in time.



* the unofficial measurement of respect...

 

[Roundhouse]

How can you question Bell's commitmment to his footy over his career, and that given he is a former captain and 270 game player and he is a top 5 player at the club - and he is contracted for 2008 - that he can't be given a bit of leeway and trust to prepare himself appropriately in the final year of his career? To compare Bell's situation to Dunn/Collard/Mourish's situation is ludicrous and insulting. When they have earnt the right to be able to do what Bell is doing - but get cut anyway - then we can talk about comparing their situations. But they are about a million miles / galleons* of respect away from earning that right at this point in time.



* the unofficial measurement of respect...

I didn't. He has been fully committed to football so far in his career. I think you are misrepresenting me a bit and and being a bit unnecessarily emotive here.

He didn't want to play on next year though, and the club talked him into it with the promise of the club asking less of him than what is required of other players. Of course Bellie will be fully committed to holding up his end of the bargain again, but the fact remains the club is asking for much less of him than any other player.

If you are arguing that the clubs list management decisions are all about warning players that they will be punished for not putting it all on the line, then this exception can't be ignored. It goes against all the tough talk late last season about players "reputations" meaning nothing.

 

[circusdevil]

If you find a way to put players picked in the National Draft straight onto the rookie list then let me and the club know.

Mourish, for example, was a pick 77 project player last year. If we could have picked him up on the rookie list, we would have. We couldn't.

Well, if the intent was to get him on the rookie list, should have waited until the rookie draft.

 

[Roundhouse]

Well, if the intent was to get him on the rookie list, should have waited until the rookie draft.

Clubs are mandated to take at least three selections in the National Draft. These players are not allowed to be put directly on the rookie list.

 

[Moo]

Look as I see it -

Mourish was a swing and a miss ....from all accounts his fitness sucks, his form was not great and perhaps he is struggling with aspects of life down south. I doubt he will get rookied elsewhere - if the club sees anything in him I am sure he will fall back in our laps.

Collard we are unlikely to see again I think he will be nabbed. Out of all the delistings this one is the message as he (again by all accounts and I like you know nothing first hand) had a bad tood that was concerning his WAFL club too.

Dunn - We won't see him again (unless we snag him in the PSD). All depends on his body but a game a season is hardly a vote of confidence. As a 6 foot midfielder/defender, I would think the thought process was others have gone well past him ....he is strong but not the quickest/tallest one in the land. We have better defenders and this is the clearest indication I have seen that the time has come for a couple of upgrades in the midfield rotation (likely to be MJ and Mundy).

Roundhouse I see your point but comparing Bell who has nothing to prove and committment is first class is not a great comparrision with kids who have proved nothing. The post where Smith (rookie) lapped and ran with Collard in a time trial - after a year on the list ...well lets just say if I was in charge there was the decision right there.

Some out of the box stuff no doubt but -

(i) We have kept our picks ....fanstatic stuff
(ii) we have kept the core of our team together and delisted players (due to injury or form) that are in the lower positions on our list - these decisions won't kill us

I have no complaints - we haven't made any dumb decisions.

 

[Dr Ralph Dagg]

What message has been sent by letting Bell put his business interests ahead of some of his football obligations I.P?

Doesn't it stand out like a sore thumb. That if you play over 250 games, captain the club and be one of its two best players allowances can be made. Forget the message it send and consider whether you want Bell ion the list or not.

If you are going to attribute all list management decisions as being a clear "message" to the player group about the commitment required then more questions than answers spring up.

The de-listing of Collard, Mourish and Dunn is unusual because all of them have a year to run on their contract. The possible repercussion is the club has no problem with someone else picking them up for free. If they dont they might get rookied'or paid out. Their spots on the list can be filled by 18 year olds who might prove better value at this stage. Now these actions send a message.

If you say Bell decision was all about doing what is necessary to keep a strong, competetive playing list, then this rationale makes sense as a basis for the other delistings.

If you say both decisions were made in light of the relative commitments of the players involved then you'll have a hard time convincing me that the message sent is a consistent one.

I didn't think that was what IP was saying. I too found your arguments a bit hard to follow on this one.

 

[Cheetah]

The message is simple " Respect and opportunity are not a given, they are earnt" just as they should be.

 

[Roundhouse]

I have no complaints - we haven't made any dumb decisions.

You are basically agreeing with my point. All of the delistings who are planned to be rookied make sense from a list management perspective(although there is a slight gamble involved). Mourish, Collard and Dunn have all had injury/fitness issues so it makes sense to get them to work through these issues on the rookie list. I have no problem with that. Like you said, nobody has any reliable inside info about their attitude. My point was saying that "attitude is the only possible reason for trying to move them to the rookie list" ignores the fact that moving them there has benefits in it's own right.

Doesn't it stand out like a sore thumb. That if you play over 250 games, captain the club and be one of its two best players allowances can be made. Forget the message it send and consider whether you want Bell ion the list or not.


The de-listing of Collard, Mourish and Dunn is unusual because all of them have a year to run on their contract. The possible repercussion is the club has no problem with someone else picking them up for free. If they dont they might get rookied'or paid out. Their spots on the list can be filled by 18 year olds who might prove better value at this stage. Now these actions send a message.


I didn't think that was what IP was saying. I too found your arguments a bit hard to follow on this one.

The two points highlighted seem to spell out the flawed reasoning that I am arguing against.

I agree with the first point. The list is better with Bell on it. Who cares what message it sends, it is a wise list management decision.

The second point I agree with to a point. Yes their spots on the main list can be filled 18 year-olds who might prove better value at this stage. Why the need to see it as a slight against the delisted (soon to be re-rookied) players. Isn't it just another wise list management decision???

 

[dominguez]

I don't get what you don't get.

Delisting players and then picking them up on the rookie list frees spots on the main list which can be used in the National and Preseason draft.

It's a risky move, but if it works it will mean more underage/young talent can be put onto the list without having to delist too many mature players.

You thought that attitude didn't contribute to their delisting and that it was purely list management. But if we have de-listed them with the plan to rookie list them solely because they won't play many games next year it looks kind of pointless because we will be replacing them with 3 more guys who probably won't play many games next year either.

I reckon the club are hoping to send some wake up calls like they did with Crowley. He has said that he was cruising and assumed that when he got onto an AFL list that he'd made it. When he was de-listed he realised that he had to put the work in if he was going to forge a long career.

 

[dominguez]

Why the need to see it as a slight against the delisted (soon to be re-rookied) players. Isn't it just another wise list management decision???

De-listing someone after 12 months to rookie list them because you think that they have a future but will offer little in their second season is fraught with danger. There are plenty of good players who didn't get going until their 3rd, 4th or 5th season.

Peter Bell was de-listed after his first season then we traded 2 first round picks to get him back.

 

[stylor]

Where you play??

Thornbury Indoor Centre, on Mansfield street!

 

[Undertaker]

Look as I see it -

Mourish was a swing and a miss ....from all accounts his fitness sucks, his form was not great and perhaps he is struggling with aspects of life down south. I doubt he will get rookied elsewhere - if the club sees anything in him I am sure he will fall back in our laps.

Collard we are unlikely to see again I think he will be nabbed. Out of all the delistings this one is the message as he (again by all accounts and I like you know nothing first hand) had a bad tood that was concerning his WAFL club too.

Dunn - We won't see him again (unless we snag him in the PSD). All depends on his body but a game a season is hardly a vote of confidence. As a 6 foot midfielder/defender, I would think the thought process was others have gone well past him ....he is strong but not the quickest/tallest one in the land. We have better defenders and this is the clearest indication I have seen that the time has come for a couple of upgrades in the midfield rotation (likely to be MJ and Mundy).

Roundhouse I see your point but comparing Bell who has nothing to prove and committment is first class is not a great comparrision with kids who have proved nothing. The post where Smith (rookie) lapped and ran with Collard in a time trial - after a year on the list ...well lets just say if I was in charge there was the decision right there.

Some out of the box stuff no doubt but -

(i) We have kept our picks ....fanstatic stuff
(ii) we have kept the core of our team together and delisted players (due to injury or form) that are in the lower positions on our list - these decisions won't kill us

I have no complaints - we haven't made any dumb decisions.

I agree with Moo, delisting Collard, Mourish & Dunn who are all contracted is a good move it sends a clear message. The club can & will move on without them and if someone else picks them up that is a bonus as they end up paying for them. Should they still be available at Rookie Draft time no guarantee Freo will pick them.

 

[Roundhouse]

De-listing someone after 12 months to rookie list them because you think that they have a future but will offer little in their second season is a wise move, because there are plenty of good players who didn't get going until their 3rd, 4th or 5th season.

Peter Bell was de-listed after his first season then we traded 2 first round picks to get him back.

I think that is what you meant.

You can't possibly be saying that that it is better to have project players taking a valuable spot on the main list while they are developing...could you?

 

[Roundhouse]

You thought that attitude didn't contribute to their delisting and that it was purely list management. But if we have de-listed them with the plan to rookie list them solely because they won't play many games next year it looks kind of pointless because we will be replacing them with 3 more guys who probably won't play many games next year either.

That doesn't make sense Dom and you know it.

First you are assuming that list drafting and list management is all about strengthening the list for the next year. There is a bit more forward planning involved than that.

Secondly, by moving Collard, Dunn and Mourish to the rookie list it means we have more than three spots on the main list to fill. Some of those spots will be taken by 20+year olds (like Bradley, Taylor, Sampi) who the club obviously feels will cover the depth positions on the main list while Collard, Dunn and Mourish are developing on the rookie list.

You are just being obtuse. It does make sense, in terms of list management, to delist and re-rookie these guys and you know it.

 

[Ysaye]

That doesn't make sense Dom and you know it.

First you are assuming that list drafting and list management is all about strengthening the list for the next year. There is a bit more forward planning involved than that.

Secondly, by moving Collard, Dunn and Mourish to the rookie list it means we have more than three spots on the main list to fill. Some of those spots will be taken by 20+year olds (like Bradley, Taylor, Sampi) who the club obviously feels will cover the depth positions on the main list while Collard, Dunn and Mourish are developing on the rookie list.

You are just being obtuse. It does make sense, in terms of list management, to delist and re-rookie these guys and you know it.

I think the thing that you are confused over here Roundhouse is that you are ignoring the fact that we have to REDRAFT them as rookies.

Take a really exaggerated example: Scott Gumbleton of Essendon is probably another year or two of cementing a regular position in the 22 for their side. Based on what I think you are saying, Essendon should delist him and redraft him onto the rookie list. But hang on, don't you think nearly every other club will try pick him up in the national or pre-season drafts or even with earlier rookie picks?!?

The point is, if someone like Collard has talent that is worth waiting for, why would all the other clubs sit back and say "Sure - let him slip to your first rookie position!", when they potentially stand to benefit from him?

Furthermore, Collard was taken in a draft with a lot of depth, a lot more depth than the 2007 draft. Even with his supposed issues, compare him potential wise to any player likely to go 2nd round onwards and he still seems like a better pick for any other club, so that is going to make him even more unlikely to survive to our first round rookie pick.

 

[dominguez]

That doesn't make sense Dom and you know it.

First you are assuming that list drafting and list management is all about strengthening the list for the next year. There is a bit more forward planning involved than that.

Secondly, by moving Collard, Dunn and Mourish to the rookie list it means we have more than three spots on the main list to fill. Some of those spots will be taken by 20+year olds (like Bradley, Taylor, Sampi) who the club obviously feels will cover the depth positions on the main list while Collard, Dunn and Mourish are developing on the rookie list.

You are just being obtuse. It does make sense, in terms of list management, to delist and re-rookie these guys and you know it.

That's my point, if Collard, Mourish and Dunn have been de-listed purely because they offer little in 2008 then we are looking too short term. IMO work ethic had to play a part in the axing of atleast two of them possibly all three.

We haven't moved them to the rookie list. We have de-listed them with the possibility of rookie listing them. There's a big difference.

If Collard, Mourish and Dunn end up on our rookie list and one or all 3 go on to become good AFL players and we draft someone outside the first 3 rounds in the national draft that also forges a long career the decision was a masterstroke. But if Collard, Dunn or Mourish get snapped up by a rival club and go on to become a very good player then it was a poor decision if attitude didn't play a part in their de-listing.

I'll be disappointed if we add 3 players in their 20's to our senior list.

 

[Roundhouse]

That's my point, if Collard, Mourish and Dunn have been de-listed purely because they offer little in 2008 then we are looking too short term. IMO work ethic had to play a part in the axing of atleast two of them possibly all three.

We haven't moved them to the rookie list. We have de-listed them with the possibility of rookie listing them. There's a big difference.

No there isn't a difference. Because moving them directly is not legal.

As somewhere pointed out earlier, there is no provision in the rules to move contracted players from the main list to the rookie list. The clubs wants to move them there for list management purposes so they HAD to delist them then immediately request that the AFL let them train with us. Do you honestly think their managers would be happy to have them train exclusively with Freo, and not show them off to other clubs, if they hadn't been given some assurance that Freo would commit picks to them.

If Collard, Mourish and Dunn end up on our rookie list and one or all 3 go on to become good AFL players and we draft someone outside the first 3 rounds in the national draft that also forges a long career the decision was a masterstroke. But if Collard, Dunn or Mourish get snapped up by a rival club and go on to become a very good player then it was a poor decision if attitude didn't play a part in their de-listing.

You could look at all number of outcomes to show that the decision may or may not be beneficial in hindsight. We are not talking about "what if's" in terms of whether they come good players or not. We are looking at the decision to move them to the rookie. There is definite logic to that move which doesn't rely on highly speculative nonsense.

I'll be disappointed if we add 3 players in their 20's to our senior list.

You may well be disappointed.

 

[dominguez]

Do you honestly think their managers would be happy to have them train exclusively with Freo, and not show them off to other clubs, if they hadn't been given some assurance that Freo would commit picks to them.

How could they show them off to other clubs, it's the off season. It would have been a case of train with Fremantle or don't train at all. I reckon they'd be happy to chat to rival recruiting managers though.

I'm sure that there would have been an assurance that we'll rookie list them if available, but that doesn't exclude other clubs from picking them. I wouldn't be surprised if a recruiting manager from a rival club or clubs made their way to Fremantle Oval to check out Dunn and Collard. There's a real possibility that they'll both be gone by our 2nd rookie draft selection.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Anyone can and may pick them up. Luke Webster was training with WCE and expecting to get picked up by them when we rookied him. They're not going to turn down an offer to train with any club - be that Freo or whomever.

 

[Roundhouse]

How could they show them off to other clubs, it's the off season. It would have been a case of train with Fremantle or don't train at all. I reckon they'd be happy to chat to rival recruiting managers though.

You are aware that Bradley is training with us right? If Freo hadn't immediately applied to the AFL to have these guys train with us, and give them some kind of assurance about being rookied, they would be training with someone else in a bid to keep their AFL careers alive.

 

[Moo]

Big Kev ...how many games have you seen Kepler play out of interest?

 

[Moo]

Arguing semantics here really.

It does not matter if they have been given a written assurance by Mark Harvey and countersigned by Rick Hart and C. Y. O’Connor that we will keep them …the fact is we have pick 6 and 22 in the draft – I very much doubt we will be rookie listing both Collard and Dunn - at least one if not both will be gone.

We may get one of them, being invited to keep training with us may also indicate their interest but as someone else said – you go where you are listed to go not to where you want to go.

List management, sending a message – who knows what the clubs plan is, perhaps the plan is to take Mark Johnson and Bradley, and Harvey can not wait for a year for the room. We will know soon.

I would not be shocked if we did not rookie list any of them – I am sure there is year below talent just waiting to be listed.

I am just happy that the club is keeping the core together and working hard on the fringe to sure up our future. If the club does not rate one of these boys - move em on (it is cheap from a cap viewpoint) ...gives them a chance and allows us to find others. If it was a kick up the bum with the risk of losing them - better to do that than have a slack arse on the team (also better for them - they may grow up). Dunn - who knows? I think he is too fragile for AFL footy to be honest.

 

[dominguez]

You are aware that Bradley is training with us right? If Freo hadn't immediately applied to the AFL to have these guys train with us, and give them some kind of assurance about being rookied, they would be training with someone else in a bid to keep their AFL careers alive.

I doubt there was much interest from other clubs in Bradley. I'll be surprised but not disappointed if he's not available with our 4th round pick in the National Draft.

You are aware that if Bradley was training with another club we could still select him with our 4th or 5th round pick if he is available?

 

[Roundhouse]

Arguing semantics here really.

It does not matter if they have been given a written assurance by Mark Harvey and countersigned by Rick Hart and C. Y. O’Connor that we will keep them …the fact is we have pick 6 and 22 in the draft – I very much doubt we will be rookie listing both Collard and Dunn - at least one if not both will be gone.

Why would they be gone. They are unknown commodities who have yet to have an impact at AFL level.

We have de-listed and then rookied guys like Crowley, Copping, Haines, etc in the past and they have not been poached by other clubs.

You might argue that these guys at 10 and 30? were higher picks so they will attract more attention. It just doesn't equate though. Bradley was a top ten pick who has played a lot more AFL games that Collard and Dunn combined and is 200cm tall at a time when a number of clubs need height. Still, his current value is basically nothing, and if we don't pick him up he can probably kiss his career goodbye.

I find it hard to see that Collard and Dunn, who were lower draft picks and who have had much less of an impact at AFL are more valuable in comparison than Kepler. If clubs are showing no interest in Bradley, what makes you think Dunn and Collard are hot commodities?

 

[Moo]

Why would they be gone. They are unknown commodities who have yet to have an impact at AFL level.

We have de-listed and then rookied guys like Crowley, Copping, Haines, etc in the past and they have not been poached by other clubs.

You might argue that these guys at 10 and 30? were higher picks so they will attract more attention. It just doesn't equate though. Bradley was a top ten pick who has played a lot more AFL games that Collard and Dunn combined and is 200cm tall at a time when a number of clubs need height. Still, his current value is basically nothing, and if we don't pick him up he can probably kiss his career goodbye.

I find it hard to see that Collard and Dunn, who were lower draft picks and who have had much less of an impact at AFL are more valuable in comparison than Kepler. If clubs are showing no interest in Bradley, what makes you think Dunn and Collard are hot commodities?

In regards to Collard - he is not your ususal case scenario. Only 1 season in the system and by all accounts not dropped as he lacked talent but because of a tood adjustment.

I am guessing (and I acknowledge it is only a guess) that a club like Essendon who has his cousin Jetta may be interested in taking a mid range draft pick with another year under his belt - hoping the dropping 2nd chance thing will wake him up. Most rookies are not judged this early...he was considered good enough to be drafted (some say he slipped even) - the ink on those drafting reports is not even dry, I think someone will roll the die if we don't get the chance too.

On Dunn - he is quite a reasonable footy player when on the field ....I am sure if his medical reports show he is fit that a club would again take a chance in listing him. Again he is not your stock standard delisting - basically a top 10 pick who has not ahd a chance to show what he can do.

We may get them, I think though other clubs may see these guys as super cheap rookie listings. I just don't think these two guys are your stock standard delisting of a young guy who is not cutting it at league level, and they both have potentially big upsides.