The Senior List Jigsaw Puzzle

[Slartibartfast 17,228]

He might be of more use on the PL as I just explained in another thread as an injured player that will allow any RL player to play from Rd1.

If Newton arrives we would need to delist a contracted player to use ND40. I would delist Evans or McKenzie and then pass on ND53 and use RD2 on a player targeted with ND53 (there will only be about 15 live selections difference between those two). I would draft Evans or McKenzie with RD20 and tell Tapscott that footy can be tough sometimes.

There are a few ways to go and each avenue has its pitfalls and pluses.

So you wouldn't delist him?

[Whispering_Jack 29,840]

So because McKENZIE is a good bloke crap footballer we keep him. It's because we have so many NQR players on our list like him, Matt Jones, Terlich, Riley, etc we will never get better.

I've stated before that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a mutual arrangement between the club and a player like Jake Trengove who is almost certain to miss a large slab if not all of the season recuperating from this latest surgery to be delisted and placed on the rookie list with full pay, total support in his rehab and no pressure on the player or the club about a comeback date. This would contrast well with the Mitch Clark situation from this year with the endless speculation about his return which might have contributed to Clark's breakdown (I'm not suggesting either that JT is in the same situation or head space as Mitch). I see it as a win/win for the player and the club in circumstances where the club has identified a player it needs to fill its list eg a DFA like Ben Newton.

In similar vein, Michael Evans played very few AFL games in 2014 and is not likely to feature in early senior team selection and a similar arrangement could be made with him i.e delisting and rookie listing on full pay. He's able bodied and if he "does a Jetta" then it would again be a win/win.

Jordie McKenzie deserves to remain on the list, not because he's a good bloke but because he's shown ability and leadership in difficult times. That gives him seniority over Evans and the right to remain on the senior list in his quest for a return to where he was two years ago when he held a regular place in the side.

That's how I look at the situation.

[rpfc 28,284]

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1.

Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection.

We would have 40 players to choose from.

If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from.

It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1.

Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection.

We would have 40 players to choose from.

If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from.

It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

If Taylor believes that the players we want will be available as rookies then that makes sense.

[Demoneyes 562]

Sounds like to me this puzzle has a 1000 pieces!

[Whispering_Jack 29,840]

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1.

Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection.

We would have 40 players to choose from.

If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from.

It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

That's all well and good but if the club wants to recruit say, Ben Newton, as a DFA then it may not be able to get him as a rookie and that porentially weakens your list and limits your potential to recruit.

[mog 58]

The way the mechanisms work, there is quite a bit to be said for keeping Trengove on the PL as a key to any Rookie upgrade from Rd 1.

Essentially, if Trengove was delisted and rookied and we didn't have an LTI to start the season then Harmes or RD2 may not be available for selection.

We would have 40 players to choose from.

If Trengove was on the LTI, we would immediately have 43 players to choose from.

It is not the difference between winning and losing but it is an argument that the club is not worse off for having Trenogve on the PL for 2015.

Completely Agree with this.

Also if you delisted Trengove, i'd be confident that nobody would pick him up in the psd, but i reckon St Kilda would be stupid not to pick him up with pick 1 in the rookie draft.

They would only have to pay the him 50k next year while we pay the rest. And if his foot doesn't recover they can delist him next year.

Any 18 year old picked in the rookie draft is unlikely to play any games next year if ever , so they are not losing out there. Even with Trengoves injuries he is still a hell of a lot more likely to play meaningful afl games in the future then a rookie pick.

If we want to pick up Ben Newton and use pick 40, i'd delist and pay out Evans.

[Redleg 40,864]

I've stated before that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a mutual arrangement between the club and a player like Jake Trengove

Forgotten him already have you?

[old dee 23,782]

Forgotten him already have you?

I have!

[Whispering_Jack 29,840]

Forgotten him already have you?

What makes you think that?

[Demoneyes 562]

What makes you think that?

Maybe the fact you calling him Jake

[rpfc 28,284]

That's all well and good but if the club wants to recruit say, Ben Newton, as a DFA then it may not be able to get him as a rookie and that porentially weakens your list and limits your potential to recruit.

I am talking about ND53 vs RD2.

Assuming Newton is on his way, one of Trengove, Evans or McKenzie is required to be delisted to make way for ND40.

With the difference between ND53 and RD2 being neglible, it is understandable if they don't use ND53.

[Whispering_Jack 29,840]

Maybe the fact you calling him Jake

Oops ... well it was either me or the autospell but it does explain why I've been having trouble logging in as Whispering Jake.

[CBDees 3,167]

Completely Agree with this.

Also if you delisted Trengove, i'd be confident that nobody would pick him up in the psd, but i reckon St Kilda would be stupid not to pick him up with pick 1 in the rookie draft.

They would only have to pay the him 50k next year while we pay the rest. And if his foot doesn't recover they can delist him next year.

Any 18 year old picked in the rookie draft is unlikely to play any games next year if ever , so they are not losing out there. Even with Trengoves injuries he is still a hell of a lot more likely to play meaningful afl games in the future then a rookie pick.

If we want to pick up Ben Newton and use pick 40, i'd delist and pay out Evans.

I am not so sure that we couldn't arrive at a 'gentlemen's agreement' with St. Kilda before we initiated something with Jack Trengrove. After all, there will be (and have been) times when our positions on the ladder are reversed and favours can work both ways. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't already know who st. Kilda plan to draft with their first pick in the National Draft at least.

[Redleg 40,864]

I am not so sure that we couldn't arrive at a 'gentlemen's agreement' with St. Kilda before we initiated something with Jack Trengrove. After all, there will be (and have been) times when our positions on the ladder are reversed and favours can work both ways. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't already know who st. Kilda plan to draft with their first pick in the National Draft at least.

You won't need any agreement, no one but us will wear the hefty contract, for no output.

[old dee 23,782]

You won't need any agreement, no one but us will wear the hefty contract, for no output.

That is the best bet you could make this spring Redleg.

Why would anyone want to recruit a player that cannot play in 2015.

just wait till next year and he will be out of contract and his foot situation will be resolved one way or the other.

We are also not talking about GA Jnr here but an average midfielder at best.

[old55 23,468]

What's in it for Trengove or Evans?

[Demoneyes 562]

Oops ... well it was either me or the autospell but it does explain why I've been having trouble logging in as Whispering Jake.

That's okay. Just being a cunny funt!

[Maggot 1977 263]

Who cares to what benefit it is for Evans, Trengove or McKenzie surely the benefit of MFC is paramount here.

[rpfc 28,284]

Who cares to what benefit it is for Evans, Trengove or McKenzie surely the benefit of MFC is paramount here.

Absolutely, but don't think that the question of delisting contracted players is without unintended consequences.

Consequences that might not benefit the MFC.

[Maggot 1977 263]

I understand your point RPC that delisting a contracted player "may" effect moral of the playing list and even an outsiders opinion of the club. IMO however we would not be the first club to do this and we won't be the last. The club spin doctors should be able to run this into a position where we come off well.

" great servant of the club ... , MFC is being ruthless and professional ... a new dawn ....sometimes tough decisions have to me made and this is one of them ..... yada yada "

The simple fact is that unless a miracle happens McKenzie and Evans will not be on our list next year. They both have desire but lack the fundamental skills to succeed at the highest level. This will not change over the course of a pre season. They will spend the year at Casey before being axed next year and I consider this to be dead time, that could be better spent on developing a younger / project player or having a punt on a Pre season Draft - rookie selection .

If your not going forward , you are going backwards and these 2 players are not going to take us forward.

just my opinion

[DeeSpencer 25,529]

Absolutely, but don't think that the question of delisting contracted players is without unintended consequences.

Consequences that might not benefit the MFC.

The first one being 200k we really can't afford to be splashing around left right and centre on players we are paying to walk away from AFL!

[rpfc 28,284]

I understand your point RPC that delisting a contracted player "may" effect moral of the playing list and even an outsiders opinion of the club. IMO however we would not be the first club to do this and we won't be the last. The club spin doctors should be able to run this into a position where we come off well.

" great servant of the club ... , MFC is being ruthless and professional ... a new dawn ....sometimes tough decisions have to me made and this is one of them ..... yada yada "

The simple fact is that unless a miracle happens McKenzie and Evans will not be on our list next year. They both have desire but lack the fundamental skills to succeed at the highest level. This will not change over the course of a pre season. They will spend the year at Casey before being axed next year and I consider this to be dead time, that could be better spent on developing a younger / project player or having a punt on a Pre season Draft - rookie selection .

If your not going forward , you are going backwards and these 2 players are not going to take us forward.

just my opinion

I am certain they won't get another contract on current form.

But we will still need to delist players next year to make way for a few early picks, another F/S, and hopefully some FAs...

This is a point I have brought up quite a bit - there is something to be said for not having to give a kid at ND40 and ND53 an automatic 2 year deal...

[old dee 23,782]

I am certain they won't get another contract on current form.

But we will still need to delist players next year to make way for a few early picks, another F/S, and hopefully some FAs...

This is a point I have brought up quite a bit - there is something to be said for not having to give a kid at ND40 and ND53 an automatic 2 year deal...

Good luck with getting that past the Union rpfc

[rpfc 28,284]

Good luck with getting that past the Union rpfc

The AFLPA couldn't care less about the teenagers...

No, I just meant that Evans' vacated spot on the list may be better next year rather than this year.

If you delete every player you don't want in one year, you are going to have to delete someone you do want the year after...