Team Mgmt. Talk about the makeup of our list - midfield balance, height profile, endurance runners

[eth-dog]

To those suggesting trying to get King this year, I think that's a bad idea for multiple reasons.

• Firstly, GCS have shown that they demand way overs for contracted players they want. He'll be much cheaper next year.
• Secondly, it allows us to use #11. Much better for development to use our #11 in the draft and 2022 & 2023 R1s on King than use our 2021 & 2022 R1s and take our 2023 R1 to the draft. We likely use a lower pick in the draft and by 2024 the kid has an extra 3 years of development.
• Thirdly, it gives our current young talls another year of development. Who knows, by the end of 2022 we don't think we need King for the cost it would take.

I think its more an issue with keeping him fit (physically and mentally) during lockdowns. I don't think he had any season fitness issues in 2019 and prior.


That assumes it was an 'option', rather than an automatic trigger. Hitting the trigger could have automatically extended the contract for both parties. Which I for one would hope for, as I'm generally dead set against putting options the player can trigger in contracts.


I think something to remember is that if we'd kicked straight (and we went at 60% during the year) then we'd have been up at three quarter time. As you say, the main blokes to struggle (especially after Q1) were youngsters who more gym time, experience and training should naturally make better players. I'm not sure if we need that extra defensive mid now, but I'd wait to see how it all gells/develops over the next year or two. Keep the powder dry. What we've got is pretty near complete as a midfield if they can keep current form and youngsters develop.


Its a good question how to develop depth. My personal preference would be via the draft and maybe some cheap options for targeted roles. If you still need specific roles in a year or two, target them for overs with salary (like Carlton did with Papley, Melbourne with Langdon).

Just on this, all triggers in the AFL have to be player option I'm very sure.

 

[Ants]

It's quid pro quo. We pay enough to get band 3, they trade that pick for Francis.

What's in it for Adelaide though? Why would they give up anything for Francis?

Exactly. Adelaide and Port aren't interested in Francis. If he said he wanted to leave we'd be offered a third or fourth rounder, tops. If we want to trade him, the same. They'd prefer to keep the Kelly compo even if its a third (and it would be an early third) than trade it to us for Francis.

If Francis is not in our best 22 then he is not worth a pick inside the top 30. I am in the minority but I think he can be a decent forward if we get some sort of system going. Would I trade him for pick 24. Yes I would. Do I think it will happen ? no.

Agreed and agreed. I thought Francis did his job forward in most of the games he played there, having not played forward for about 5 years. If he'd kicked straight, he would have been a major contributor, even in the final. Was involved in a lot of scoring chains due to that lethal peg of his. I also thought he did ok down back early in the year, albeit with clear areas of improvement.

Given I doubt we'd be offered anything more than a mid-to-late third, and Francis gives us good, versatile depth, with still the potential upside of a quality best 22 player, I just don't see where the value is in any trade scenario.

 

[Ants]

Just on this, all triggers in the AFL have to be player option I'm very sure.

I thought any option had to be player owned, but neutral triggers could be automatic.

 

[Lore]

That assumes it was an 'option', rather than an automatic trigger. Hitting the trigger could have automatically extended the contract for both parties. Which I for one would hope for, as I'm generally dead set against putting options the player can trigger in contracts.

ok

 

[Lore]

Just on this, all triggers in the AFL have to be player option I'm very sure.

I thought any option had to be player owned, but neutral triggers could be automatic.

No trigger clause can be unilaterally exercised by either the club or the player. There's a rule that expressly forbids it.

21.1 (g) An AFL Club and a Player shall not include provision in a Standard Playing Contract which would entitle either party to unilaterally exercise an option to extend the term of a Player’s contract.

https://www.aflplayers.com.au/app/uploads/2020/11/AFL_CBA_2017-2022.pdf

That was why the Josh Kelly contract extension from 2 to 10 years was so intriguing, the theory goes that it was a completely separate contract already signed by GWS and given to Kelly to sign and return to the club at any time if he so desired.

 

[faible]

Exactly. Adelaide and Port aren't interested in Francis. If he said he wanted to leave we'd be offered a third or fourth rounder, tops. If we want to trade him, the same. They'd prefer to keep the Kelly compo even if its a third (and it would be an early third) than trade it to us for Francis.


Agreed and agreed. I thought Francis did his job forward in most of the games he played there, having not played forward for about 5 years. If he'd kicked straight, he would have been a major contributor, even in the final. Was involved in a lot of scoring chains due to that lethal peg of his. I also thought he did ok down back early in the year, albeit with clear areas of improvement.

Given I doubt we'd be offered anything more than a mid-to-late third, and Francis gives us good, versatile depth, with still the potential upside of a quality best 22 player, I just don't see where the value is in any trade scenario.

Hard part is that Francis is probably best in the same role as Ridley (and Gleeson); a loose checking third tall that can intercept mark and setup play.

If we take Heppell out of defence as a long-term option, does our defence set-up in such a way that we can get the best out of Francis?

Ridley (or Francis) could conceivably play a similar role to Heppell I guess?

 

[Ants]

Hard part is that Francis is probably best in the same role as Ridley (and Gleeson); a loose checking third tall that can intercept mark and setup play.

If we take Heppell out of defence as a long-term option, does our defence set-up in such a way that we can get the best out of Francis?

Ridley (or Francis) could conceivably play a similar role to Heppell I guess?

I think down back that Francis isn't mobile enough to play on smaller players. So I see him as being in one of the positions that Stewart, Ridley or Lav has. Before his injury, we were mostly playing 4 talls with Ridley taking a mobile smaller player. After Francis went out, and after some tinkering, Cutler eventually took over that role from Rids, Rids took a key back role and Stewart took the 3rd least important tall forward. With some juggling week to week.

I think Francis is perfectly fine as a key back, as a minimum as depth. Just look at the Bulldogs, they've had to use their 4th & 5th best key defenders due to injuries this year. I think Francis easily fits that role, or could fight his way back into the team.

But I also think going into preseason Francis will have the third tall role up forward. Whether he can hold it is up to him.

 

[FlyingV]

I really just want a low key off-season where the focus can be on our existing group getting better. The fanfare around Daniher/Saad/Shiel/Dunkley etc etc is exhausting. Some small savvy moves like the Kelly one sounds great and then hit the draft

 

[Ants]

Just on the future delistings/list spots. We currently have (including Mozzie) four players out. We've got two added in (Kelly & Durham). If we're going to use all our draft picks (and we don't have to as we could promote two Cat A rookies) we have to find one more delisting. Two if we're going to rookie Wanganeen.

In any consideration, some thought should be given to next year. Depending on how the "rookie in 2020 year extension" works for Cat Bs, we may be in the position where we have to promote/delist Hird and McBride, and have list spots for a R1 (or trade), 2 x Daveys, and maybe Alessio or a late NGA. So we could theoretically need 6 list spots.

So if we plan against that, it would mean we need say 7 more players delisted across BOTH 2021 & 2022. Hurley, Johnson, Cahill, Gleeson, Clarke aren't sufficient, and there is a case to be made for everyone else. Plus the possibility some of those listed above could step up in 2022.

As a result, I doubt we'll delist more than two more players in 2021. Johnson and Gleeson would be my tips.

 

[Keystone agony]

So I assume Laverde has triggered a 1 year deal to keep playing till the end of 2022 but surely we have an offer in front of him ending 2024?

 

[Duckworth]

I really just want a low key off-season where the focus can be on our existing group getting better. The fanfare around Daniher/Saad/Shiel/Dunkley etc etc is exhausting. Some small savvy moves like the Kelly one sounds great and then hit the draft

You know something is coming.

 

[Jade]

You know something is coming.

Almost certainly.

 

[Ants]

Outside of Stephens cheap, I'm not sure if there is anyone else out there who would get me excited.

 

[Kyptastic]

Dons part ways with Mosquito, Cahill and Johnson not offered contracts

Essendon thanks and farewells three players.

www.essendonfc.com.au

Cahill, Mosquito and Johnson all delisted.

Thought Cahill might get one more year, but not surprised at the other two. Reckon that means we have a couple targets on our mind other than Kelly this trade period.

 

[TheGrizz]

Moz, Cahill and Johnson have all been cut.

Rough for the latter two. Having only two years of being on an AFL list with minimal second tier footy to develop is pretty rough.

Also, fair chance that we target a game-ready small forward or two i would say

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Hard for those guys but I tend to think the right call in all three cases.

 

[faible]

Moz, Cahill and Johnson have all been cut.

Rough for the latter two. Having only two years of being on an AFL list with minimal second tier footy to develoo is pretty rough.

Also, fair chance that we target a game-ready small forward or two i would say

Article for posterity as well. Somewhat surprised on Cahill, the other two seemed pretty expected.

Dons part ways with Mosquito, Cahill and Johnson not offered contracts

Essendon thanks and farewells three players.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[Jade]

Also, fair chance that we target a game-ready small forward or two i would say

Possible yeah, we did target Rosas.

I'm not overly concerned - I know rating points aren't the be all and end all, but Walla, Smith and Snelling are all in the top 20 or so general forwards per game - we may think we're ok there.

 

[eDPS]

Possible yeah, we did target Rosas.

I'm not overly concerned - I know rating points aren't the be all and end all, but Walla, Smith and Snelling are all in the top 20 or so general forwards per game - we may think we're ok there.

A couple of handy small forwards are coming in for the 2022 draft and Tex Wanganeen looks like as a rookie pick aswell, can easily target another small forward with pick 11 or 48 aswell.

 

[BIG SHOW]

Josh Rachele

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lore]

There's still that question mark on Laverde's trigger/re-signing, but I'd assume he's staying either way.

31 seniors signed for 2022, and 6 spots vacated by Hooker, Zaharakis, Ambrose, Johnson, Cahill, Mosquito. Already had a spot open as well.

So we can add 5-7 seniors for a total of 36-38.

For the rookie list it's just Gleeson and Clarke left unannounced, both having been previously delisted and re-rookied due to the list cuts last year. Current batch of rookies include Snelling, Waterman, Durham, Baldwin, (Clarke, Gleeson), plus Hird and McBride are Category B.

We can have up to 6 category A and 2 category B rookies, with no minimum as long as the total list is between 37 and 44 players (so 36 seniors would mean a minimum of 1 rookie but otherwise we don't have to have any).

I guess the questions there are:

How many of our rookies get upgrades? Surely at least Snelling.

Do Gleeson/Clarke get re-upgraded after the draft if we still have spots open, but stay on the rookie list otherwise?

 

[Keystone agony]

There's still that question mark on Laverde's trigger/re-signing, but I'd assume he's staying either way.

31 seniors signed for 2022, and 6 spots vacated by Hooker, Zaharakis, Ambrose, Johnson, Cahill, Mosquito. Already had a spot open as well.

So we can add 5-7 seniors for a total of 36-38.

For the rookie list it's just Gleeson and Clarke left unannounced, both having been previously delisted and re-rookied due to the list cuts last year. Current batch of rookies include Snelling, Waterman, Durham, Baldwin, (Clarke, Gleeson), plus Hird and McBride are Category B.

We can have up to 6 category A and 2 category B rookies, with no minimum as long as the total list is between 37 and 44 players (so 36 seniors would mean a minimum of 1 rookie but otherwise we don't have to have any).

I guess the questions there are:

How many of our rookies get upgrades? Surely at least Snelling.

Do Gleeson/Clarke get re-upgraded after the draft if we still have spots open, but stay on the rookie list otherwise?

We can do

31
J.Kelly
3 draft picks
Snelling Upgrade

To reach the minimum 36 plus the 7 rookies = 43

 

[eth-dog]

I do like the flexibility of having 6 Cat A rookies. Allows us some wiggle room on promotion.

 

[Ants]

Hard for those guys but I tend to think the right call in all three cases.

I think Cahill had something, but as a midfielder. And we really don't need another pint-sized midfielder without great pace. I expect he'll go back to a state league and dominate in the midfield. May get a second shot, as is a good user.

 

[Ants]

......
How many of our rookies get upgrades? Surely at least Snelling.

With the rule changes, no need to promote Snelling. Although will then need to do it next year.