List Mgmt. End of Year List Changes

[Ballin]

Context given was all correct. Argue the opinion sure, but it wasn’t ‘rubbish’.

But to go through your points:

Firstly do you realise how many players in MSD history are delisted after their first six months? It’s less than 5% Teams are picking players for a longer term. We have taken seven players through the MSD in its history, all of them got at least 18 months. Toce said as much post MSD about their philosophy. We were never delisting at the end of the year. Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

Secondly the fact that you are quoting the ‘young player award’ as some form of positive is itself rubbish. The fact that they selected a 28 year old second year player is all you need to know about the validity of the award.

Thirdly, point to me where there was anything about Blight being ‘to slow for AFL’ before the MSD? The fact that he was playing for Peel Thunder and was one of their best players including the aligned Freo players shows that there was more than enough evidence for being able to compete at the AFL level.

You say injecting youth? The age difference between Blight and Davidson is one day, and Davidson is older.

You say the ‘context is we got it wrong’? That is not context. That is opinion based on hindsight.

No issues if you thought that Davidson should have been the pick over Blight or Grey. I didn’t at the time, and personally have no issues with either ahead of Davidson (at the time, Payne, Blight and Hutchinson were the universal 1-3 players in the MSD) but you can’t disregard the actual impact of using a third pick on an uncertain list environment.

Hey doofus ... he didn't need to picked instead of either Gray or Blight ... we had an extra spot ... contracts for the following year were irrelevant because we could have delisted Davidson at the end of that season if all our senior players had resigned ... we were in a position to have a free swing with him ... it was a mistake not to take Davidson .. full stop

 

[guruisatiger]

Thats good and all that but still doesn't tell us who is a rookie and who is on the main list lol

Search Richmond list 2025 draft guru
That's the best site says who is a rookie who on main list

 

[guruisatiger]

Good luck with your future endeavours Jacob

Jacobs

 

[guruisatiger]

Jacob Bauer
Jacob Blight
Jacob Koschitzke…
Jacob Hopper soon

Are Richmond anti Semitic

 

[guruisatiger]

The year of the Jacob Genocide

From the river to punt rd

 

[RockJobster0312]

Hey doofus ... he didn't need to picked instead of either Gray or Blight ... we had an extra spot ... contracts for the following year were irrelevant because we could have delisted Davidson at the end of that season if all our senior players had resigned ... we were in a position to have a free swing with him ... it was a mistake not to take Davidson .. full stop

You don’t seem to be able to grasp a key fact (and I’m the doofus apparently).

In the last two years alone there has been one player that has been delisted six months following the MSD (Kelsey Rypstra who had significant leg injuries both before and after the MSD).

That’s 1/41 players selected that have only survived six months.

Why is the number so low? It’s because teams DO NOT select MSD players with an intention to only give them six months.

ESPECIALLY when they have played and trained with the VFL program for the period prior to the MSD. Do you not think the club would - knowing Davidson more intimately than any other team - would draft him ONLY to play six months?

So yes, the impact of a third MSD pick would have an impact on the list management at the end of the year. That would have likely meant a promotion of someone from the rookie list to the primary list. That would have meant that we had one less pick in the 2024 draft.

 

[Grrr]

So Yze tells Gibcus before the game, 'Hey we're going to only play you just on half a game then sub you out'. So Gibcus goes out there in the first half and runs himself ragged giving it everything, knowing he's only playing a half.

What happens though if another player gets hurt just before half time and needs to be subbed out instead? So you lose that player and then you've got Gibcus who is spent because he was told he was going to be getting subbed out early before the game. So in effect we're now 2 down on the bench because we need to give him longer rest breaks to manage him through the game so that he doesn't end up hurt himself given that after over 500 days out of the game his match fitness wouldn't be anywhere near capable of playing a full game yet.

The game was a dead rubber, we rewarded Josh for all the hard work he'd put in to get back and looked after him by subbing him out early so that he didn't get hurt. That's player management 101 when dealing with a player who has been dealing with long term injuries and just making their way back into the line up.

As for being disappointed with being subbed out, there isn't a player in the league that would be happy being subbed out of a game when fit. Which is part of the reason they're going get rid of the sub. I'd be disappointed if Josh didn't react the way that he did to being subbed out.

I thought Yze didn't tell him he was going to be subbed out, hence his disappointment when he was.

I guess they thought we'll give you a taste, but they were always going to err on the side of caution.

 

[Truetiger]

Reports that Geelong has asked the question. Whether it was a serious question, or just how are ya goin? no idea.

I don't want to lose Hopper, but reckon if the Cats would pay us enough it'd be a good deal for all.

Absolutely! If they put forward a serious offer, we should get it done.

 

[Ballin]

You don’t seem to be able to grasp a key fact (and I’m the doofus apparently).

In the last two years alone there has been one player that has been delisted six months following the MSD (Kelsey Rypstra who had significant leg injuries both before and after the MSD).

That’s 1/41 players selected that have only survived six months.

Why is the number so low? It’s because teams DO NOT select MSD players with an intention to only give them six months.

ESPECIALLY when they have played and trained with the VFL program for the period prior to the MSD. Do you not think the club would - knowing Davidson more intimately than any other team - would draft him ONLY to play six months?

So yes, the impact of a third MSD pick would have an impact on the list management at the end of the year. That would have likely meant a promotion of someone from the rookie list to the primary list. That would have meant that we had one less pick in the 2024 draft.

That is a choice ... not a fact! A fact is that it was an option to delist any MSD pick that didn't nominate a longer period. The fact is that Davidson has proved he is an AFL footballer and if we had taken him and trialled him in a full time environment we could have made a more informed choice as to list decisions before the 2024 draft and after the trade week when we had all the answers to the senior players status the RFC would have been able to make a more informed decision with all the information to hand.

But go keep trying to explain that it was a good decision. Does being loyal to you Rockjobster mean that you have to rationale every error the club has made in hindsight?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That is a choice ... not a fact! A fact is that it was an option to delist any MSD pick that didn't nominate a longer period. The fact is that Davidson has proved he is an AFL footballer and if we had taken him and trialled him in a full time environment we could have made a more informed choice as to list decisions before the 2024 draft and after the trade week when we had all the answers to the senior players status the RFC would have been able to make a more informed decision with all the information to hand.

But go keep trying to explain that it was a good decision. Does being loyal to you Rockjobster mean that you have to rationale every error the club has made in hindsight?

Strange player to hitch your wagon to. Richmond could have taken Davidson but didn't. They probably recognised his strengths, but didn't fancy his weaknesses, not a great ball user and sometimes avoids body contact.

By the time we are contending again we will have had many opportunities to get players as good or better than Davidson in his role. What the club clearly prioritised was getting its future key position spots settled at the earliest possible point, because when you are contending it is not easy to just bring in a ready made player in these positions, and they take years to develop.

I doubt it was a mistake to pass on Davidson, but even if it was a mistake, it is such a minor one it is barely worth discussing. We already had players as good or better around the same age for the roles Davidson might play, like Ross, Ralphsmith, Mansell, Trezise, Campbell. And likely much classier outside runners yet to be drafted.

 

[tiger_tough]

Pretty easy choice for Geelong between Worpel as a free agent @ ~$600k a year for or Hopper who they'd have to trade for @ ~$800k per year. Hopper is a better player, but not by much.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Pretty easy choice for Geelong between Worpel as a free agent @ ~$600k a year for or Hopper who they'd have to trade for @ ~$800k per year. Hopper is a better player, but not by much.

Stop making sense.

I want that 1st rounder.

 

[Burning bright]

Jacob Bauer
Jacob Blight
Jacob Koschitzke…
Jacob

So Yze tells Gibcus before the game, 'Hey we're going to only play you just on half a game then sub you out'. So Gibcus goes out there in the first half and runs himself ragged giving it everything, knowing he's only playing a half.

What happens though if another player gets hurt just before half time and needs to be subbed out instead? So you lose that player and then you've got Gibcus who is spent because he was told he was going to be getting subbed out early before the game. So in effect we're now 2 down on the bench because we need to give him longer rest breaks to manage him through the game so that he doesn't end up hurt himself given that after over 500 days out of the game his match fitness wouldn't be anywhere near capable of playing a full game yet.

The game was a dead rubber, we rewarded Josh for all the hard work he'd put in to get back and looked after him by subbing him out early so that he didn't get hurt. That's player management 101 when dealing with a player who has been dealing with long term injuries and just making their way back into the line up.

As for being disappointed with being subbed out, there isn't a player in the league that would be happy being subbed out of a game when fit. Which is part of the reason they're going get rid of the sub. I'd be disappointed if Josh didn't react the way that he did to being subbed out.

What happens though if another player gets hurt just before half time

What if 4 players get hurt in first ten minutes of the first quarter or some other hypothetical scenario.

It could have actually been player management 101 by Yze if and it is a big if.

Remembering Gibcus is a massive part of our club for the next decade but he is still untrustworthy to fully disclose his role in a dead rubber match by the coach.

If Gibcus was told he was on managed minutes (standard practice) and still reacted in such a sullen manner it may have been Yze taking the heat on himself and distracting from the players behaviour. That is good coaching because he was brave enough to make himself look like a dill and distract from Gibcus poor demeanour on the bench.

Genius coaching maybe.

Saying that the excuse Yze gave was fear of the potential injury in an asymptomatic player he may have communicated poorly and meant to say we believe his conditioning was not sufficient to play a whole game and players are told that routinely who are on managed minutes.

.

.

/

 

[Ballin]

Strange player to hitch your wagon to. Richmond could have taken Davidson but didn't. They probably recognised his strengths, but didn't fancy his weaknesses, not a great ball user and sometimes avoids body contact.

By the time we are contending again we will have had many opportunities to get players as good or better than Davidson in his role. What the club clearly prioritised was getting its future key position spots settled at the earliest possible point, because when you are contending it is not easy to just bring in a ready made player in these positions, and they take years to develop.

I doubt it was a mistake to pass on Davidson, but even if it was a mistake, it is such a minor one it is barely worth discussing. We already had players as good or better around the same age for the roles Davidson might play, like Ross, Ralphsmith, Mansell, Trezise, Campbell. And likely much classier outside runners yet to be drafted.

Not one of the players you mention is a running tall ... Ralphsmith the sole decent overhead mark but definitely not a tall ... Trainor playing out of position on the wing might just be an indication that the RFC belatedly are recognizing that wingman being a marking option is where the game is headed

Pretty easy choice for Geelong between Worpel as a free agent @ ~$600k a year for or Hopper who they'd have to trade for @ ~$800k per year. Hopper is a better player, but not by much.

Will teams stop trading their A graders to Geelong ... no wonder they are top4 every year.

 

[Danog]

Pretty easy choice for Geelong between Worpel as a free agent @ ~$600k a year for or Hopper who they'd have to trade for @ ~$800k per year. Hopper is a better player, but not by much.

Depends how much they think their window is closing. Hopper gives them higher chance of a premiership now before dads army retires

 

[tigerdan]

Not one of the players you mention is a running tall ... Ralphsmith the sole decent overhead mark but definitely not a tall ... Trainor playing out of position on the wing might just be an indication that the RFC belatedly are recognizing that wingman being a marking option is where the game is headed


Will teams stop trading their A graders to Geelong ... no wonder they are top4 every year.

Geelong are top 4 every year because they get gifted an extra 3 wins a year due to the AFL always scheduling them against the lowly-supported interstate clubs (because they do not want to waste bums on seats by playing the big clubs there). 3 extra wins a year is a huge benefit.

However, more often than not, they get caught out come finals time because they aren't playing at the velodrome with its narrow wings, and they don't have 80%+ crowd advantage.

 

[_RT_]

What happens though if another player gets hurt just before half time

What if 4 players get hurt in first ten minutes of the first quarter or some other hypothetical scenario.

It could have actually been player management 101 by Yze if and it is a big if.

Remembering Gibcus is a massive part of our club for the next decade but he is still untrustworthy to fully disclose his role in a dead rubber match by the coach.

If Gibcus was told he was on managed minutes (standard practice) and still reacted in such a sullen manner it may have been Yze taking the heat on himself and distracting from the players behaviour. That is good coaching because he was brave enough to make himself look like a dill and distract from Gibcus poor demeanour on the bench.

Genius coaching maybe.

Saying that the excuse Yze gave was fear of the potential injury in an asymptomatic player he may have communicated poorly and meant to say we believe his conditioning was not sufficient to play a whole game and players are told that routinely who are on managed minutes.

.

.

/

There is a difference between telling a player they will be on managed minutes and telling them we're only going to play you in the first half and then sub you out. I have never heard a coach say that they planned to sub X out after letting them play just a half, because as I said before those plans may go out the door at any moment due to an unforeseen injury.

You talk about player management, well what sort of message do you think it would send to Gibcus to say before the game, 'Hey we've picked you this week but we're only going to play you for a half then sub you out.' ? He'd be thinking they don't trust my body to get through the game and his confidence would take a hit. By sending out without knowing that he would be subbed out they show they have faith in him to get through the game if necessary, but have the back up plan of subbing out if they wanted to after letting him run around for a bit and get rewarded for the hard yards he'd done to get back.

As it turned out they were able to do just that and we will get to see Gibcus along with a lot of other young players who are keys to our long term future will get a full preseason under their belts, which is pretty good management if you ask me.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Pretty easy choice for Geelong between Worpel as a free agent @ ~$600k a year for or Hopper who they'd have to trade for @ ~$800k per year. Hopper is a better player, but not by much.

Would happily pay most of his contract for a few years to help get a decent trade done. Not like we have anyone else to pay atm.

 

[tiger_tough]

Depends how much they think their window is closing. Hopper gives them higher chance of a premiership now before dads army retires

Been saying that about Geelong for over a decade.

 

[_RT_]

I thought Yze didn't tell him he was going to be subbed out, hence his disappointment when he was.

I guess they thought we'll give you a taste, but they were always going to err on the side of caution.

They never told him, my post was more about giving the opposing view to the other posters thoughts.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Not one of the players you mention is a running tall ... Ralphsmith the sole decent overhead mark but definitely not a tall ... Trainor playing out of position on the wing might just be an indication that the RFC belatedly are recognizing that wingman being a marking option is where the game is headed

Davidson before taking two contested marks in his last game v Freo, took 5 in the previous 15 matches. This is not Dan Curtin we are talking about here. Davidson's contested marking is nowhere near strong enough to start shifting the needle for us. If we are talking about pack marks near goal, we have Lalor and Hotton a lot more capable of taking these type of marks already than Sam Davidson will ever be. We will have far, far more dangerous mid sized players lurking near our goal, so we shouldn't be needing to do a lot of funky tricks with our wingers sneaking forward to create a aerial threat.

The only reason Trainor played on the wing for us was because we couldn't fit him into our relatively strong backline.

None of us would have been troubled if we drafted Sam Davidson, he is going well overall for a low draft pick. But he clearly was not what Richmond were looking for at the time. If we find ourselves short of this type of player when we look like contending, I am sure we would be able to locate one without too much trouble.

 

[SleepingGiant]

Only need 4 rookies. AI reckons 2 senior listed players can be nominated as rookies. Rookies base salary doesn’t count to the cap (think it used to be 50%). It wouldn’t surprise me if we reduce our numbers on the rookie list to hit the cap floor.

All our new contracts must have been front-loaded or I have no idea how we hit the cap floor.

The salary cap is $18.29m next year. Base payment for non-rookie/draftees is $150k + $5k match payments.

Our 2024 and 2025 draftees earnings will vary but will likely land at an average of around 200-250k per player. For example, Trainor will have a base salary of $120k + $55k for playing more than 18 games. Alger on the other hand will have a base on $135k. + 5k match payments.

Our top 2 draftees this year (if in top 10) will get a base of $145k.

If we end up with 11 first and second year players on the list and they play, on average, 15 games next year, they will cost us around $2.5m salary cap space. That means the remaining 31 players on our can be paid just over $500k each for us to hit the salary cap, or $480k to hit the salary cap floor.

Gray, Green, Lefau, Fawcett, Trezise, McAuliffe, Clarke, Gibcus, MRJ, Ryan + any of Smith, Sonsie and Dow we keep will probably average out under $250k next year. That’s probably an overestimate too as the total number of match payments is unlikely to be that high across lower earners and 1st/2nd year draftees.

This will leave us with our top 20 players needing to average at least $600k just to meet the cap floor. Balta, Taranto and Hopper are probably the only ones known to be earning more than that amount, maybe Nank, or Vlastuin and Short if their contracts were backloaded. You would have to think Lynch and Prestia extensions were no more than $500k, Prestia probably less. The rest are unlikely to be over $500k.

It wouldn’t surprise me if we were $2-3m under the salary cap floor without front loading contracts. I imagine if we want to keep Young it will be no issue as we can front load any excess.

We will have more cap then that by 2026 draft time, and as I have said previously the AFL is considering draft pick buying for next year. We will be best placed to capitalise on it and clubs will want it in before Tassie, not just us.

 

[Dr Tigris]

We will have more cap then that by 2026 draft time, and as I have said previously the AFL is considering draft pick buying for next year. We will be best placed to capitalise on it and clubs will want it in before Tassie, not just us.

Right now draft pick buying would be great for us.

 

[sregit]

Would happily pay most of his contract for a few years to help get a decent trade done. Not like we have anyone else to pay atm.

It's amazing how liberal we all are with the clubs money when talking about trades. I would think with rebuilding PUNT ROAD that we'd not likely want to spend one dollar more than necessary. I'm not sure where we are positioned in relation to our minimum spend but certainly do not want to help the cats fit more players into their system.

 

[Burning bright]

There is a difference between telling a player they will be on managed minutes and telling them we're only going to play you in the first half and then sub you out. I have never heard a coach say that they planned to sub X out after letting them play just a half, because as I said before those plans may go out the door at any moment due to an unforeseen injury.

You talk about player management, well what sort of message do you think it would send to Gibcus to say before the game, 'Hey we've picked you this week but we're only going to play you for a half then sub you out.' ? He'd be thinking they don't trust my body to get through the game and his confidence would take a hit. By sending out without knowing that he would be subbed out they show they have faith in him to get through the game if necessary, but have the back up plan of subbing out if they wanted to after letting him run around for a bit and get rewarded for the hard yards he'd done to get back.

As it turned out they were able to do just that and we will get to see Gibcus along with a lot of other young players who are keys to our long term future will get a full preseason under their belts, which is pretty good management if you ask me.

He'd be thinking they don't trust my body to get through the game and his confidence would take a hit.

I fully agree very bad message to send to one of our key young players one the coach envisages being a vital cog for a decade to come.

Lo and behold that is what Yze said as his excuse post match presser he could not live with himself if he got hurt in the last half of the game.

That very same message was still delivered to Gibcus.

When you have such a wide disparity in the expectation of the player and that of the coach it comes down to communication a very big part of player management 101 and by the reaction of the player 101 was minus something.

Mind you we still must take into consideration that Gibcus was informed and his sullen reaction resulted in Yze needing to cover for him.

That still is a possibility although less likely but that would be good coaching if Yze took the hit.



.