5 hours ago, Older demon said:

Yes widely reported and initial thought is that we will take our 4 draft picks to the big dance and use them.

Sorry didn’t see it on MFC club website or the AFL website about Jordan moving to rookie list.  Though I think it makes sense and I reckon we might be in the market for a DFA (the Egg perhaps!) 

Edited November 28, 20204 yr by spirit of norm smith
V

 

36 main list and 6 rookie list is the only reasonable way to compose the list. 37-5 would waste 80k of salary cap space for no good reason. 38-4 would waste 160k. Every team has a super tight salary cap as they negotiate the cap decrease and player contracts. 

So it makes sense that JJ would be given the rookie designation. For that reason 3 draft picks and 1 rookie (pick or train on player) remains the overwhelming favourite unless we have a way to drop another player back, which I assume we don't.

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

36 main list and 6 rookie list is the only reasonable way to compose the list. 37-5 would waste 80k of salary cap space for no good reason. 38-4 would waste 160k. Every team has a super tight salary cap as they negotiate the cap decrease and player contracts. 

So it makes sense that JJ would be given the rookie designation. For that reason 3 draft picks and 1 rookie (pick or train on player) remains the overwhelming favourite unless we have a way to drop another player back, which I assume we don't.

 

it makes absolutely no sense why we would demote him and promote lockhart, either way the same amount is being paid outside the cap why not just leave them on the lists they were on? we didn't give lockhart any longer deal to force him up either. baffled

9 minutes ago, Turner said:

it makes absolutely no sense why we would demote him and promote lockhart, either way the same amount is being paid outside the cap why not just leave them on the lists they were on? we didn't give lockhart any longer deal to force him up either. baffled

Lockhart’s close to a regular player compared with JJ who hasn’t played. Isn’t that enough?

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Lockhart’s close to a regular player compared with JJ who hasn’t played. Isn’t that enough?

Expect JJ to really come on, but we have to add players at the top end via the draft first, so it gives us the ability to add to the quality and keep JJ, rather than have J on the main list and have to wait for the rookie draft to grab a kid with less potential (who missed being drafted).  When the rules change again, he will be an obvious upgrade with a late pick

53 minutes ago, Turner said:

it makes absolutely no sense why we would demote him and promote lockhart, either way the same amount is being paid outside the cap why not just leave them on the lists they were on? we didn't give lockhart any longer deal to force him up either. baffled

It might be because Lockhart has been on the Rookie list for the maximum 3 years?

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

36 main list and 6 rookie list is the only reasonable way to compose the list. 37-5 would waste 80k of salary cap space for no good reason. 38-4 would waste 160k. Every team has a super tight salary cap as they negotiate the cap decrease and player contracts. 

So it makes sense that JJ would be given the rookie designation. For that reason 3 draft picks and 1 rookie (pick or train on player) remains the overwhelming favourite unless we have a way to drop another player back, which I assume we don't.

 

To clarify. Don’t clubs get 44 players all inclusive with max 6 rookies.  So you can have 38 primary listed players, meaning we can still add 5 new listed players.  
Rookies would be mBrown, Chandler, Nietschke, Jordan and then a further 2020 rookie draft pick.  

6 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

To clarify. Don’t clubs get 44 players all inclusive with max 6 rookies.  So you can have 38 primary listed players, meaning we can still add 5 new listed players.  
Rookies would be mBrown, Chandler, Nietschke, Jordan and then a further 2020 rookie draft pick.  

No. 42 including main list and cat A rookies. 

50 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

It might be because Lockhart has been on the Rookie list for the maximum 3 years?

he'd only been there two? he joined last January

11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

No. 42 including main list and cat A rookies. 

i thought it was 44...

18 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

To clarify. Don’t clubs get 44 players all inclusive with max 6 rookies.  So you can have 38 primary listed players, meaning we can still add 5 new listed players.  
Rookies would be mBrown, Chandler, Nietschke, Jordan and then a further 2020 rookie draft pick.  

yes and that spot we'll likely carry for SSP. 

so 4 draft picks, 1 DFA and then no live rookie picks but 1 train on spot left free it seems

AFL website says maximum 44 players being between 36 to 38 on primary list, 4 to 6 on rookie A list and up to 2 on rookie cat B list. 
 

So presume we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B. 

31 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL website says maximum 44 players being between 36 to 38 on primary list, 4 to 6 on rookie A list and up to 2 on rookie cat B list. 
 

So presume we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B. 

That is correct.  Or have some other mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type. 

55 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL website says maximum 44 players being between 36 to 38 on primary list, 4 to 6 on rookie A list and up to 2 on rookie cat B list. 
 

So presume we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B. 

 

19 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is correct.  Or have some other mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type. 

Incorrect. Main list and cat A rookie can only get to 42 combined with 2 B spots.

Excluding B rookies clubs have 3 choices - 38/4, 37/5, 36/6. But it’s not a choice, the latter is the only good option for the salary cap.
 

“Primary lists must have between 36 and 38 players. Category A rookies are capped at 4-6, up to a total of 42 players on a list including primary-listed players. Each club can also have two Category B rookies.”

https://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/837502/afl-confirms-2021-list-sizes

35 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

Incorrect. Main list and cat A rookie can only get to 42 combined with 2 B spots.

 

I don't know where the Bulldogs get their info.  The AFL rules: list-sizes-revealed

"The maximum list size for next year have been reduced from 47 to 44 which includes the ability to list up to two Category B rookies. 

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie. 

To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies".

As I said there are various list type mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type:

• So @spirit of norm smithexample of "we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B" is correct. 
• Another example is 36 senior list, 6 A rookies and 2 B rookies to reach 44.
• Or if, a club has no B rookies there is nothing to stop it having 38 senior players and 6 A rookies to a max of 44.  Were it otherwise this club would be penalised with a smaller list of 42 vs other clubs simply because it has no B rookies.

...and so on.

Edited December 1, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

On 11/28/2020 at 1:47 PM, Mach5 said:

It’s worth bearing in mind, that although picks will be pushed back in the draft sequence by NGA selections, later picks will come in as the later draft picks are eaten up.

e.g. While the dogs will select JUH early, it will eat up their pick 26, brining our picks 28 & 50 forward. It will also likely eat up their 33, 41 & 42.

50 will come in more as Port’s 35 & 47 are eaten up for Lachie Jones.

Sydney’s 34, 37, 43 & 48 should all evaporate.

Freo’s 32 will disappear.

GC getting ridiculous concessions stings.

Having said that, we also have to factor the picks clubs receive back as “change” from the points used to match bids, so 50 will likely push back out a bit, but 28 might be in a bit of a sweet spot.

This is something I tried to unsuccessfully articulate last year, but it’s a bit easier now with real world examples; in essence, trading into later picks in this draft may not be such a bad thing. The COVID implications make it even better if you back your talent ID dept to have done the work earlier & better than the opposition.

I was intrigued by this myself the other day and went through a fair few phantom drafts to determine where players would be bid on, the points that would be required and the picks that would be eaten up to equal the bid.

Unfortunately, by my calculations it wasn't as favorable as i thought it would be for our later picks.

You mention that the doggies will have to use pick 26 on JUH which will bring in our picks 28 and 50. However, I don't think you have taken into account that the doggies will essentially just move their pick 26 up to pick 1-3. Meaning, that our pick 28 would stay where it is based on that factor alone as all the other picks from the bid on wards would be shunted back a position until 27 which would remain the same.

The good part (that you mentioned already) is that the Doggies later picks in this bid would also be used up, meaning that 31, 41 and 42 would likely get used up too. The sad part is that there are a large amount of academy kids who are predicted to be taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds too... The gains that we make up from the Doggies picks etc are not as good as once again our late pick gets pushed back. 

I was going to type up my notes, but its not 100% accurate with the trades that have gone on since trade week, but essentially I had worked out our picks to likely fall this way

18+4=22

19+4=23

28+6-1=33 (realistically it will be 34 now that the doggies have traded pick 26)

50+11-16=45

So really we lose out except for pick 50 which comes in 5 places :(

59 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I don't know where the Bulldogs get their info.  The AFL rules: list-sizes-revealed

"The maximum list size for next year have been reduced from 47 to 44 which includes the ability to list up to two Category B rookies. 

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie. 

To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies".

As I said there are various list type mix to get to 44 while staying within the limits of each list type:

• So @spirit of norm smithexample of "we can have 44 being 38 primary list, 5 rookies and Bradtke as cat B" is correct. 
• Another example is 36 senior list, 6 A rookies and 2 B rookies to reach 44.
• Or if, a club has no B rookies there is nothing to stop it having 38 senior players and 6 A rookies to a max of 44.  Were it otherwise this club would be penalised with a smaller list of 42 vs other clubs simply because it has no B rookies.

...and so on.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/525076/statement-players-afl-confirm-new-pay-deal-for-2021

It's on the AFL website too

Quote

  Each club must have a minimum of 37 players with a maximum of 44 players.  The primary list must have no less than 36 players and no more than 38 players. The maximum number of Category A rookies will be 4-6 (depending on the number of Primary List Players and with the maximum across those two lists not exceeding 42) and the maximum number of category B rookies shall be 2.  

And yes, clubs that don't have 2 cat B rookies are penalised and need to (if they see fit) go out and find 2.

Thanks @DeeSpencer   That mid point of the combined primary and rookie cat A list at 42 wasn’t in the article from Mitch Cleary on the AFL Website 

The deadline for adding DFA's has closed.  So we can only add to senior list with draftees.  (Theoretically we could promote a rookie but that would be counter productive as we have just 'demoted' Jordon to the rookie list).

We have 33 senior list so need to take 3 draftees to reach the required minimum of 36. 

If we use all 4 draft picks we will have 37 senior players.

Yes I think we’ll go with 4 draft picks, leaving one rookie spot available for the SSP selection.  Likely invite a few to the “train on group” over the summer.  

4 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Yes I think we’ll go with 4 draft picks, leaving one rookie spot available for the SSP selection.  Likely invite a few to the “train on group” over the summer.  

Yeah that makes sense pick 89 isn't enticing. Have pick 18,19, 28 and 50 and then have pick 10 in the Rookie Draft.

16 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The deadline for adding DFA's has closed.  So we can only add to senior list with draftees.  (Theoretically we could promote a rookie but that would be counter productive as we have just 'demoted' Jordon to the rookie list).

We have 33 senior list so need to take 3 draftees to reach the required minimum of 36. 

If we use all 4 draft picks we will have 37 senior players.

i was going tosay yesterday that benny gibsons article re neita and JJ didnt mention DFA's when it said why we were demoting them but did mention all other avenues of adding players to lists. I hope there are some DFA's we're sussing but surely its risky to let them slide through the draft process particularly Egg

8 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Yeah that makes sense pick 89 isn't enticing. Have pick 18,19, 28 and 50 and then have pick 10 in the Rookie Draft.

Yes we might “defer” the rookie pick and keep the spot for a later SSP sign in post summer training ie. February 2021 signing. That way we can potentially invite players to “train on” and then give an opportunity, like we did with Lockhart, cWagner and Bennell over the last few years. 

2 hours ago, Turner said:

i was going tosay yesterday that benny gibsons article re neita and JJ didnt mention DFA's when it said why we were demoting them but did mention all other avenues of adding players to lists. I hope there are some DFA's we're sussing but surely its risky to let them slide through the draft process particularly Egg

If there’s a certain player we are keen on we can get them to pull their draft nomination and sign on as a rookie after the draft. The DFA window only matters for signing senior listed players on 2 year deals. Clubs will be in ongoing negotiations for picking delisted guys as rookies, it’s just a question of whether we want to commit to anyone before the draft.

As part of its draft discussion The Age says:  "Sources suggest the Demons are looking to trade pick 28 for a future selection".

Not sure why but I like the idea of extra draft currency in 2021.

We need to take 3 draftees to reach the minimum 36 senior list players.  Should we trade 28 it means we will use 50 (unless we split pick #19).

So still a bit of water to go under the bridge.

Edited December 4, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

53 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

As part of its draft discussion The Age says:  "Sources suggest the Demons are looking to trade pick 28 for a future selection".

Not sure why but I like the idea of extra draft currency in 2021.

We need to take 3 draftees to reach the minimum 36 senior list players.  Should we trade 28 it means we will use 50 (unless we split pick #19).

So still a bit of water to go under the bridge.

Is it correct that after all the academy and father-son picks are taken pick 28 is likely to drift out a bit but pick 50 drift in? In other words, if that is correct, there wouldn't be 22 players taken between pick 28 and 50 but something more like, say, 15-17. In this year of less information from which to make selections, that would make the possibility of pick 50 being a successful longterm selection not significantly worse than pick 28.  

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is it correct that after all the academy and father-son picks are taken pick 28 is likely to drift out a bit but pick 50 drift in? In other words, if that is correct, there wouldn't be 22 players taken between pick 28 and 50 but something more like, say, 15-17. In this year of less information from which to make selections, that would make the possibility of pick 50 being a successful longterm selection not significantly worse than pick 28.  

From the excellent work on draft selections that other posters have done, your deductions are correct. 

Edited December 4, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero