What?

[Mad Dog]

But that's the whole point in question, isn't it.

If for strategic long term salary cap reasons, Roo doesn't go onto the veterans list, or both he and Hart remain on the primary list as veterans, then we don't have any more draft picks than the 3.

The only way we can get any more draft picks in addition to 8, 24 and 28 is to move one or both of Roo and Hart onto the veterans list proper.

I would say Hart is a definite to be Vet listed....this will make certain our # 40 pick....then if Roo is vet listed we will have a PSD pick....and/or Stevo will determine anymore.

Without knowing the numbers in terms of contract value (because it requires a strategic call) - I would favour

1 vet listing
+ 38 on the main list......ie 34 currently including Roo + 4 ND picks.
then make a decision on Stevo wrt the PSD
then that leaves space for 4 additional Rookies

Ben Hart = Vet
Andrews = Rookie
room for 4 more on a list of 6.

we need to have 4 new Rookies IMO...given the carnage that may occur at the delisting table this time next year

 

[johnnypanther]

I'ld like to see us go into the national draft with 5 picks available (8,24,28,40,56) but not necessarily used (the 56 pick)

Reason being - i think pick 40 must be used and that pick 56 needs to be available at least given a very even draft field which means that quite probably somebody could slip down to 56 (remembering there are several f/s picks before this anyway)

i think there are several players - for example - Juniper - that i would like to see picked - preferably rookie listed - but i suspect that other clubs may be thinkng the same therefore we may need to use pick 56 to draft someone before other clubs can get him in the PSD

the only possible recycled player i would consider is Ackland but again i think he may not be available at the pick number we would prefer to use for him

i assume that Hart & Roo will count as veterans with corresponding reductions in our salary cap and i hope that the AFC have got their TPPs correct so that next year we will have large salary cap space available in order to hopefully entice a young midfielder to return home

 

[dreamkillers]

i assume that Hart & Roo will count as veterans with corresponding reductions in our salary cap and i hope that the AFC have got their TPPs correct so that next year we will have large salary cap space available in order to hopefully entice a young midfielder to return home

You'd be better off just leaving Hart as your only veteran for 2005 if you want to free up as much as possible for 2006 otherwise you may need to use some of the savings from putting Roo onto the vet list on your current squad.

 

[Crowked]

i think there are several players - for example - Juniper - that i would like to see picked - preferably rookie listed - but i suspect that other clubs may be thinkng the same therefore we may need to use pick 56 to draft someone before other clubs can get him in the PSD

Yep, gotta have this guy. No rookie though, he wont be there for the rookie list. We have to spend pick 40 on him IMO. Maybe save a spot for PSD but not Ackland, only Notting.

 

[Mad Dog]

You'd be better off just leaving Hart as your only veteran for 2005 if you want to free up as much as possible for 2006 otherwise you may need to use some of the savings from putting Roo onto the vet list on your current squad.

correct !

 

[macca23]

You'd be better off just leaving Hart as your only veteran for 2005 if you want to free up as much as possible for 2006 otherwise you may need to use some of the savings from putting Roo onto the vet list on your current squad.

This is the point I was making about the strategic side of it.

Yes, we could slap both Roo and Hart onto the veterans list proper, but it does have strategic implications for the salary cap and where the money goes to. It's easier to argue against increases to players - who might not deserve it - if the cap is pretty tight.

In terms of draft picks, if Stevo fails to come up and retires, we could still get pick #40 in the draft and a PSD pick simply by moving Ben Hart onto the veterans list proper, without any need to do anything with Roo.

Maybe the delay in transferring players onto the veterans list revolves around both Stevo and strategic planning long-term.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This is the point I was making about the strategic side of it.

Yes, we could slap both Roo and Hart onto the veterans list proper, but it does have strategic implications for the salary cap and where the money goes to. It's easier to argue against increases to players - who might not deserve it - if the cap is pretty tight.

In terms of draft picks, if Stevo fails to come up and retires, we could still get pick #40 in the draft and a PSD pick simply by moving Ben Hart onto the veterans list proper, without any need to do anything with Roo.

Maybe the delay in transferring players onto the veterans list revolves around both Stevo and strategic planning long-term.

Hopefully the club are looking at all strategic options.

Assuming we can still meet the minimum cap, we are better off putting Roo on the Vets list only, so we can free up more cap room in 2006 with Macca joining him as Vet (given Macca's salary > Hart's).

 

[baaaallllll]

Conspiracy theory, AFC are only using 3 picks so that they can play the same crap players again so it does not look so obvious that we are tanking 2005 and playing for a priority pick for being so ********e.

 

[Alex99]

Conspiracy theory, AFC are only using 3 picks so that they can play the same crap players again so it does not look so obvious that we are tanking 2005 and playing for a priority pick for being so ********e.

I don’t know about anyone else but lam getting fed up with all this talk of the AFC should/ is going for priority picks. I would like to believe that the AFC have integrity and every time they go out on to the field they try and win no matter what.


Richmond Hawthorn and the western Bulldogs have absolutely no respect in the football communities and this goes along way towards the way their season ended. All three of those clubs had opportunities to win games and didn’t take them, is that the way we want the AFC to be looked at, no ********ing way

 

[Mad Dog]

Conspiracy theory, AFC are only using 3 picks so that they can play the same crap players again so it does not look so obvious that we are tanking 2005 and playing for a priority pick for being so ********e.

gotta agree with crows98 here.....I would like to think we are going to give it a real crack next year.....after all - we did establish in this post that we would be using #40 afterall.
Hopefully the smile at the end of the post was an indication that it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment
hopefully priority picks and the AFC are never mentioned in the same sentence....oops - they just were !!

 

[baaaallllll]

Honestly, there is no way known that the Crows will deliberately throw games to get priority picks, if that was the case we would have done it this year.

Sure if you realise that the season is gone you blood younger players and test players out in different positions but the AFC is too proud of a club to throw games and it would be shocking for player morale to do such a thing.

Even if it is the most sure fire way of obtaining good players from the draft I couldn't do it as a player/coach.

Anyhow BOT, besides Stevens, who is out of contract that we could have delisted to get pick 40?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Honestly, there is no way known that the Crows will deliberately throw games to get priority picks, if that was the case we would have done it this year.

Sure if you realise that the season is gone you blood younger players and test players out in different positions but the AFC is too proud of a club to throw games and it would be shocking for player morale to do such a thing.

Even if it is the most sure fire way of obtaining good players from the draft I couldn't do it as a player/coach.

Anyhow BOT, besides Stevens, who is out of contract that we could have delisted to get pick 40?

Who suggested tanking games.
The reason Collingwood has a pick b4 us is because we don't tank.

Will never never happen.

 

[Alex99]

Who suggested tanking games.
The reason Collingwood has a pick b4 us is because we don't tank.

Will never never happen.

Nearly every single threat that has had the topic relating to last seasons form, someone has piped up and said how ********ed off they were that club has won more than 5 game and didn’t go for the priority picks. It has even resulted in callers referring to there disappointment on the radio.

 

[Cap]

Nearly every single threat that has had the topic relating to last seasons form, someone has piped up and said how ********ed off they were that club has won more than 5 game and didn’t go for the priority picks. It has even resulted in callers referring to there disappointment on the radio.

i agree its shouldnt call it throwing games more like sustainable business ideas

 

[WaynesWorld19]

i agree its shouldnt call it throwing games more like sustainable business ideas

And it creates a cancer within a club.

Is there anything about the clubs with the priority picks that they have in common

Try a losing culture, and it rots the place:
How many flags have St Kilda, Bulldogs, Fitzroy (RIP) won - once that culture sets in very very hard to reverse.

Do you want to be in Richmonds and Hawthorns shoes?