List Mgmt. List changes

[theflea]

I've been trying to work out the best way to explain this. It's stupidly complicated these days.

Think of veterans as just money savers. I think you said it's $112,000 per player. Of which next year we will have Newman, Tuck, Jackson and Foley so an extra $448,000 in the salary cap.

Lonergan, Stephenson and Petterd are regarded as "promoted rookies" for 2013 with rookies being the important term. 2 were elevated pre-season (Petterd and Stephenson) while Lonergan is for a long term injury. At the end of the season they are all back on the rookie list and we can either promote them, keep them as rookies or delist them and take another rookie draft pick.

Now where it has become complicated is that every club will have 44 players on their list overall. (Main list plus rookies) Clubs these days can choose to do this in 3 ways:
1. 40 main and 4 rookies
2. 39 main and 5 rookies
3. 38 main and 6 rookies (our preferred option)

We chose option 3 because it costs less to pay 38 players inside the salary cap. Also teams that choose 38 or 39 can promote rookies before the season starts to get them up to 40, which works well in 2 ways.
1. Rookies are hungry knowing their are 2 list spots up for grabs straight away.
2. They are a shit load cheaper.

Edit: So to take our 3rd pick we could use a 39th spot on the list but that will eat into salary cap or we can delist one of Edwards/McGuane like you said. I'd go the latter and get rid of Edwards. We are a good enough team to not need both, but not good enough to get rid of both yet.

Plus as you say McGuane is a veteran in another year and will basically be free whilst we'd have to pay Edwards.

Yep mate great expo however there is 1 more addition and that is you can 2 international rookies as well to bring the total players to 46.

 

[theflea]

Most definitely. If he can get more opportunities then let him go. I've heard no one is keen on McGuane though and we've seen he is decent back-up.

I don't think the club would delist and rookie him though. Reason being and it probably sounds silly but just loyalty to our players. He's gotten better and better I think it would be unfair to then delist and rookie him. Other reason is I believe we will trade for Adams taking out pick 13ish. And with us needing to take 3 picks that leaves us with pick 31, 49, 67. I have us trading Griffo out for a pick upgrade to get an early 20's pick so getting rid of McGuane to the rookie list means we have to commit 2 years to a pick 85. Better off giving Luke a 1 year deal IMO. And taking an extra rookie for a 1 year commitment.

Whats the ruling with regard to the 3 min picks if you trade out a pick for a player? If we got adams would we still need to pick 3 as I think its changed.

 

[theflea]

Yeah but they only played a game or two. Petterd would have played 20 if he wasn't injured

Yeah were clearly talking about 2 issues here. Whether he deserves to be on the senior list or the rookie list is 2 separate issues imo. I was talking about the later and that's why I think he should stay but only as a rookie.

 

[theflea]

Why are people insisting on getting rid of Darrou? He could be our Josh Gibson with more attacking qualities to his bow..

He needs to show if he can show this at afl level and the fact that lists are short and sometimes you don't want to cut a player but others are ahead of him. It also comes down to how many players are ahead of him as a backup and how many years he's been a rookie as I think after 3 years he has to be upgraded or delisted.

 

[_RT_]

He's a no.1 ruck and finding form playing that role. As soon as Stephenson goes back to VFL he will spud it up out of position. Wouldn't mind seeing him get Maric's spot against GWS. One last chance to see what he's got. Could potentially re-rookie him for depth.

This is what I suggested yesterday, if there is no interest in him(pretty sure there won't be) we delist him and then re-rookie him. Frees up a senior listed spot for a kid to be given a shot and gives us a decent enough mature aged back up that should be able to carry the load for 6-10 games if needed next year.

In fact I would go as far as looking at rookie listing both Derickx and McGuane if we can get away with it. We can always elevate them before the season begins if we needed to. However as you said if we get rid of Edwards keeping McGuane makes sense as he'll be on stuff all money.

 

[TheAnt]

He needs to show if he can show this at afl level and the fact that lists are short and sometimes you don't want to cut a player but others are ahead of him. It also comes down to how many players are ahead of him as a backup and how many years he's been a rookie as I think after 3 years he has to be upgraded or delisted.

I agree but it's hard to perform at AFL level when you're not on the senior list... he's developed really nicely this year and has performed much better then Batchelor in the VFL..Absolutely no to him going anywhere.

 

[tigs2010]

Yep mate great expo however there is 1 more addition and that is you can 2 international rookies as well to bring the total players to 46.

Wasn't sure what the limit was in that. Thanks.

Whats the ruling with regard to the 3 min picks if you trade out a pick for a player? If we got adams would we still need to pick 3 as I think its changed.

Still need 3 picks unfortunately.

 

[Madison]

Still need 3 picks unfortunately.

Are you positive? I thought it was three changes to the main list, so you have to delist three players, but if you bring someone in via trade you only need two draft picks.

Though it makes sense cos they want new players drafted and otherwise you could end up with only 20 draft picks cos everyone has been trading.

 

[Barney Stinson1]

Reece Conca to W.A in news guys?

 

[JR82]

Reece Conca to W.A in news guys?

link? source?

 

[Barney Stinson1]

link? source?

was meant to say any news, as in i was asking you guys is there any news on Conca's status

 

[JR82]

was meant to say any news, as in i was asking you guys is there any news on Conca's status

all good mate, i thought u said u had heard it. have been told (word of mouth) that once Dusty signs he will sign also.

 

[THE_GUN]

was meant to say any news, as in i was asking you guys is there any news on Conca's status

Yeah i heard the deal has been done and agree Lycett + 1st round for Conca apparently

 

[Barney Stinson1]

Yeah i heard the deal has been done and agree Lycett + 1st round for Conca apparently

Lycett and 1st round is overs!. Lycett is going to be a stud have u seen his last few games? There is no way we would do that maybe Lycett and like a 5th round pick but not 1st

 

[Roar_Power]

Lycett and 1st round is overs!. Lycett is going to be a stud have u seen his last few games? There is no way we would do that maybe Lycett and like a 5th round pick but not 1st

Agree with you, but need to look at both sides of the coin. Conca will be elite/top tier mid in a few years.

 

[tigs2010]

Are you positive? I thought it was three changes to the main list, so you have to delist three players, but if you bring someone in via trade you only need two draft picks.

Though it makes sense cos they want new players drafted and otherwise you could end up with only 20 draft picks cos everyone has been trading.

Sorry forgot to reply to this. It's definitely 3 picks in the National draft. You can pass on the last and take PSD pick though I believe. And it is for the reason you stated, get new players in the system.

 

[Harmichael]

Why are people insisting on getting rid of Darrou? He could be our Josh Gibson with more attacking qualities to his bow..

Agreed - rarely gets beaten, good write-ups nearly every week, came back in after a 5 week injury and performed again straight away, should be closer to elevation than delistment - not 100% confident we'll keep him given the club's general impatience with young rookies (wish we'd demonstrated similar levels of impatience with certain senior list players cloggers over the years) but would still be most surprised if were let go.

 

[Mr Magic]

This is bollocks. The hawks have cheney and spanger. And secondly those players are all rookies.

with our stronger list now we should be able to get more project/youth types though as rookies to develop rather than depth rookies because we should have near required the depth in the main list

 

[Mr Magic]

Agree with you, but need to look at both sides of the coin. Conca will be elite/top tier mid in a few years.

Conca was impressive on the weekend.

He is really putting his hand up, I wouldn't let him go unless he wanted to and we got a king's ransom!!

 

[Mr Magic]

Lycett and 1st round is overs!. Lycett is going to be a stud have u seen his last few games? There is no way we would do that maybe Lycett and like a 5th round pick but not 1st

for me it is unders for Conca

 

[Capitano_Cotch]

I wonder what Brisbane would think of McGuane for Karnezis this time around.
Luke is worth more than him now in my opinion.

 

[Danog]

Now where it has become complicated is that every club will have 44 players on their list overall. (Main list plus rookies) Clubs these days can choose to do this in 3 ways:
1. 40 main and 4 rookies
2. 39 main and 5 rookies
3. 38 main and 6 rookies (our preferred option)

We chose option 3 because it costs less to pay 38 players inside the salary cap. Also teams that choose 38 or 39 can promote rookies before the season starts to get them up to 40, which works well in 2 ways.
1. Rookies are hungry knowing their are 2 list spots up for grabs straight away.
2. They are a shit load cheaper.

Yeah, this is what a lot of recruiters are looking at doing this off-season. Depth past pick 35 in the draft is questionable, at best. Players after then still have great attibutes, but are seriously lacking in others. Fair few 'vanilla' players, too. Dunstan could go at late as 2nd round, from what I've heard.

 

[tigs2010]

Yeah, this is what a lot of recruiters are looking at doing this off-season. Depth past pick 35 in the draft is questionable, at best. Players after then still have great attibutes, but are seriously lacking in others. Fair few 'vanilla' players, too. Dunstan could go at late as 2nd round, from what I've heard.

I'm struggling to come up with more than 30. We should grab dunstan if he's there. Another flossy.

 

[Danog]

I'm struggling to come up with more than 30. We should grab dunstan if he's there. Another flossy.

I'd say he's between Flossy and Lonergan.

 

[tigs2010]

I'd say he's between Flossy and Lonergan.

He's a mile better than Lonergan. I rated dunstan in top couple last year as a 17yo. I thought he was better than Flossy. Another of the top juniors who stand out early and recruiters pick out their flaws more plus lack the motivation to really dominate when they smashed their underage year.