rpfc

I don't think it will be that many - unless we find homes for Garland, Howe, and Grimes. But even then you are looking at bringing in some very speculative talent in the back end of the draft or finding some limited players in Delisted FA. Cross and Jamar retiring, M Jones and Terlich being paid out, the aforementioned three moving via FA and Trades, and the deletion of McKenzie, Hunt, Bail, Riley, Michie, and Fitzpatrick would be the maximum I can see and that is 13. Not much room to move. You can also compare them to what they would bring in: 1. Mckenzie/Vanders 2. Bail/ND5 3. Terlich/ND27 4. Hunt/ND47 5. Jamar/ND66 6. Howe/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 7. Cross/Harmes 8. Fitzpatrick/DFA1 9. Garland/*FA Pick 10. Grimes/*Trade Pick and/or Player* 11.Michie/DFA2 12. Riley/ND86 13. M Jones/DFA3 The above are in some sort of 'desire to keep' order but the value return disappears in my opinion at Michie for the second delisted FA, we might see the back of more than that but I doubt it. I would keep Michie and Riley around but the latter hasn't played much and that isn't a good thing in a contract year - the return on the 11th change onwards isn't great.

Or when he has players who can consistently run to the areas he is tapping to before opponents do.

I didn't know that a sound club makes list management decisions based on who is not playing or who is out of form during the last month of football and that a team can jump 4 bad teams to be the worst team on the evidence of three weeks...

Jamar's value would be in being able to teach Gawn. As we all know, he struggled to stay on the park and get a kick but he was an excellent tap ruckman.

And that is your prerogative - but just watching his performance and attitude compared to others at the club - he looked to be ahead of others 'in the gun' so to speak.

The thinking would surround list spots and perhaps this buys a chance to be taken on Fitzpatrick for another year or Riley, or Michie, or Hunt - perhaps the club doesn't want to pay out Matt Jones (I can't see them not paying out Terlich). If they want to upgrade 2 from the RL and take 4 at the draft then 6 will need to be delisted. I could think of a way of balancing delisting to get him another year though... We won't know it's a bad decision for a while though - I understood the Junior McDonald decision as well, but it was a bad one. But at the end of the day - he only had a year left and the role he was playing was one that I would prefer Salem or another kid to play off a HBF. His intangibles around the club are what I liked the most so I hope that he does stay around in some capacity.

And so it begins... Cross retirement updated.

Well, I can understand the decision even if I would have given him another year. Well done to him - he was fantastic these last two years, and he gave me new appreciation for professionals who just do their job and play with heart and effort. I hope it is appreciated by the younger players at the club too.

If Watts and Dunn have stayed this far - they won't willingly leave now I wouldn't think.

He would be right behind Jones, Vince, Viney, and Tyson as our 5th best mid until Brayshaw, Petracca, and/or Vanders go past him. We would be more competitive in the middle when the above need a rest or are out of form. I want stars and Redden ain't that but that midfield star will need help and Redden would provide that.

Dawes would be close to untradeable the way his knee was buckling a few weeks ago, and on Watts - you're having a laugh. Like he will be traded now. Clubs will not give up the equivalent that the club now sees in him.

Strong midfielder in his prime who tackles, has neat skills and gives a sh!t.

He would help a lot.

Yes. Like, just yes.

Yes, it's something I thought about last week with all the huff over Roos' remarks - I think he realised this before we did - the early naming of first year players above more seasoned bodies is not Roos' style at all but he gave JKH and Salem games very early last year and did the same for Brayshaw, ANB, and Stretch this year. With the list changing so much that there is the prospect he will leave it with just 5 pre-2012 recruits, I think Roos struggles when we bring up the failure of the past decade - it's a different list and club, still struggling but not suffering from the same problems of the 2007-2013 era. I don't think he likes the 'lumping in' of 2014-15 into 2007-13.

So the logic is: Step 1: Trade Toumpas Step 2: ??? Step 3: Trade for Established Elite Player Jimmy Toumpas is more likely to become an elite player than be apart of a trade to get an elite player, and in terms of money - he would be on less than the average salary. The Case Of Giving Jimmy Toumpas Another Contract is irrelevant to any trade for an elite player.

We have only 22 players on the PL that are not Roos-era recruits. That number will fall again for 2016 (to approx. 14 or 15) and by the year after might only be made up of 8 or 9 players. With Kent, Viney, Hogan, and Toumpas arriving the year before Roos came included in that 8 or 9. N Jones, Dunn, McDonald, Watts, and Gawn being the only pre-2012 recruits that look like staying through the Roos-era. That is a complete teardown rebuild in 3 years. It is hard to get your head around but it tells me how far back we are coming from compared to other teams doing a similar rebuild.

Too early to tell for that draft. And that was Taylor's first I believe.

...for what gain? The talent we would get in would be comparable or worse to the one shipped out. I am all for reducing the amount of 'projects' that this club bothers with. But there are fewer than in recent memory with the deletions of the last few years, the recruiting of established players, the better drafting, and the improvement of Watts and Gawn. We can afford to give Toumpas a chance of becoming something.

Some insightful effing posts here... What do you think he would get in a trade, and don't give me the old "I would take a packet of crisps" nonsense - he was highly touted for a reason and the club evidently wants to find out whether he can salvage something. "If he wasn't ND4, he wouldn't still be on the list" is not an argument against keeping him - again, there was a reason he was taken so early and was touted as such a talent. There are plenty of other spots on the list to clear before Toumpas for a myriad of reasons - but I will give you one; he could be a far better player than about more than half a dozen still on the list.

The ruthless decision that shows we are Doing What's Best For The Club is to politely move him on. There is nothing more to gain, and a little to lose, by acting petulantly toward someone who has been here for so long. Clubs are not lists and teamsheets - they are a collection of people trying to do right thing by each other, for each other, and for the future. And you can't get far without respect. I would tell Mark that a decision has been made and that we would like to play him against GWS and it is up to him if he plays. Note: Has a decision been made?

The draft should be altered - all eligible players should be 2 years removed from high school. The number of terrible decisions made by clubs would go down dramatically. I have argued this for years and I know it scares people but the usefulness of the draft as a measure of equalisation would only increase if this were the case.

Getting a deal done before the new TV deal landscape changes is the perfect time to do it because a huge pay day will be immediately alleviated when the cap goes up. It will move from $10.2 to at least $13m or $14m over one or two years I think, especially if the AFLPA get a percentage share that they gag for. So suddenly Hogan at $1m a year over 5 years goes from 10% of the cap to nearly half that as the cap progressively increases. One thing to note - I think that the TV money will mean that all players get more money but the largest increases will be for the ~50 best and most important players.

Yeah, there are some that equate the failure of Toumpas and other kids to a judgment on the SANFL itself - it's not that simple.