List Mgmt. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan

[Vader]

That site is missing 8 confirmed rookie upgrade (Grey, Houston, Smith, O'Riordan, Melican, Cox, Long & Parsons).

So there's 94 vacancies.

Pick 109 is really 92.

I can't be bothered going through and comparing vacancies vs picks. My guess is it's probably closer to #80 in reality.

 

[crows dude]

Geez

A caller called to fiveaa


AND SAID

How many picks do we have. Only 2. Then we have only 38 players. Bicks and Dillon did not CORRECT HIM. I have emailed as its driving me nuts. Its not hard

Started with 39 players

Traded out delisted 7 players = 32

Brought in Gibbs and Gibson = 34

Upgraded Keath and Greenwood = 36

So 4 LIVE PICKS

 

[THE_GUN]

Do the crows have the list space if there is a bid on Edwards at pick 45 ? That would also put the crows into arrears of 150 points

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

I can't be bothered going through and comparing vacancies vs picks. My guess is it's probably closer to #80 in reality.

You don't have to. I've already done it

Do the crows have the list space if there is a bid on Edwards at pick 45 ? That would also put the crows into arrears of 150 points

yes.

It would. And would drop our 3rd (from Carlton) next year about 10 places.

 

[1970crow]

Well unless every other club has told the Crows they wont pick Jackson, then that tweet is full of it.

I've got a feeling we'll miss him.

 

[pirate bob]

I think you missed the point.

I don't disagree that his chances of being at another club are very, very slim. You stated that "he's out for most of the season". As far as I'm aware, this is factually incorrect.

I read it as he out for most of "this" season .. will not finish rehab until start of new season

 

[1970crow]

I imagine what a lot of people are curious about though is why the club determined to take Ben Jarman via the rookie draft when he could have been taken via the ND and taken the last list place, that ultimately was left vacant. To some degree I imagine many people are starting to wonder the same about Jackson Edwards.

I'm sure the there is perfectly logical reason. It just isn't blatantly obvious right now. And the club mostly only provides vague explanations. For example last year was it to have room to upgrade 1 of the rookies in season for example? Perhaps a player they were targeting with a lower pick was drafted earlier by another club? Financial or TTP management?

Last year they planned to only have 38 on the list but didn't count on Signorello still being available. So, we know they're prepared to have as few as 37 legit main list players and 1 rookie spot short for insurance reasons.

 

[Bicks]

Last year they planned to only have 38 on the list but didn't count on Signorello Davis still being available. So, we know they're prepared to have as few as 37 legit main list players and 1 rookie spot short for insurance reasons.

FIFY

 

[Sanders]

From our team, Rory Larid, Rory Atkins, Sam Jacobs, Josh Jenkins, Kyle Hartigan and Kyle Cheney say hello.

Whooosh

 

[1970crow]

Here are some statements that I believe to be true with respect to the Jackson Edwards situation:

• the AFC would like to recruit JE
• they don't rate him highly enough (i.e. top 40) such that the F-S discount is meaningful - hence the benefit of a F-S nomination is significantly reduced
• the AFC would prefer to recruit JE via the rookie draft (for the benefit of lower salary, exclusion from TPP and shorter contract [1 yr vs. 2 yrs]) - in other words this is Plan A (even if they rate him in the 50-80 range in the ND)
• the AFC would recruit JE via the national draft if it could choose to do so for a pick after our 2nd rounder (i.e. #39) - but doesn't want to be obliged to do so
• the AFC believe that if they nominated JE as a F-S for the ND that this might induce other clubs to make a bid for JE earlier than would otherwise be the case in order to cause us to 'pay up'
• [EDIT] the AFC think it would be a 'bad look' if we nominated JE as a F-S for the ND and then did NOT match an outside bid

If that is an accurate representation of the AFC's state of mind then it makes sense that their strategy is to not nominate him for the ND but instead wait until half-way through the ND to see if he's been selected by anyone else and then make a call to (i) select him with a late pick (i.e. #77) or (ii) run the gauntlet and let him slide on the basis that - if available - they'll nominate him and pick him up in the RD.

TL;DR - I think there's still a chance that we will pick him in the ND even if we don't nominate him but the more likely scenario is RD.

No way a club bids on a player earlier than where they rate them in their talent order. I'm not sure why this keeps getting peddled.

 

[arrowman]

Without being overconfident, I think our list as it stands is pretty solid, and having one or even two vacancies is not a bad thing, esp $ wise. Better than drafting someone you don't really rate just to keep the numbers up.

 

[1970crow]

Does that mean the kid has lost his ability

Or the media has hyped players

Rankine would be better off playing 18's and looking like a superstar than playing league footy and looking so so if he wants to be drafted high

Genuine question to a SANFL tragic. Do you reckon there's much in that? SA players are slipping all the time and I presume they'd all be getting league or reserves games. Even Gore played league (finals even) from memory and looked ok.

 

[1970crow]

Correct.

Until the deadline for nominating father/sons has closed nobody other than those inside the AFC inner circle know what our intentions are. All the theories and conspiracies being put forward mean nought until that deadline has passed.

It would require an explanation though. We have stated that if he's still available, we'll take him in the RD. That's pretty clear. What Darth is missing is that it's a pretty easy explanation, "upon finalising our talent order and taking into account our list vacancies, we decided that we needed to commit to Jackson in the main draft". Gut feel is that he won't last and we'll have a change of strategy and nominate him in the ND. Or we miss out, which is pretty likely as it stands.

 

[1970crow]

Why wouldn't we go with 40 on the list, unless we've got salary cap issues which would be a huge shock. Having Smith able to go on the LTI list means we have flexibility with the rookie list. I just can't see why you wouldn't want a full list to chose from.

We planned to go into 2017 with 38 including cooked Thommo, so 37 available players. There's some cash issues somewhere, be it cap related or more general finance concerns.

 

[1970crow]

FIFY

Ta.

 

[Deaneus!]

Geez

A caller called to fiveaa


AND SAID

How many picks do we have. Only 2. Then we have only 38 players. Bicks and Dillon did not CORRECT HIM. I have emailed as its driving me nuts. Its not hard

Started with 39 players

Traded out delisted 7 players = 32

Brought in Gibbs and Gibson = 34

Upgraded Keath and Greenwood = 36

So 4 LIVE PICKS

Best thing i ever did, was stop listening to that claptrap. They're either actually that dumb, or pretend to be for the sake of the audience; either way it's insulting.

We planned to go into 2017 with 38 including cooked Thommo, so 37 available players. There's some cash issues somewhere, be it cap related or more general finance concerns.

We were short-ish on cash this time last year IIRC. Will wait for the financial reports but expect us to be in a better position this year; we were on an upward trajectory

 

[marty36]

Genuine question to a SANFL tragic. Do you reckon there's much in that? SA players are slipping all the time and I presume they'd all be getting league or reserves games. Even Gore played league (finals even) from memory and looked ok.

I truely believe that a lot of players would be better off for their draft prospects in playing u18 s and not league Alex martini played league all year and play consistent solid footy but didn't stand out if he played 18 s he would have tore it up. But their development is probably better playing league or reserved

The problem is though the Victorian 18 s has a lot more better players for obvious reasons their population is so large but we have a small population so it's probably better to play in a Comp with far more better players where our 18 comp has a lot of donkeys and will always have as we don't have the numbers




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[1970crow]

Best thing i ever did, was stop listening to that claptrap. They're either actually that dumb, or pretend to be for the sake of the audience; either way it's insulting.



We were short-ish on cash this time last year IIRC. Will wait for the financial reports but expect us to be in a better position this year; we were on an upward trajectory

From memory we weren't meeting our liquidity requirements and our financiers had the option to, but chose not to, call in our westpac centre debt. Someone found it in a note to the account or whatever they're called these days.

 

[arrowman]

We planned to go into 2017 with 38 including cooked Thommo, so 37 available players. There's some cash issues somewhere, be it cap related or more general finance concerns.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't player payments made via a distribution from the AFL? So a club can't save cash by running short on the list?

 

[1970crow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't player payments made via a distribution from the AFL? So a club can't save cash by running short on the list?

I don't think you're right. Clubs are forced to spend a minimum %, 95 I think. So, $500k+ can be saved and sent to the bottom line by paying only the minimum. When you've got your bankers capable of calling in a multi-million dollar debt due to not meeting liquidity requirements, then you're looking at every way possible to save cash.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

We planned to go into 2017 with 38 including cooked Thommo, so 37 available players. There's some cash issues somewhere, be it cap related or more general finance concerns.

This season we could afford to go in short as we had 2 useful category B's in addition to our main list. This season they have been upgraded, so we probably don't have the same luxury of running short.

 

[1970crow]

This season we could afford to go in short as we had 2 useful category B's in addition to our main list. This season they have been upgraded, so we probably don't have the same luxury of running short.

Good point.

 

[pirate bob]

This season we could afford to go in short as we had 2 useful category B's in addition to our main list. This season they have been upgraded, so we probably don't have the same luxury of running short.

Good point.

It's was reported that both Keath and Greenwood were being paid far more than the basic or minimum rookie payments.

 

[pirate bob]

I don't think you're right. Clubs are forced to spend a minimum %, 95 I think. So, $500k+ can be saved and sent to the bottom line by paying only the minimum. When you've got your bankers capable of calling in a multi-million dollar debt due to not meeting liquidity requirements, then you're looking at every way possible to save cash.

I was always under the impression that the AFL provided the salary to clubs for TPP's. Clubs could spend up to 105%, on the condition that this was evened out the following year (maybe 2 years?). If less than 95% was spent, the AFLPA in conjunction with the entire player list voted and the distribution of the shortfall up to amongst the player group. The 5% shortfall in a given year could be added to the full salary the following year.

I didn't think the clubs could divert unspent cap money into other parts of the clubs business.

 

[dplggr47]

I don't see the harm in nominating him in the ND, and just not choose to match if another team picks him up too highly. Dunkley (WB) got picked up end of first round or early second and that was higher than Sydney anticipated, so they chose not to match. No harm done.