Saints delist 5, Callaghan to be re-drafted

[Jumper]

saw this on footygoss.com....

Saints delist five, Callaghan to be re-drafted
Posted Oct 21, 2003 - 14:37 PM


By Daniel Garb

St.Kilda announced today that three players and two rookie listed players have been de-listed including Western Australian Craig Callaghan.

Chris Oliver, Steven Lawrence, Ben Schwarze(rookie), Jordan Barham(rookie) and Callaghan were all cut from their squad.
The Saints have announced though that Callaghan will be picked by the club in the upcoming National Draft.
The former Docker's de-listing was forced as a result of AFL rules, which state each club must make three compulsory selections in the draft.
Callaghan will travel with St.Kilda to London for their end of season trip.





·

 

[MarkT]

Why is there a minimum number of players a club must draft?
While i'm on it, why is there a maximum list size since we have a salary cap?

 

[Kid Dynamite!]

If Chris Oliver is a ruckman then I suspect he might be hot property come draft time.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by MarkT
Why is there a minimum number of players a club must draft?

Probably so a club like Brisbane don't just trade away their first four picks for a good rookie and then **** off. Or something. I dunno.

While i'm on it, why is there a maximum list size since we have a salary cap?

Now that is a very good question.

 

[riccardo]

Only real surprise is Barham. Thought he would be a good prospect.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by MarkT
Why is there a minimum number of players a club must draft?

I think it's to ensure a certain number of youngsters are picked up in the draft each year. If the draft was weak clubs would be less inclined to select players, possibly resulting in the embarrassing situation of just 30 players getting picked up.

While i'm on it, why is there a maximum list size since we have a salary cap?

To stop teams going in with lists of 33-34 - the AFLPA got a bit shirty about it, reckoned less players were getting opportunities, especially youngsters in the draft. Largely came about due to all the passes last year.

 

[Portia]

Nah, thats minimum list size, that makes sense - its maximum cap size that should be the query.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by riccardo
Only real surprise is Barham. Thought he would be a good prospect.

I though Collingwood should have drafted way back when, but then again I am still the kid who used to get excited when Ricky got the ball on the wing took off. I'm also the kid that used to ask when is Ricky back in the team....

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Kid Dynamite!
If Chris Oliver is a ruckman then I suspect he might be hot property come draft time.

If he was any sort of ruckman he'd be in the ruck at the Saints. Others have raved about his potential, I never saw any.

Originally posted by riccardo
Only real surprise is Barham. Thought he would be a good prospect.

agreed, Port fans?

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Porthos
Probably so a club like Brisbane don't just trade away their first four picks for a good rookie and then **** off. Or something. I dunno.

Good luck to ‘em I reckon.

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I think it's to ensure a certain number of youngsters are picked up in the draft each year. If the draft was weak clubs would be less inclined to select players, possibly resulting in the embarrassing situation of just 30 players getting picked up.

Wouldn’t help if the discards were better, nominated and were drafted.

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
To stop teams going in with lists of 33-34 - the AFLPA got a bit shirty about it, reckoned less players were getting opportunities, especially youngsters in the draft. Largely came about due to all the passes last year.

That’s the minimum rather than the maximum. The maximum has a natural limit due to the cap. Not sure why there is a need for a maximum list size. I suspect it is a hangover from the reserves days as the AFL gradually cut lists to force the clubs to shed reserves sides. Time to get sensible now I reckon.

 

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by Falchoon
If he was any sort of ruckman he'd be in the ruck at the Saints. Others have raved about his potential, I never saw any.

agreed, Port fans?

Well I didn't really see too much of him, but from what I did see his frame looked a bit too slight for AFL level.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by MarkT
While i'm on it, why is there a maximum list size since we have a salary cap?

Exactly. Why can't clubs with room in their cap (who would usually be the lower teams) be allowed to have what would effectively be an elongated rookie list to build from?

Although you have to remember, each draftee will have literally a couple of hundred grand invested in them in their first two years. Maybe it's something to do with costs outside of the cap!?!

Eitherway, there should definitely be a list minimum of 38 IMO.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by MarkT
I though Collingwood should have drafted way back when, but then again I am still the kid who used to get excited when Ricky got the ball on the wing took off. I'm also the kid that used to ask when is Ricky back in the team....

Thank God Collingwood didnt get sentimental and recruit the boys Picken and Barham. Their fathers were my two absolute favorites when I was a kid, but unfortunately their sons are just good VFL players.

 

[ThePope]

Originally posted by Jumper
The former Docker's de-listing was forced as a result of AFL rules, which state each club must make three compulsory selections in the draft.

I don't get it. By my lists, St Kilda started this year with 34 on their senior list, 2 vets and 3 rookies. They've since dumped Capuano and elevated Murray to make it 34. Burke's gone and so have the other 2 rookies, so I make it 34 +1 vet.

They've now dumped Oliver and Lawrence, so that's 32 + 1. So they can have 6 picks in the draft if they have Harvey as a veteran outside the 38 (and only have 5 rookies) or 5 picks and have Harvey inside the 38 (and have 6 rookie picks).

So what's with the Callaghan delisting/relisting. Do they only want to run with 34 players again? Have they not read the new CBA?
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=99527

9. The AFL will enforce a minimum list size of 37 players in 2004 and 38 from 2005, not allowing clubs to go into a season with fewer players, in order to fit more expensive players under the salary cap

So even if the Saints kept Callaghan, they would still have to have at least 4 picks to get to 37, delisting him brings that number to 5.

Maybe they've already forgotten that they've delisted Capuano?!?

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Falchoon

agreed, Port fans?

Dunno about Barham. His year at Port last year showed many things about him. He only played SANFL reserves which was one reason he wasnt kept...but he kicked 65 or so goals (altho quite inconsistent), including 7 in the SANFL reserves grand final. Built like a twig and a suspect attitude probably helped us get rid of him.

How did he go this year in the VFL?

 

[Savatage]

Re: Re: Saints delist 5, Callaghan to be re-drafted

Originally posted by ThePope
I don't get it. By my lists, St Kilda started this year with 34 on their senior list, 2 vets and 3 rookies. They've since dumped Capuano and elevated Murray to make it 34. Burke's gone and so have the other 2 rookies, so I make it 34 +1 vet.

They've now dumped Oliver and Lawrence, so that's 32 + 1. So they can have 6 picks in the draft if they have Harvey as a veteran outside the 38 (and only have 5 rookies) or 5 picks and have Harvey inside the 38 (and have 6 rookie picks).

So what's with the Callaghan delisting/relisting. Do they only want to run with 34 players again? Have they not read the new CBA?
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=99527


So even if the Saints kept Callaghan, they would still have to have at least 4 picks to get to 37, delisting him brings that number to 5.

Maybe they've already forgotten that they've delisted Capuano?!?

We just had a trade period mate, you forgot so soon?

 

[MarkT]

He kicked 6 or so in the u18 GF a few years back. can't argue about his record when it counts.

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by MarkT
I though Collingwood should have drafted way back when, but then again I am still the kid who used to get excited when Ricky got the ball on the wing took off. I'm also the kid that used to ask when is Ricky back in the team....

I think Ricky`s problem was that he always thought he was injured, bit of a head case that fella.

 

[Falchoon]

Re: Re: Re: Saints delist 5, Callaghan to be re-drafted

Originally posted by Savatage
We just had a trade period mate, you forgot so soon?

 

[ThePope]

Re: Re: Re: Saints delist 5, Callaghan to be re-drafted

Originally posted by Savatage
We just had a trade period mate, you forgot so soon?

OK, so I'm out by 2 players... I still think they would have had room to fit 3 draft picks in. Maybe once you name your veteran as an "inside the 38" or an "outside the 38" player they have to stay there. Maybe they only want/can afford to be on 37 players, not 38? Maybe they really want to pick up 6 rookies, so don't want to move Harvey to an "outside the 38" veteran status.

Still don't understand why they'd have to do something like this to Callaghan.

 

[Savatage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saints delist 5, Callaghan to be re-drafted

Originally posted by ThePope
OK, so I'm out by 2 players... I still think they would have had room to fit 3 draft picks in. Maybe once you name your veteran as an "inside the 38" or an "outside the 38" player they have to stay there. Maybe they only want/can afford to be on 37 players, not 38? Maybe they really want to pick up 6 rookies, so don't want to move Harvey to an "outside the 38" veteran status.

Still don't understand why they'd have to do something like this to Callaghan.

You were out by 2 players, doesn't that answer your question ?

You need to delist a certain number of players, that number has been reached, the re-drafting will occur. Simple. Veterans are still a number on your list.

 

[Savatage]

Really surprised about Barham. The kid could play.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by windyhill
I think Ricky`s problem was that he always thought he was injured, bit of a head case that fella.

Nah! He was too quick for human hamstrings. Trust me I almost saw him dash by!

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Sorry, misread your question Mark.

Maximum list size is probably an old hangover from the reserves days. But it might also be to stop a struggling side running a young list of 42 or 43 and then running into all sorts of salary cap problems when they start improving and coming out of contract.