Player Watch Henry Schade (Delisted 2017)

[MyManLynch]

Why does Schade not Cox get the year-long elevation? With Keeffe already elevated, do we need another tall defender over a 2nd ruck? I would have thought Cox would be an automatic inclusion. Perhaps Keeffe should have been left on the rookie list.

I'm still of the belief that a Cat B rookie cannot be a nominated rookie.
The reason we have a nominated rookie is because we chose to structure our list as 39 senior & 5 Cat A rookies (rather than 40 & 4), hence the nominated rookie upgrade must come from the Cat A rookies.
So now the list for 2017 will be 40 & 4 plus 1 Cat B rookie.
With Cox upgraded via LTI until Sinclair returns.
The mid season upgrade will be evaluated at that time...Cox (assuming Sinclair has returned & no other LTI) or Thomas, Lynch, McCarthy or Mackie.

 

[35Daicos]

I'm still of the belief that a Cat B rookie cannot be a nominated rookie.
The reason we have a nominated rookie is because we chose to structure our list as 39 senior & 5 Cat A rookies (rather than 40 & 4), hence the nominated rookie upgrade must come from the Cat A rookies.
So now the list for 2017 will be 40 & 4 plus 1 Cat B rookie.
With Cox upgraded via LTI until Sinclair returns.
The mid season upgrade will be evaluated at that time...Cox (assuming Sinclair has returned & no other LTI) or Thomas, Lynch, McCarthy or Mackie.

Geelong's Blicavs was certainly a Category B Rookie for a while, I'm almost certain he was a nominated rookie. He played regular senior football for at least a couple of years while still on the rookie list, so (unless the rules have changed) I don't think that's correct.

 

[MyManLynch]

Geelong's Blicavs was certainly a Category B Rookie for a while, I'm almost certain he was a nominated rookie. He played regular senior football for at least a couple of years while still on the rookie list, so (unless the rules have changed) I don't think that's correct.

I'm not 100% on this.
Perhaps Blicavs was an LTI upgrade...or mid season 'free hit' upgrade?

 

[35Daicos]

I'm not 100% on this.
Perhaps Blicavs was an LTI upgrade...or mid season 'free hit' upgrade?

I'm not 100% sure either, mate. I just don't see why they would have a different rule for the two types of rookies, to me it wouldn't make sense. I had him as a nominated rookie in 2014 (while still a Cat. B rookie).

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Why does Schade not Cox get the year-long elevation? With Keeffe already elevated, do we need another tall defender over a 2nd ruck? I would have thought Cox would be an automatic inclusion. Perhaps Keeffe should have been left on the rookie list.

Suggesting salary cap is the reason.
Now that "mushrooms" (Schade) is on the senior list his salary is counted exactly as it has been when he was a rookie. He also would be on a lower salary as a rookie.
Cat B Rookies, as is Cox, only count half their salary in the cap when they are elevated.
And Cat B's can be paid whatever and it's not counted in the cap when they remain rookies.
So it's in the clubs interest to work the salary cap to their own adavantage.
Doubt it's anything more than that.

 

[Apex36]

Promoting Keefe at the time they did was stupid. I'm glad that we were able to promote these guys anyway and that we won't pay for that mistake.

It's good that you can say this now without being blasted like I was a few weeks ago.

 

[Apex36]

I'm not 100% sure either, mate. I just don't see why they would have a different rule for the two types of rookies, to me it wouldn't make sense. I had him as a nominated rookie in 2014 (while still a Cat. B rookie).

He was upgraded for an LTI. At the same time though, I think Geelong had a full list and no nominated upgrade spot available at the time, so it doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

It's good that you can say this now without being blasted like I was a few weeks ago.

It was premature. It also sent a bad message to someone like Cox who was at the club working his arse off to prove himself last year, that Keefe was not made to do the same before being elevated. It's not like he was Alex Rance before his suspension.

 

[Wooljay]

This may have already been discussed, but I've read on a couple places now that we sniped Schade from GCS as they were planning to re-rookie him. By all accounts GCS weren't impressed as this was seen as being pretty "ungentlemanly".

Might explain why he's doing better than expected if the Suns didn't actually want to lose him.

 

[Kilmo]

This may have already been discussed, but I've read on a couple places now that we sniped Schade from GCS as they were planning to re-rookie him. By all accounts GCS weren't impressed as this was seen as being pretty "ungentlemanly".

Might explain why he's doing better than expected if the Suns didn't actually want to lose him.

No gentlemen in the art of war! Schade is ours now!

That being said, it's rare that a club takes another club's player if they are intending to stay, and normally a club will announce their intentions to re-rookie, so I'd be sceptical that Henry was that keen on staying at the Gold Coast.

 

[ClaytonM]

No gentlemen in the art of war! Schade is ours now!

That being said, it's rare that a club takes another club's player if they are intending to stay, and normally a club will announce their intentions to re-rookie, so I'd be sceptical that Henry was that keen on staying at the Gold Coast.

May have been agreed that if nobody else took him they would rerookie with last pick. I would think they probably had to if he was contracted for 2017.

 

[ipswichpies]

I am very happy for the club to have "put 1 over" either GCS or GWS after all the benefits they have had.
I think we definitely have a keeper in Schade 1 of the clubs better draft choices in recent times, I remembered watching him at the 2nds match when the Pies played on the coast in 2015 and thought att that if he could put some muscle on he could be quite handy for any club with his height.

I don,t have any problems with how he got to the Pies just glad he is here.

 

[jackcass]

I personally didn't see anything special in him during pre season, but we need all the defenders we can get. Was okay against Richmond but I'm not expecting much from him, best of luck Henry

While I'm optimistic he can develop, I agree. A couple of cameo moments but little else. I only got to see the Bumbers game live so maybe it's more a tv broadcast perspective.

 

[jackcass]

May have been agreed that if nobody else took him they would rerookie with last pick. I would think they probably had to if he was contracted for 2017.

Logical. His salary would have registered in the TPP for 2017 anyway so why not rookie him. Was there some discussion that they're paying part of his 2017 salary even though we've rookies him?

 

[jackcass]

This may have already been discussed, but I've read on a couple places now that we sniped Schade from GCS as they were planning to re-rookie him. By all accounts GCS weren't impressed as this was seen as being pretty "ungentlemanly".

Might explain why he's doing better than expected if the Suns didn't actually want to lose him.

They had 2 rookie selections before we picked Schade so they chose to run that gauntlet, overlooking him with both those picks.

 

[jackcass]

It's good that you can say this now without being blasted like I was a few weeks ago.

That old chestnut

 

[ClaytonM]

Logical. His salary would have registered in the TPP for 2017 anyway so why not rookie him. Was there some discussion that they're paying part of his 2017 salary even though we've rookies him?

Perhaps we are paying a base rookie salary and Suns are picking up rest of his original contracted salary for 2017.

 

[Apex36]

This may have already been discussed, but I've read on a couple places now that we sniped Schade from GCS as they were planning to re-rookie him. By all accounts GCS weren't impressed as this was seen as being pretty "ungentlemanly".

Might explain why he's doing better than expected if the Suns didn't actually want to lose him.

Seriously doubt that. A quick look at the rookie draft order will tell you it's a crock.

 

[Apex36]

Logical. His salary would have registered in the TPP for 2017 anyway so why not rookie him. Was there some discussion that they're paying part of his 2017 salary even though we've rookies him?

They delisted him so they're required to pay him out on his contract even if he's drafted by another club.

 

[MagpieBat]

It's good that you can say this now without being blasted like I was a few weeks ago.

You're a very blast-able person...

 

[Apex36]

They had 2 rookie selections before we picked Schade so they chose to run that gauntlet, overlooking him with both those picks.

They also didn't take anyone else after those two picks. They willingly let him go, most likely at his request given it was reported that they intended to rookie him initially.

 

[Apex36]

You're a very blast-able person...

Quiet, you.

 

[Apex36]

Perhaps we are paying a base rookie salary and Suns are picking up rest of his original contracted salary for 2017.

They delisted him so they're required to pay him out on his contract even if he's drafted by another club.

As above. He's on a base contract with us. GC, having delisted him whilst under contract, is required to pay him out for the 2017 portion of his contract with them.

 

[sr36]

I'm not 100% sure either, mate. I just don't see why they would have a different rule for the two types of rookies, to me it wouldn't make sense. I had him as a nominated rookie in 2014 (while still a Cat. B rookie).

Other rules are different for the two different categories, so it's not impossible that this one is different too. I can't see any other reason why they would have elevated Schade rather than Cox. You're right that Blicavs was the nominated rookie in 2014, but it wouldn't be the first time that the AFL approved something without realising that it was against their rules.

 

[MagpieBat]

Quiet, you.