Page 72 of 77 FirstFirst ... 22 62686970717273747576 ... LastLast
Results 853 to 864 of 922

Thread: 2017 trading, drafting, list management

  1. #853
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, well done to Melican for seizing his opportunity. And in a way, I'll be quite disappointed if the AFL cut the rookie list, since we do seem to do a better job than any other club, of turning rookies into quality players.
    I know where you are coming from but I think the change will really be in name only and related to conditions.

    The success we have with these kids isn't so much the rookie list as the development work and patience we put into these kids. That advantage shouldn't change for us.

    Great news to see Melican sign up for three more years, along with Towers' finding his niche and Newman's arrival his rise has been great to see.

    Time is certainly running out for Zak to sign on, next week will be key. It will be interesting to see how we handle the trade if he decides to leave, I'd like us to be able to use whatever we get for him to raise our first rounder to Pick 5 or 6 to give us a shot at a KPF like Brander or Balta one of who you'd expect there (Rayner, Fogarty and Davies-Uniacke seem to be almost universal top threes)

  2. #854
    What is Jones holding out for? More money or a Victorian Club. I would have thought that signing until he is a restricted free agent would have given him the flexibility desired.

    Should we give Jones the Nick Stevens treatment and sent him to Brisbane in the pre - season draft?

    He won't go to Brisbane and will be forced to retire or sign another contract with the Swans. I believe this was the ROK deal.

  3. #855
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I know where you are coming from but I think the change will really be in name only and related to conditions.

    The success we have with these kids isn't so much the rookie list as the development work and patience we put into these kids. That advantage shouldn't change for us.

    Great news to see Melican sign up for three more years, along with Towers' finding his niche and Newman's arrival his rise has been great to see.

    Time is certainly running out for Zak to sign on, next week will be key. It will be interesting to see how we handle the trade if he decides to leave, I'd like us to be able to use whatever we get for him to raise our first rounder to Pick 5 or 6 to give us a shot at a KPF like Brander or Balta one of who you'd expect there (Rayner, Fogarty and Davies-Uniacke seem to be almost universal top threes)
    Don't tell anyone, but I'm starting to become a bit of a Towers fan.

  4. #856
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I know where you are coming from but I think the change will really be in name only and related to conditions.

    The success we have with these kids isn't so much the rookie list as the development work and patience we put into these kids. That advantage shouldn't change for us.

    Great news to see Melican sign up for three more years, along with Towers' finding his niche and Newman's arrival his rise has been great to see.

    Time is certainly running out for Zak to sign on, next week will be key. It will be interesting to see how we handle the trade if he decides to leave, I'd like us to be able to use whatever we get for him to raise our first rounder to Pick 5 or 6 to give us a shot at a KPF like Brander or Balta one of who you'd expect there (Rayner, Fogarty and Davies-Uniacke seem to be almost universal top threes)
    Fogarty has slipped a fair bit. Will not go top 3. Poor championship. He's actually a chance to slip out of top 10.

  5. #857
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, well done to Melican for seizing his opportunity. And in a way, I'll be quite disappointed if the AFL cut the rookie list, since we do seem to do a better job than any other club, of turning rookies into quality players.
    The same players would still get taken it's just that they would be on the main list. E.g Ronke would be taken at pick 94 in the ND instead of 17 in the rookie draft. We'd still do well it's just that instead of rookie picks they are just late ND picks.

  6. #858
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    2,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    The same players would still get taken it's just that they would be on the main list. E.g Ronke would be taken at pick 94 in the ND instead of 17 in the rookie draft. We'd still do well it's just that instead of rookie picks they are just late ND picks.
    That's correct, assume there will only be one draft but that 5th round picks out will only be given one year contracts with no restrictions on when they can play.

    I also assume that unlike now, trading 5th round picks will come into vogue, or trading 4th round picks that have two year contracts attached for 5th round picks with one year contracts. Might suit some clubs who want to try a late pick player but don't want to commit two years up front. On that basis could you see clubs passing on a late 4th round pick but then using 5th round picks. Currently once you pass you can't make another selection so rules will need to change if there's only one draft or maybe there will be a ND then a one year contract draft. Lots of permutations and tactics.

  7. #859
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    Fogarty has slipped a fair bit. Will not go top 3. Poor championship. He's actually a chance to slip out of top 10.
    I think Twomey's most recent edition has him going at 4.

    There's still quite a bit of water to go under bridge re the draft. Sure some players have stamped themselves but the draft combine can see players fire up the draft order like Griffin Logue did last year as does late season TAC Cup/SANFL/WAFL form.

    The general consensus seems to be that it is a good even draft with lots of talent into the 30s but perhaps slightly short on absolute elite talent. Everyone is pointing to 2018 but the grass usually seems greener in the next draft and isn't always the case. Personally I hope it is a good one to take away some of the hysteria re Blakey.

    Assuming a good run with injuries and that they are well reference checked, a top 10 player should be pretty locked in for a good career and top 5 usually have very good careers.

    After that it gets much more hard to predict. Pick 100 may well end up having just as good a career as a second rounder for the fact that these kids are just so young and have so much more growing to do (emotionally and physically) and also often have a lot of skills development. Compared to the NBA and NFL draftees that come through the college system our draftees need lots of work. And it's where we seem to do very well which 10 ex rookies on list last week (Jack, Rampe, Smith, Grundy, Melican, Newman, Naismith, Robinson, Papley, Lloyd). It's a remarkable figure and one that doesn't get the credit it's due. And on the whole these guys I think are possibly a bit cheaper as they are more grateful for the opportunity and perhaps just a little less entitled. Which of course allows us to reward the top end talent on the list as required.

  8. #860
    Loving that "baby Grundy" just signed on for another 3 years

    Go the Pelican !!!

  9. #861
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I think Twomey's most recent edition has him going at 4.

    There's still quite a bit of water to go under bridge re the draft. Sure some players have stamped themselves but the draft combine can see players fire up the draft order like Griffin Logue did last year as does late season TAC Cup/SANFL/WAFL form.

    The general consensus seems to be that it is a good even draft with lots of talent into the 30s but perhaps slightly short on absolute elite talent. Everyone is pointing to 2018 but the grass usually seems greener in the next draft and isn't always the case. Personally I hope it is a good one to take away some of the hysteria re Blakey.

    Assuming a good run with injuries and that they are well reference checked, a top 10 player should be pretty locked in for a good career and top 5 usually have very good careers.

    After that it gets much more hard to predict. Pick 100 may well end up having just as good a career as a second rounder for the fact that these kids are just so young and have so much more growing to do (emotionally and physically) and also often have a lot of skills development. Compared to the NBA and NFL draftees that come through the college system our draftees need lots of work. And it's where we seem to do very well which 10 ex rookies on list last week (Jack, Rampe, Smith, Grundy, Melican, Newman, Naismith, Robinson, Papley, Lloyd). It's a remarkable figure and one that doesn't get the credit it's due. And on the whole these guys I think are possibly a bit cheaper as they are more grateful for the opportunity and perhaps just a little less entitled. Which of course allows us to reward the top end talent on the list as required.
    I honestly don't rate twomey. Doesn't have worpel in his list at all. That says enough for me. I like the combine but it doesn't give a true indication what top end talent is like in match situations. It is a good guide though. I've watched Logue a few times on tv & live. Shot up the draft order basically on the back of the combine but I'd take Florent, Simpkin & a few others ahead of him imo. I honestly think this draft will be a bit disappointing, top end talent is lacking. 2018 will be a rippa I think. ATM I don't even rate Blakey top 5. I think the big thing that Sydney looks for is character. You get good character n then the education and improvement becomes a lot easier plus we spend a lot more on our footy department than most clubs which helps a lot.

    I should add that the phantom drafter that I rate the highest would be Emma Quayle. Just hope now that she is with GWS that we get some type of phantom draft from her at the end of the year.
    Last edited by Boddo; 18th July 2017 at 02:08 PM.

  10. #862
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    That's correct, assume there will only be one draft but that 5th round picks out will only be given one year contracts with no restrictions on when they can play.

    I also assume that unlike now, trading 5th round picks will come into vogue, or trading 4th round picks that have two year contracts attached for 5th round picks with one year contracts. Might suit some clubs who want to try a late pick player but don't want to commit two years up front. On that basis could you see clubs passing on a late 4th round pick but then using 5th round picks. Currently once you pass you can't make another selection so rules will need to change if there's only one draft or maybe there will be a ND then a one year contract draft. Lots of permutations and tactics.
    Agree 100%. I'll also add that it would allow clubs to keep more than 3 of those on the list which ATM you can only hold onto 3 on the rookie list. My opinion is that a player like Jake Brown is a rookie, playing this year as a top up n trying to show the club he has what it takes to succeed n be on the list.
    Last edited by Boddo; 18th July 2017 at 02:12 PM.

  11. #863
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I know where you are coming from but I think the change will really be in name only and related to conditions.

    The success we have with these kids isn't so much the rookie list as the development work and patience we put into these kids. That advantage shouldn't change for us.
    The main argument for the current system though is that the rookies are on a 'trainee' wage, so if you have to pay them more, and include it in your TPP under an expanded senior list, I still think each club would probably take 1-2 fewer players, that they would currently take as rookies, in future (ie. in a 5th round of the draft).

    If you have to pay more for that spot on your list, IMO some will take 20-25 y/o's from state leagues who are a better ready-made option, others will give a 1-year extension to players who have been on the list for 2-3 years without breaking into seniors etc etc.

    I think we've always had a different approach to the 'they're cheap as a rookie so we'll give them a go with minimal commitment' mindset anyway, so I agree that for us the change is probably minimal. Each year we also seem to have upgraded rookies at certain times when we really didn't need to (ie. they didn't play seniors), which I assume has something to do with giving them some additional compensation for being upgraded.

    I assume that's due to the relocation commitment of rookies having to move interstate, so whenever we have a chance with a injury list opportunity, we move up a rookie to pay them a bit more (which probably also sits outside of the TPP).

  12. #864
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    The main argument for the current system though is that the rookies are on a 'trainee' wage, so if you have to pay them more, and include it in your TPP under an expanded senior list, I still think each club would probably take 1-2 fewer players, that they would currently take as rookies, in future (ie. in a 5th round of the draft).

    If you have to pay more for that spot on your list, IMO some will take 20-25 y/o's from state leagues who are a better ready-made option, others will give a 1-year extension to players who have been on the list for 2-3 years without breaking into seniors etc etc.

    I think we've always had a different approach to the 'they're cheap as a rookie so we'll give them a go with minimal commitment' mindset anyway, so I agree that for us the change is probably minimal. Each year we also seem to have upgraded rookies at certain times when we really didn't need to (ie. they didn't play seniors), which I assume has something to do with giving them some additional compensation for being upgraded.

    I assume that's due to the relocation commitment of rookies having to move interstate, so whenever we have a chance with a injury list opportunity, we move up a rookie to pay them a bit more (which probably also sits outside of the TPP).
    We've had this debate before but it's worth having again because you've raised some good issues.

    You're right about the rookies being cheaper and actually outside the TPP (at least their base payments are, I assume the match payments they get are included)

    But from a fairness point of view I don't see why these kids should get paid less than a 3rd or 4th rounder given they have the same workload, and the salary, whilst good for a 18yo is a pittance by professional sporting standards. By all means make the contract shorter to minimise the risk to clubs of list cloggers but I'd also hope the clubs get the automatic option for the second year.

    Also, for first round draft picks I think they should have a minimum three year deal to avoid the Brisbane situation of a kid getting into a bidding war before he has completed his first season, you can bet McCluggage's manager is getting a lot of calls too. Of course the AFLPA will resist this initially but I would think the obvious solution would be that first rounders get paid substantially more as their base contract to offset the fact they have less mobility initially.

    I can't see the rookie list being absorbed into the main list affecting us adversely in any meaningful way

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO