List Mgmt. Squad reduction

[theGav56]

Crazy thing about signing Giro and Crowden (and also Meek) to multi-year deals is that even if you think they are bona-fide 200 game players (I don't , but even if _you_ did), what was the rush? Who was ever going to poach them from under our nose?

Sure you sign up a guy like Cerra to a long-term deal because you know other clubs will come asking questions.

But Giro, Crowden and Meek? I doubt it.

I suspect that Giro and Crowden are given low cost extensions and told that they are being given time and commitment to develop. You are talking about speculative players with some AFL traits who are being given the resources and time to develop.

Cerra is given big dollars to keep the opposition clubs away. You are talking about elite talent who is already shown that they have a higher likelihood of becoming A grade.

 

[Lach72]

Personally I'd rather they cut 20% of the contracts of those above 100k and then put in a system of not being able to replace those retiring.

But If we had to replace a few then it would be this for me:

Hill: Paid out
Mundy retired.
Taberner - gone
Cox - Stays
Giro - paid out
Colyer - Paid out
North - Gone
Banfield - Gone
Thomas - Gone


Then raffle anything else we needed between Dixon, O'Reilly, Carter, Crowden, Watson, Schultz

There's something about Jarvis Pina IMO...has the makings of a very good defender

 

[eastfreo75]

100% agree. He’s a top 10 pick, was grateful he was available at 32. You don’t just throw that away, when he’s in his 2nd year. Like at how great Sturt was. Same draft year too. Have to keep the 1-4 year players, as they’re the ones to build a premiership around.
Banfield, Schulz, should be gone before him

A few points.

Valente was considered a late first round pick and slid. Top 10 is a bit over the top.

If the main list is reduced to 35 and have picks for a draft who do you cut without breaking contracts?

 

[Joao]

I'd only consider cutting Valente if his injuries persist. Would genuinely rather cut a contracted player over him.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Delisting a contracted player who hasn't done anything wrong is a terrible decision for the long-term ... but ... if you ever had an excuse for doing so it would be if the AFL reduced playing lists.

Although you should expect the AFLPA to say that delisting contracted players should only happen if the club has delisted all its out-of-contract players first.

 

[Superkoops]

I don't think you are being honest with yourself if you think Carter should stay on but the likes of Duman should definitely go. Carter looked completely out of his depth in his AFL outings. A lot of those other blokes at least looked like they could play the level. Duman especially has played genuinely good games at AFL level.

Carter is Cat-B rookie. Might as well persist with him for another year if, as expected the Cat-B rookie list stays.

It seems to make sense to me that most of the list cuts will come from the Cat-A rookie list. These are those out of contract and in many cases from the 2019 rookie draft the recent relisting of delisted players like North and Dixon. The Cat-A rookie list is pretty pointless anyway and has been for years.

Leaving Colyer aside which seemed to be a Rosich Captains call influenced into 3 years instead of 2 years by Colin Young. He is handy depth. If they re-sign Matera then perhaps Colyer might be paid out. Colyer did play round 1.

What we are really talking about with list changes here is 4 players two in contract and 2 out of contract.

Schultz & Banfield verse Giro & Crowden

Giro’s rehab has been top shelf according to the club. He at least deserves a chance to show his worth post ACL. His disposal needs to be tidied up but is it any worse than Banfield who played a lot of WAFL last year. Schultz got his lick of the ice cream in the practice match but really he is just a foot soldier who plays forward. It would be borderline call between him and Crowden. Crowden younger and has played more AFL.

I don’t expect many primary list changes. Unsure what the AFL will do with the draft but expect it to be even more compromised, and given we have nothing after second round I doubt we’ll select anything more than 2-3 picks.

Can’t see Tabs gone, happy to re-sign Dardy, expect them to honour SHill’s contract and I like Valente, Bewley and Pina. Watson some chance for an upgrade but given difficult calls facing Banfield, Matera, Schultz and the 1-year remaining contracted Colyer, Crowden & Giro, I think unfortunately Watson is up against it like all the other Cat-A rookies.

 

[Docker82]

I think there has to be a draft with at least some 18 year olds. Maybe a limit of 2 per club. If there is no drafting of U18’s then it will negatively affect many clubs in a massive way based on 2019 trades. Geelong for eg traded in 3 first rounders whilst West Coast have none. North Melbourne (traded out of 2019 1st round to get another 1st round in 2020), Adelaide and Brisbane all have two first-round selections.

Draft doubts could ruin Cats’ haul for Tim Kelly. Here’s where your club sits

Years of clever trading may have been a complete waste. Here’s why your club could be nervous

www.foxsports.com.au

If ND is replaced with effectively a supplementary / top up selections then the picks for 2020 will need to slide through to 2021 and ladder positions that influence traded picks to be based on 2021 season.

Exactly what I’d expect to happen if the National Draft doesn’t go ahead.

With recruiters currently stood down and no footy being played whatsoever it’ll be silly to hold a full draft imo.

Clubs would probably prefer to keep the players they have rather than draft players they didn’t think were good enough last year. Wouldn’t expect it to be used too much - maybe about as much as the actual supplement selections.

 

[Dockeroo]

W

Exactly what I’d expect to happen if the National Draft doesn’t go ahead.

With recruiters currently stood down and no footy being played whatsoever it’ll be silly to hold a full draft imo.

Clubs would probably prefer to keep the players they have rather than draft players they didn’t think were good enough last year. Wouldn’t expect it to be used too much - maybe about as much as the actual supplement selections.

who do people think are most benefitting from this stuffed up draft year? I can’t see how the clubs with multiple early selections are advantaged in 2020 as They invested in these early picks on the basis that they would be able to properly rate and access the talent. That’s obviously unlikely to happen and a couple of gems could easily slip very low on the draft order that would benefit west coast and the likes. In saying that, we aren’t in a bad place with two picks around pick 6 or so, and pick 20 (as it sits currently). If our recruiters do their job well, we could easily snatch a player that slides who really shouldn’t have in this scenario..

 

[Docker82]

W

who do people think are most benefitting from this stuffed up draft year? I can’t see how the clubs with multiple early selections are advantaged in 2020 as They invested in these early picks on the basis that they would be able to properly rate and access the talent. That’s obviously unlikely to happen and a couple of gems could easily slip very low on the draft order that would benefit west coast and the likes. In saying that, we aren’t in a bad place with two picks around pick 6 or so, and pick 20 (as it sits currently). If our recruiters do their job well, we could easily snatch a player that slides who really shouldn’t have in this scenario..

I wouldn’t be surprised if the AFL raises the draft age and transfers all 2020 picks that were traded to 2021. Completely eliminates the problem of the comprised draft.

 

[Superkoops]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the AFL raises the draft age and transfers all 2020 picks that were traded to 2021. Completely eliminates the problem of the comprised draft.

I think it is a workable situation. Have a pre-season style draft as a top up from state leagues and out of contract players left in limbo after the trade period and for them to be held much closer together given an anticipated short 2021 pre-season.

If this is the case there will be bare minimum delistings from the primary list.

 

[Dockeroo]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the AFL raises the draft age and transfers all 2020 picks that were traded to 2021. Completely eliminates the problem of the comprised draft.

That would be more good news for the eagles and those clubs down the order. Would automatically create a super draft where a normal pick 12 is equivalent standard to a pick 25. Can’t see them increasing the draft age to 19.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the AFL raises the draft age and transfers all 2020 picks that were traded to 2021. Completely eliminates the problem of the comprised draft.

You may well be right. I think that this is unfair to this year's 18 year olds who have been moving towards an outcome all their teenage years and now find their (football) lives on hold for another 12 months. A little bit like deferring year 12 exams.

On raising the draft age more generally: I think long-term it will be a good thing for young footballers to do more of their adult football development before they are drafted.

But that can only happen if there are good development leagues for these footballers. I know people will say that we have long-standing state leagues like the WAFL and the SANFL with their great history, etc.

But just having some states a wonderful 100 years of state league history behind them, doesn't mean that footy Australia-wide is properly set up to develop young footballers between junior footy and then being drafted into the AFL 1 or 2 or whatever years later.

If the AFL start raising the draft age then expect some kind of national development system to be put in place. This will further marginalise traditional state leagues.

 

[Superkoops]

That would be more good news for the eagles and those clubs down the order. Would automatically create a super draft where a normal pick 12 is equivalent standard to a pick 25. Can’t see them increasing the draft age to 19.

The idea would require the permanent change of the draft age to 19 which more and more current coaches and heavy journalists are calling for. That way the crop of draftees eligible for 2020 are now eligible for 2021. It won’t be a case of of 2020 U18 and 2021 U18 in one draft. So while there might be a bit more depth in 2021 ND with some under-developed teenagers having a further year to develop, it shouldn’t create a super draft like never before. Look if the recruiters are as good as they can be there will always be value late in the draft. But the theory of having an earlier pick still gives you a better opportunity.

It is the best of a difficult situation.

 

[Puregold]

I’d like to see the afl protect the cat b rookies by keeping their pay outside of the cap but also making the pay come from sponsorship beyond the club. This will help further club development in indigenous communities and from players from Asian/African heritage. Both of these groups need to be promoted instead of ignored.

Would also love to see the return of the seniors list(can’t remember what it was called) so that 2020 isn’t the last season of guys like Mundy and Bourgogne. This needs to be restricted to only a couple per team though

reduction to 35 outside of these two groups would be better than a straight reduction

 

[Puregold]

The idea would require the permanent change of the draft age to 19 which more and more current coaches and heavy journalists are calling for. That way the crop of draftees eligible for 2020 are now eligible for 2021. It won’t be a case of of 2020 U18 and 2021 U18 in one draft. So while there might be a bit more depth in 2021 ND with some under-developed teenagers having a further year to develop, it shouldn’t create a super draft like never before. Look if the recruiters are as good as they can be there will always be value late in the draft. But the theory of having an earlier pick still gives you a better opportunity.

It is the best of a difficult situation.

I reckon it’s making lemonade out of lemons. Draft age needs to jump anyway

 

[Taylor]

If the draft age were to raise and I were a currently 16/17 year old looking at the 2021 draft I would be upset.

Which means there is opportunity for the AFL to mess with things. How's this for a potential stuff around.

The AFL awards the poorly performing teams a draft pick for a mini draft, they can't use this pick and can't use picks from other teams either. These picks select players in 2021 who would have been available before the draft age was lifted.

The 2021 draft then has the top six to ten players from it's draft and the entire draft class of 2020 in the pool. How exciting. Two drafts in one night. A whole trade period devoted to exchanging players and picks for these mini draft selections.

Tv ratings through the roof. More younger players, less cost, more ratings, some excitement after a year out. More $$ for the clubs

It got more and more believable the longer I wrote about it.

 

[WilloTree]

He agreed to a year extension on the category B list as far as I remember. Never upgraded to the senior list, was temporarily upgraded during the season as required to play as a Cat B.

I remember him being upgraded. I suppose it must have been temporary. I didn't know you could drop someone back to Rookie after a promotion to the main list, unless it was to replace an LTI. Maybe that was the loophole?

Carter upgraded

Fremantle have upgraded rookie signing Jason Carter to the primary list

www.fremantlefc.com.au

 

[Docker82]

I remember him being upgraded. I suppose it must have been temporary. I didn't know you could drop someone back to Rookie after a promotion to the main list, unless it was to replace an LTI. Maybe that was the loophole?

Carter upgraded

Fremantle have upgraded rookie signing Jason Carter to the primary list

www.fremantlefc.com.au

Not a loophole. It’s exactly what has happened since the rookie list existed. The AFL relaxed it’s rules on it gradually though with first nominated rookies (to bring lists up to 40 available players) and then just allowing all Category A rookies to play without an upgrade. Now the rule only exists for Category B rookies.

Carter isn’t the only Category B rookie in the league that’s played AFL footy.

Back in the day when Category A rookies needed long term injuries to be upgraded some guys even got ‘dropped’ simply because there was no longer a long term injury. I’m pretty sure it happened to Alex Silvagni in his first season here.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

Who cares about his bio

It's his football ability and he's limited

He's not. His potential is not yet tapped.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

At the end of the day he’s an out of contract player this year who hasnt established himself in the team yet. It depends on how much of a list cut we are forced to make but he’s in a precarious position, unfortunately for him, along side about a dozen others. People like Giro And colyer are quite lucky to have another year left in contracts IMO.

He's played 27 games in two seasons. That's fairly established.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

It's not his size not his attitude it's his kicking skills

Didn't stop Ed Langdon being invaluable. Nor Danyle Pearce....need I go on?

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

It’s frustrating when you see the same issue over and over again.

I just don’t get how Giro,Crowden, Meek, Switkowski, and Duman all get two year extensions.

Switkowski and Duman ... I kinda get. Duman in particular is growing on me. Giro and Crowden since their first year....

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

Carter is Cat-B rookie. Might as well persist with him for another year if, as expected the Cat-B rookie list stays.

It seems to make sense to me that most of the list cuts will come from the Cat-A rookie list. These are those out of contract and in many cases from the 2019 rookie draft the recent relisting of delisted players like North and Dixon. The Cat-A rookie list is pretty pointless anyway and has been for years.

Leaving Colyer aside which seemed to be a Rosich Captains call influenced into 3 years instead of 2 years by Colin Young. He is handy depth. If they re-sign Matera then perhaps Colyer might be paid out. Colyer did play round 1.

What we are really talking about with list changes here is 4 players two in contract and 2 out of contract.

Schultz & Banfield verse Giro & Crowden

Giro’s rehab has been top shelf according to the club. He at least deserves a chance to show his worth post ACL. His disposal needs to be tidied up but is it any worse than Banfield who played a lot of WAFL last year. Schultz got his lick of the ice cream in the practice match but really he is just a foot soldier who plays forward. It would be borderline call between him and Crowden. Crowden younger and has played more AFL.

I don’t expect many primary list changes. Unsure what the AFL will do with the draft but expect it to be even more compromised, and given we have nothing after second round I doubt we’ll select anything more than 2-3 picks.

Can’t see Tabs gone, happy to re-sign Dardy, expect them to honour SHill’s contract and I like Valente, Bewley and Pina. Watson some chance for an upgrade but given difficult calls facing Banfield, Matera, Schultz and the 1-year remaining contracted Colyer, Crowden & Giro, I think unfortunately Watson is up against it like all the other Cat-A rookies.

Can't see why Giro gets the shout. Like a deer in headlights when he played. Despite his tank and tackling ability. For me he would be gone. Along with Crowden. Slow to react and bland in his role.

Schultz is aggressive in the forward 50 and has shown himself to be able to kick goals.

Banfield is flexible and deployable in different areas.

Black and white for me.

 

[Ysaye]

Question: Do potential draftees belong to the AFLPA?

If not, would the AFLPA potentially push hard to move the draft back a year, using the arguments of player health and wellbeing etc to protect it's current players against severe list reductions?

I get that the draft makes some money for the AFL, but does it make enough out of it to warrant the AFL to retaining it (in the face of having to play a new bunch of players as well as the old)?

Do the 16/17 year olds (who might hate the idea of the draft being pushed back) really have much of a voice in all of this?

 

[eastfreo75]

He's played 27 games in two seasons. That's fairly established.

That’s because we had a long injury list with reduced depth due to rebuilding.

Is he best 25?