List Mgmt. The Gap

Am I right?

  • I'll knock you out, you punk

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    36

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#26
He's been doing a bit of both for a while now.
This year is the first year that he's played primarily as a key forward though, right? When Hayes gets back, it will be Ladhams and Hayes sharing the ruck duties.

He's developing really well in the SANFL at this stage in a dedicated role. His task this year is to earn a new contract as a development key forward, rather than as a development ruck, and he's got a great shot at doing that, even if it means that he gets put on the rookie list for a bit (which will help with our salary cap).

If he plays in the AFL, the chances of us being able to retain him in this manner are low, which means we would have to delist someone who we might actually want to keep that may be picked up by another club.

It's a long term list management strategy whereby we can utilise the rookie list as an extension of the primary list.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Butters Made Me Do It

secretly Portia, ssh
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Posts
882
Likes
4,039
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #27
Janus you weasel, its only a couple of days since you argued we were bringing in guys like Rockliff and Lycett so that we didn't have to spend up to the cap minimum on players that don't deserve it, but now you say we need to keep players on the rookie list to help with our salary cap? And say its also a necessary strategy?

Don't answer. Its pointless when its clear you have no consistency.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#28
Janus you weasel, its only a couple of days since you argued we were bringing in guys like Rockliff and Lycett so that we didn't have to spend up to the cap minimum on players that don't deserve it, but now you say we need to keep players on the rookie list to help with our salary cap? And say its also a necessary strategy?

Don't answer. Its pointless when its clear you have no consistency.
I have incredible consistency :p

Rockliff and Lycett were put on the list to spend up to the cap minimum. This was about salary cap management.

In the next three years, we have the ability to spend up to 105% of the cap.

Frampton going on the rookie list has nothing to do with min/max spend. It's about the fact that we have to delist 3 players from our primary list every year. I'd rather delist Frampton and then retain him as a rookie, because it means we can put on a first round pick, a second round pick and Jackson Mead. You can do the same for Trengove and McKenzie as well, because I doubt that this draft is deep enough to have anyone worth rookie listing in it. We've got a rookie list spot open as it is I believe, and I'd boot Hewett off the rookie list if it came to that, because he's not very good.

That's why it's a necessary strategy. It's primarily about list numbers than salary cap. I put the salary cap thing in brackets because it gives us the ability to pay some of Frampton's contract outside the salary cap and gives us more money to spend, that's all. It's a bonus, but it's not the reason why it would need to be done.

You can only do this sort of thing with players that you know aren't going to be picked up by other clubs in the main draft. The closer you get to having a decent list, the more you've got to do things like this to get an advantage. Put Frampton on the rookie list for a few years, with the promise that once Dixon retires (which will be in that time period), he's got a spot in the side.

I like our list at the moment, which is why I'm looking for ways to keep it together while still strengthening it when possible.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#30
Frampton won’t survive until the rookie list and the cap savings would be minimal under the new CBA.
$70k per year.

And how many delisted players have you seen other clubs pick up in the draft? Generally, clubs don't waste their time on players that have already been given a shot by another AFL club.

The same reason why he's not in the team in Dixon's absence is the reason why he'd last until the rookie list.
 

Butters Made Me Do It

secretly Portia, ssh
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Posts
882
Likes
4,039
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #31
Weird that we'd only suddenly use this strategy starting with Billy Frampton when every other year there's been many opportunities to do the same kind of thing by delisting and redrafting Neade, or delisting and redrafting Krakouer, or Trengove, or McKenzie, or or or or or or or.
 

tribey

5 Wins In-A-Row Certificate Recipients '13/'14/'18
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Posts
56,470
Likes
122,033
Location
Queen St & Peter Rd
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
NUFC, YES.
#32
Weird that we'd only suddenly use this strategy starting with Billy Frampton when every other year there's been many opportunities to do the same kind of thing by delisting and redrafting Neade, or delisting and redrafting Krakouer, or Trengove, or McKenzie, or or or or or or or.
+ Linzi
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#33
Weird that we'd only suddenly use this strategy starting with Billy Frampton when every other year there's been many opportunities to do the same kind of thing by delisting and redrafting Neade, or delisting and redrafting Krakouer, or Trengove, or McKenzie, or or or or or or or.
The difference is before the new CBA, rookie listed players weren't available to play whenever you wanted and you had to wait for an LTI or the second half of the season to promote a rookie.

The rookie list is now similar to the inactive list in the NFL, IMO. It's not just about young players, but players who have the ability to help your team in the future.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#35
Janus, our rookie list has always been like the inactive list in the NFL, how many games do you reckon Port have played where there isn't at least one player on the long term injury list?
You couldn't promote one player one week and then another the next week. That's the difference. You had to choose one player to promote, and then that was it. The new system allows you to play whatever rookie you want, whenever you want.
 

Butters Made Me Do It

secretly Portia, ssh
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Posts
882
Likes
4,039
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #36
That isn't a worthwhile list element to try and exploit, unless your view is that every year we're carrying a bunch of miscontracted deadwood that players every other club thinks aren't even worth rookieing themselves can constantly accelerate past.

Its ******* bizarre that you look at our list and can only can find three players you'd consider delisting, and that you imagine Frampton is somehow one of the guys to delist as a priority.

Your view on football is warped, but I guess we knew that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

theDuckFarmer

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
6,648
Likes
13,360
Location
Ziggurat City
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
LUFC, Patriots, Mitchelton-Scott
#37
Its ******* bizarre that you look at our list and can only can find three players you'd consider delisting, and that you imagine Frampton is somehow one of the guys to delist as a priority.
Frampton’s fallen into the Bermuda Triangle that’s swallowed Butcher, Eddy, and Salter. His delisting is assured.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Schulzenfest

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Posts
49,420
Likes
115,006
Location
SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Toronto Raptors
#38
Says who?

Here’s a question: if Dixon, Hartlett and Watts were fit and firing against Brisbane, Richmond and Collingwood, do you think we would have won at least two of those games, if not all three?
We probably could've beaten Richmond's reserves side if we plucked a random 200cm bloke out of the ammos to stop Grimes and Stack marking everything, but that was a home game against the weakest side Richmond have put out on the park in years. You don't get to play 'but Dixon and Hartlett!' when they were missing Rance, Riewoldt, Martin, Cotchin, Houli, Short and Grigg. The other two, nah probably not.

Follow up question: Are you genuinely expecting Dixon and Hartlett who haven't played a game of AFL football for 9 and 13 months respectively and who are both still at least another month away from being fit even to play an SANFL game to be 'fit and firing' at any point this year?
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#39
We probably could've beaten Richmond's reserves side if we plucked a random 200cm bloke out of the ammos to stop Grimes and Stack marking everything, but that was a home game against the weakest side Richmond have put out on the park in years. You don't get to play 'but Dixon and Hartlett!' when they were missing Rance, Riewoldt, Martin, Cotchin, Houli, Short and Grigg. The other two, nah probably not.

Follow up question: Are you genuinely expecting Dixon and Hartlett who haven't played a game of AFL football for 9 and 13 months respectively and who are both still at least another month away from being fit even to play an SANFL game to be 'fit and firing' at any point this year?
We didn’t get smashed by Richmond. They still had Lynch as well. And we still should have won it without Dixon.

As for Hartlett and Dixon being available: Coming into a finals series? Yep. I reckon it takes about 3 weeks of reserves football + 2 weeks of AFL to find touch.
 

agmsy

Debutant
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Posts
144
Likes
335
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#40
Put Frampton on the rookie list for a few years
Pending a conversation with his manager, why wouldn't he take his chances in the draft, particularly when we're only offering ...
In fact, faced with a demotion to the rookie list, he may decide to walk, no matter the answer. A higher salary on another club's main list, a rookie spot at a club where he feels he's more likely to get a gig, or the stoic realisation that AFL football is beyond him and that $70k a year is not worth further delaying the start of his post-footy life and career - all three options may be more attractive than taking a significant pay cut to not play for Port Adelaide.
 

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
24,433
Likes
51,002
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
#41
If this is just a thread to bitch about picking Broadbent, I can't agree with it.

Nobody has ever developed a genuinely good football team by just playing kids. You need a mix of experience to guide inexperienced players through.

We're picking a side with what, 12 or 13 players with less than 50 games under their belts?
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#42
Pending a conversation with his manager, why wouldn't he take his chances in the draft, particularly when we're only offering ...


In fact, faced with a demotion to the rookie list, he may decide to walk, no matter the answer. A higher salary on another club's main list, a rookie spot at a club where he feels he's more likely to get a gig, or the stoic realisation that AFL football is beyond him and that $70k a year is not worth further delaying the start of his post-footy life and career - all three options may be more attractive than taking a significant pay cut to not play for Port Adelaide.
Lol, I'm not saying you pay him $70k. I'm saying you'll save $70k off the salary cap every year if you do it like that. You can pay him another $100k a year or whatever on top of the $70k.

There's no way he's only more than $200k a year now.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#44
I know, but it is pretty close to the rookie minimum (think it was $71,500 last year?). Or would his salary floor be $100k?
No, you can give him a contract for whatever amount you want. You could pay him $500k on the rookie list if you wanted to...it's just that the rookie minimum part of the payment doesn't count towards the cap.

That's what we did with Lindsay Thomas, who had one more year to run on his contract when North delisted him and we picked him up as a rookie. We paid him whatever his contract was minus the rookie minimum payment.
 

agmsy

Debutant
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Posts
144
Likes
335
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#45
We paid him whatever his contract was minus the rookie minimum payment.
Sure, but, realistically, clubs are still going to commit as little in-cap money to their rookies as possible. Maybe Billy is the one (or one of two) guy we'd pay a decent chunk more to next season (if, indeed, we rookie him), but it's hard to see the club not wanting to spend cap money on primary list players or bank it.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#46
Sure, but, realistically, clubs are still going to commit as little in-cap money to their rookies as possible. Maybe Billy is the one (or one of two) guy we'd pay a decent chunk more to next season (if, indeed, we rookie him), but it's hard to see the club not wanting to spend cap money on primary list players or bank it.
Next year we will have Ryder, Gray, Boak, Westhoff (if he continues) and probably Broadbent on lesser deals, along with Rozee, Butters and Duursma on their draft contracts. Add our first round pick this year and Mead, plus Lobbe's contract (that we are still paying for) on top and we've got quite a bit of cap money to spend.

It's a way of getting around the requirement to delist players while still retaining them. I'd rather keep Frampton on the list in some manner for two years and build him up to replace Dixon as the focal point up forward. But that's only if he continues to show something as a key forward in the SANFL (which means he's got to start working up the ground as well).
 

Butters Made Me Do It

secretly Portia, ssh
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Posts
882
Likes
4,039
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #47
If this is just a thread to bitch about picking Broadbent, I can't agree with it.

Nobody has ever developed a genuinely good football team by just playing kids. You need a mix of experience to guide inexperienced players through.

We're picking a side with what, 12 or 13 players with less than 50 games under their belts?
We're picking a side with 5 guys under the age of 21 (Duursma, Marshall, Rozee, Farrell, Drew)

The reason that there's a big disparity between that and your stat is that, despite Port doing nothing for years, we keep creating hierarchies of experience that get us nowhere, and of course things like the Neade farewell game, playing non-ruckmen in ruck forever, playing short forward lines, and so on.

By the way, this is our 27 and over group:
Ryder (over 30)
Westhoff (over 30)
Boak (over 30)
Broadbent
Rockliff
Motlop
Sam Gray

with Hartlett, Robbie Gray, Ebert, Dixon and Jonas all to return

We are not exactly younging out right now, and if we know our current coaches, we're only going to get older and older
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#48
We're picking a side with 5 guys under the age of 21 (Duursma, Marshall, Rozee, Farrell, Drew)

The reason that there's a big disparity between that and your stat is that, despite Port doing nothing for years, we keep creating hierarchies of experience that get us nowhere, and of course things like the Neade farewell game, playing non-ruckmen in ruck forever, playing short forward lines, and so on.

By the way, this is our 27 and over group:
Ryder (over 30)
Westhoff (over 30)
Boak (over 30)
Broadbent
Rockliff
Motlop
Sam Gray

with Hartlett, Robbie Gray, Ebert, Dixon and Jonas all to return

We are not exactly younging out right now, and if we know our current coaches, we're only going to get older and older
Instead of looking at age, look at draft classes (players in brackets aren't playing):

2018 draft - Duursma, Rozee (Butters, Woodcock, Grundy, Cox) (2 out of 6 available)
2017 draft - Farrell (Garner, Patmore (inj.), Hayes (inj.)) (1 out of 2 available)
2016 draft - Marshall, Powell-Pepper, Drew (Atley) (3 out of 4 available)
2015 draft - Johnson, Houston (Bonner, Ladhams) (2 out of 4 available)
2014 draft - Howard (Frampton) (1 out of 2 available)
2013 draft - Byrne-Jones, Amon, Sam Gray (3 out of 3 available)
2012 draft - Clurey (Wines (inj)) (1 out of 1 available)

13 out of a possible 22, or around 60%.

What exactly do you want the club to do? Playing Butters when his form has dropped off will create a Wingard type situation - it's not like he won't be back. Bonner is out of touch, and the club has decided to go with the experienced body in Broadbent to replace him. Frampton against Adelaide was a 50/50 proposition as to whether it would work or not.
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Posts
18,459
Likes
46,589
Location
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
#50
Why would you look at it by draft classes? What ******* relevance does that have to anything?

And wow, in that last paragraph, are you ever working your ******* arse off to avoid addressing Garner for Broadbent
You can only play the players you draft? Why would you look at it by players under 21, as if guys who are older than 21 but younger than 25 are old?

Garner will get his shot. Most likely for Byrne-Jones who would be on his last chance this week.
 
Top Bottom