List Mgmt. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan

[Jack is Back]

38, 39 or 40?????

IMHO the decision is all about the 2018 draft. Let’s assume that we draft 4 players in the ND this year =40.
Next year we will want to take at least three, probably four players in the draft. We will also want to elevate Ben Jarman (after his 5 goals in in the 2018 Grand Final).

So....... we will need to delist/retire 5 players. There are no obvious retirements, Dougie has narrowly missed the Brownlow and the 4 year extension for BNM was well deserved. So who do we delist? The class of 2017 (Gallucci, Poholke, Himmelberg, Signorello and Davis) are all looking great. Dear is going head to head with JJ for the Ruck/Forward spot and Doedee is being chased hard by Geelong but we refuse to let him break his contract. That leaves Cheney and Gibson to get the chop plus three more of our diamonds.

It will be much more flexible to go with 38 plus 6 rookies including Jackson Edwards with a mixture of back up players (Hunter, CEY + ???) and three development rookies (Jarman, Edwards and Murphy).

If we go with 40 on the main list we may end up having to make some tough decisions next year, 38 or 39 is more likely.

P.S. You know that you are my favourite poster, Vader, but your getting a touch of the Marty’s. I think that after your 16th post stating that we will not take Edwards in the ND we all got the message .

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

38, 39 or 40?????

IMHO the decision is all about the 2018 draft. Let’s assume that we draft 4 players in the ND this year =40.
Next year we will want to take at least three, probably four players in the draft. We will also want to elevate Ben Jarman (after his 5 goals in in the 2018 Grand Final).

So....... we will need to delist/retire 5 players. There are no obvious retirements, Dougie has narrowly missed the Brownlow and the 4 year extension for BNM was well deserved. So who do we delist? The class of 2017 (Gallucci, Poholke, Himmelberg, Signorello and Davis) are all looking great. Dear is going head to head with JJ for the Ruck/Forward spot and Doedee is being chased hard by Geelong but we refuse to let him break his contract. That leaves Cheney and Gibson to get the chop plus three more of our diamonds.

It will be much more flexible to go with 38 plus 6 rookies including Jackson Edwards with a mixture of back up players (Hunter, CEY + ???) and three development rookies (Jarman, Edwards and Murphy).

If we go with 40 on the main list we may end up having to make some tough decisions next year, 38 or 39 is more likely.

P.S. You know that you are my favourite poster, Vader, but your getting a touch of the Marty’s. I think that after your 16th post stating that we will not take Edwards in the ND we all got the message .

What's the difference under the new rookie rules between:
38+6
39+5
40+4

Don't need a vacancy to upgrade rookies anymore.

Yes, there is a salary saving as rookie & also only need to guarantee a 2nd year.

If we are keen on Edwards, why not just give him the 2nd year... unless we believe there are better options at pick #109...

I think it would be a mistake to go 38+6, given we no longer have 2 extras with our category B's that were ready to go.

 

[pirate bob]

What's the difference under the new rookie rules between:
38+6
39+5
40+4

Don't need a vacancy to upgrade rookies anymore.

Yes, there is a salary saving as rookie & also only need to guarantee a 2nd year.

If we are keen on Edwards, why not just give him the 2nd year... unless we believe there are better options at pick #109...

I think it would be a mistake to go 38+6, given we no longer have 2 extras with our category B's that were ready to go.

There is only about $5K difference under the new CBA between base payments for rookies compared to 3+ round draft picks.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

There is only about $5K difference under the new CBA between base payments for rookies compared to 3+ round draft picks.

Indeed... So if we are really keen on Edwards, is he worth a 2 year deal at an extra $5K pa... & potentially giving up pick #109? The main difference is the guarantee of a 2nd year.

 

[Jack is Back]

What's the difference under the new rookie rules between:
38+6
39+5
40+4

Don't need a vacancy to upgrade rookies anymore.

Yes, there is a salary saving as rookie & also only need to guarantee a 2nd year.

If we are keen on Edwards, why not just give him the 2nd year... unless we believe there are better options at pick #109...

The key difference is we only offer players on the rookie list a one year deal. Keeping two spots free gives us more flexibility for 2018. The 1 year contract for Cheney also provides flexibility.

Of course any problems with a lack of spots will be solved when three of our best players request trades back home .

 

[Sanders]

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?

No I dont think players are paid directly from central funds

 

[Vader]

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

Not the way I read it (obviously) - but your interpretation does make sense.

 

[Vader]

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.

38 is still the minimum that the AFL permits. Anywhere in the 38-40 range is permitted.

I'd settle for calling it 37 available players, given that Smith is going to miss the entire season due to his ACL injury.

 

[Vader]

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.

If we nominate him, and nobody bids, then we are forced to take him with our last selection in the draft. This is a bad result if the club doesn't rate him highly enough to want him on the senior list, or if another player they rate more highly is still available at that pick.

This is why we only nominated BJ for the RD last year, and why we're only nominating Edwards for the RD this year.

 

[Vader]

38, 39 or 40?????

IMHO the decision is all about the 2018 draft. Let’s assume that we draft 4 players in the ND this year =40.
Next year we will want to take at least three, probably four players in the draft. We will also want to elevate Ben Jarman (after his 5 goals in in the 2018 Grand Final).

So....... we will need to delist/retire 5 players. There are no obvious retirements, Dougie has narrowly missed the Brownlow and the 4 year extension for BNM was well deserved. So who do we delist? The class of 2017 (Gallucci, Poholke, Himmelberg, Signorello and Davis) are all looking great. Dear is going head to head with JJ for the Ruck/Forward spot and Doedee is being chased hard by Geelong but we refuse to let him break his contract. That leaves Cheney and Gibson to get the chop plus three more of our diamonds.

It will be much more flexible to go with 38 plus 6 rookies including Jackson Edwards with a mixture of back up players (Hunter, CEY + ???) and three development rookies (Jarman, Edwards and Murphy).

If we go with 40 on the main list we may end up having to make some tough decisions next year, 38 or 39 is more likely.

P.S. You know that you are my favourite poster, Vader, but your getting a touch of the Marty’s. I think that after your 16th post stating that we will not take Edwards in the ND we all got the message .

I don't think they'll have too many problems finding players to delist next year. Dear will need to improve a lot if he's to survive, Gibson is already 31 and was only given a 12-month contract, Mackay is (finally) out of contract and might struggle to get a new one, Hampton needs to show a hell of a lot more than he has to date, Seedsman could be looking shaky too if he continues to exist on the fringe of the team, Cheney is on a "dead man walking" contract and would be a near certainty to depart. That's before we start looking at the rookie list, pondering the survival chances of Hunter & CEY.

 

[Vader]

There is only about $5K difference under the new CBA between base payments for rookies compared to 3+ round draft picks.

But rookie payments aren't included in the salary cap, unless they are promoted to the senior list.

 

[Vader]

What's the difference under the new rookie rules between:
38+6
39+5
40+4

Don't need a vacancy to upgrade rookies anymore.

Yes, there is a salary saving as rookie & also only need to guarantee a 2nd year.

If we are keen on Edwards, why not just give him the 2nd year... unless we believe there are better options at pick #109...

I think it would be a mistake to go 38+6, given we no longer have 2 extras with our category B's that were ready to go.

It seems fairly obvious that we're going 39+5 again this year.

 

[1970crow]

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.

I think a few years ago when they brought in the 95% minimum rule they guaranteed any shortfall to clubs that were on AFL funded life support. I don't think that it extended any further to that.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

38 is still the minimum that the AFL permits. Anywhere in the 38-40 range is permitted.

I'd settle for calling it 37 available players, given that Smith is going to miss the entire season due to his ACL injury.

Gone seriously off-topic

 

[arrowman]

No I dont think players are paid directly from central funds

Not directly, but the AFL makes substantial distributions each year and I don't think the clubs have an issue with TPP as a raw $ figure. Maybe I'll have a look at club financials...

 

[Jack is Back]

Cheney is on a "dead man walking" contract and would be a near certainty to depart. That's before we start looking at the rookie list, pondering the survival chances of Hunter & CEY.

I am thinking about starting a Dead Man Walking thread when I take leave for the summer.

So many very astute judges of football talent have declared many DMWs over the years only to find those very same players still on our list (wasn't Petrenko declared a DMW 5 years before he was delisted)? I seem to recall many declaring Hunter a DMW two years ago but he has survived for another year. He has in fact improved dramatically during his time at the Crows and is now vying with ROB as our second best ruckman. CEY was also going to be banished from West Lakes at the end of this season according to some. I also think Dear is a good chance of developing into a solid AFL player but may not get a chance with us.

I think it is a good bet that this is Cheney's last year in the AFL but some astute judges declared Jake Kelly a DMW at the end of last season.

IMHO we do not have any obvious spuds to delist/retire at the end of next year. It is probable that one or two from the Class of 2016 will not make the grade but that is far from certain. BNM is a very youthful 29 and Dougie is coming off a very good 2017 season.

Also looking at the rookie list doesn't address our need to make space for the 2018 ND.

 

[Vader]

I am thinking about starting a Dead Man Walking thread when I take leave for the summer.

So many very astute judges of football talent have declared many DMWs over the years only to find those very same players still on our list (wasn't Petrenko declared a DMW 5 years before he was delisted)? I seem to recall many declaring Hunter a DMW two years ago but he has survived for another year. He has in fact improved dramatically during his time at the Crows and is now vying with ROB as our second best ruckman. CEY was also going to be banished from West Lakes at the end of this season according to some. I also think Dear is a good chance of developing into a solid AFL player but may not get a chance with us.

I think it is a good bet that this is Cheney's last year in the AFL but some astute judges declared Jake Kelly a DMW at the end of last season.

IMHO we do not have any obvious spuds to delist/retire at the end of next year. It is probable that one or two from the Class of 2016 will not make the grade but that is far from certain. BNM is a very youthful 29 and Dougie is coming off a very good 2017 season.

Also looking at the rookie list doesn't address our need to make space for the 2018 ND.

I think you're mixing two separate concepts. There are players who we predict as being likely delistings, and there are Dead Men Walking. These are two different things.

The Dead Man Walking concept is very specific. It's a fringe/depth player who is belatedly given a 12-month contract extension, which is clearly destined to be their last AFL contract. Think LJ, Grigg, and (in 2018) Cheney. Every one of these players (with the exception of the newly minted Cheney) were delisted at the end of their DMW contract.

The likely delistee is a much broader category of player. Sometimes it's a youngster who just hasn't measured up and is likely to be shown the door (e.g. Dear). Sometimes it's a veteran whose retirement is anticipated (e.g. Thompson in 2017). Sometimes it's a journeyman who is in the final year of a multi-year contract, and who has been overtaken by someone younger and newer (e.g. Cheney).

Kelly was a "likely delistee" who beat the odds. Hunter may yet fall into the same category. CEY's situation is somewhat unique. He was almost certain to be delisted until he did his ACL, resulting in him being given a 12-month charity contract on the rookie list.

I haven't seen enough of the "Class of 2016" to comment on their chances, hence my non-inclusion of any such players in my "likely delistees" from the previous post.

 

[Jack is Back]

I think you're mixing two separate concepts. There are players who we predict as being likely delistings, and there are Dead Men Walking. These are two different things.

The Dead Man Walking concept is very specific. It's a fringe/depth player who is belatedly given a 12-month contract extension, which is clearly destined to be their last AFL contract. Think LJ, Grigg, and (in 2018) Cheney. Every one of these players (with the exception of the newly minted Cheney) were delisted at the end of their DMW contract.

Well, I respect your definition of Dead Man Walking.

My definition of Dead Man Walking is any player that Vader declares a certainty to be delisted before the season has even started.

 

[arrowman]

No I dont think players are paid directly from central funds

Second reply - on further searching, I haven't found a direct link in the funding, but according to the 2016 reports for the AFL and the AFC...

The AFL paid a total of $10,553,565 to each club in 2016. Then there were the "other" payments which ranged from $1,165,077 to the AFC, to over $9 mill to St Kilda. - And before you ask, Port got $3,818,177

On the other side, the AFC's 2016 report shows over $46 million in "Football Operations Revenue" which is the only place the AFL grant could be hiding.

So the AFL gave each club an amount roughly (exactly?) equal to the salary cap.

 

[GrommoT]

But rookie payments aren't included in the salary cap, unless they are promoted to the senior list.

The minimum rookie wage is outside the TPP but any extra payments (eg. like we think with Greenwood & Keath) would be included in the TPP.

 

[hey shorty]

38 is still the minimum that the AFL permits. Anywhere in the 38-40 range is permitted.

I'd settle for calling it 37 available players, given that Smith is going to miss the entire season due to his ACL injury.

Not sure why you're writing off Smithers for the year.

Reckon we will see him from about r16 onwards.

 

[Vader]

Not sure why you're writing off Smithers for the year.

Reckon we will see him from about r16 onwards.

I hope you're right, but an ACL is almost always a 12-month injury.

The minimum rookie wage is outside the TPP but any extra payments (eg. like we think with Greenwood & Keath) would be included in the TPP.

And how many rookies are we going to have in 2018, who are on extra payments? Hint: it's a very round number.

 

[hey shorty]

I hope you're right, but an ACL is almost always a 12-month injury.

Certainly is yes, but there's outliers such as Modra who played early, and NicNat this year who missed everything.

Safer to rule him out, and should he return, does he need to have a run in the 2s ??

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Certainly is yes, but there's outliers such as Modra who played early, and NicNat this year who missed everything.

Safer to rule him out, and should he return, does he need to have a run in the 2s ??

ACL's were 12 month injuries, but medical practices are always changing .....any medical experts know if this is still the view?

By Christmas it'll be 4 months, you'd think would be joining training in Feb

 

[hey shorty]

ACL's were 12 month injuries, but medical practices are always changing .....any medical experts know if this is still the view?

By Christmas it'll be 4 months, you'd think would be joining training in Feb

CEY was doing most of the drills by late this year so anything is possible.