It's a technical minefield trying to work out all the permutations of the various categories with all the rookie classes, etc.
If we experts on RWO are confused, what hope do the lawyers have?
It's a technical minefield trying to work out all the permutations of the various categories with all the rookie classes, etc.
If we experts on RWO are confused, what hope do the lawyers have?
This thread has done my head in.
It's a great thread to date - interesting and informative. Keep it up people....
For one I think Perris' size will hold him back in the short term, a bit like Lloyd as a few have mentioned already. The club would almost have certainly put him on the rookie list for at least a year to train hard and build himself up a bit. Roosy and the Demons may force our hand but I don't see him playing seniors next year, so he would be something of a 'waste' of a spot on the senior list.
To me it's really a question of opportunity cost. Say the Swans only do the 3 minimum required picks. Rampe to be upgraded with our last pick, so it doesn't matter if it's pick 45 or pick 145. Perris to be taken with our previous pick, now that stands around 29-30 I believe. If the Swans believe there will be better players than Perris available at that pick, then logically they should be selecting those players over Perris. However, the final order of our draft picks will not be settled until the trade period is over and possible departures in White and/or Mumford and whatever possible ins (including other draft picks) are finalised. Then and only then can the Swans can make a final decision on Perris.
All the insightful talk above, of how to manage our extremely tight list, seems exactly what Roos has tried to exploit.
I know I'm in the wrong thread about this, but the two are entwined.
The Sundance Kid, when trying to portray himself as the innocent bystander, is firing blanks.....IMO
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT
Tangential to the main topic of this thread, but relevant to the future of at least one of this year's rookie listed players, I note that in his interview up on the Swans' website, Ted talks about how excited he is to have another season playing alongside X, and how X is setting himself for a big year. I presume he wouldn't have made those comments unless X and the club have firmly committed themselves to another year.
It is hardly surprising that the club would seek to keep X, given his excellent year and our dearth of developing young true key position defenders. But it's still good to get some unofficial confirmation that X will be staying.
The way I figure it, our current list total for all categories is now at 45, prior to retirements. If 3 players are NSW category B rookies (Wiki shows Robinson, BJ and Naismith as Cat b), then our combined Primary list and Rookie A list total stands at 42, which is 2 below the AFL max of 44. With the 3 retirements, that gets us down to 39, leaving 5 spots open on between the 2 main lists. Given that we have 4 cat A rookies, that means we now have an effective primary list of 35 with a potential 5 primary spots open
If Rampe is elevated and Perris wants to be primary listed, we are then currently squeezed down to 3 max between the national draft and additional rookie upgrades. I think Jake Lloyd deserves an upgrade ahead of Biggs and X, as I think he is already senior list ready. Definitely our best performer in the reserves. Perhaps, like Perris, he could walk if only offered another rookie contract and would certainly be picked up in the national draft. But I'll leave that the football dept to work out.
So that gets us down to 2 live picks in the national draft.
If the rumours about Armstrong and Walsh being cut are true, then we get another 2 senior spots. They are under contract, but perhaps something could be worked out where they could be moved onto the rookie list, filling the spots vacated by 2 rookie upgrades.
We have a pretty big player list, especially now that we will add Patrick Mitchell as an International rookie. So we potentially could have a list of 48 in all catagories (49 if we want Irishman Daniel Flynn).
If White does go to another club, perhaps we should try for a pick upgrade. Maybe Jesse plus our second and third rounders for a first round pick, since we may only be able to use 2 live picks anyway.
I don't think the club wants to have such a big list. Patrick Mitchell takes the one we had for Alex Starling, so last year we would have a total list size of 46. Maybe that should be the target number.
So a couple of delistings or trades for pick upgrades looks possible at this juncture.
However you cut it, it seems that there will be a lot of pressure of reduce the list one way or another. After doing the numbers it makes sense that Jesse goes to another club. Others may have to move on as well.
Longmire will probably trade out more than we expect. He has turned over 20%each year so I expect we will let some talent go.
WhIte's career in Sydney lost all hope the minute he got sleeve tatts. Collingwood is the place for him
Sydney needs a poster boy for the academy you can see the colless reaction I think there is no question he will be on the senior list
The best out come for the Club is for Perris to come out and agree to go on the rookie list. This will allow the Club to better handle the transition of players. If he does demand a senior listing than we will most likely forgo a player that would more likely play most senior games than Perris next year. If he demands a senior listing than we go for it. Although I think there is some moral obligation for him to have at least one year as rookie if they Club asks that of him. If he does nominate for draft he must remember the best out come for year 1 may be completely direct to years 5 to 15!!
Longmire will probably trade out more than we expect. He has turned over 20%each year so I expect we will let some talent go.
WhIte's career in Sydney lost all hope the minute he got sleeve tatts. Collingwood is the place for him
Sydney needs a poster boy for the academy you can see the colless reaction I think there is no question he will be on the senior list
I wonder if it is possible to give Perris a contract that has one year on the rookie list with a guarantee of upgrade in the second year. This would give a bit of relief to the primary list squeeze and get us through 2014 when we are likely to see a few more retirements and delistings. We will have all those national draft picks from the past 2 years coming out of contract next year.
This is so simple, if the Swans rate Perris we draft him!
If we don't then we put him on our rookie list and run the risk of losing him.
Don't see how this is an ethical question at all for the kid (gimme a break) - surely being a full listed player at an AFL club (any club) trumps being a rookie listed player any day.
So, Richard it is simple. You have the guaranteed chance to draft this kid. If the Swans rate him then make it happen, if you don't make ity happen and he gets the opportunity elsewhere we choose not to offer him then we lose him.
This baloney about not having enough list places. Again, if we rate him make it happen. Trade a player to create a spot or delist someone.
This whole Roos thing is such a storm in a teacup. If we lose out on this kid it will be fault/decision of the Sydney Swans football dept not the fault of Paul Roos
I find it hard to see how Paul Roos (potentially) offering a career development opportunity (i.e. a full AFL list place) that we are not prepatred to do is unethical.
The sense of entitlement some on here are displaying in respect of this is unbelievable
- - - Updated - - -
Agreed!!
Richard just wants to have hi scake and eat it too....
Bookmarks