The list - who goes at the end of the year?

[Weedster 174]

Take as fact 10-12 will go this year.

Unless you're including rookies, this will not happen

[rpfc 28,384]

Unless you're including rookies, this will not happen

Yes, I know footynut has some sources but 10-12 off the primary list is simply not workable.

And I will tell you why - if we get two free agents, and if we use Picks 3, 4, 13, 30, and 50 in the draft and use the first pick in the PSD for whatever crap is left that still only 8 desirables to replace the 'undesirables.'

Naming 12 players who are uncontracted to delist is terribly difficult.

'But we could trade them, rpfc!!'

Oh, can you? (eyes roll)

But what if those players don't want to go? Or a trade isn't forthcoming? Then you will lose an uncontracted player you didn't want to lose. Great list managment there...

Not to mention you might not get much in return.

If Green retires and Jamar and Rivers go on the VL, and Jetta, Bennell, Bate, MacDoanld, Spencer, Fitzpatrick, Petterd and Dunn are not renewed then that will open up 10 spots on the list.

To get to 12 you will have to let 2 of Moloney, Jones, Batram, Jurrah, Cook, Blease, Howe, Davis, Strauss, and Bail go aswell.

AND not elevate Nicholson, Magner, Couch, or Evans.

People can judge for themselves how likely 12 deletions are, and whether they want to use Picks 70, 85, 100, and 110...

I guess we could pick up the deletions from other teams - they will be free agents...

[Footynut 302]

10 - 12 senior list players? That would be some slash - everyone who is a candidate would have to go.

5-6 mature players? Including rookie promotions?

Yes including rookie upgrades to Evans and Nicho.

[Footynut 302]

Yes, I know footynut has some sources but 10-12 off the primary list is simply not workable.

And I will tell you why - if we get two free agents, and if we use Picks 3, 4, 13, 30, and 50 in the draft and use the first pick in the PSD for whatever crap is left that still only 8 desirables to replace the 'undesirables.'

Naming 12 players who are uncontracted to delist is terribly difficult.

'But we could trade them, rpfc!!'

Oh, can you? (eyes roll)

But what if those players don't want to go? Or a trade isn't forthcoming? Then you will lose an uncontracted player you didn't want to lose. Great list managment there...

Not to mention you might not get much in return.

If Green retires and Jamar and Rivers go on the VL, and Jetta, Bennell, Bate, MacDoanld, Spencer, Fitzpatrick, Petterd and Dunn are not renewed then that will open up 10 spots on the list.

To get to 12 you will have to let 2 of Moloney, Jones, Batram, Jurrah, Cook, Blease, Howe, Davis, Strauss, and Bail go aswell.

AND not elevate Nicholson, Magner, Couch, or Evans.

People can judge for themselves how likely 12 deletions are, and whether they want to use Picks 70, 85, 100, and 110...

I guess we could pick up the deletions from other teams - they will be free agents...

Bennell, Jetta, Bate, Dunn, Cook, Davey, Green, Moloney, Jurrah, Petterd, Gysberts, Fitzpatrick. Most delisted with zero trade value and possible trade of a few. All players out of contract have been told free agency has arrived and there are no commitments to anyone until after trade period. All those out of contract bar a couple (Howe) have been told they may be delisted or traded or kept. There's some real hunger around the club right now.

[Bring Back Barassi 552]

Gysberts, Cook and Davey will not be delisted. Neither will Liam if he gets off

[rpfc 28,384]

Bennell, Jetta, Bate, Dunn, Cook, Davey, Green, Moloney, Jurrah, Petterd, Gysberts, Fitzpatrick. Most delisted with zero trade value and possible trade of a few. All players out of contract have been told free agency has arrived and there are no commitments to anyone until after trade period. All those out of contract bar a couple (Howe) have been told they may be delisted or traded or kept. There's some real hunger around the club right now.

I know where the club is coming from with this but IF you don't get those senior bodies they want to get - it just means more speculative kids in the draft.

[Footynut 302]

I know where the club is coming from with this but IF you don't get those senior bodies they want to get - it just means more speculative kids in the draft.

Spot on - they seem confident of 5 mature age/moneyball via free agency possible 4 and a Boak plus the rest kids if it turns out that way. A few things depend on if the Liam situation is taken out of their hands.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

I know where the club is coming from with this but IF you don't get those senior bodies they want to get - it just means more speculative kids in the draft.

I wouldn't be happy if Fitzy,Cook and Gys were not demons next year. Why get rid of some potential good players for more potential players especially tall kids? I think Fitzy as a mobile tall and 2nd ruck could work out for us. Cook is untried and Gys has been injured. We have seen what Bate,Dunn and bail can do at full potential but not Fitz,cook and Gys.

[rpfc 28,384]

I wouldn't be happy if Fitzy,Cook and Gys were not demons next year. Why get rid of some potential good players for more potential players especially tall kids? I think Fitzy as a mobile tall and 2nd ruck could work out for us. Cook is untried and Gys has been injured. We have seen what Bate,Dunn and bail can do at full potential but not Fitz,cook and Gys.

Well, that is the risk.

Neeld wants some muscle and some big arses and that is completely understandable but, again, if you mis-calculate and get speculative kids for two years - you have cut of your nose to spite your face.

Tread warily.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Well, that is the risk.

Neeld wants some muscle and some big arses and that is completely understandable but, again, if you mis-calculate and get speculative kids for two years - you have cut of your nose to spite your face.

Tread warily.

How many big bodied good players are available that don't require giving up first round picks? You would have to trade for someone on potential only like Sydney did for Mumford. He was good at Geelong but improved in Sydney. So it looks like we are gonna see more Sellar type players. Sellar is ok but a paul salmon he is not. God don't trade for Dawes Mr.Neeld!

[Footynut 302]

I wouldn't be happy if Fitzy,Cook and Gys were not demons next year. Why get rid of some potential good players for more potential players especially tall kids? I think Fitzy as a mobile tall and 2nd ruck could work out for us. Cook is untried and Gys has been injured. We have seen what Bate,Dunn and bail can do at full potential but not Fitz,cook and Gys.

Cook not up to Casey and unlikely ever to be AFL standard. Tough calls are being made. Bad pick.

Gysberts no tank, no pace.

Fitz will be a judgement call.

The footy dept know best.

Mission and Neeld come from high standard clubs and know what the benchmarks are.

[rpfc 28,384]

How many big bodied good players are available that don't require giving up first round picks? You would have to trade for someone on potential only like Sydney did for Mumford. He was good at Geelong but improved in Sydney. So it looks like we are gonna see more Sellar type players. Sellar is ok but a paul salmon he is not. God don't trade for Dawes Mr.Neeld!

I think we are looking at FAs and, I assume, delisted players from other clubs.

I assume that because the list of FAs is dwindling as we speak and I just wonder whether we are holding out for festival, and we might just find ourselves at the Showgrounds with very few 'acts' on show.

[Footynut 302]

I should point out the Coach would happily draft young like some here want as long as the club are prepared to see him rebuild for another 5 years. Otherwise he will have to build a team that is competitive as soon as is possible or he will be lynched.

[Footynut 302]

I think we are looking at FAs and, I assume, delisted players from other clubs.

I assume that because the list of FAs is dwindling as we speak and I just wonder whether we are holding out for festival, and we might just find ourselves at the Showgrounds with very few 'acts' on show.

Absolutely - nothing is certain which is why the club has not committed to many players out of contract so they can resign if needed.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Cook not up to Casey and unlikely ever to be AFL standard. Tough calls are being made. Bad pick.

Gysberts no tank, no pace.

Fitz will be a judgement call.

The footy dept know best.

Mission and Neeld come from high standard clubs and know what the benchmarks are.

I have faith but I had faith in Bailey and his team to. I would hate to see Gysberts turn in our version of Kennedy at Sydney. The swans would probably take him and turn him into a star and then Demonland would explode.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Bring on the change. BP got it wrong.

We must move on. Neeld has 2 more years.

[Diablo Deemon 220]

What an indictment that 12 delistings is even a possibility.

Haven't we been through this [censored] already.

07 this crap started and 5 years later we're planning the delisting of the duds we recruited.

You know the sad thing is we're that diabolical that short term fixes is about all we can do.

12 delistings means we don't even have a list. It's another rebuild which takes 2-3 years again.

I hope to god there isn't that many.

[rpfc 28,384]

Ok, Neeld's wet dream would be along the lines of this:

Upgrades: Magner and Nicholson

Trades: Boak for 4 or 13 and a kid.

FA: Sewell, Enright, (Insert third established pro here)

Nat Draft: 3, 4, Viney and 50

PSD Draft: OOC 22 year old

That's 11 changes.

BUT if FA is a bust, and if Boak doesn't come, and if the PSD isn't looking like a good option, and if the OOC players aren't happy to wait until late October to sign up - then bring on Pick 70, 85, 95, 102, and 109.

And suddenly our list gets worse.

[Footynut 302]

Ok, Neeld's wet dream would be along the lines of this:

Upgrades: Magner and Nicholson

Trades: Boak for 4 or 13 and a kid.

FA: Sewell, Enright, (Insert third established pro here)

Nat Draft: 3, 4, Viney and 50

PSD Draft: OOC 22 year old

That's 11 changes.

BUT if FA is a bust, and if Boak doesn't come, and if the PSD isn't looking like a good option, and if the OOC players aren't happy to wait until late October to sign up - then bring on Pick 70, 85, 95, 102, and 109.

And suddenly our list gets worse.

If your second scenario pans out we will simply be going 'young' again with some VFL matures possibly added as top up. We will be in a long term slow rebuild as has been the case for the last how many years...

[rpfc 28,384]

If your second scenario pans out we will simply be going 'young' again with some VFL matures possibly added as top up. We will be in a long term slow rebuild as has been the case for the last how many years...

That's not my concern, my concern is the next year when you have got to find more people to delist and you ARE successful in FA and the PSD and with a trade and suddenly you have more additions than desired deletions. Because, and I can be corrected here by the new CBA when it is finally released, but if you are taken in the Nat Draft - you have an automatic 2 year deal.

[Footynut 302]

That's not my concern, my concern is the next year when you have got to find more people to delist and you ARE successful in FA and the PSD and with a trade and suddenly you have more additions than desired deletions. Because, and I can be corrected here by the new CBA when it is finally released, but if you are taken in the Nat Draft - you have an automatic 2 year deal.

I understand your point. I think the club is aware of this and is planning with those contingencies in mind.

Its all a bit like watching a car crash in slow motion isn't it!

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

I should point out the Coach would happily draft young like some here want as long as the club are prepared to see him rebuild for another 5 years. Otherwise he will have to build a team that is competitive as soon as is possible or he will be lynched.

So are you saying that Neeld is looking after himself rather than the long term best result for the Club?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

So are you saying that Neeld is looking after himself rather than the long term best result for the Club?

Neeld was appointed coach for 3 years. Not a caretaker. Of course he wants results. Don't you?

The best long term result for the club is to start winning games.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

Neeld was appointed coach for 3 years. Not a caretaker. Of course he wants results. Don't you?

The best long term result for the club is to start winning games.

Thanks, but it wasn't a question for you.

[jnrmac 20,058]

You cannot slice 10-12 from the list, It is just not feasible to do it in 1 year and load up with draft picks.