PDA

View Full Version : List and Outside Vets



digital
26th November 2009, 10:11 PM
At this stage we have two players who qualify as vets who could be listed as "outside" which obviously has advantages. I am not sure why we would not take this opportunity and add an extra two players before the uncompromised draft, or if they are outside vets, does that mean we need reduce our number of rookies?

Bas
26th November 2009, 10:24 PM
yes

707
26th November 2009, 10:32 PM
Better to have first go at a couple of the non selected players (Panos and Dare for me) in the PSD and have two less rookies.

It's how Tankers got Liam Jurrah last year, first pick in the PSD rather than run the risk of someone else taking him. Wonder if they'll take his cousin in the PSD this year?

digital
26th November 2009, 10:37 PM
yes

So after today, we have one spot left on our list for DB, and two inside vets. How many rookie spots available, I think the new Irishman does not count, and seems to be some good talent left that we could pick up in the PSD rather than be down the pecking order in the rookie draft, with GC having the first 5 picks.

liz
26th November 2009, 10:48 PM
The new Irishman does count towards our total, but Nathan Gordon doesn't.

Auntie.Gerald
26th November 2009, 11:15 PM
Hannebery and Heath............I didnt realise they drafted while in yr 11 ??

so when all these guys like Scully and co are being drafted from yr 12.......well Heath and Hannebery are still the same age and in the same yr at school !

why did they get drafted in 2008 when they were in yr 11 at school in 2008 ??

Claret
26th November 2009, 11:18 PM
Hannebery and Heath............I didnt realise they drafted while in yr 11 ??

so when all these guys like Scully and co are being drafted from yr 12.......well Heath and Hannebery are still the same age and in the same yr at school !

why did they get drafted in 2008 when they were in yr 11 at school in 2008 ??

Put simply, the cut-off dates (as far as minimum age goes) are different in the AFL and schooling systems.

Actually, that didn't sound simple at all . . . .

Auntie.Gerald
26th November 2009, 11:19 PM
SYDNEY SWANS
1. Barlow, Ed
2. Bevan, Paul
3. Bird, Craig
4. Bolton, Craig
5. Bolton, Jude
6. Currie, Daniel
7. Goodes, Adam (veteran - inside list)
8. Grundy, Heath
9. Hannebery, Dan
10. Heath, Campbell
11. Jack, Kieren
12. Johnston, Lewis
13. Kennedy, Josh P.
14. Kennelly, Tadhg
15. Kirk, Brett (veteran - inside list)
16. Malceski, Nick
17. Mattner, Martin
18. McGlynn, Ben
19. McVeigh, Jarrad
20. Meredith, Brett
21. Moore, Jarred
22. Mumford, Shane
23. O'Dwyer, Matt
24. O'Keefe, Ryan
25. Richards, Ted
26. Roberts-Thomson, Lewis
27. Seaby, Mark
28. Shaw, Rhyce
29. Smith, Nick
30. Thornton, Kristin
31. Veszpremi, Patrick
32. White, Jesse
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Rookie list
1. Gordon, Nathan
2. Gilchrist, Taylor
3. Orreal, Jake
4. Pyke, Mike
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

DRAFT

Rohan
Jetta
Reid
Sumner
DL

BRADSHAW ?

ADDITIONS
Exchange period: Josh P. Kennedy (Hawthorn), Ben McGlynn (Hawthorn), Shane Mumford (Geelong Cats), Mark Seaby (West Coast Eagles)
Rookie elevation: Kristin Thornton
Scholarship elevation: Nathan Gordon (NSW/ACT Rams)

DELETIONS
Retired: Leo Barry (veteran - outside list), Jared Crouch, Nic Fosdike, Michael O'Loughlin (veteran - outside list), Tim Schmidt, Brendan Murphy (rookie)
Exchange period: Amon Buchanan (Brisbane Lions), Barry Hall (Western Bulldogs), Darren Jolly (Collingwood)
Delisted: Luke Ablett (second list lodgement), Ryan Brabazon, Matthew Laidlaw, Daniel O'Keefe, Henry Playfair (second list lodgement), Kyle Coney (rookie)

liz
26th November 2009, 11:22 PM
Hannebery and Heath............I didnt realise they drafted while in yr 11 ??

so when all these guys like Scully and co are being drafted from yr 12.......well Heath and Hannebery are still the same age and in the same yr at school !

why did they get drafted in 2008 when they were in yr 11 at school in 2008 ??


Because they raised the minimum drafting age this year by 4 months (or was it 3?).

Under this year's age rules, none of our three draftees from last year would have been eligible to be drafted.

Primmy
27th November 2009, 06:55 AM
Because they raised the minimum drafting age this year by 4 months (or was it 3?).

Under this year's age rules, none of our three draftees from last year would have been eligible to be drafted.

Oh. Well that explains a LOT.

Looks like our recruitment mob (I love you Stuey) are on the ball and can see that magical word "potential". Came up spades in one case, and I think will more than match expectations in the others (watched them run the oval on Wednesday, and it was a fine fine sight).