I'm afraid you're going to have to be a little harsher with the delistings there.

As you've got it pegged we're still 1 delisting short of the minimum turnover required by the AFL which is 3.

Also those you have as "trade/delist", they would only be charity trades to assist change of clubs since we wouldn't be able to use the draft picks we're getting in return. Essentially they are just delistings.

Good point, there's also the possibility of having one or two guys move around during trade week. Spencer, PJ, Maric or Cheney could be the kind of guys we can look to trade out. I know they won't exactly bring great value in terms of the picks, but I rather make harder calls about those guys now and move on with developing our real guns.

Good point, there's also the possibility of having one or two guys move around during trade week. Spencer, PJ, Maric or Cheney could be the kind of guys we can look to trade out. I know they won't exactly bring great value in terms of the picks, but I rather make harder calls about those guys now and move on with developing our real guns.

None of those players are a hard call as far as trading goes. We wouldn't be getting a draft pick in return that we'd actually be able to use. Again, there is no trading with these depth players, it is only delisting.

With McKenzie promotion that leaves a 1st & 2nd round pick. If you want Spencer as well that's only 1 pick.

Also, can people please, please stop proposing the fictional "delist to rookie list" so regularly?? It's just not going to happen this year. There is only delisting and re-signing. No in-between.

Its really refreshing to see somebody who actually knows what he is talking about regarding drafting & trading. Thank-you

I would suggest that many other clubs are also in the "same boat" ... so that may open up the opportunity for win-win trades ... which could be facilitated by either player or draft pick swaps or up-grades. However, I do concede these may be very difficult to arrange in practice.

This forum really needs a stickied thread for this topic. There is one on the Melbourne board on bigfooty and it has links to articles wherever possible. I'd do it myself but I have neither the technological knowhow nor the discipline to constantly update it. Perhaps a mod or a very regular poster would be keen to manage it.

Short description of what I would do with each below

J. Watts - 2 year contract

R. Bail - 1 year contract

S. Blease - 1 year contract

I'd be trying to lock up Watts for 3, Bail and Blease for 2.

I would not persist with Bail, I'd let him go. I haven't seen Blease play, but might throw a lifeline and give him one more season to prove himself.

I would not persist with Bail, I'd let him go. I haven't seen Blease play, but might throw a lifeline and give him one more season to prove himself.

That's as glowing an endorsement for Bail as I could imagine.

That's as glowing an endorsement for Bail as I could imagine.

Exactly my thoughts ID.

Re: "rookie list demotion", why is it that you say it can't be done this year?

Surely it can be done, just that there are no certainties that player will still be there.

For someone like McNamara who is out of contract, it is a definite possibility.

This is a move that is not unique to last year, rather the practice has happened for more than a decade.

If you are talking about a player like Maric that is already contracted through 2011, and doing what was done with Newton and Meesen, I agree that it is an unlikely option.

No club would wish to make that a common occurrence.

This forum really needs a stickied thread for this topic. There is one on the Melbourne board on bigfooty and it has links to articles wherever possible. I'd do it myself but I have neither the technological knowhow nor the discipline to constantly update it. Perhaps a mod or a very regular poster would be keen to manage it.

I tried this last year, trying to get a definitive list of who was signed until when (i.e. not ID or RR telling us who is out of contract but links to articles whereby the MFC tells us). It's hard.

Exactly my thoughts ID.

Re: "rookie list demotion", why is it that you say it can't be done this year?

Surely it can be done, just that there are no certainties that player will still be there.

For someone like McNamara who is out of contract, it is a definite possibility.

This is a move that is not unique to last year, rather the practice has happened for more than a decade.

If you are talking about a player like Maric that is already contracted through 2011, and doing what was done with Newton and Meesen, I agree that it is an unlikely option.

No club would wish to make that a common occurrence.

It's the Newton/Meesen example that I dislike being rolled out as if it's just a normal, everyday option that we can liberally apply wherever we like. As for the McNamara example, I still don't particularly like labelling it as a "rookie list demotion" because in practice that's not what it is.

Make no mistake, in both situations, it's a delisting. Call a spade a spade.

Also, the changed situation this year is the enormous number of picks GC has, including at the start of the rookie draft. If we delist a young player who we actually rate, you can be pretty confident GC will snap them up before us. They will likely snap up any opportunity possible to add diversity of age to their list.

I tried this last year, trying to get a definitive list of who was signed until when (i.e. not ID or RR telling us who is out of contract but links to articles whereby the MFC tells us). It's hard.

The list I work off has been borrowed (read: stolen) from someone else who did the hard work in researching contract announcements. It appears to be quite accurate, but I am now maintaining and updating the list myself so by season's end it should be quite accurate. The variable which I can't allow for is non-specific contract lengths. I have a feeling we have a couple of contracts which have an undefined length based on achieving performance targets. Cheney, McNamara & Bartram may fall under this banner, but I am making an educated guess based upon the unusual lack of specific information in their re-signing announcement coupled with a personal opinion of where those players might be rated in the scheme of things.

I'd like to win games and improve our ladder position in 2011 - it's the next key step in our development. I think a decent ruck is vital. Jamar of course provides this, but he's been injury prone over the long-term. I'd be unhappy to see our 2011 propects go down the toilet with a Jamar injury. Spencer may eventually be a Jamar alternative but he's still a fair way off, not to mention Gawn and Fitzpatrick - get out your binoculars. There's a separate question about 2nd ruck/marking forward - I'm looking at primary rucking to underwrite our 2011 season. I'm no big PJ fan but there's a strong case for giving him another year. Otherwise we need to trade into a ruckman who's ready-to-go (a la Swans-Mumford) and there'll be a significant cost in trade and TPP to lure him - it's not an easy sell with Jamar there.

I would not persist with Bail, I'd let him go.

I'm glad you're not our list manager.

I'm glad you're not our list manager.

+1

I think a decent ruck is vital. Jamar of course provides this, but he's been injury prone over the long-term. I'd be unhappy to see our 2011 propects go down the toilet with a Jamar injury. Spencer may eventually be a Jamar alternative but he's still a fair way off, not to mention Gawn and Fitzpatrick - get out your binoculars. There's a separate question about 2nd ruck/marking forward - I'm looking at primary rucking to underwrite our 2011 season. I'm no big PJ fan but there's a strong case for giving him another year. Otherwise we need to trade into a ruckman who's ready-to-go (a la Swans-Mumford) and there'll be a significant cost in trade and TPP to lure him - it's not an easy sell with Jamar there.

I think that a pretty fair assessment of the rucking disposition.

Your last point is very pertinent. Who are we going to attract of merit that would happily play "insurance" for Jamar?

While I share your lack of excitement for PJ, the Demons ruck predicament may provide him with a one year window in 2011 to remain on the list.

I'm glad you're not our list manager.

+ 30K

The list I work off has been borrowed (read: stolen) from someone else who did the hard work in researching contract announcements. It appears to be quite accurate, but I am now maintaining and updating the list myself so by season's end it should be quite accurate. The variable which I can't allow for is non-specific contract lengths. I have a feeling we have a couple of contracts which have an undefined length based on achieving performance targets. Cheney, McNamara & Bartram may fall under this banner, but I am making an educated guess based upon the unusual lack of specific information in their re-signing announcement coupled with a personal opinion of where those players might be rated in the scheme of things.

It's actually not too hard or time consuming.

At one stage I went through all the MFC website archives and there is a news article for the majority of player signings.

I would not persist with Bail, I'd let him go. I haven't seen Blease play, but might throw a lifeline and give him one more season to prove himself.

That's as glowing an endorsement for Bail as I could imagine.

Y-M? Reincarnate?