5 minutes ago, CarnTheDees said:

Tim Smith please!

Ruckman please.

2 hours ago, Jesus Hoganshaw said:

The club has to go into the season with 44 players on its list with between 4-6 rookie spots, not including Cat B rookies. Minimum 4 rookie spots have to be filled.

If the intention is to only make 2 live selections in the rookie draft then I wonder if Joel Smith or Corey Maynard are being moved to the main rookie list for some reason. Either way, the spots need to be filled.

You don't have to take full amount of cat A rookies, we can go in to the season one short if we please, which seems to be the case

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Can Cat B rookies be promoted to play senior AFL mid season as a nominated rookie?

If not, the as you suggest, perhaps the club wants to give it self the option of trying one of the aforementioned if their development and form justifys it.

Yes

3 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

You don't have to take full amount of cat A rookies, we can go in to the season one short if we please, which seems to be the case

However, rookies are cheap and we are making a profit each year now, so what is the reason for not filling the list.

I suspect we have a plan to fill it at some stage, as otherwise it just doesn't make sense, unless we are over our salary cap. With HL about to go, leaving a senior spot as well,  that shouldn't be the case.

The AGM is on in 2 weeks, hopefully someone will ask the question.

Maybe we believe we have enough new and young players to develop and we judge that adding one more of questionable quality at RD50 just dilutes our development resources.

I'll take a punt and suggest we're picking one fewer rookie than expected because we "blew" the salary cap space needed for the third rookie on the unexpected acquisition of Jordan Lewis. If that's the case, I'm happy with the decision. 

 

Wonder if we will keep up the brothers tradition and take Hamish, hope so I like to see two brothers playing in the same side.

AFL rookie draft: The names to watch

Edited November 28, 20168 yr by Dante

I'll take a punt and tip one or both rookies are from left field

12 hours ago, Redleg said:

Ruckman please.

Not for me. There is a lot of desire on here for another ruck option but we have a mature age ruck back up in Spenser and a developing ruck in King.

Why isn't that enough for some people? I don't get it. 

I mean I would have thought a back up developing key back would have been more important.

21 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Really hope we grab McInerny as a rookie.  We need to be developing another ruck even if it's only as backup. 

I may have to eat my words a few years down the track but I don't think McInnerney is up to it, nor likely to be.

He did well to get a few games in at VFL level but that's as far as I see him going.

I would be looking elsewhere for the backup ruck.

12 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

You don't have to take full amount of cat A rookies, we can go in to the season one short if we please, which seems to be the case

Yeah, I stand corrected. Rookie list rules have changed and we don't have to have any if we don't want them.

MINIMUM NUMBER OF ROOKIES

Rookie lists are now recognised as a key list management tool and designating a minimum number of rookies is no longer necessary as it is purely a club decision.

Source

7 hours ago, rjay said:

I may have to eat my words a few years down the track but I don't think McInnerney is up to it, nor likely to be.

He did well to get a few games in at VFL level but that's as far as I see him going.

I would be looking elsewhere for the backup ruck.

Agree on McInerney. Did a couple of nice things in the VFL finals but only when he was given time and space. Didn't work hard to get to the contest - and was pushed aside when he got there.

The most interesting point on this thread is the apparent news that we are only taking 2 Cat A rookies when nominally we could take 3.

The only reason I can think of is that they may want to leave open the possibility of promoting Joel Smith ( who really has some talent) from B to A ( if there's any benefit in that ?)

I'm sure there is a good reason. Guess it's possible they don't expect any sort of prospect to be around when they get to the 3rd round. No point in tying up Development Coaches with players they don't rate. 

I'd like to see them add at least one ruckman from somewhere- maybe Will Minson? Good back up - and a positive mentor.

Like everyone else I would certainly wonder if they leave some young big men behind . They  often don't take off until until they're 24 -25

Mc Inerney can stay at Casey

It's quite possible that the club has decided that there's an optimum number of players it can carry on it's playing list and now that they have two Category B rookies (with the opportunity to pick up another) there's no need to have the full quota of rookies available.

We had a rookie player this year who for the last half of the season was a regular in the Casey Development League team which should really only be used for AFL listed players coming back from longer term injury.  

Limiting the numbers, albeit by one player would also encourage VFL listed players at the club in the hope of producing a well rounded team if they knew they were in with a good chance of getting a game. Casey built a successful team in 2016 achieving a well balanced group including its VFL players.

I'm not as desperate for a ruckman as others on here, but I do think the club will take one. With Mitch King already developing, I'd rather us look at someone like Mitch McCarthy, who has more scope to play forward while pinch hitting in the ruck.

Sproule would add handy depth as a developing Key Position player.

Don't know if we take Tim Smith after drafting two forwards on Friday, but he deserves a go.

 

 

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

It's quite possible that the club has decided that there's an optimum number of players it can carry on it's playing list and now that they have two Category B rookies (with the opportunity to pick up another) there's no need to have the full quota of rookies available.

We had a rookie player this year who for the last half of the season was a regular in the Casey Development League team which should really only be used for AFL listed players coming back from longer term injury.  

Limiting the numbers, albeit by one player would also encourage VFL listed players at the club in the hope of producing a well rounded team if they knew they were in with a good chance of getting a game. Casey built a successful team in 2016 achieving a well balanced group including its VFL players.

Agree.

Id add that if they dont have someone they think is worth the effort they shouldnt rookie somone just for the sake of it. Whilst its true we have the money we save a few bob by not doing so but more importantly do not have to invest the time and resources in them., resources that might be better spent on the other 47 players

Joel Smith looks ready to play and Maynard has the tools to play, just a matter of seeing him at VFL level. So I'm fine with going in 1 short on the A list. But 1 short on the A list, 1 short on the B list and seemingly 1 short on the senior list with Lumumba likely gone seems a bit too much. 

47 players for a team of 22 does seem a lot! But 44 out of 47 seems like a bit left on the table.

I wonder how much we are putting in to buying players for Casey. If they aren't drafted I think the club will want to do what they can to get McInerny, Tim Smith, Keilty, Hutchins and probably a few others to stick around so that this years gains aren't wiped out. Might be able to buy 3 experienced VFL players for the price of 1 rookie these days.

16 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Maybe we believe we have enough new and young players to develop and we judge that adding one more of questionable quality at RD50 just dilutes our development resources.

But for the back up ruckman slot, it seems the club is very confident about the composition and profile of the list, and now wishes to focus on developing those players who are already on it.

Picking up someone for the sack of it isn't necessarily what's required now. They might as well have sought to rookie Jack Grimes in that situation, as his leadership qualities would possibly have been more valuable to the club than investing in some speccy at the bottom end of the rookie draft.

 

The Lumumba situation may also influence the number of positions.
A rookie will almost certain to be promoted with Heretier's future cloudy, but the spectre of a payout for him means we have to carry his wage for no play, so unless a settlement is reached we have to carry him.
Personally I prefer quality over quantity and White or even Smith may well find themselves on the main list before the season starts. 3 rookies and a B  rookie seem enough for me

My understanding is that the only difference between Category A and B rookies is the method and selection criteria by which they are added to the list (A being through the Rookie Draft; B being international, zone, no previous registration etc.)

Beyond that there is no difference in the rookie conditions or the ability to be promoted. 

FoxFooty not covering Rookie Draft #youhaveonejob!

42 minutes ago, demoniac said:

FoxFooty not covering Rookie Draft #youhaveonejob!

Don't sweat it. I reckon Demonland is covering the rookie draft.

Give us another Brayshaw please !!!

23 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

Don't sweat it. I reckon Demonland is covering the rookie draft.

Give us another Brayshaw please !!!

Agree, a Brayshaw and a ruck

On 11/27/2016 at 9:50 AM, CarnTheDees said:

Tim Smith please!

I hope so

10 minutes ago, stinga said:

I hope so

I've seen quite a bit of Tim Smith over the years and I'd be very surprised if he was drafted.  He's a good mark at VFL level but beyond that he doesn't have much involvement in the game.  I tend to think at AFL level where defenders are bigger and better he'd struggle to have much impact.

If he isn't picked up this year you'd think that would be it for him.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

6 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

It's quite possible that the club has decided that there's an optimum number of players it can carry on it's playing list and now that they have two Category B rookies (with the opportunity to pick up another) there's no need to have the full quota of rookies available.

We had a rookie player this year who for the last half of the season was a regular in the Casey Development League team which should really only be used for AFL listed players coming back from longer term injury.  

Limiting the numbers, albeit by one player would also encourage VFL listed players at the club in the hope of producing a well rounded team if they knew they were in with a good chance of getting a game. Casey built a successful team in 2016 achieving a well balanced group including its VFL players.

I don't agree and am struggling to see the logic.  I hope it's explained after the draft.  We have a huge development team now, much more than we've ever had before, we have terrific resources and we have a recruiting team that have proved they can find players.  I know any player will be a very late rookie pick and of course the chances of finding a player that late is low but in this game you need to have a go with every chance you get.  The history of the rookie draft is littered with good players who have been picked up late and I'm surprised we are not giving ourselves this chance.

And I don't buy the argument that we'd be spreading our development resources to thin.  One more player on the list (and with the likelihood of Lumumba now disappearing) would surely not stretch us to breaking point.

Odd decision, I don't get it.