"We are committed to taking XXX in the rookie draft"

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

At what point does this deliberate draft manipulation simply end? Its becoming a joke. Something needs to budge here... maybe more then one thing

In the scenario here id almost like to see GWS take Jake Lloyd

44

Jake Lloyd

Age

32

Ht

182cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

9.0

5star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.9

4star

MG

403.9

5star

D

23.4

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

9.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.9

3star

MG

403.9

5star

D

23.2

5star

K

13.4

5star

HB

9.8

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

357.4

5star

and tell him to either retire or move down the road. Somethings gotta give

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At what point does this deliberate draft manipulation simply end? Its becoming a joke. Something needs to budge here... maybe more then one thing

In the scenario here id almost like to see GWS take Jake Lloyd and tell him to either retire or move down the road. Somethings gotta give

Gunston as a rookie last year was worse lol

All clubs do it. Hardly a big deal it’s to open a lost spot/salary relief

 

[Jeremias]

How is it deliberate draft manipulation?

Rookie list rules should definitely be changed, but I’m not sure how this is is draft manipulation.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Gunston as a rookie last year was worse lol

All clubs do it. Hardly a big deal it’s to open a lost spot/salary relief

Its clear draft manipulation.

Can I Eagles come out and say "We are committed to bidding on Zeke Uwland at pick 1" today people would go apeshit about it despite it being the same thing

 

[Crumpet_avenger]

Call it a supplementary list. Rookie list for guys who have played for 20 plus years is a joke.
I hope they get picked up by other clubs before getting "rookied"

 

[Jeremias]

Its clear draft manipulation.

Can I Eagles come out and say "We are committed to bidding on Zeke Uwland at pick 1" today people would go apeshit about it despite it being the same thing

Huh?

I really don’t think anyone would care if the Eagles did that.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I don't see the issue. It's all to communicate with club fans. Let them know that while list spots meant we had to cut this player we are committed to keeping him around.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

You do know that these players are free to go to other clubs right? They can even go as delisted free agents, like Hugh Greenwood

1

Hugh Greenwood

Age

33

Ht

190cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.9

4star

K

8.8

3star

HB

8.1

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

6.8

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

17.4

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

8.9

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.2

3star

T

7.6

5star

CL

4.4

5star

did when he moved from Gold Coast to North Melbourne, when GC were cutting him with the intention of picking him up in the rookie draft.

 

[Wce17]

Just ignore this guy he loves a whinge

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

You do know that these players are free to go to other clubs right? They can even go as delisted free agents, like Hugh Greenwood did when he moved from Gold Coast to North Melbourne, when GC were cutting him with the intention of picking him up in the rookie draft.

Is it a draft though? A draft to me is a open selection process. If Dane Rampe tells Eagles "if you draft me ill retire" then he isnt eligible in the selection process which means it isnt very open

The rookie draft to me is past its used by date. Clubs post season should just be able to pick up any uncontracted player however they feel like and essentially get rid of the rookie draft altogether and just have rookie signings that occurs via a unrestricted free agency model

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Huh?

I really don’t think anyone would care if the Eagles did that.

I guarantee they would . It’d be called draft tampering and you’d all be complaining about it

 

[Jeremias]

I guarantee they would . It’d be called draft tampering and you’d all be complaining about it

That’s…not draft tampering.

Nobody would have an issue with West Coast making it known that they intend to bid on a player at pick 1.

 

[Fud#3]

Call it a supplementary list. Rookie list for guys who have played for 20 plus years is a joke.
I hope they get picked up by other clubs before getting "rookied"

I have no idea why there's 2 lists.

Just 1 list is enough. Other than cap, is there really a difference?

 

[Jeremias]

I have no idea why there's 2 lists.

Just 1 list is enough. Other than cap, is there really a difference?

Not really. It is now a long way removed from what was originally intended.

I am unsure whether a portion of rookie listed salaries fall outside the salary cap. That used to be the case and if it remains, is probably the only difference.

 

[Barrybran]

Queensland teams get a leg up as usual. They're both taking XXXX.

 

[Lore]

Not really. It is now a long way removed from what was originally intended.

I am unsure whether a portion of rookie listed salaries fall outside the salary cap. That used to be the case and if it remains, is probably the only difference.

They’re not bound to the club the way listed players are, and become free agents if they don’t like what’s offered after a couple of years.

Their base wage might be outside the cap. Match payments and bonuses aren’t though.

And obviously the mechanisms for getting on a rookie list are much more varied, but you’re only eligible for those pathways if you put your name down for the national draft and don’t get drafted. Cat B is its own thing as well.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Queensland teams get a leg up as usual. They're both taking XXXX.

I came in here specifically to post a XXX draft is inferior to XXXX draught comment.

But while XXXX might be better from the draught, much like serving it in an underground mine, it's a low bar

 

[bzparkes]

Umm, the thread title's in relation to Tassie.

 

[tiger_tough]

Just get rid of the rookie list already. It's rarely used as it was initially intended for these days anyway.

There is no reason to keep cat A rookie lists. Cat B is different.

 

[Stamos]

I have no idea why there's 2 lists.

Just 1 list is enough. Other than cap, is there really a difference?

It has become obsolete.
Now it functions as a way for clubs to save 320 - 480k from the salary cap, and only offer 1 year deals to the rookie draftees.

So the AFL should just add the $480k to the cap, and once you hit pick 55 in the ND you get a 1 year contract rather than an automatic 2.

Have the Rookie List be for Cat Bs.

 

[irel]

I guarantee they would . It’d be called draft tampering and you’d all be complaining about it

Bollocks. No body would give a shyte if West Coast announced that they will bid on Annable at pick one. Why is that tampering? He may not be the number one in draftland but calling it tampering is BS.

 

[perplexed]

At what point does this deliberate draft manipulation simply end? Its becoming a joke. Something needs to budge here... maybe more then one thing

In the scenario here id almost like to see GWS take Jake Lloyd and tell him to either retire or move down the road. Somethings gotta give

WC are actually likely to benefit from this. Sydney pushing those guys back to the rookie list will mean they can take 7 picks to the draft and they currently only have three worth anything. They are likely to trade in a number of junk picks to match bids on their academy guys and WC are in the best position to supply them.

 

[My_Username]

I guarantee they would . It’d be called draft tampering and you’d all be complaining about it

It's not draft tampering, not least because nobody could do anything about it, so it doesn't really change what anyone else will do.

If Richmond came out and said that they'd bid on Uwland, Annabelle, and Patterson at 3 if they reach that far, then it might be questionable, because that could influence another club (WCE) into making choices they wouldn't have otherwise.

Even that's a bit of a stretch though.

 

[Ambrosia]

They’re not bound to the club the way listed players are, and become free agents if they don’t like what’s offered after a couple of years.

Their base wage might be outside the cap. Match payments and bonuses aren’t though.

And obviously the mechanisms for getting on a rookie list are much more varied, but you’re only eligible for those pathways if you put your name down for the national draft and don’t get drafted. Cat B is its own thing as well.

Match payments have no impact on the cap because everyone is paid the same

 

[Lore]

Match payments have no impact on the cap because everyone is paid the same

Only draftees of whatever sort have set match payments in the CBA, and those differ depending on what pick they were taken at, how many years they’ve been playing, and how many senior games they played in the previous year or two of their careers.

Older players negotiate theirs in whatever way they see fit. Then there’s performance bonuses and other things as well.

Players who miss through injury still get their match payments based on the level they last played at, so this year we would’ve been paying match payments to the 23 on the field and most of the 17 on the injury list as well.