AFL National Draft 2014 Pick 40

[ChaserJ 4,716]

and Salem?

& Jayden Hunt.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

I get that you're proposing an "everything's the same just on a different list" deal, but I still think it's no way to treat a player by promising something to the point of having him sign for it, then backflip at the eleventh hour. And it's not exactly the same, anyway, if Jetta is on the rookie list, the club could on any whim backflip and decide not to make him eligible for senior selection. What if they decided to promote another rookie, or Trengove makes a miraculous recovery? Given that in this hypothetical situation the club had already backflipped once, I wouldn't trust them not to do it again.

If I were the player and the club did that to me I would very much get my nose out of joint, and I'd be strongly considering my options (walking).

What if you increased his wage for the year? Would be cheaper than paying someone out their entire contract?

[Bonkers 988]

& Jayden Hunt.

I'm pretty sure Harmes isn't among that list.

[Whispering_Jack 29,247]

I get that you're proposing an "everything's the same just on a different list" deal, but I still think it's no way to treat a player by promising something to the point of having him sign for it, then backflip at the eleventh hour. And it's not exactly the same, anyway, if Jetta is on the rookie list, the club could on any whim backflip and decide not to make him eligible for senior selection. What if they decided to promote another rookie, or Trengove makes a miraculous recovery? Given that in this hypothetical situation the club had already backflipped once, I wouldn't trust them not to do it again.

If I were the player and the club did that to me I would very much get my nose out of joint, and I'd be strongly considering my options (walking).

There is no way in the world he should get his nose out of joint or even consider walking in a scenario where the club deals with it in a professional manner and only proceeds by consensus with the player and his management with iron clad guarantees of his immediate promotion to the senior list and ongoing placement on the primary list in 2016. His contract would be honoured in full, he would at all times retain the ability to play at the highest and be a rookie in name only. He would be guaranteed that no other rookie is promoted ahead of him and it's clear that Trengove is not going to miraculously improve before mid 2015 at least. If he does then he can be uplifted off the LTI and, after round 11 the club can retain Jetta on the primary list anyway under a separate AFL rule relating to rookie promotion. Therefore your list of "what if's" doesn't apply.

Similarly, with alternative suggestions discussed elsewhere such as delisting a contracted player with the promise of being rookied (eg Michael Evans). This would also done by consensus for the good of the team and, while I understand that some players might get miffed at this, if they're good enough they'll get a game and if they want to put their interests ahead of the team, they can always take the money and run.

[Nasher 33,607]

So what is your prefrence Nasher?

1. Don't use pick 40

2. Delist a contracted player. Paying out his contract and running the risk of damaging the trust with all players.

3. Delist a player with the promise to rookie on the same wage.

4. Ask Jetta to stay on rookie list.

None of the options are great. The 4th is the best in my eyes, closely followed by option 3.

Are there any other options?

Does anyone know if Evans was at training on Wed and Friday?

3, 2, and 4 and 1 equal in an "I really hope it doesn't come to that" scenario.

[Akum 2,660]

There is no way in the world he should get his nose out of joint or even consider walking in a scenario where the club deals with it in a professional manner and only proceeds by consensus with the player and his management with iron clad guarantees of his immediate promotion to the senior list and ongoing placement on the primary list in 2016. His contract would be honoured in full, he would at all times retain the ability to play at the highest and be a rookie in name only. He would be guaranteed that no other rookie is promoted ahead of him and it's clear that Trengove is not going to miraculously improve before mid 2015 at least. If he does then he can be uplifted off the LTI and, after round 11 the club can retain Jetta on the primary list anyway under a separate AFL rule relating to rookie promotion. Therefore your list of "what if's" doesn't apply.

Similarly, with alternative suggestions discussed elsewhere such as delisting a contracted player with the promise of being rookied (eg Michael Evans). This would also done by consensus for the good of the team and, while I understand that some players might get miffed at this, if they're good enough they'll get a game and if they want to put their interests ahead of the team, they can always take the money and run.

I think the problem is that an iron-clad guarantee for promotion at the end of next year loses its force somewhat if it means we've reneged on a similarly iron-clad guarantee this year.

[Nasher 33,607]

There is no way in the world he should get his nose out of joint or even consider walking in a scenario where the club deals with it in a professional manner and only proceeds by consensus with the player and his management with iron clad guarantees of his immediate promotion to the senior list and ongoing placement on the primary list in 2016. His contract would be honoured in full, he would at all times retain the ability to play at the highest and be a rookie in name only. He would be guaranteed that no other rookie is promoted ahead of him and it's clear that Trengove is not going to miraculously improve before mid 2015 at least. If he does then he can be uplifted off the LTI and, after round 11 the club can retain Jetta on the primary list anyway under a separate AFL rule relating to rookie promotion. Therefore your list of "what if's" doesn't apply.

Similarly, with alternative suggestions discussed elsewhere such as delisting a contracted player with the promise of being rookied (eg Michael Evans). This would also done by consensus for the good of the team and, while I understand that some players might get miffed at this, if they're good enough they'll get a game and if they want to put their interests ahead of the team, they can always take the money and run.

WJ my point is that if I were the player, any "guarantee" the club made me wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, when it had only very recently "guaranteed" me a spot on the senior list. All trust would be broken. If they can backflip on the contract they can just as easily backflip on their promise to make him fully available at all times.

There's just no mechanism to give him the same deal on the rookie list that he has on the senior list, he can only get a one year deal for a start.

This is entirely a situation of the club's own doing, it's not some unforseen circumstance that has happened by luck. I don't see why Neville Jetta, who is clearly a best 22 player and has busted a nut to get there, should be the one to pay for the club's seemingly sloppy list management.

[BAMF 4,120]

WJ my point is that if I were the player, any "guarantee" the club made me wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on, when it had only very recently "guaranteed" me a spot on the senior list. All trust would be broken. If they can backflip on the contract they can just as easily backflip on their promise to make him fully available at all times.

There's just no mechanism to give him the same deal on the rookie list that he has on the senior list, he can only get a one year deal for a start.

This is entirely a situation of the club's own doing, it's not some unforseen circumstance that has happened by luck. I don't see why Neville Jetta, who is clearly a best 22 player and has busted a nut to get there, should be the one to pay for the club's seemingly sloppy list management.

OK. But isn't option 2 and 3 the same as 4?

Doesn't Evans or Trengove deserve the same respect?

Evans signed a 2 year contract, but many are more than happy to dump him to the rookie list or straight out delist him.

Isn't this showing the players that an MFC contract means very little?

I don't have a perfect solution. I hope the club have sorted this out with which ever player they are going to rookie by now.

Missing out on pick 40 would be the worst option.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

I believe the club has already sorted out an arrangement to facilitate the use of Pick 40 and it just hasn't been made public yet. If they are paying out and rookie listing a player, there's no real reason it needs to be made public until list lodgement deadlines.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we found out Evans has already been paid out and told he will be Rookie listed and hence has continued training at the club as per normal.

[Nasher 33,607]

OK. But isn't option 2 and 3 the same as 4?

Doesn't Evans or Trengove deserve the same respect?

Evans signed a 2 year contract, but many are more than happy to dump him to the rookie list or straight out delist him.

Isn't this showing the players that an MFC contract means very little?

I don't have a perfect solution. I hope the club have sorted this out with which ever player they are going to rookie by now.

Missing out on pick 40 would be the worst option.

I have less problem with delisting a player a year in to a contract when he's a long way from best 22 and has regressed from a development point of view, than I do pulling a contract out from under a player who has just had an excellent season and the ink is still wet.

I still don't like it, but it's a better option and the one I'd choose.

[Grandson of a gun 276]

Back on Pick 40, it is very difficult to gauge what the club might do here in terms of type of player.

We have Garlett and JKH as small forwards. We have added midfielders through trade, fa and drafting Brayshaw. I believe we will take McCartin and with frost coming in we have covered off on talls, Lumumba gives speed and skill off half back but I believe this is where the club might look at pick 40. Another player with excellent skills who can start out playing a flanker role with a view to moving towards midfield.

All the top clubs have great half backs who set up much of the attack. I don't have any idea of who they might select, anyone that can offer some insight?

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

But would you be screwing the player around if he's guaranteed automatic and immediate upgrade to the primary list concurrently with JT being put on the LTI, guaranteed full pay in accordance with his contract and automatic upgrade to the primary list at the end of 2015?

As I said in another thread if I was Jordie McKenzie I'd want to be downgraded to the rookie list. Jordie has one year on his contract and I think will be really struggling to hold his place in the team next year. If he plays Casey for most of the year he's likely to be cooked as an AFL footballer.

If he's delisted by us (and then rookied) every club will have a look at him. It puts the question directly to them "do you want this bloke". They may all say no but at least they've been asked the question. Keeping him on the PL means the question isn't asked.

If there is someone out there that want him he'll get a better than one year contract and a better chance to extend his career. That would be a win win.

And if he gets down to our rookie list as Jack says, he can be upgraded immediately due to Trenners situation.

Excellent analysis! Confirms Roos views that the draft is a lottery. Trading players in gives Roos a chance to see how they stack up after a few years in the AFL. This is what gives me confidence in his trades-in: Vince, Tyson, Riley, Mitchie, Lumuba, Garlett, Frost, Newton.

None may become champions but you know the old saying: 'a champion team will beat a team of champions'!

Sydney's drafting as shown earlier is hardly "excellent analysis" but merely a listing of their draft history. And reality is it's dreadful. It really rivals Barry Prendergast's at MFC.

When Roos was at Sydney I felt they were very poor at developing their recruits and Roos was lucky he had such a good list when he took over. There may have been very good reasons why there was this failure to develop and I hope there was because his job at MFC is largely player development.

I reckon that Roos in a nutshell (sorry Nut) was exceptional at recruiting mature players, exceptional at getting the best out of them but unsuccessful developing youth.

Not a great fit for us and interesting in terms of how underwhelming our player development was last year. I'm thrilled we've got McCartney who is a proven developer of players.

[Whispering_Jack 29,247]

I have less problem with delisting a player a year in to a contract when he's a long way from best 22 and has regressed from a development point if view, than I do pulling a contract out from under a player who has just had an excellent season and the ink is still wet.

Nobody is suggesting "puling a contract out from under a player' and I don't see a previous iron clad guarantee that anyone is reneging on. To the contrary, the contract is for the employee of the MFC to play for the club over a period of time at a rate of pay and under set terms and conditions. None of those would change at all.

Our football department is charged with putting out the best team on the ground every week. Our players should also have the same aim in mind. If the FD doesn't set out to achieve the best list possible it's not fulfilling its aims. One way or the other, I'm sure they will do what's reasonably necessary to secure a pick at 40.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Sydney's drafting as shown earlier is hardly "excellent analysis" but merely a listing of their draft history. And reality is it's dreadful. It really rivals Barry Prendergast's at MFC.

Really?

We are going to compare picks taken in the 30s 50s and 70s to our horde of first round picks?

Edited November 8, 2014 by jabberwocky

[old55 22,854]

Not upgrading Jetta is not an option IMO for the "iron clad guarantee" reasons discussed above.

The possible options are to delist Trengove, McKenzie or Evans with the promise to re-rookie them, But there has to be something in it for them. There's definitely not more security of tenure so I think the only other thing MFC can offer is more money. We could offer them a big pay increase on this year's contract. I know a player can name a contract price in the ND but can they do the same in the RD? If they can then I suspect they'd have to put it on for both the ND and the RD and that would restrict their options to be picked up by another club in the ND - I think DFA is over so the only way they can get to another club is through the draft. If they can't name a price in the RD then the risk for those guys is that another club rookies them before our RD19 at the standard Rookie rate - we'd have to commit to picking them at RD2 to make it work. Not sure what the AFL would think about us throwing money around like that though.

I'm not burned up like everyone else seems to be about passing on pick 40 when I weigh it against the cultural implications of enabling it to be used.

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

One player who I had around 30 seems to have slipped and may be a draft bonus.

Jackson Nelson from the Geelong Falcons. 187 cms running tall half back. Great skills. Agile. Good pace. Good build. Easily kicks it 50. Kicks well on his opposite (left) foot. I would have had him in the frame at #23 even. He could be a Mundy like midfielder even down the track

From the AFL Draft site he is listed as 30-70 range and some phantoms have him 50-60.

He would be a draft steal IMO at #40.

[Redleg 40,229]

As I said in another thread if I was Jordie McKenzie I'd want to be downgraded to the rookie list. Jordie has one year on his contract and I think will be really struggling to hold his place in the team next year. If he plays Casey for most of the year he's likely to be cooked as an AFL footballer.

If he's delisted by us (and then rookied) every club will have a look at him. It puts the question directly to them "do you want this bloke". They may all say no but at least they've been asked the question. Keeping him on the PL means the question isn't asked.

If there is someone out there that want him he'll get a better than one year contract and a better chance to extend his career. That would be a win win.

And if he gets down to our rookie list as Jack says, he can be upgraded immediately due to Trenners situation.

Sensible and well thought out post.

Also sensitive to Jordie's position in the club and more importantly in the best 22.

This is a win win, as it allows us to take another new player, but also optimises Jordie's chance of an extended AFL career. Realistically you could argue that this could be Jordie's last AFL year, unless something happens and you have suggested something that could prolong his career a few seasons.

BTW I have met Jordie quite a few times, but clearly less than you BB and have found him to be a fantastic bloke. I only wish he had brilliant disposal skills, because he has enough of the rest.

I wish him all the best and hope that this is not his last AFL year and that he goes out in disapppointing fashion.

I still think we will come to an accomodation with Evans and JT, giving us picks 40 and 53 , though I am less certain in JT's case. They may be happy to use the LTI and another rookie pick in his case.

[rjay 24,616]

Sydney's drafting as shown earlier is hardly "excellent analysis" but merely a listing of their draft history. And reality is it's dreadful. It really rivals Barry Prendergast's at MFC.

When Roos was at Sydney I felt they were very poor at developing their recruits and Roos was lucky he had such a good list when he took over. There may have been very good reasons why there was this failure to develop and I hope there was because his job at MFC is largely player development.

I reckon that Roos in a nutshell (sorry Nut) was exceptional at recruiting mature players, exceptional at getting the best out of them but unsuccessful developing youth.

Not a great fit for us and interesting in terms of how underwhelming our player development was last year. I'm thrilled we've got McCartney who is a proven developer of players.

Think you are way off the mark here 'Bob', I reckon their drafting and development of lower picks has been good. Grundy, Malceski, Smith & Jack are not bad for starters.

You wouldn't be expecting a big hit rate with lower picks but they've done more than ok.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

Think you are way off the mark here 'Bob', I reckon their drafting and development of lower picks has been good. Grundy, Malceski, Smith & Jack are not bad for starters.

You wouldn't be expecting a big hit rate with lower picks but they've done more than ok.

2002

Traded pick 21 for Nick Davis (good pickup)

Pick 5 Jarred McVeigh (brilliant)

Pick 34 Dempster (father son, ok player)

Pick 50 Josh Thewlis (who?)

Pick 64 Nick Malceski (great pick)

PSD 3 Craig Bolton (Handy)

2003

Pick 16 Josh Willoughby (WHO?)

Pick 29 Tim Schmidt (WHO?)

Pick 45 Redrafted Amon Buchanan (decent)

Pick 47 Andrew Eriksen (WHO?)

Pick 69 - Matthew Davis (WHO?)

Rookie Picks None of note

2004

Traded pick 15 for Jolly (Serviced a need but Jolly was a backup ruck)

Pick 31 Jarred Moore (OK Player)

Pick 47 David Spriggs (Irrelevent at Swans)

Pick 61 Heath James (did nothing)

Rookie picks pick 2 Heath Grundy has been a good pickup

2005

Traded picks 19 and 50 for Ted Richards (Paid overs but worked out well)

Pick 51 Matthew Laidlaw (who?)

Pick 54 Kristian Thornton (who?)

Pick 59 Ryan Brabazon (who?)

Plenty of wasted rookie picks

Rookie pick 58 Kieran Jack (worked out well)

2006

Traded pick 33 for Peter Everitt

Pick 15 Daniel OKeefe

Pick 49 Daniel Currie

Pick 65 Peter Faulks

Pick 79 Jesse White

Rookie pick 15 Nick Smith (AA defender now)

2003 is a bust but it was for most clubs - terrible draft year.

2004 Grundy - good get.

2005 bust but for Jack

2006 but but for Nick Smith.

2002 McVeigh at 5 was a good pick and Malcheski very good obviously

With picks after 30 BP got us Jetta (our NS?), McDonald (our Grundy), Bail, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Howe.

Barry only had 4 years and the period above is 5. It all depends on how our later picks turn out but on face value it would appear Jetta, McDonald and Howe will have long careers and Bail, Gawn and Fitzpatrick (not as likely) have a good chance with Gawn being the best of the rest.

It's not so different IMO. Sydney's picks to about 30, other than McVeigh were all busts really although it is a small sample and shows how far ahead of the time Roos was with his trading over that period.

[rjay 24,616]

2003 is a bust but it was for most clubs - terrible draft year.

2004 Grundy - good get.

2005 bust but for Jack

2006 but but for Nick Smith.

2002 McVeigh at 5 was a good pick and Malcheski very good obviously

With picks after 30 BP got us Jetta (our NS?), McDonald (our Grundy), Bail, Gawn, Fitzpatrick, Howe.

Barry only had 4 years and the period above is 5. It all depends on how our later picks turn out but on face value it would appear Jetta, McDonald and Howe will have long careers and Bail, Gawn and Fitzpatrick (not as likely) have a good chance with Gawn being the best of the rest.

It's not so different IMO. Sydney's picks to about 30, other than McVeigh were all busts really although it is a small sample and shows how far ahead of the time Roos was with his trading over that period.

With the later picks they've done ok, probably on a par with most. They didn't have a lot of early picks as they traded so my point is I wouldn't use this sample to say "Roos in a nutshell (sorry Nut) was exceptional at recruiting mature players, exceptional at getting the best out of them but unsuccessful developing youth."

A lot of people say Roos philosophy is this or that based either on past record or things he might have said. Things have changed a lot in the game so I wouldn't be purely backing past record or an interpretation of it and as for what he says...well he is a master of smoke and mirrors. You can never take Roos statements as black and white, there is often some other agenda or diversion going on.

We are taking picks 2 & 3 to the draft, many interpreted Roos wouldn't do this. I wouldn't be counting out Roos picking a KPP on the back of what he has said in the past about forwards in the TAC cup. A thing I will say that Roos does and he does it well...Roos is a master of misdirection.

[Deeman 1,479]

Some lateral thinking required here.

If we really have identified someone that we want to take at 40, why not just take the bloke with pick 3 and pull up stumps then and there?

[old55 22,854]

It seems we rate Newton > 40 > Tapscott. If we can't take 40 it probably means we overpaid for Frost but you can only trade the picks you have and I think we underpaid for Garlett. Both were probably 3rd rounders that we'd used on Stretch.

[Deemotivated 550]

Some lateral thinking required here.

If we really have identified someone that we want to take at 40, why not just take the bloke with pick 3 and pull up stumps then and there?

We want our cake and eat it too

[spirit of norm smith 15,276]

I will be rapt if its

#2 Angus Brayshaw

#3 Pat McCartin

#40 Jackson Nelson

[bing181 9,005]

BTW I have met Jordie quite a few times, but clearly less than you BB and have found him to be a fantastic bloke.

From what I understand of Jordie, I'd be surprised if he was moved on or put through the Rookie wringer. While I accept the argument that we can't have passengers, a seniorish player and solid citizen, who can provide some leadership and guidance at Casey to and with the young players, while being there as backup, is not just a worthwhile position, but a necessary one.

Roos talks often about establishing a strong culture across the whole club, and it's in that light that I'd keep Jordie on, at least for the last year of his contract.

If anyone's to be paid out and re-rookied, surely the only candidate would be Evans.