List management

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Do we think someone like Martin could find a home there for their second pick? Or a player? What about Spencer, who has been injured but was previously rated as our backup ruckman? And the big one of course, Jamar, who is going into the prime of his ruck career, and given how he plays (not reliant on pace) looks like he'll have another 5+ years in the game... He has been linked with South Australian teams before... Could he net a pick 6? Maybe with a sweetener?

We have a very good senior ruckman in Jamar, have developed a great athletic second ruckman in Martin and we have a young beanpole in Gawn who will be at maturity when the senior bloke is finished.

The ruck stocks are exactly what they should be. We do not have a surplus. Crazy to consider trading any of these three.

[old55 21,395]

ARGHHH!

How many times does it have to be said? Newton IS NOT a rookie.

He WAS, but then he was permanently elevated to the senior list to take the position of Cameron Bruce.

Also, Warnock's contract situation is unconfirmed, but I believe he is out of contract at the end of 2011.

Newton is a nominated rookie. He's permanently available for selection this year but he's still a rookie.

Warnock is out of contract - he wasn't out of contract last year and there's no way he was on a 3 year deal.

[Roger Mellie 3,536]

Got this from another forum source but cannot vouch for its accuracy but looks about right.

Uncontracted at end 2011

Jake Fitzpatrick

Max Gawn

Addam Maric

Stefan Martin

Cale Morton

Tom Scully

Colin Sylvia

Austin Wonaeamirri

Matthew Warnock

It's a tough call to delist/trade 3 out of that lot.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Newton is a nominated rookie. He's permanently available for selection this year but he's still a rookie.

Warnock is out of contract - he wasn't out of contract last year and there's no way he was on a 3 year deal.

Well, that's not how it has been explained to me, but it would seem to make sense. In a way.

Cameron Bruce was a veteran, so he could be replaced as a rookie.

But it doesn't explain why a rookie could be elevated for the length of the season, because that's a senior spot.

Even more perplexing is why Newton was chosen (yeah, I get it, backup ruckman).

In any case, I can't find an article on the MFC website that confirms it.

They don't seem to go back that far - the news articles stop at round 2 this year.

[mauriesy 6,819]

Warnock will be redundant, especially if Tom Macdonald and/or Troy Davis keep improving. Help him find a new home or delist.

Bate and/or Dunn will be interested in somewhere else if Casey is their likely long-term home.

Maric is vulnerable ... I'd prefer to offer him one year, otherwise trade or delist.

Wonaeamirri's decision might make it easier for us.

You'd get three from that lot.

Funny how our entire 2004 draft is very flaky.

Anyone who suggests trading Martin has got rocks.

[Yokozuna 1,004]

I doubt either Nicholson or Evans will be upgraded to the senior list permanently next year.

I think it will be more like what Jordie Mac did for us a couple of years ago, he stayed on the rookie list so we could get another draft pick, and then come onto the senior list to replace an injured player.

I think that will give us more options and mean we will have to delist less players come the end of the year.

As much as we like some of our current players we may need to off load some players who do show promise, as we have to delist someone, or hope for a stupid club (such as the Blues) to take one of our leftovers such as Dunn or Bate!

[titan_uranus 22,560]

Right now, assuming we can't find a home for Bate or Dunn (strong assumption that, I'd think we would be able to find at least one of them a new home), the three who are in biggest danger are Maric, Warnock and Wonaeamirri. Whether or not Wonna wants to stay, if we can't move Bate or Dunn on, Wonna would probably fall into the category of 'three most delist-able' players.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I can't see any situation in which GWS wouldn't take Bate and Dunn, if they were available to them cheaply.

[titan_uranus 22,560]

I can't see any situation in which GWS wouldn't take Bate and Dunn, if they were available to them cheaply.

Sheedy might be old, but he's not stupid. Surely he recognises that they both stink. That will be the biggest barrier I think. If other mid-sized forwards are on the market (I can't think of any at the moment), they'd surely take precedence over our two hacks.

I also reckon there's a strong chance that they'll take Fev on a clause-ridden one-year contract.

[old55 21,395]

Well, that's not how it has been explained to me, but it would seem to make sense. In a way.

Cameron Bruce was a veteran, so he could be replaced as a rookie.

But it doesn't explain why a rookie could be elevated for the length of the season, because that's a senior spot.

Even more perplexing is why Newton was chosen (yeah, I get it, backup ruckman).

In any case, I can't find an article on the MFC website that confirms it.

They don't seem to go back that far - the news articles stop at round 2 this year.

The AFL Player Rules are on the AFLPA site at:

http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL%20Player%20Rules%20-%20February%202011.pdf

Nominated Rookies are discussed in 21.10 p.106

[Guest Artie Bucco]

It's not about them being the best, it's about them being physically mature, experienced, cheap and capable of competing.

They'd just be cannon fodder until the GWS kid's grow.

Same as Sam Iles, Josh Fraser, Daniel Harris, Joel Tippett and Danny Stanley.

Not exactly an all-star lineup.

[John Dee 438]

Well, that's not how it has been explained to me, but it would seem to make sense. In a way.

Cameron Bruce was a veteran, so he could be replaced as a rookie.

But it doesn't explain why a rookie could be elevated for the length of the season, because that's a senior spot.

Even more perplexing is why Newton was chosen (yeah, I get it, backup ruckman).

Brad Green became a veteran and this opened up a spot for a nominated rookie. With not much to go on other than disclosed form, they chose Newton to use this spot; the decision had to be made before the start of the season.

As the nominated rookie, Newton must be put onto the main list for 2010 or delisted. Please make it the latter.

Evans and Nicholson are on the list as replacements for Long Term Injuries. They can remain on the rookie list for another year without any issues.

[Cards13 9,117]

Got this from another forum source but cannot vouch for its accuracy but looks about right.

Uncontracted at end 2011

Jake Fitzpatrick

Max Gawn

Addam Maric

Stefan Martin

Cale Morton

Tom Scully

Colin Sylvia

Austin Wonaeamirri

Players contracted to end 2012

Rohan Bail

Clint Bartram

Matthew Bate

Jamie Bennell

Sam Blease

Lucas Cook

Troy Davis

Lynden Dunn

Colin Garland

Jeremy Howe

Mark Jamar

Neville Jetta

Nathan Jones

Liam Jurrah

Tom McDonald

Jordie McKenzie

Brent Moloney

Ricky Petterd

Jared Rivers

Jake Spencer

James Strauss

Luke Tapscott

Jack Trengove

Matthew Warnock

Players contracted until 2013 are:

Aaron Davey

Jack Grimes

Jordan Gysberts

Jack Watts

Frawley is contracted until 2014

Still have Nicholson and potentially Evans to be promoted from the rookie list.

Rookie Listed Players

Campbell, Robert (Rookie)

Evans, Michael (Rookie)

Johnston, Cameron (Rookie)

Lawrence, Kelvin (Rookie)

McNamara, Tom (Rookie)

Michael Newton (Rookie)

Nicholson, Daniel (Rookie)-Promote to senior List

Joel Macdonald missing from list?

[daisycutter 28,630]

Joel Macdonald missing from list?

.....as is Greeny......

[jabberwocky 2,301]

.....as is Greeny......

Don't know about Joel Mac but Green is Vets list...editted. Will investigate J M, probably coming to the end of a 2 year deal.

[DemonTux 95]

cant we offer Dunn / Bate the same deal that we offered Meason and Newton? i.e. delist and then pick up as rookies to cover off the last year of their contracts? effectivly 2 of the 3 delistings and then upgrade Nicho and Pickles in their spots?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

cant we offer Dunn / Bate the same deal that we offered Meason and Newton? i.e. delist and then pick up as rookies to cover off the last year of their contracts? effectivly 2 of the 3 delistings and then upgrade Nicho and Pickles in their spots?

We could, however i think that Dunn and moreso Bate have some currency, whereas Newton and Meesen had none. Those players went through the draft nomination process and there was no interest. Dunn and Bate could get drafted. Obviously it's in thier interest to be on a senior list somewhere.

With Nicholson and Evans, if they are not senior listed they will need to take a hit for the club to remain as rookies, if they nominated for the draft they would certainly get drafted on to a senior list.

It will be a tricky period for the list manager. We have a good recent record in juggling things to get good outcomes for player and club. The struggle will now be to hold on to young talent. There are the obvious ones but there are also blokeds like Gawn, Martin, Bail etc who we have put development into that could be knocked off.

[John Dee 438]

With Nicholson and Evans, if they are not senior listed they will need to take a hit for the club to remain as rookies, if they nominated for the draft they would certainly get drafted on to a senior list.

Not true. They can stay as rookies next year.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Not true. They can stay as rookies next year.

Jordie Mckenzie was reportedly offered a deal from Adelaide to nominate for the ND to get a spot on their senior list after his first year. He chose not to and remained a rookie on our list, to give the club an extra draft pick. Just another reason to love the kid.

A rookie who is proven to be good enough to be a senior player can demand to be put on the senior list. If the club chooses not to that rookie could nominate for the ND or PSD to get picked up and put on a senior list.

Dan Nicholson is showing signs that he belongs on a senior list, to remain a rookie the club needs his co-operation.

IE If Nicholson demands to be upgraded we will need to find a spot for him.

edit example: http://www.aflq.com....Hash=bc60d5880c

[John Dee 438]

You are confused.

Jordie Mckenzie was reportedly offered a deal from Adelaide to nominate for the ND to get a spot on their senior list after his first year. He chose not to and remained a rookie on our list, to give the club an extra draft pick. Just another reason to love the kid.

A rookie who is proven to be good enough to be a senior player can demand to be put on the senior list. If the club chooses not to that rookie could nominate for the ND or PSD to get picked up and put on a senior list.

Dan Nicholson is showing signs that he belongs on a senior list, to remain a rookie the club needs his co-operation.

IE If Nicholson demands to be upgraded we will need to find a spot for him.

Rookies are given automatic two-year contracts. They can get a third year if both they and the club agree. McKenzie agreed to stay as a third year rookie, and good on him for doing that.

Nicholson and Evans are only into the first year of their two-year contracts.

[1858 219]

Rookies are given automatic two-year contracts. They can get a third year if both they and the club agree. McKenzie agreed to stay as a third year rookie, and good on him for doing that.

21.2.3 Contract of Service

(a) Where a Club includes a Player on its Rookie List, it shall:-

(i) in the case of an International Player, enter into a

Contract of Service for a minimum of 2 AFL Football

Seasons; or

(ii) in the case any other Player, enter into a Contract of

Service for a minimum of 1 AFL Football Season.

This would include an initial contract as well so 2 yrs is not necessarily automatic I don't think.

Edited June 29, 2011 by 1858

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

There's always a few who miss the point of the post. No-one's suggesting going out looking for a trade. But if you're a serious list manager you consider market value of players throughout their entire careers. We were "crazy" to trade Johnstone too, and look where that got us. In fact you could argue we were in more desperate need of Trapper then than we are of 1/3 of our effective ruckmen.

Besides, who says we need to be the ones proposing the trade? Port will probably at some point approach us for one or all three of our big boys. What if one of them does a Mumford and actually accepts the trade? What if someone offered us Boak and their first or second round pick for Jamar? Not so easy to say no. Though I probably still would.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Rookies are given automatic two-year contracts. They can get a third year if both they and the club agree. McKenzie agreed to stay as a third year rookie, and good on him for doing that.

Nicholson and Evans are only into the first year of their two-year contracts.

Apologies, my mistake, after their second year they need to be either elevated or delisted.

Shouldn't post today, suffering caffeine withdrawals. Gave up coffee 2 days ago. That's my excuse.

[1858 219]

Also, we can't put Jamar on the VL until the end of next season can we?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

There's always a few who miss the point of the post. No-one's suggesting going out looking for a trade. But if you're a serious list manager you consider market value of players throughout their entire careers. We were "crazy" to trade Johnstone too, and look where that got us. In fact you could argue we were in more desperate need of Trapper then than we are of 1/3 of our effective ruckmen.

Besides, who says we need to be the ones proposing the trade? Port will probably at some point approach us for one or all three of our big boys. What if one of them does a Mumford and actually accepts the trade? What if someone offered us Boak and their first or second round pick for Jamar? Not so easy to say no. Though I probably still would.

The point: We don't have any ruckmen that we can afford to "trade"

An aging lazy on baller when we were on a downward plane looking to draft kids (JOHNSTONE)

versus

an up and coming and improving ruckman when we are on the rise (MARTIN).

It is ridiculous entertaining the possibilty trade the young players we have worked so hard to build, and what would we trade him for? A draft pick that we couldn't use, another ruckman?

We do not have a ruckman surplus, we cannot afford to "trade" any of those three. If it came to a point wher one of those wanted to go then of course we would need to secure the best possible outcome.