1858

The Veterans list contains 2 players maximum. For season 2009 our list breakdown was: 6 Rookie List | 38 senior List | 2 Veterans List Giving a logical total of 46 - now that each club has been granted 2 extra rookie spots this will change to give us a potential 48 in 2010. A team can nominate more than 2 Veterans for salary issues however any over flow from 2 must take places on the regular senior list. Hence in the case of a club with 6 long serving (vetarans), 4 of them are nominated only and are on the regular senior list. Where some clubs have excess players is due to more rookies spaces such as with some interstate clubs in order to promote development ie Sydney and Brisbane. _________________________________________________ From afldraftinfo: Veterans List A player may be put on the veterans list if they are over the age of 30 and have played for 10 seasons at the club. A club may list upto 2 veterans – any additional nominated veterans will remain on the main list. When a player is moved to the veterans list he can’t be returned to the main list unless he is delisted and re-drafted by the club. Nominated veterans (both on the main and veterans list) allow clubs salary cap relief to the amount of: 1 nominated veterans – 50% reduction each 2 nominated veterans - 50% reduction each 3 nominated veterans - 33% reduction each 4 nominated veterans – 25% reduction each etc.

I would have thought so. On another note, each club has 2 extra rookie spots added don't they? I don't think this will have a profound influence on our decision making process but you never know.

Some of these player reviews you have to take with a grain of salt but I must say that for a player who had limited game time, McKenzie's review did stick out to me at the time. Even if we can't get him on the senior list you'd think he would be a strong contender for the mid-season nominated rookie in 2010. He could compliment our list of young mids well or at least keep them honest.

You'd think that if Thorp was a hot potato that the Hawks would not push too hard in a trade but having said that it is Hawthorn. Still, I think they got the correct amount of interest in the end - not much.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. A matter of "watch this space" I suppose, to definitively know why he left (or was booted) but at this early stage he doesn't come across as a viable option to me either.

Not really sure how push came to shove in this situation. I agree that there has to be more to it than just giving him a fresh start which I wouldn't have thought would wash with the AFL or AFLPA. Having said that, if the whole thing is mutual then who knows what the rules are?

I've never been enthusiastic about Thorp and the fact the Hawks have allegedly delisted him with a year to go on his contract makes further suggestions.

If my understanding is correct then RR pretty much answered the question correctly. His explanation did not encapsulate every aspect but this was the question: "OK .. so, even though his contract expires at the end of Oct, it is not until the end of Nov that St Kilda have no hold over him anymore." RR said that this was not the case. Other posters stated that Ball would still be on the Saints list (even out of contract) but the thing to remember is that Ball can quite freely delist himself at any time after October 31 and hence the Saints have no hold over him what so ever. From that POV RR was correct. Again, I must stipulate that along as I understand everything correctly.

If Ball hypothetically had no intention of entering any draft and wished to be retained by the Saints then is it correct to assume that the cut off for him to be re-contracted is Dec1 since Dec2 is the date of LL3?

I would be surprised if pick 11 was not used for best available. I have to admit that I am open to BP showing a little bit of licence in prioritising pick 18 as a KPF but not to the extent that there is a clearly better player available from another position. I just get the feeling though that if we keep accumulating mids then the effort to develop them all effectively with limited places available will be less than ideal. We flooded our list last year with ball carriers and if we add Scully, Trengove and perhaps a mid at 11 then I think another mid at 18 is over the top. We have a clearly obvious requirement to stick a decent tall kid up forward where they can importantly freely develop. I won't say what we should do because I don't have a sound enough grasp of the talent pool and predicting where players will go is for others to do. I just hope there is at least 1 decent KPF worthy of being picked with 18 if not 11 and if BP decides to show a slight bit of leeway at 18 then I won't mind. Then there is still the LB factor which may effect things atm as well.

I think that the Port Adelaide pick at 16 is a massive risk to Ball and if his management don't appreciate Port's situation then they are mad. Ball (like many other non SA players) has shown aversiveness to moving to Adelaide but if he nominates for the national draft then it is fair game and Port are one club who do not give a toss about such issues anyway. The reality is that Port were pushing pretty hard to get a quality experienced player in return for Burgoyne, they know such a player is very important for them (similar actually to MFC). They tried for Lewis with pick 9 and then they thought they had Lovett only to lose him to the Saints. Port ended up with 3 decent ND picks but this is surplus to their needs/priorities from a youth pov IMO. Picks 8 and 9 will do them fine and then 16 (which they would have preferred Lovett to) will easily be parted for Ball. Port are an arrogant club and in desperate times will do what serves them and in context of the ND will laugh at any sentiments of Ball not wanting to play for them. I agree rpfc that Sydney (14) could be touch and go but Port (16) is the clincher I reckon. Ball is dreaming if he thinks he has any hope of getting through to Collingwood. Options look like Saints(re-sign)/Dees(PD)/Power(ND - if not Swans) IMO and I have a feeling that he will end up staying at the Saints.

That's how I see it. The club identified Spencer as a project player so he should be treated as such. Whether the positivity about him is hope or whether some see great potential, I think it can vary but there is also the reality that he may be "needed" more than anything next year. We have nothing to lose by re-rookieing him atm and I think there is still great purpose in continuing his development for at least another year (ie too early to say if we are merely going through the motions).

"Think" isn't a word that you should bandy around.

McDonald has obviously been endorsed by Bailey because Bailey sees him as playing an important part both on and off field for the club - pretty simple. I see this as giving a lot of credibility to McDonald (ie the subject of this thread). Also if the coach sees McDonald as someone who will aid him in his development of the team then who are we to argue the fact? It's not that hard.

Correct me if I am wrong but the thread title is 'james mcdonald' is it not? I don't know what you were "talking about" as I wasn't even replying to any specific post, I offered a general opinion on the subject of the thread.

Bailey couldn't get him to re-sign quick enough. A good captain holds his own on the footy field but is also an extension of the coach both on and off the ground. To argue against McDonald as captain is more or less being at odds with Bailey and what he believes/knows is required to develop our list.

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Having said that my understanding is that you can only pre-select 1 rookie prior to the rookie draft anyway so how do we trade that off against 2 veterans? What you are saying resembles more the nominated rookie scenario but I am pretty hazy on much of the rookie rules so I'll take on board what you are saying.

Yeah, fair point. Having said that, McDonald is 33 and Green (the next oldest player outside the VL) is 28 with 2 years to go before pushing for a VL spot. Even if we had more players around the age of Green, there is still a 5 year window there where a hell of a lot of players have been delisted who have been at our top end for the last three years or so. I understand your point though, Green is sort of in no mans land with 2 years either side of nearest age players and that is where we should have had a little more quality than what we do. McDonald 33 - VL Bruce 30 - VL __________________ Green 28 __________________ Davey 26 Jamar 26 Miller 26

Surely the significance of McDonald being kept with no immediate players pushing for his VL spot isn't just dawning on people now. _____________________________________ rpfc has highlighted (in some ways at least) a milestone for our list, it does reinforce just how much we have culled the top end of the list in the last 3 years. As for the fighting reference, we may have our very own Russell Crow of Demonland. (kidding)

Assuming that McNamara (or any other senior player we wanted to move to our rookie list) somehow made it through the ND to the rookie draft, would we be able to pre-select them? With re-rookieing existing rookies we can preselect 1 of them I beleive.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the 'G" Anything except "you're beautiful".

By draft you mean the ND? and then if he doesn't get picked in that he then goes to the rookie draft where we can pick him if available and GC17 have the first 5 picks? This is what I have read elsewhere so just hoping I haven't missed anything out of that - so there is a fair amount of risk then by the looks.

That all sounds quite good. Just on moving McNamara to the rookie list, can someone explain the mechanics of doing this. The risks in the process (if any). Thanks.

The AFL's silence on this has been deafening.

Of all the draft hopefuls, Trengove is sounding more and more like being closest to the perfect package. Midfield marking ability in the corridore is something that has hurt us greatly over the last few years. I was interested to know a bit more about Black and I am now satisfied that if we go with say Carlisle before him it is a good call. We need a tall KP more so than a tall utility I think.