Nasher

If we run with the assumption that players who have been on a senior list (even if they've played in a grand final) is always going to be better than rookie listed players, then the rookie lists would always be filled delisted AFL players, would they not?

Yes, but the point is, we would not know what we know now, i.e. we would not have known that the alternative was Bruce walking. On face value it would appear that we traded Bruce for pick 45 (or whatever) for no reason whatsoever. The assumption would be that the alternative was signing him - nobody ever really assumes that a player is going to walk (heck, I certainly didn't, even with the massive delay in his dealings). So the great unwashed would not realise that that that was actually the best outcome even though it was. Those who are disappointed with this outcome would still have been disappointed with that one, and those who are pleased with this outcome would still be pleased with that one. As rpfc says; it makes no sense apply 20-20 hindsight to these situations unless you're willing to discount the knowledge you already know.

I guess this is where our opinions differ - is he low-risk/reasonable-return or low-risk/low-return? I see him as the latter - hence, what's the point? If he's the former then it's probably worth a shot. There's some doubt I suppose, so your approach of "look closely" is spot on.

The reason I'd be ambivalent is because there's nothing that differentiates him from hundreds of other flankers around, and he's already had one shot at making the grade and came up short. I'd prefer the club had a crack at a kid who had a very low probability of making it, rather than someone who has already failed to once. I wouldn't be unhappy if the club did its due dilligence and decided he was worth a shot (because in the end, what would I know?), and I'd be stoked if they did and he turned out to be a player. But on face value, it seems like a course that leads to a very low potential payoff, so I don't think there's a lot of point in trying.

Indeed; this is exactly the situation that the free agency rules are trying to cater for. It would've been of significant benefit to both the club and player in this particular case. The proposed rules are of no help to the 21 year old trying to get rich or the wealthy club trying to buy a premiership, that's why I'm in favour of them.

I thought we already picked him up at #1 a couple of years back.

I did wonder about that, but I just assumed that things like insurance are paid by the clubs, not the AFL. If that's the case then it comes back to it being at the discretion of the club and none of the AFL's business. If the insurance premiums are paid by the AFL, then you're right, it makes complete sense.

I'd never heard of Michael Rogers before. He's summed the situation up pretty well for me.

The gorilla defender is an endangered species, and he was one of the last. Deserved to be part of a flag side too I reckon, but I guess that's life.

38 goals is a handy return for a medium forward. 19 is not great, but after one year I wouldn't have thought it was delisting material. I admit I didn't see a lot of the Bulldogs this year, but I would've thought that Hahn would've been worth an extra year even if his recent season or so has been poor. Guess I was wrong.

Never understood the need for permission to train. Surely it should just be to the discretion of the clubs who trains with them?

This year on Demonland, let's do something novel and entertain the idea of using all four of our draft picks on untried players. This idea is nothing new to the FD, but I'm just hoping that one day, just maybe, it might catch on on the forum. Do I pass?

Love it. Nice work. Do you do web design as well? :-)

Some think of Yze_Magic and think of sharp wit and amusing pisstakes. I think of incessant Bruce bashing to the point of slander. Banning him was a no-brainer, and if he ever returns then it's by accident on our part.

As a formerly chronic sufferer of severe migraines, it would worry me too. If his are anything like the ones I used to have, his career is already over. That said, mine suddenly and inexplicably stopped happening after several years of having one every few weeks.

Hardly fills one with excitement though does it? We've got buckletloads of space on the rookie list to take a punt on a mature aged rookie anyway if there are any worth bothering with.

He said "from both sides" in the OP before editing it.

An extra rookie pick, and therefore no.

It's an interesting exercise, as I find I build up a sort of mental picture of a person in my head and people rarely turn out how I imagine them. I've only met a small handful from Demonland.

Hard to disagree with any of that - Jamar and Grimes especially. Unsure how Frawley is viewed as so far as leadership goes. Any love for Scully or Trengove? Too soon?

Completely agree.

Nothing gets past you does it?

He was on the veteran's list, meaning we are allowed an extra senior player on our list in place of a rookie. Effectively it amounts to having the veteran instead of a rookie. With Bruce gone and nobody else eligible to take his spot on the vets list, we lose that extra spot and get the rookie spot back.

No, it means we get an extra rookie pick.

I wouldn't.