List Mgmt. List changes

[Harmichael]

How about if we add tuck and Newman to veteran list? Judging by dimmas comments, Nahas will probably be on the list next year

Moving blokes to the vets list doesn't free up spots on the senior list - still need to shed at least 3 senior listed players to create space for the minimum 3 new draftees.

 

[theflea]

I can't see top 4 sides with players such as petterd, lonergan and Stephenson on their list. We need skill and composer. No kick and hope players

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

 

[THE_GUN]

Nahas, Derickx,Stephenson,Verrier,Darrou,Lonergan
6 players delisted (2 senior list & 4 Rookie listed players)

Jackson,Foley,Tuck,Newman replace the rookies that get delisted as vets can be outside the official list numbers and take the place of rookies

Effectively give us the flexability of 6 picks which ever way we want to use it

 

[theflea]

From what i believe the number of veterans you have on your list just reduces the number of rookie spots available - so effectively outside the main list

No that's incorrect. Vets make no difference at all. What does make a difference to rookie spots is if you decide to increase your main list to a max of 40. Remember we only have 38 and choose to have this number hence why we have 6 rookies.

 

[Harmichael]

I don't like this minimum changes route people are advocating - smacks of typical getting ahead of ourselves, locked and loaded, overrating our list bad old Richmond mularkey. We're not Geelong, Sydney or Collingwood yet - and even those clubs have been replenishing their lists more of late. Look at the state league players and rookies the Filth have bought in for example. Talk of not bothering with rookies at all is, frankly, laughable.

 

[theflea]

Nahas, Derickx,Stephenson,Verrier,Darrou,Lonergan
6 players delisted (2 senior list & 4 Rookie listed players)

Jackson,Foley,Tuck,Newman replace the rookies that get delisted as vets can be outside the official list numbers and take the place of rookies

Effectively give us the flexability of 6 picks which ever way we want to use it

Gun I don't know who told you this but its not right. Senior listed players cannot be used to fill rookie listed players even as vets.

 

[THE_GUN]

No that's incorrect. Vets make no difference at all. What does make a difference to rookie spots is if you decide to increase your main list to a max of 40. Remember we only have 38 and choose to have this number hence why we have 6 rookies.

But we currently have 41 on the senior list with Lonergan & Stephenson upgraded to the senior list ?

But if what your saying is correct then the alternative would be obviously to delist A.Edwards & McGuane then to rookie list them

 

[bananatigz]

I don't like this minimum changes route people are advocating - smacks of typical getting ahead of ourselves, locked and loaded, overrating our list bad old Richmond mularkey. We're not Geelong, Sydney or Collingwood yet - and even those clubs have been replenishing their lists more of late. Look at the state league players and rookies the Filth have bought in for example. Talk of not bothering with rookies at all is, frankly, laughable.

I don't think that is the angle people are going from, apart from Derickx and Nahas there isn't really anyone who deserves to get delisted from the senior list

 

[tigs2010]

But we currently have 41 on the senior list with Lonergan & Stephenson upgraded to the senior list ?

But if what your saying is correct then the alternative would be obviously to delist A.Edwards & McGuane then to rookie list them

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.

 

[tigs2010]

I don't like this minimum changes route people are advocating - smacks of typical getting ahead of ourselves, locked and loaded, overrating our list bad old Richmond mularkey. We're not Geelong, Sydney or Collingwood yet - and even those clubs have been replenishing their lists more of late. Look at the state league players and rookies the Filth have bought in for example. Talk of not bothering with rookies at all is, frankly, laughable.

I think we need to re-jig our rookie draft. Young, state league ruck for the future to replace Stephenson and a state league midfielder who actually fits our drafting profile where they can kick to a high enough level to replace Lonergan. Plus Verrier has shown zilch in all reality so maybe a KPD to develop? A lot of good defenders started as rookies.

My main list suggestions were 4 changes. Adams brought in from another club plus 3 draft picks to replace Griffiths, Nahas, Derickx and Edwards.

Next year under the pump will be Dea, Batchelor, Astbury, McGuane, Tuck, King, Helbig, White, Arnot, O'Hanlon along with rookies in Petterd, Williams and Petterd. IMO none of these guys are delist material yet but they need to have a big 2014, whereby a cleanout may happen to a certain extent.

 

[Harmichael]

I don't think that is the angle people are going from, apart from Derickx and Nahas there isn't really anyone who deserves to get delisted from the senior list

That's were overrating the list comes in. Good clubs make the hard decisions. I'll use Edwards as an example as that shouldn't be too controversial - yeah he's had a few big ones in the VFL, but he'll be 30 years-old next year and was dropped back to Coburg after only a few senior games for a reason - with Beanie coming along nicely do we really still need him instead of another young kid or even a good hungry state leaguer still in their early 20's?

 

[tigs2010]

That's were overrating the list comes in. Good clubs make the hard decisions. I'll use Edwards as an example as that shouldn't be too controversial - yeah he's had a few big ones in the VFL, but he'll be 30 years-old next year and was dropped back to Coburg after only a few senior games for a reason - with Beanie coming along nicely do we really still need him instead of another young kid or even a good hungry state leaguer still in their early 20's?

Agree, Beanie will be 97kg minimum next year. Then we have Elton as well who will be a 3rd year player who will be a good player. Keep McGuane as the depth player to keep them hungry for their spot and be done with it.

 

[THE_GUN]

tigs2010 - Thanks for the explanation as i first thought that you can replace rookies with vets

I believe alot will depend on if there are other clubs prepared to offer McGuane a FA deal, If so fine let him go and continue his career as he would probably only have limited game time with us. If no interest
Delist and Rookie (same for edwards)

We really need to keep the influx of junior talent coming to the club and having a look at future talent such as McDonough/Helbig/Arnot

 

[tigs2010]

tigs2010 - Thanks for the explanation as i first thought that you can replace rookies with vets

I believe alot will depend on if there are other clubs prepared to offer McGuane a FA deal, If so fine let him go and continue his career as he would probably only have limited game time with us. If no interest
Delist and Rookie (same for edwards)

We really need to keep the influx of junior talent coming to the club and having a look at future talent such as McDonough/Helbig/Arnot

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.

 

[Calcium Man]

That's were overrating the list comes in. Good clubs make the hard decisions. I'll use Edwards as an example as that shouldn't be too controversial - yeah he's had a few big ones in the VFL, but he'll be 30 years-old next year and was dropped back to Coburg after only a few senior games for a reason - with Beanie coming along nicely do we really still need him instead of another young kid or even a good hungry state leaguer still in their early 20's?

I think tigs explained it beautifully above your post. Next year are when a lot of those guys are under the pump. Remember compared to Geelongs, Sydney's and collingwoods a lot of our list has been from the last 3 - 4 drafts so delisting them now is probably too early... except in the case where its obvious they cannot make the step up ala McDonald (should have kept him for our mac's brigade) Troy Taylor, Nason ect...

The guys who were on the edge this year were White and Mcguane and maybe Jackson but White and Jackson have cemented themselves as best 22 (after 8 and 10 season respectively) and McGuane has done enough.

But i am with you edwards should be delisted.

 

[Madtiger2006]

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

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

 

[Madtiger2006]

Moving blokes to the vets list doesn't free up spots on the senior list - still need to shed at least 3 senior listed players to create space for the minimum 3 new draftees.

I thought it did but it meant you can have less on the rookie list

 

[tigs2010]

I thought it did but it meant you can have less on the rookie list

They changed it. See my explanation further up the page.

 

[3rdManUp]

Where is Derickx at?
Seriously though..

I have wanted him gone after the GC game last year but I keep seeing him top the hit outs and always listed as one of BOG every week. I'm an interstater so I can't watch the Coburg games. Can anyone tell me if he has lifted in the last year? Or is he just a VFL superstar?

It's the old adage that the tall guys take longer to develop and at 26 he may just be hitting his straps (he also had some kind of injury IIRC). I would both love and hate to see him play one more senior game before he is cut. I'm not saying he is our long term ruck solution but he may be our next Big-O: good serviceable depth. In fact, can someone kindly compare the two at VFL level?

I may be scoffed but I think he is just one of those players that we shoot off as needing to be delisted without actually thinking through it. This is his latest report from the Coburg/Bendigo game

Tom Derickx
Continued his rich vein of form, dominating in the ruck with 42 hit-outs. Provided a big presence for us with his four contested marks and tackling pressure around the contest.

 

[TJTIGER]

Of course the AFL may well decide Lonergan's fate for us.

I had herd that he was let go because he questioned the whole thing.

 

[tigs2010]

Where is Derickx at?
Seriously though..

I have wanted him gone after the GC game last year but I keep seeing him top the hit outs and always listed as one of BOG every week. I'm an interstater so I can't watch the Coburg games. Can anyone tell me if he has lifted in the last year? Or is he just a VFL superstar?

It's the old adage that the tall guys take longer to develop and at 26 he may just be hitting his straps (he also had some kind of injury IIRC). I would both love and hate to see him play one more senior game before he is cut. I'm not saying he is our long term ruck solution but he may be our next Big-O: good serviceable depth. In fact, can someone kindly compare the two at VFL level?

I may be scoffed but I think he is just one of those players that we shoot off as needing to be delisted without actually thinking through it. This is his latest report from the Coburg/Bendigo game

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.

 

[jreesosb]

We need someone to write music? Why?

So the team can make beautiful music together. Imagine them all playing "Ride of the Valkyries" 5 minutes before they run out....

 

[TheAnt]

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

 

[SumTingWong]

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

At a guess...............because they are clueless?

 

[theflea]

But we currently have 41 on the senior list with Lonergan & Stephenson upgraded to the senior list ?

But if what your saying is correct then the alternative would be obviously to delist A.Edwards & McGuane then to rookie list them

The second part is possible however I think mcguane would get a gig on a senior list somewhere. On the first bit even if your a upgraded rookie your still a rookie no matter what.