1858

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation.

46 is logical - why then does Hawthorn have 48? Is there something about the published lists, I am not interpreting correctly?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...55/default.aspx

NP

46 is logical for us because we have 2 players who are on the veterans list (well if Bruce isn't yet you'd expect him to be) and we have no other additions.

Because we have 2 veterans then we can only have 6 rookies.

Again, from afldraftinfo:

"Clubs may list upto 8 rookies minus the number of players on the veterans list (i.e. 1 player on the veterans list = maximum 7 rookies allowed, 2 players on the veterans list = maximum 6 rookies allowed)."

ATM Hawthorn have 1 "Outside Veteran" which means 39 total senior spots + 7 regular rookie spots = 46.

Now the descrepancy that you have brought up is (I beleive) related to NSW Scholarship rookies, as you will note on your link it stipulates a Scholarship Elevation for Johnston. Every club can have up to 6 scholarship listed players (Melbourne currently have just 1 - Ted Strudwick) and Hawthorn prior to the recent elevation of Johnston had 6.

If you go to afldraftinfo and read up on them you will see how they work and how many each club has.

Take Hawthorn for example, if you go to their site and look at their rookie listed players there are 6 yet in the link you have added there are 7 which includes the recent transfer of Michael Johnston. Going by Hawthorn's rookie list details, Will Sierakowski also was a NSW Scholarship kid elevated to their rookie list.

To cut a long(er) story short I think that scholarship elevated rookies may not take up a regular rookie spot so I hasten to guess this is why Hawthorn have 9 rookie spots in total ie 7 regular + 2 scholarship elevations.

I am sure there are many dees posters who would be able to confirm this one way or the other. Either way, afldraftinfo.com is pretty handy and can be relied on unlike wiki.

________________________

Now, on another note, I am going to do a Demonland search for Ted Strudwick to see if anyone knows anything about him.

The rule seems strange. Clubs with 6 long-serving players have 50 to choose from - 38 plus 6 vets plus 6 rookies. Clubs with young lists - no vets - only have 44 to choose from. We have 46. What is the justification for that?

I agree with your conclusion - we have to delist another player to use both 34 and the PSD.

With Hughes somehow being re-rookied we only have 2 rookie positions available. All up we are going to have just about the smallest player turnover in the competition ..... 7 (5+2). This would be most unusual for a wooden spooner

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.

Now the real "list clogger" is Hughes.............

Two years on the rookie list for very little except injury ...a year in the suburbs... back again last year...injured again. He's 23-24.

Surely he's being de-listed but we've heard nothing.

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.

I wonder what level of interest there was for Thorp if Hawks were obviously that keen to offload him.

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.

Whether its mutual or the act of the Club in response to flagrant and continual breaches of contract or Club/AFL standards it does have negative ramifications for the player.

If its a Nathan Carroll type situation or similar, then the guy is a culture sore and problem.

If its a mutual thing, then why did the player (and his manager) just cut up his contract with a Club without anything else set up to go to? It shows a lack of career smarts or advice. If he was at a low value point in his career then surely he would be trying to create some value on his head in his final 12 months.

If he was paid out early, then that's not good for Thorp. Caveat emptor and suggest a pass on this one.

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.

Really, a year to go on his contract??

Serious issues or salary cap or both.

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.

It pays to do a bit of research befor you open your mouth

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.

If he goes into the ND he would be taking some bad advice from whoever is whispering in his ear.

The way it is, is the way it is.

He should, and those around him should also, come to terms with the fact that he is going to play for Melbourne or St Kilda.

Sydney at 14, PA at 16, MFC at 18 (although unlikely) and we haven't even got to the 20's yet...

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.

There's no reason not to keep Spencer on for another year, given the size of the rookie lists. However, much of the positivity about Spencer is really just about hope.

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).

but you still mentioned bailey twice in your posts? think about it.

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

if its a macca thread, why did your post involve bailey?

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.

thats very debatable, im talking about bailey not macca, 7 out of 44 games, thats a very bad record, it would want improve dramatically nxt season.

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 ... two points

a/ as you said he would have to obviously make it through the ND ... which IMHO would be a massive risk in this draft he would be a good pick up 50-60 ish

b/ pre-selected rookies have been in the past a trade-off for your number of veterans ie 2 Veterans = 0 preselected rookies or 1 veteran = 1 preselected rookie etc.

However, I've not read the new rookie rules so I'm not saying thats definitely the case this year

However, assuming nothing has changed there - wanting to pre-select McNamara would come at the cost of retaining Bruce on our full-list which means no pick 34 or PSD1 I would suspect and suggest is not our desired option.

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.

I think it more shows the lack of middle-age depth that we had on the list.

It was either 'getting close to too old' or 'still a few years away from being able to hold their own against the best'

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)

Very risky strategy ... ie delisting McNamara from your senior list if you indeed you wanted to keep him. He would have to nominate for a draft and we could lose him for nothing.

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".

He'd go into the draft and we'd hope he got through to the rookie list before being snatched up by someone else.

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.

We now have 5 gone and 5 picks. 1,2,11,18 & PSD. I am sure we will use 34 so one more has to go, probably Bartram if rumours are correct. Then maybe McNamara to use 50 or to elevate Spencer with McNamara to be rookied.

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.