2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ralph Dawg]

What's going on in our medical / rehab department?

[Blood Fever]

Smith, loyal servant, great player - maybe time to retire?

One of the club's best ever defenders

[chalbilto]

This last article is interesting as it is implying that Rampe was fined excessively because he is a swan.
The AFL retaliating against the Swans is something weve all suspected, but you dont see it in print very often.

I don't think that the implication is specifically evident there, as they (the AFL) are stating that fine was based on the remark which was deemed sexist and directed at an umpire, but I do agree with you that because he is a swan and given the recent history viz, cola, Buddy contract, trading restrictions, Adam Goodes booing, etc that the afl has retaliated and this wasn't helped by the action of Rampe climbing the goal post with Gil saying that the common sense approach was used by the umpire at the time.
Maybe it's time that the club took a stance and lodge an appeal. For far too long the club have copped it on the chin. Time to object and confront the powers to be.

[liz]

Smith on the long-term injury list.
Oh dear.

That's actually an unusual move, given the changes to rookie rules that mean all Cat A rookies can be selected for senior football. It isn't sufficient to free up an additional spot in the upcoming mid-season rookie draft, so the only reason to do it is if they think Wicks and/or Bell are close to senior selection.

[rb4x]

Well if it is any consolation Cameron and McLean are not on the injury list so I expect they are available. The Swans are so very meticulous in having the injury list complete and accurate aren't they.

[Markwebbos]

That's actually an unusual move, given the changes to rookie rules that mean all Cat A rookies can be selected for senior football. It isn't sufficient to free up an additional spot in the upcoming mid-season rookie draft, so the only reason to do it is if they think Wicks and/or Bell are close to senior selection.

Liz, could we pick more than one player in the mid-season draft if one of our current players was to retire Grigg-style?

[AnnieH]

I don't think that the implication is specifically evident there, as they (the AFL) are stating that fine was based on the remark which was deemed sexist and directed at an umpire, but I do agree with you that because he is a swan and given the recent history viz, cola, Buddy contract, trading restrictions, Adam Goodes booing, etc that the afl has retaliated and this wasn't helped by the action of Rampe climbing the goal post with Gil saying that the common sense approach was used by the umpire at the time.
Maybe it's time that the club took a stance and lodge an appeal. For far too long the club have copped it on the chin. Time to object and confront the powers to be.

Nah, they're putting their chin out for another slapping.

[Bexl]

I don't know where t o post this so I put it here. I hope an official from Sydney will contact the corupt afl ro find out if Boyd's $1000,000 contract will be counted in its entirety in the dogs salary cap and if not why not.

[jono2707]

I don't know where t o post this so I put it here. I hope an official from Sydney will contact the corupt afl ro find out if Boyd's $1000,000 contract will be counted in its entirety in the dogs salary cap and if not why not.

From the AFL website:

"However, Boyd's payment in 2019 will be reduced, while agreed payments for the 2020 and 2021 seasons have been cancelled."

Hmmm

[liz]

Liz, could we pick more than one player in the mid-season draft if one of our current players was to retire Grigg-style?

I am not entirely sure of the rules (unsurprisingly, since the AFL has an inclination to change all its rules and not always to publish them). I recall, many moons ago, when you had to put someone on the LTI in order to play a rookie, one club (St Kilda, I think, though I am not certain) came to an agreement with a player that they would retire mid-season, thus freeing up a spot on the main list. The AFL disallowed this move, amidst concerns from the Players' Association, that out-of-favour players could be arbitrarily pushed aside. The player wasn't injured to the point he was unable to play - ie he didn't meet the criteria required to place a player on the LTIL. He was just on the old side, no longer in the best 22, and headed for retirement (or delisting) at the end of the season.

I would imagine similar conditions apply here, though, as I say, I am not entirely sure. A club would need to demonstrate that the retiring player's injuries prevent them from continuing to play. Presumably that is what Richmond have had to demonstrate with Grigg. I haven't read anything that suggests the club thinks our current crop of older, injured players (eg Smith, Reg, Macca) can't return this season so it would be hard to argue that they meet my (imagined) criteria. Of course, if a player suffered a season-ending injury, such as rupturing an ACL or a bad leg break, there would be no need to retire them in order to draft another player at the mid-season draft. But it would need to be clearly season-ending, not merely long term. For example, the noises Hawthorn have made about the possibility of Tom Mitchell returning late this season, and news he is already about to resume playing, make it unclear whether they are able to replace him. They do, I think, already have at least one spot available relating to other player(s) who are confirmed as out for the season.

[barracuda]

I am not entirely sure of the rules (unsurprisingly, since the AFL has an inclination to change all its rules and not always to publish them). I recall, many moons ago, when you had to put someone on the LTI in order to play a rookie, one club (St Kilda, I think, though I am not certain) came to an agreement with a player that they would retire mid-season, thus freeing up a spot on the main list. The AFL disallowed this move, amidst concerns from the Players' Association, that out-of-favour players could be arbitrarily pushed aside. The player wasn't injured to the point he was unable to play - ie he didn't meet the criteria required to place a player on the LTIL. He was just on the old side, no longer in the best 22, and headed for retirement (or delisting) at the end of the season.

I would imagine similar conditions apply here, though, as I say, I am not entirely sure. A club would need to demonstrate that the retiring player's injuries prevent them from continuing to play. Presumably that is what Richmond have had to demonstrate with Grigg. I haven't read anything that suggests the club thinks our current crop of older, injured players (eg Smith, Reg, Macca) can't return this season so it would be hard to argue that they meet my (imagined) criteria. Of course, if a player suffered a season-ending injury, such as rupturing an ACL or a bad leg break, there would be no need to retire them in order to draft another player at the mid-season draft. But it would need to be clearly season-ending, not merely long term. For example, the noises Hawthorn have made about the possibility of Tom Mitchell returning late this season, and news he is already about to resume playing, make it unclear whether they are able to replace him. They do, I think, already have at least one spot available relating to other player(s) who are confirmed as out for the season.

I think they have freed up Smiths spot to upgrade James Bell, who is looking ready for a senior run. As I recall if Smith returns after round 14 Bell would then be returned to Cat b status. I am not sure they can use smiths spot to recruit in the mid year draft as he is still able to return after round 14. It might be different if he had an acl.

[Aprilbr]

I'm also intrigued about the impact of Boyd's sudden retirement on the Bulldog's salary cap. They AFL conceded nothing to us on Tippett and would not on Buddy if he suddenly retired. But then again we are not a Vic Club.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk