Delistings

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

We are 7 weeks into a season. The coaching department should be focussing on getting the best out of the players and player development. If a list management committee (which I assume would include the coach), are discussing the future of players right now, it would undoubtedly influence the team selection process.

A players performance and fitness should affect both his week to week selection but also impact upon his future at the Club. I dont think the issues are mutually exclusive. There is a fair focus at the moment on identifiying through the development process that has been undertaken over the past 2 years those who can develop to be integral members of the sides and those that will not. In some cases a players selection may involve playing in another position/role as it is believed that he is not able to fulfil the initial role

The 3 players that everyone is bringing up as being under the gun, Newton, Dunn and Bell, were all re-signed to 2 year deals. As far as their respective careers go, nothing has changed in 7 weeks. They're are all still struggling to command a regular spot in the side. In their cases, what the hell will having a list management committee achieve?

The fact that nothing has changed in that period and that they are still struggling is a cause for review. All the more reason to start considering the Club's options at year end. The other issue is that there are a number of players coming out of contract this year. Negotiations with their player managers are a perpetual process. The disposition of the current year expiries may be impacted by the decisions about fringe players like Bell, Dunn and Newton.

The list management process should commence no earlier than round 16. Recruiting managers would have a true idea as to the depth of the draft and the number of picks required, whilst the list managers would be able to make a fair assessment of where a players' career is at, and which players have potential trade value.

Rubbish. List management is an issue that should be reviewed and monitored through out the year. List Management is more than just recruiting. Given how MFC have gone this year and the fact that the trade week is a dry well of opportunity I think trade values can start to be estimated now. For some players their careers are certainly becoming obvious.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

That's the whole point Mo -- list management should affect the team selection process, especially when you're obviously not going to make the finals and are already planning for subsequent seasons. Prudent list management is why, in my opinion, the like of McNamara, Cheney and Valenti should start getting games right about now. Not necessarily a large string of games (unless their form warrants it), but at the very least a few games here and there. It gives them a large amont of time -- ie between now and round 22, to press their case for retaining a spot on the list. The later you leave it in the season to do this, the less of a chance you give them, so the less of an informed decision you make. Round 16 IMO is cutting it far too fine. Round 20 is too late.

It's simple, you give them the opportunity to get their names out from under the gun. If they can't, then the list management committee will start planning how they're going to manage these players at the end of the year. The options are a] find a suitable trade if possible, even if it's a giveaway trade, b] delist them and pay them out as per hazy's post or c] suck it up and keep them. Just because they're contracted doesn't mean there's no 'management' required. As I said, the further out you begin your information gathering process, the more of an informed decision you can make.

I'm not suggesting that final decisions be made on any player at this stage, because it's obviously too soon for that. I'm saying that now is the time to begin to really assess the future of players.

Agree Nasher

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

How many picks would you be expecting them to use in the national draft RR? You think they'd use for example 1, 2, 18 & 34 and then leave one pick for pre-season draft or would you expect them to draft in more players at national draft?

Potentially 5 picks plus PSD. Pick 50 or Pick 66/ PSD1 should be used to uplift Spencer. We may be lucky for a late draft pick from a trade (not hopeful on that).

Anyone who's on the list this year and doesn't get a few games, assuming he's been available for a reasonable percentage of them, must have been judged by the coach etc, to be no good. Therefore I'd look at Bail and McNamara, unless they get a few games and do alright. We seem to have had no difficulties delisting Weetra last year, though I understood he had a contract for this year.

Having said this, there's also the small matter of the Mc Namee contract--perhaps costly?

Bail is a first year recruit and wont be cut at this stage. McNamara is a 2nd year recruit and will need to be given opportunity to show what he has got. If not then he is in the gun.

Weetra finished a 2 year contract last year.

[H_T 3,049]

Personally, I think the "list management committee" would convene around the split round to make their initial decisions. Players on the fringe or as I like to say it, "on thin ice" or "hanging by a thread", will want to impress by then and if they're in doubt, they will want to impress somehow in the several rounds after the split round, otherwise that will be it for them. Players that are young such as McNamara are safe for next year IMO.

Whilst the melbfc footy dep't might already have their own thoughts on players, I don't think concrete decisions have been made just yet.

[donny williams no 25 0]

Agree. Out of all the kids, he excites me the least.

Perhaps a delist-rookie scenario may be the go here.

well he'd be very stiff! He was great in round one--one of our best and everyone raved about him.

To be honest I'd say that his game that day was better than any of the games played by, eg, Jetta or Bennell since--does anyone disagree?

[mo64 5,881]

That's the whole point Mo -- list management should affect the team selection process, especially when you're obviously not going to make the finals and are already planning for subsequent seasons. Prudent list management is why, in my opinion, the like of McNamara, Cheney and Valenti should start getting games right about now.

We'll agree to disagree. This early in the season, players should be given game time purely based on form, regardless of whether we're likely to play finals or not. What message does it send to the playing group? What does it do to the morale of a player whose form warrants a game ahead of another, but doesn't get picked for "list management" reasons. At least by round 16, every player would have had the opportunity to prove their worth, and the club would be justified in selecting teams with list management in mind.

I agree entirely with what HT just posted.

[MadAsHell 4,217]

I see on this thread people are calling for Russell Robertson to be delisted, Are you people Fu#*ing MAD !!! Lets delist our best forward who is only thirty he still has three good years in him. In this time he can help groom and mould our soon to be up coming forwards. Talk of this kind really shits me it is uneducated and pointless. Lets watch the likes of Bate and Dunn in our forward line each week that should be fun !!!!! Any Melbourne supporter who has watched him this week after a year off can see he has plenty to offer. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

I agree with you completely. I can't see Robbo being delisted until the end of next year at earliest. We can't leave just kids in and delist everyone who's 28 or over. While McDonald, Whelan and Wheatley may all be shown the door Robbo is safe as houses in my opinion as long as he doesn't pick up a serious injury

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Robbo is safe as houses in my opinion as long as he doesn't pick up a serious injury

What if he does not perform at AFL standard for the remainder of the season is his houses made of straw?

I get your point about senior bodies being there but if they are not fit or performing and justifying their place in the team then I think they should go. And when it comes down to it, Robbo might have a media profile but he is not established leader in the Club.

[rpfc 28,894]

Your fact is a series of assumptions.

I understand what you are saying but each draft year is different and it is best to keep an open mind on the opportunities that may present themselves this year particularly if all other recruiters are "brainwashed".

I hope our recruiting department will not be as dismissive as you are being.

In the past recruiting managers have been able to choose kids from a specific 12 month exclusivity in a particular draft, in 2010 it reverts back to 12 months but in 2009 it is 8 months.

Basic probability lends this fact to a shallow draft.

What opportunities am I discounting from this draft?

All I am saying is the likelihood of a player being picked up at 50 being a success is the same as someone picked up at 75 in a normal draft. Therefore, recruiters will look at rookies, and re-signing players rather than give an 18 yr old a place on the list they normally wouldn't.

I'm going to reverse this and say you are a tad dismissive of the Rookie List system; whenever someone mentions the coaching staff are keen on Valenti you shoot them down by saying "if they rated him, they would put him on the primary list."

Now that is an assumption...

[drdrake 3,203]

We have 15 games to play in 2009, we have 1 win, if we win only 4 we get pick 1,2,18,34,50 if we win 5 or more we will get pick 2,19,35,51(i assume we beat Richmond again and finish second last and Richmond getting priority)so depending what happens win loss will determine how many players need to be delisted. 4 or 5 to make way for new payers. Who they will be, is a guess, lets see how it pans out over the next 10 weeks.

On the 2010 draft, lets say Richmond only win 4 games this year and next do they get a priority pick 1 in the 2010 draft.

Another question for the 2010 draft, say we continue to improve and finish 10th next year our first pick will be in the teens somewhere our second pick more than likely around 40 ish, will the AFL change the rules so you don't have to draft 3 players.

If we delist 4-7 players this year which knowing the draft concessions is likely it would be hard to find 3-4 players to delist the following year. The 2010 draft will end a couple of our older players careers, a few like Whelan, McDonald and even Robbo might be able to go around for 2-3 more years but the introduction of the Gold Coast my force the club to delist them this year.

[Guest Digga]

Including this years draft we will have a large number of young players in our team. GC is going to come along and take our boys away :angry:

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In the past recruiting managers have been able to choose kids from a specific 12 month exclusivity in a particular draft, in 2010 it reverts back to 12 months but in 2009 it is 8 months.

Basic probability lends this fact to a shallow draft.

Basic probability is a measure of the chance of statement being factual not that it is factual.

All I have suggested is making sweeping conclusions about the draft at this point based on an exclusivity period without seeing how the available draft squad develops is unwise.

I'm going to reverse this and say you are a tad dismissive of the Rookie List system; whenever someone mentions the coaching staff are keen on Valenti you shoot them down by saying "if they rated him, they would put him on the primary list."

Now that is an assumption...

No its a fact.

There are still concerns about aspects of his game which he needs to develop. he has a chance to convince them otherwise.

And your conclusion about my assessment of the rookie system is flawed. I have already said often that Spencer should be elevated off the rookie list and McKenzie may have an opportunity to be elevated to get a chance.

And your assessment of "likelihood" is merely a possibility. Good recruiters know that each batch of draftees coming through is different. The talent line is not linear in shape nor does it necessarily mean that the high quality in the top 10 will mean that quality will flow through to the top 40 etc. Each year is different and make broad brush assumptions about the draft just provides opportunities for others. Recruiters may look at re signing players but its not certain. Also rookies are typically players that either do not elect for or are not good enough to be drafted. So if your take is right that the draft is shallow then those not drafted may not necessarily be rookied either.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If we delist 4-7 players this year which knowing the draft concessions is likely it would be hard to find 3-4 players to delist the following year. The 2010 draft will end a couple of our older players careers, a few like Whelan, McDonald and even Robbo might be able to go around for 2-3 more years but the introduction of the Gold Coast my force the club to delist them this year.

I think Whelan Junior and Wheatley are likely to go this year.

If they survive the review at year end then Bruce, Meesen, Bell, Dunn, Bate, Newton, Jurrah, Bail and a number of other players will be up for renewal in 2010. It should not be hard to find cuts there.

[Jaded No More 68,975]

What if he does not perform at AFL standard for the remainder of the season is his houses made of straw?

I get your point about senior bodies being there but if they are not fit or performing and justifying their place in the team then I think they should go. And when it comes down to it, Robbo might have a media profile but he is not established leader in the Club.

Robbo's contract will only get extended if he reaches certain benchmarks, set out by the club when he got his 3 year deal. Of course the club may choose to keep him regardless, given that his injury will no doubt impact his ability to match the KPIs outlined in his contract.

Assuming that he continues to contribute 2-3 goals a game, I would happily keep him for an extra year, and have him as a year by year propsition.

Currently we haven't got anyone who could replace him, and he would complement Watts quite nicely, as he has done for many years with Neita/Ox. So as long as he isn't keeping any young kids out of the team, and is contributing on the scoreboard, there is no reason to let him go.

And while he may not have an official leadership role this year, he has been a leader at the club for many many years, and is a great role model for the young boys coming through.

Let us also not forget that his presence on the field, allows Miller, Bate and soon Watts, to get the 2nd/3rd/4th best defender, (because Robbo will always get the opposition's premier FB), which helps them perform better. We have had a lot less 3-on-1 situations in our forwardline since Robbo has returned.

[drdrake 3,203]

No point finding cuts when you can't pick anything decent. With out having the full draft concessions in front of me, but if you finsih mid table your first pick is late teens and your third round pick will be 60ish.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

And while he may not have an official leadership role this year, he has been a leader at the club for many many years, and is a great role model for the young boys coming through.

If he performs then he gets his contract extended. I think the leader and role model assessment is dubious at best. Some of his on field play lacks basic team first orientation and he is not necessarily a good example to younger players in a lot of facets.

[Mick 1]

In the past recruiting managers have been able to choose kids from a specific 12 month exclusivity in a particular draft, in 2010 it reverts back to 12 months but in 2009 it is 8 months.

Basic probability lends this fact to a shallow draft.

What opportunities am I discounting from this draft?

All I am saying is the likelihood of a player being picked up at 50 being a success is the same as someone picked up at 75 in a normal draft. Therefore, recruiters will look at rookies, and re-signing players rather than give an 18 yr old a place on the list they normally wouldn't.

Completely agree with what you're saying...I think it's naive not to think this is going to be a shallow draft in comparison.

Good analysis here of the impact the changes to this year's draft rules would have had on previous years drafts - i.e. some FACTS for you Rhino: http://www.afldraftinfo.com/2009/01/how-mu...9-national.html. Not to mention it's the experts saying it!! http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl...2-19895,00.html

It's not to say that good players won't be able to be found later in the draft but the overall depth of quality talent will be comparatively shallow

[Go the Biff 3,457]

It's a pleasant change to have posters struggling to decide who they would see as being surplus to requirements.

A year ago the same thread would have had us struggling to decide who justified being kept. Just another small sign that things are on the up.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

As RR said, come the end of 2010 (where I tentatively hope that we'll be knocking on the door of finals) we might actually have a list entirely made up of players we actually WANT. By then our mature players won't be the Wheatley "depth" types that wre eonly retained because they were all we had left. They'll be the Brocks, Moloneys, PJs, Rivers... guys we actually want to see around the club that will be 25+ at the time. And then after that we'll have Watts, Butcher, Petterd, Scully, Grimes, Morton, Maric etc etc with a full season, or two, or three under their belts. Not long to go now where we won't have to be the laughing stock of the AFL.

I've been looking forward (for three years) to the day that we can look at our list and see 30 names that will still be there for the following 5 or 6 years... With the last big piece of the puzzle (the '09 draft) the picture will all be coming together, and we can REALLY start talking football in regards to MFC.

[Adam The God 30,602]

I probably shouldn't comment on this, as I've not read up on it and therefore I'm not particularly well-informed, but don't the GC have the right to come in and attempt to sign any un-contracted players they want? So ie Jack Watts, Same Blease, these types, who are only on two year contracts. I'm just thinking of Barrassi to Carlton. Obviously different situation, but it ruined our plans then and something quite similar could happen again with Watts et al, could it not?

[Mydee 288]

Finally, a voice of reason. And I find this post ironic on 2 counts:

1. The masses who lauded McDonald's appointment as captain, want him pensioned off after 7 rounds.

2. The masses who bleat on about how bad our list is, are struggling to find players to delist other than proven elder statesmen in Wheatley and Whelan, or contracted players in Dunn, Bell and Newton.

I agree, the thread is as premature as announcements of an economic recovery. If Whelan is uninjured he adds bight and class to the backline, Wheatley adds versatility to the side. Robo, in my opinion is the one of the best half forward flankers the club has produced, and I have seen Vagg, Hassa Mann and a few others.I think that Flower and Farmer were his peers.

I think you should save the delistings/ retirements speculayion until the season nears its end.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,102]

Ok, going through the list now and will list them as I see them.

Bartram - Will probably get at least another year but I don't see a place for him in the side when our younger, faster and more skillful players move in.

Bate - Unless he shows us something amazing for the rest of the year, I don't think we can afford to keep him.

Bell - Gives 110% every game. Unfortunately, his 110% is worth around 70% from most other guys on the ground.

Dunn - While I like his size and versatility, he's another one who just doesn't fit into the side when the young players come in.

Mc Donald - Will retire.

Miller - Trade Bait.

Newton - As with Bate, has to show us something remarkable.

Sylvia - AKA Richard Tambling the second. His best is pretty damn good, but sadly what he usually shows us isn't. Probably be better off being traded. It might be the shock he needs to pull his finger out and play the game properly.

Wheatley - Can't see a place in the side for him. Plus he's getting on in years. Might be tradeable, but more likely to be delisted

Whelan - Grimes, Bennell and Cheney all coming through to fill his role. Could be time to retire.

I didn't list the rucks because obviously we can't ditch them all . That being said at least one of them has to go.

[Ryan Dee 140]

Ok, going through the list now and will list them as I see them.

Bartram - Will probably get at least another year but I don't see a place for him in the side when our younger, faster and more skillful players move in.

Sylvia - AKA Richard Tambling the second. His best is pretty damn good, but sadly what he usually shows us isn't. Probably be better off being traded. It might be the shock he needs to pull his finger out and play the game properly.

I didn't list the rucks because obviously we can't ditch them all . That being said at least one of them has to go.

Bartram Will be apart of our future team.

As for Sylvia well he is not going to be what we thought but his foot skills and decisions with the ball are very good. He just does not get enough of the ball though. He will be apart of our future.

[Swampfox 190]

I would think that list management in todays football would be an on going process

You need to getter better and delisting players you feel are not part of the future is responsible list management

Getting it wrong is a chance you take and history shows that this is very rare occurence

Unfortunatley the most common mistake is those players who get a 3 year deal and end up struggling to tally 10 games for their career

[Trisul 674]

The variables are too many to say the draft will be shallow (overall, leaving individual clubs aside)

GC will be drafting for their needs, all clubs needs will be different in some way

GC have those juicy picks (to trade for hard bodies) that we're limiting ourselves by saying we dont have

GC can take up to 12 from the cordened off date range, will there be left-overs?