List squads down to 35 - who survives the chop?

[whatwhat say what 18,793]

one of the bizarre things doing the rounds at the moment is that list squads will be reduced to 35, which - given our propensity for injury - doesn't seem like nearly enough

apaz clubs will be able to sign players on short term waiver wires, much as clubs do in international sports

but, for curiosity's sake, who would survive the chop at the dees?

1. steven may
2. nathan jones
3. christian salem
4. james harmes
5. christian petracca
6. luke jackson
7. jack viney
8. jake lever
9. charlie spargo
10. angus brayshaw
11. max gawn
12. toby bedford
13. clayton oliver
14. michael hibberd
15. ed langdon
16. jake melksham
17. mitch hannan
18. adam tomlinson
19. brayden preuss
20. james jordon
21. trent rivers
22. tom mcdonald
23. sam weideman
24. oscar mcdonald
25. alex neal-bullen
26. bayley fritsch
27. tom sparrow
28. marty hore
29. harrison petty
30. kysaiah pickett
31. neville jetta
32. jay lockhart
33. kyle dunkley
34. first pick
35. second pick

this is on the presumption that at the end of this year you only need to add two picks rather than the standard three...

lots of squads around the league will look seriously short of depth; ours included

if jones and hibberd retire, who makes it through? brown? a perennial injury like avb or smith?

Edited March 28, 2020 by Grapeviney

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

I think I read in today's Age that the list cut - if indeed it were to happen - would be in stages with an initial reduction to 40 and then subsequently to 35. That should ease the pain a little for the current playing group.

Smaller lists will see the end of the perenially injured, the risky players (those known to be trouble off-field) and project players. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,679]

not sure I can remember a time when we have had not had around seven to ten players unavailable (sure not always best 22 players) so it would require a big change in our approach to the list.

The real losers out of this will be the VFL comp. I can see players being "loaned" out to the amateurs or similar just so the clubs don't have to pay for the VFL comp.

[Moonshadow 16,111]

AvB, ANB, Chunk, Pig, Bradke, Bennell, Dunks to start with. Some are rookie, so may survive. Nev may retire, alongside Chunk and Pig.

Will be Interesting to see which of our OOC/FA players want out.

Would be interested to see if we can attract a trade for Weid, either a pick or part of a player trade. He has potential, we've seen it in 2018. Cue the Weid haters, of course....

[Bizzell Blitz 26]

who chunk? spargo out 

[Demon Dude 425]

i'd start with cutting Bradtke, Brown, and the Wagners, and look to retire Jones, and push medical retirements for AVB and KK, from the list. most are depth we can afford to lose. Jones is about the only one who could get a regular game out of that lot, but it might just be a good time for him to hang up the boots anyway.

we can also afford to lose a younger midfielder type, like one of Dunkley, Sparrow, Spargo or Jordon.

and i'd also cut one of Hunt or Hibberd. one has been on the list a while and still cant find a spot to call his own, and the other is fading fast. i'd probably lean towards cutting Hibberd, purely because of his age I suppose. who knows, maybe Hunt can find form as a defender again without Hibberd down there.

 

[darkhorse72 1,718]

Is the 35 the active list, so there will still be rookie lists and other other supplementary lists that seem to exsit?   

[Demons11 6,404]

8 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

Is the 35 the active list, so there will still be rookie lists and other other supplementary lists that seem to exsit?   

Total list. 
 I believe the number will be 38 

[Lil_red_fire_engine 10,132]

I think the suggestion is if this happens then it will be in two stages with 40 in 2021 shifting to 35 in 2022. I assume this is to smooth those coming out of contract. If they are to do this which I do not disagree with to reduce costs they should also do the following to support it. 

Lift the draft age to 19 to reduce speculative picks as well as ensure players once on list have an extra year of physical and mental maturity and readiness to play.

Reduce to 16 on field as per the AFLW. It will both reduce cost as well as improve the speed of the game. 

Align each club with a secondary club that they can develop talent with and if injuries hit you can promote from.

If we go to 35 you will really see a premium placed on utility types that can play multiple roles well. Ignoring existing contracts and assuming 2 new draftees and no trades I would delist/retire the following.

Jones, Spargo, Hibberd, KK, Hannan, AVB, Hunt,  Brown,Wagner, Wagner, Bradtke

NB: I am assuming Nietzschke and Bennell are available for full preseasons. 

 

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

I know,  let's start a thread on an unsubstantiated rumour, so the normal haters can start their posts, without the need for games

[Uncle Fester 2,835]

If they are smart (taking the devil’s advocate that this is something of substance) they wouldn’t have a draft this year. Nobody is going to see the kids play, the draft age can do with a lift, and it lets natural attrition trim the lists.

[george_on_the_outer 6,944]

If the list were reduced to 35, we would not have been able to put 22 players on the park in 2018. And no ability to develop young players by keeping them at lower levels for a couple of years. 

Players on the list only account for about 20-25% of club costs. 

Just another "thought bubble" out of AFL headquarters....

Edited March 28, 2020 by george_on_the_outer

[rjay 23,866]

It might be better to go back to a semi pro model.

Don't cut the list size but cut the salary cap back dramatically...

[whatwhat say what 18,793]

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

I know,  let's start a thread on an unsubstantiated rumour, so the normal haters can start their posts, without the need for games

@Satyriconhome, it's not unsubstantiated and it's not a rumour

22 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

If the list were reduced to 35, we would not have been able to put 22 players on the park in 2018. And no ability to develop young players by keeping them at lower levels for a couple of years. 

presuming you mean 2019? at one stage i think we had 26 players to pick from...

1 hour ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

I think the suggestion is if this happens then it will be in two stages with 40 in 2021 shifting to 35 in 2022. I assume this is to smooth those coming out of contract. If they are to do this which I do not disagree with to reduce costs they should also do the following to support it. 

Lift the draft age to 19 to reduce speculative picks as well as ensure players once on list have an extra year of physical and mental maturity and readiness to play.

Reduce to 16 on field as per the AFLW. It will both reduce cost as well as improve the speed of the game

this makes sense to me too

although they may think that with reduction of quarter lengths to 16 mins + time on that the wear and tear on bodies will be reduced anyway, negating the need for on-field reductions

[Deemania since 56 6,122]

On 3/27/2020 at 9:05 PM, whatwhatsaywhat said:

one of the bizarre things doing the rounds at the moment is that list squads will be reduced to 35, which - given our propensity for injury - doesn't seem like nearly enough

apaz clubs will be able to sign players on short term waiver wires, much as clubs do in international sports

but, for curiosity's sake, who would survive the chop at the dees?

1. steven may
2. nathan jones
3. christian salem
4. james harmes
5. christian petracca
6. luke jackson
7. jack viney
8. jake lever
9. charlie spargo
10. angus brayshaw
11. max gawn
12. toby bedford
13. clayton oliver
14. michael hibberd
15. ed langdon
16. jake melksham
17. mitch hannan
18. adam tomlinson
19. brayden preuss
20. james jordon
21. trent rivers
22. tom mcdonald
23. sam weideman
24. oscar mcdonald
25. alex neal-bullen
26. bayley fritsch
27. tom sparrow
28. marty hore
29. harrison petty
30. kysaiah pickett
31. neville jetta
32. jay lockhart
33. kyle dunkley
34. first pick
35. second pick

this is on the presumption that at the end of this year you only need to add two picks rather than the standard three...

lots of squads around the league will look seriously short of depth; ours included

if jones and hibberd retire, who makes it through? brown? a perennial injury like avb or smith?

Your Numbers 23 & 24 can be sold to The Filth and replaced by others in the retained listing.

[george_on_the_outer 6,944]

52 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

@Satyriconhome, it's not unsubstantiated and it's not a rumour

presuming you mean 2019? at one stage i think we had 26 players to pick from...

this makes sense to me too

although they may think that with reduction of quarter lengths to 16 mins + time on that the wear and tear on bodies will be reduced anyway, negating the need for on-field reductions

Sorry, I meant 2019....but with a list of 45 we had 19 injuries.  35 - 19 = 16 players available. Or if we do it by percentages 45% of list missing.  With 35 on the list we would have had 19-20 available. 

[whatwhat say what 18,793]

11 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Sorry, I meant 2019....but with a list of 45 we had 19 injuries.  35 - 19 = 16 players available. Or if we do it by percentages 45% of list missing.  With 35 on the list we would have had 19-20 available. 

yeah, it's not good is it

they are saying that players will be available as 'supplementary' players in the need of circumstances but how that will work in a practrical sense i have no idea

a reduction to 35 on a list would definitely mean that you wouldn't be willing to 'carry' injured players

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

3 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

 

Lift the draft age to 19 to reduce speculative picks as well as ensure players once on list have an extra year of physical and mental maturity and readiness to play.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, rjay said:

It might be better to go back to a semi pro model.

Don't cut the list size but cut the salary cap back dramatically...

If this happens AFL might lose talented youngsters who choose other options such as soccer, cricket or basketball. That will diminish the quality of the game.

[rjay 23,866]

41 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

If this happens AFL might lose talented youngsters who choose other options such as soccer, cricket or basketball. That will diminish the quality of the game.

At this stage I think all sports will be in the same boat, at least in this country.

Sportsmen in this country have been overpaid considering our small population for a while now.

I suspect there will be a new world order after all this shakes out.

[daisycutter 28,458]

On 3/28/2020 at 1:06 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think I read in today's Age that the list cut - if indeed it were to happen - would be in stages with an initial reduction to 40 and then subsequently to 35. That should ease the pain a little for the current playing group.

Smaller lists will see the end of the perenially injured, the risky players (those known to be trouble off-field) and project players. 

and deep 17yo draft picks for senior or rookie lists

the u18 comp probably to become an u19 comp which is probably an improvement

Edited March 29, 2020 by daisycutter

[spirit of norm smith 12,839]

I could cut 10 off the list. Unfortunately it means a no risk policy.  Here’s 14 off the current list meaning a squad of 31.
 

kk

bradtke

bennell

omcd

spargo

j. wagner

 c. wagner

brown

avberg

anb

Baker 

chandler

dunkley

neitscke 

 

 

[Kent 2,574]

19 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

If this happens AFL might lose talented youngsters who choose other options such as soccer, cricket or basketball. That will diminish the quality of the game.

All sporting codes will be strapped for cash! Perhaps the full time pro athlete  is a thing of the past

[Ohio USA - David 107]

On 3/27/2020 at 6:35 AM, whatwhatsaywhat said:

one of the bizarre things doing the rounds at the moment is that list squads will be reduced to 35, which - given our propensity for injury - doesn't seem like nearly enough

apaz clubs will be able to sign players on short term waiver wires, much as clubs do in international sports

but, for curiosity's sake, who would survive the chop at the dees?

1. steven may
2. nathan jones
3. christian salem
4. james harmes
5. christian petracca
6. luke jackson
7. jack viney
8. jake lever
9. charlie spargo
10. angus brayshaw
11. max gawn
12. toby bedford
13. clayton oliver
14. michael hibberd
15. ed langdon
16. jake melksham
17. mitch hannan
18. adam tomlinson
19. brayden preuss
20. james jordon
21. trent rivers
22. tom mcdonald
23. sam weideman
24. oscar mcdonald
25. alex neal-bullen
26. bayley fritsch
27. tom sparrow
28. marty hore
29. harrison petty
30. kysaiah pickett
31. neville jetta
32. jay lockhart
33. kyle dunkley
34. first pick
35. second pick

this is on the presumption that at the end of this year you only need to add two picks rather than the standard three...

lots of squads around the league will look seriously short of depth; ours included

if jones and hibberd retire, who makes it through? brown? a perennial injury like avb or smith?

So who did you leave off. ???

[deanox 8,516]

21 hours ago, rjay said:

It might be better to go back to a semi pro model.

Don't cut the list size but cut the salary cap back dramatically...

They should scale back the "base" contracts and increase the match payments, so that they are 75% of the salary cap. 

A) why should big name players be able to get payments for sitting on the sidelines,  whether due to form or injury?

B) They claim their salaries are because "they are the product", and this will tie their pay directly to their product. 

C) Players will be rewarded on form and performance, not based on how well they negotiated a contract. 

D) The league will have flexibility in the case that games are ever cancelled. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,679]

3 hours ago, deanox said:

They should scale back the "base" contracts and increase the match payments, so that they are 75% of the salary cap. 

A) why should big name players be able to get payments for sitting on the sidelines,  whether due to form or injury?

B) They claim their salaries are because "they are the product", and this will tie their pay directly to their product. 

C) Players will be rewarded on form and performance, not based on how well they negotiated a contract. 

D) The league will have flexibility in the case that games are ever cancelled. 

Definitely worth discussion. I think form should play a lot bigger part in total remuneration. To some extent it already does through contract renewal but there is certainly room for more incentives due to form.

Injury is a lot tougher. Long term injuries are probably tougher again. If they are still paid 75% of the cap that would be a fair outcome. In fact I think it a little too fair.I would set it closer to 66%.

Perhaps need to ask should a club still be required to pay almost 100% of the cap when it finishes 16th or thereabouts. Leigh Matthews was big on this at Brisbane a few years back saying why should they pay the same to a bunch of mediocre players when they had no marquee player at the time.

Also underscores the need for the bulk of players to have a clear path to work after football.

Finally it's important that the clubs aren't allowed to game the system and use the formula to poach the high paid players (a la Sydney with their COLA) while the bulk of the team take the minimum.