Official List Management Thread

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Agree Moss is a GEM and will only get better with a full pre-season under his belt

As Drummond mentioned, the other positive is that Moss has a strong build for an 18yr old and will get stronger very quickly

IMO Moss is a must to retain and with the Birdman on the long term injury list there is certainly incentive for Moss to have a big pre-season

Apparently Moss doesn't think that he'll be retained. He has even talked about returning to cricket later this summer. The Redbacks only have one keeper on their list (Manou) and the next two on the radar were Moss and Alex Carey. Carey is likely to go to footy as well. Good time to be a young wicket keeper in SA.

 

[macca23]

Apparently Moss doesn't think that he'll be retained. He has even talked about returning to cricket later this summer. The Redbacks only have one keeper on their list (Manou) and the next two on the radar were Moss and Alex Carey. Carey is likely to go to footy as well. Good time to be a young wicket keeper in SA.

From a selfish Crows point of view that would be disappointing as he looks to me to be the type that will really blossom with a good pre-season under his belt.

I'm with Drummond on this one. I'd like to see him re-rookied as a minimum.

Before we re-rookie any of our current rookies, we are starting off with 5 spots to fill, not 6. The Irish rookie, Donnelly, takes up the 6th spot on our rookie list

 

[Crow-mo]

Just about everybody seem to be happy with our picks from last year. That was in a 'BAD' year.
So, why are people so pessimistic about getting some more good picks in next year's.

fair question, however there are few things to consider:
- as it was a bad year, most clubs sold out of the draft, and took the bare minimum. this meant that there were very few buyers for whatever was about. less talent, but spread around less teams too.

whereas this year, is more talent more teams. ultimately more competition, means less to around.

not forgetting, last years crop have not come good yet, lets not count our chickens yet.

 

[The Crows Truth]

fair question, however there are few things to consider:
- as it was a bad year, most clubs sold out of the draft, and took the bare minimum. this meant that there were very few buyers for whatever was about. less talent, but spread around less teams too.

whereas this year, is more talent more teams. ultimately more competition, means less to around.

not forgetting, last years crop have not come good yet, lets not count our chickens yet.

is this logical old son? richmond was the first team to pass last year in the 5th round with pick number 64.

at that stage we had secured all live picks except kite so i dont understand how there were 'very few buyers' when actually the majority of teams had picked more than the 'bare minimum' of 3 picks. IF we had drafted many of our players after teams started passing your comments would make more sense, but that wasnt the case.

 

[Vader]

is this logical old son? richmond was the first team to pass last year in the 5th round with pick number 64.

at that stage we had secured all live picks except kite so i dont understand how there were 'very few buyers' when actually all teams had picked more than the 'bare minimum' of 3 picks. IF we had drafted many of our players after teams started passing your comments would make more sense, but that wasnt the case.

Richmond might have been the first team to pass, but 7 of the 16 clubs were already finished and out of the draft by that point in time. 5 of the 16 clubs took the bare minimum of draft picks - the fact that some of these were around the 60 mark is because of their willingness to trade high draft picks, another indication of the weakness of the draft.

Look at it this way... The following clubs took the bare minimum of three draftees last year: Carlton (+1 PSD), Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond (+1 PSD), Sydney.

And for the record, these teams were finished before pick #64, last selection in brackets: Brisbane (56), Collingwood (61), Geelong (60), Hawthorn (45), Port Adelaide (49), Sydney (59), West Coast (22).

It would seem that the majority of the clubs thought there were only around 60 draftworthy players last year. This year it looks like being close to 100.

Suggesting that ALL clubs had more than the bare minimum of 3 picks is rubbish. However, our only "live" pick after #60 was Kite, with Walker being a special case because of the NSW scholarship.

 

[The Crows Truth]

Richmond might have been the first team to pass, but 7 of the 16 clubs were already finished and out of the draft by that point in time. 5 of the 16 clubs took the bare minimum of draft picks - the fact that some of these were around the 60 mark is because of their willingness to trade high draft picks, another indication of the weakness of the draft.

Look at it this way... The following clubs took the bare minimum of three draftees last year: Carlton (+1 PSD), Collingwood, Hawthorn, Richmond (+1 PSD), Sydney.

And for the record, these teams were finished before pick #64, last selection in brackets: Brisbane (56), Collingwood (61), Geelong (60), Hawthorn (45), Port Adelaide (49), Sydney (59), West Coast (22).

It would seem that the majority of the clubs thought there were only around 60 draftworthy players last year. This year it looks like being close to 100.

Suggesting that ALL clubs had more than the bare minimum of 3 picks is rubbish. However, our only "live" pick after #60 was Kite, with Walker being a special case because of the NSW scholarship.

yeah fair points. i had forgotten that we picked up 2 picks for hudson for example. but the substance of my post remains that most clubs picked more than the minimum 3 picks and that our seemingly outperformance of the draft was when other teams were all (or nearly all) still active in the draft

 

[Dandy_GO]

. I’ve heard whispers that the club is happy with Martin and they will retain him. And that was before his best afield performance today.

I'm not surprised. I still can't work out why the vast majority of posters on here have written him off. He hadn't yet played reserves when we picked him up, yet he's been regularly in their best this year, as well as making the best a couple of times in his 5 or 6 seniors games.

I've only seen Martin a few times, but he looks class. Got a good kick, knows where the goals are, a nice height and plenty of dash. Everything I've seen has suggested that he'd be an AFL standard wingman once he puts on a few kilos. He's been very impressive for what appeared to be a very speculative rookie pick.

Get on the Martin bandwagon.

 

[DJ101]

interesting to hear the Edwards has not signed yet. In today's paper Rucci mentioned that the crows want to include performance based criteria in his contract.

Now I understand why the crows are keen to only sign plus 30 yo players to one year deals, I fail to understand how or why they would apply the restrictions to Edwards that they are trying to. He has had a good year, winning the Merv Agars medal certainly proves that. He has no injuries or signs of injuries... he is just over 30.

I wonder if the other two players in the same age bracket, Goodwin and McLeod were subject to the same restrictions when signing their contracts? I think not! And those two players didnt have great years and sufferred from injuries.

I fail to understand how the crows hierarchy would treat one of their great players in this way. It really disappoints me.

 

[Vader]

He has no injuries or signs of injuries... he is just over 30.

He's 32 and the 2nd oldest player on our list, behind McLeod (Goodwin turns 32 on Boxing Day).

 

[Mismatched]

interesting to hear the Edwards has not signed yet. In today's paper Rucci mentioned that the crows want to include performance based criteria in his contract.

Now I understand why the crows are keen to only sign plus 30 yo players to one year deals, I fail to understand how or why they would apply the restrictions to Edwards that they are trying to. He has had a good year, winning the Merv Agars medal certainly proves that. He has no injuries or signs of injuries... he is just over 30.

I wonder if the other two players in the same age bracket, Goodwin and McLeod were subject to the same restrictions when signing their contracts? I think not! And those two players didnt have great years and sufferred from injuries.

I fail to understand how the crows hierarchy would treat one of their great players in this way. It really disappoints me.

I don't see how it applies at all really, Edwards would only be getting a 1 year deal, simple as that, perhaps Edwards wants some performance based criteria to ensure himself 2 years, which I don't know about. If the club were offering 1 + 1 if he were to play well enough, I don't see what his problem would be, we work on 1 year contracts to 30+ year olds, simple as that.

 

[WALL-e]

I don't see how it applies at all really, Edwards would only be getting a 1 year deal, simple as that, perhaps Edwards wants some performance based criteria to ensure himself 2 years, which I don't know about. If the club were offering 1 + 1 if he were to play well enough, I don't see what his problem would be, we work on 1 year contracts to 30+ year olds, simple as that.

I imagine the performance part would be salary based.

Based on games played i presume.

 

[Mismatched]

I imagine the performance part would be salary based.

Based on games played i presume.

Perhaps yeah.

 

[DJ101]

30... 32, not sure that was my point. More that he has shown enough this year to receive the same deal.

 

[cocka]

Perhaps yeah.

The crows want his one year contract to be performance based. So reducing his base contract and giving extra payment for games played and performance in those games.
So if he missed a few games his salary would be reduced as compared to what he got this year, if he plays all games next year as well as he did this year he would probably end up earning more than he did this year.
I guess he (and rightly so) wants the club to share the risk a bit more next year than putting the onous on him.

 

[StuPendus]

I don't see how it applies at all really, Edwards would only be getting a 1 year deal, simple as that, perhaps Edwards wants some performance based criteria to ensure himself 2 years, which I don't know about. If the club were offering 1 + 1 if he were to play well enough, I don't see what his problem would be, we work on 1 year contracts to 30+ year olds, simple as that.

No it's not that simple. The story is that the club is refusing to pay the portion of his contract where he gets paid if he is injured. I have been a supporter for Tyson and backed him when some here have been on his back. But Tyson take a pay cut, this is the club telling you this is probably you last year.

Having said that let's say he is on 350- 400K a year, half of that would suffice surely even if he missed half the season, it is inconsistent however if the others over 30 aren't put in the same boat.

 

[DJ101]

Exactly right cocka. Why should he wear all the risk?

I can guarantee that Edwards simply wants what he deserves.... that same deal as he was on this year. He has shown nothing this year that suggests he should be on a performance based or games played contract.

Why one rule for one player and other rules for the other "stars".

I also imagine that he understands and expects that he is only a year by year proposition, so would not expect any deal into 2010 at this stage.

 

[slippery crow]

Exactly right cocka. Why should he wear all the risk?

I can guarantee that Edwards simply wants what he deserves.... that same deal as he was on this year. He has shown nothing this year that suggests he should be on a performance based or games played contract.

Why one rule for one player and other rules for the other "stars".

I also imagine that he understands and expects that he is only a year by year proposition, so would not expect any deal into 2010 at this stage.

From the outside

It seems that the club have already made a clear decison that next year will be Tyson's final year.

Depending on how the season unfolds, especially the development of younger players such as Dangerfield, Otten, D-Mac and others the club may want the flexibility to at some stage of the year focus on youth at the expense of experienced players and Tyson may already be assessed as the next senior player to make way for a younger player, if this occurs the club do not want to be paying $350k for a player playing sanfl footy.

What the club is suggesting is standard, fair and reasonable

 

[westies1953]

matt rendell said on 5aa this week he was going to terang to interview a young kid from geelong falcons---are crows looking at luke rounds as a late round draft pick? apparently super quick small defender/ on baller who ran a 2.93 seconds 20m sprint when tested by falcons in march this year--fastest result for all falcons at that time including patrick dangerfield!!

 

[Ticktak]

Guess we will find out early next week who will stay and who is going.

My tip is Campbell, Jericho & Doughty to be delisted.

Petrenko to be upgraded.

Other 3 rookies to get another year.

This gives us 5 picks in the national draft and 2 picks in the rookie draft.

Would be happy to put money on this.

 

[WALL-e]

Guess we will find out early next week who will stay and who is going.

My tip is Campbell, Jericho & Doughty to be delisted.

Petrenko to be upgraded.

Other 3 rookies to get another year.

This gives us 5 picks in the national draft and 2 picks in the rookie draft.

Would be happy to put money on this.

We'll find out Friday at 2.01 PM

 

[-CG-]

Guess we will find out early next week who will stay and who is going.

My tip is Campbell, Jericho & Doughty to be delisted.

Petrenko to be upgraded.

Other 3 rookies to get another year.

This gives us 5 picks in the national draft and 2 picks in the rookie draft.

Would be happy to put money on this.

Doughty won't be delisted, just won the best team man award this year. If anyone goes I think it will be Kris Massie

 

[Alex99]

Guess we will find out early next week who will stay and who is going.

My tip is Campbell, Jericho & Doughty to be delisted.

Petrenko to be upgraded.

Other 3 rookies to get another year.

This gives us 5 picks in the national draft and 2 picks in the rookie draft.

Would be happy to put money on this.

Don't you mean Massie?

 

[Ticktak]

Don't you mean Massie?

I reckon Doughty will go just like the Torney delisting.

 

[cmndstab]

I have difficulty imagining Doughty going after they've made a song and dance all year about how he's "playing on the edge" and basically implying that he is playing to keep his spot. If he does that, they make a big deal out of it, and then he gets cut anyway it sends a pretty poor message to the rest of the playing group.

I'd be surprised if he got a contract for more than a year, though.

 

[amer]

I reckon Doughty will go just like the Torney delisting.

Despite being given a new contract??