Perris Joins The Rookie List

[The Big Cat]

I'm not privy to the details about Lloyd Perris. Can somebody (in the know) answer the following questions? (Liz?)

1. Is the kid OK/Promising/Good/Too Good to Miss/Potential Champion?

2. Where is his playing position?

3. He's an academy kid. Is it true he must play for us if we put him on our primary list?

4. Does the same apply if we decide to rookie him?

5. How can (as the papers say) he be picked up with our last draft pick and then rookied? Or are they talking about our last rookie pick?

6. If the Swans believed he was going to be a gun, would they not sew up him up now?

7. Is the fact that we don't seem to have much room to move in terms of draft picks (and we have to have 3 spots and we have rookie elevations coming out our ears) creating a situation where a highish pick will have to be used to list this kid when there may be better options in the draft? i.e.. If we were to have 6 live selections I don't think all this would be a problem.

[Triple B]

My opinion:

1. Think Amon Buchanan size with brilliant footy smarts.

Don't need to know anymore if the above is a correct assessment, just get him on the list.

The way the rookie list rules are today, it hardly matters which list he is on, main list or rookie list. Rampe played 23 games this year as a rookie, as well as games to BJ, X-Man and Biggs. If money is the issue, just rookie him and pay him extra (if rules allow?). If he can't get promoted during the year because we have no injuries, then he won't be getting a senior game anyway at this stage.

EDIT: I'll try and answer your points.

1. Too good to miss (potential)

2. Midfield

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. We need to keep 1 live pick to use on him at the end. ie. If we have 6 live picks, we can choose up to 5 players and then Perris. If we choose 4, we'll in effect be passing on our 5th and pick Perris with our 6th. If we decide to rookie him, he is rookied as an Academy selection before the rookie draft, so he never actually gets to the draft stage.

6. I'm sure they will.

7. You're right, we have more players then spots at the minute.

[liz]

My opinion:

1. Think Amon Buchanan size with brilliant footy smarts.

Don't need to know anymore if the above is a correct assessment, just get him on the list.

The way the rookie list rules are today, it hardly matters which list he is on, main list or rookie list. Rampe played 23 games this year as a rookie, as well as games to BJ, X-Man and Biggs. If money is the issue, just rookie him and pay him extra (if rules allow?). If he can't get promoted during the year because we have no injuries, then he won't be getting a senior game anyway at this stage.

Pretty much sums it up.

On the one hand, I think Perris is within his rights to want a senior list spot and to nominate for the draft if the Swans don't offer him that. Notwithstanding list management issues, since we have to add two non-rookie elevation players to the senior list this year as a minimum, I reckon the Swans should just bite the bullet and put him on the senior list rather than risk losing him. Not only does he probably warrant it, talent wise (if not Swans priority list requirements wise), it will give a fillip to younger Academy players coming behind him that the Swans really will give players a chance to play for them if they are good enough.

On the other hand, he has received a lot of benefits - financial and coaching - from the Swans over the last 3 and a half years. So maybe he should be willing to accept a rookie list spot offered (guaranteed for two years), especially knowing that which list he is on is very unlikely to affect his chances of playing senior football, even in the short term.

[Ludwig]

There is a conflict in some info from the above 2 posts. If Perris MUST accept either a primary or rookie list placement if offered, then how can he also be permitted to nominate for the draft? Refer to answers to questions 3 and 4.

[liz]

There is a conflict in some info from the above 2 posts. If Perris MUST accept either a primary or rookie list placement if offered, then how can he also be permitted to nominate for the draft? Refer to answers to questions 3 and 4.

He has to accept a senior list spot if offered. He can choose to decline a rookie list spot and nominate for the draft. The question is really whether he has some obligation to accept a rookie spot if that is all the Swans will / can offer.

[Ludwig]

He has to accept a senior list spot if offered. He can choose to decline a rookie list spot and nominate for the draft. The question is really whether he has some obligation to accept a rookie spot if that is all the Swans will / can offer.

That's what I'm not clear about. In any case, we shouldn't let him go, because it's picking up a quality young player without using a draft pick. It sounds like some senior players will be departing, so there's bound to be a space freed up on the senior list for Perris if need be.

- - - Updated - - -

[Auntie.Gerald]

liz can we carry Llyod and Perris in 2014 on our list ?

[BillyRayCypress]

I didn't get a chance this year to see as many ressies games as I would have liked to.

However there have been plenty of players that stood out at that level that never amounted to anything in terms of firsts. Many even won awards as being the b & f.

Having had "the next Goodes" in Mr Cheese, two Irishmen that were "the next Judd and the next Carey" and went back to Ireland, if this kid is as good as people claim then I imagine the Club will take him.

GWS had no interest in Martin , so sometimes its not always just ability.

[Meg]

I don't know much about this topic but does the fact that Perris is a Swans scholarship holder make a difference? I've copied the words below from a post in a previous thread about Perris. What I infer from these words and the reports about Roos' interest is that someone has suggested to Perris that he decline a rookie listing (see second point below) because Melbourne would draft him. This I assume means that to be assured of holding Perris the Swans would need to apply to put him on the senior list under the first point below. I assume this could be the reason for some of the anger displayed towards Roos.

"Inclusion onto an AFL List

> If the scholarship listed player is of eligible draft age, a club may apply to transfer the player from the scholarship list to the main list on the day the main list is lodged (off-season) with the AFL prior to the National Draft (normal list numbers must be maintained).
> If the scholarship listed player is of eligible draft age, a club may apply to transfer the player from the scholarship list to the rookie list on the day the main list is lodged (off-season) with the AFL prior to the National Draft and the player consents (i.e. if the player believes he will be taken in the National Draft by another club he may choose to forgo being rookie listed).
> If the scholarship player is not chosen to be listed on either the main or rookie list, he may nominate for the National Draft at the expiration of his contract ? if the player nominates himself and is not selected his club may include him on their rookie list prior to the Rookie draft."

[Ludwig]

liz can we carry Llyod and Perris in 2014 on our list ?

They can both stay on our list and count as one player if they agree to change their name to Jake Lloyd-Perris and further be referred to a JLP (in the LRT tradition). JLP 1 can retain his present #44. This number will also be assigned to JLP 2, but when worn by JLP 2 he will have to wear the jumper inside out. It's perfectly legal; it's in the rules. Check it out! :p

[BillyRayCypress]

They can both stay on our list and count as one player if they agree to change their name to Jake Lloyd-Perris and further be referred to a JLP (in the LRT tradition). JLP 1 can retain his present #44. This number will also be assigned to JLP 2, but when worn by JLP 2 he will have to wear the jumper inside out. It's perfectly legal; it's in the rules. Check it out! :p

:clap:

[Ludwig]

I don't know much about this topic but does the fact that Perris is a Swans scholarship holder make a difference? I've copied the words below from a post in a previous thread about Perris. What I infer from these words and the reports about Roos' interest is that someone has suggested to Perris that he decline a rookie listing (see second point below) because Melbourne would draft him. This I assume means that to be assured of holding Perris the Swans would need to apply to put him on the senior list under the first point below. I assume this could be the reason for some of the anger displayed towards Roos.



There is some ambiguity, but I agree with you that on the weight of evidence this would seem to be the case.

[jono2707]

can we carry Llyod and Perris in 2014 on our list ?

Can we call him Nova?

[wolftone57]

I don't know much about this topic but does the fact that Perris is a Swans scholarship holder make a difference? I've copied the words below from a post in a previous thread about Perris. What I infer from these words and the reports about Roos' interest is that someone has suggested to Perris that he decline a rookie listing (see second point below) because Melbourne would draft him. This I assume means that to be assured of holding Perris the Swans would need to apply to put him on the senior list under the first point below. I assume this could be the reason for some of the anger displayed towards Roos.

"Inclusion onto an AFL List

> If the scholarship listed player is of eligible draft age, a club may apply to transfer the player from the scholarship list to the main list on the day the main list is lodged (off-season) with the AFL prior to the National Draft (normal list numbers must be maintained).
> If the scholarship listed player is of eligible draft age, a club may apply to transfer the player from the scholarship list to the rookie list on the day the main list is lodged (off-season) with the AFL prior to the National Draft and the player consents (i.e. if the player believes he will be taken in the National Draft by another club he may choose to forgo being rookie listed).
> If the scholarship player is not chosen to be listed on either the main or rookie list, he may nominate for the National Draft at the expiration of his contract ? if the player nominates himself and is not selected his club may include him on their rookie list prior to the Rookie draft."

Meg I hate to delude you but scholarship players do not exist any-more. They are now Academy players. The rules are slightly different.

[Meg]

Meg I hate to delude you but scholarship players do not exist any-more. They are now Academy players. The rules are slightly different.

Wolfing I understand that the scholarship program doesn't exist anymore but Perris was a scholarship recipient. Are you saying that with the demise of the program the rules no longer apply to someone who came from that program?

[BillyRayCypress]

Can we call him Nova?

Considering he is making so many calls on his own future, maybe he should be called the " Bossa Nova"

He already has his own song performed by Elvis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GD7o0tqUxw

[Meg]

This article by our Tanya + interview gives some insights into Perris including (at least at that time) his hope that he would play for the Swans.

Perris impresses at National Champs - M.afl.com.au (http://m.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-12/perris-impresses-at-national-champs)

[Ludwig]

I believe you are correct Meg; Perris I think is the last of the players that come under the scholarship rules.

[liz]

There isn't really any ambiguity. Perris is not allowed to refuse a spot on the Swans' senior list if it is offered to him. Or at least, he can, but he can't then nominate for the draft with a view to being picked up by someone else. He can go and apply for a plumbing apprenticeship instead, though.

He can also accept an offer from the Swans to go onto the rookie list and bypass the National Draft. However, he is not contractually obliged to.

Whether Perris has any obligation to accept the Swans' rookie list offer is a personal thing for Perris himself - ie it is an ethical question, not a contractual one. The reality is that he has received scholarship money from them for the past three years and enjoyed the benefits of the coaching staff, primarily via the Academy but he's almost certainly trained with the senior squad at times. While I don't know this for sure, I would expect he also received medical / rehab assistance from the club when he did his knee, something that wouldn't have been available to most 16/17 year olds playing with St George.

And while I also don't know this for sure, he probably grew up as an ardent Swans fan. He's not just a NSW lad, he's a Sydneysider. I think he attended Sydney Boys school opposite the SCG, and if I'm correct about this, would almost certainly have snuck across the road at times to watch the Swans train on Bus Loop Oval. He's been an integral part of the reserves side this year when not on U18 duties and will already be friends with many of the squad. So how strong is his desire to play with the club he almost certainly barracks for?

On the other hand, however strongly he might support the Swans, his first priority will almost certainly be to do what he can to have a successful AFL career. He is clearly talented and driven and must believe he stands a pretty good chance of a decent career. The fact that the Swans may only be willing to offer him a rookie spot probably reflects the current make up of the squad, and it would be understandable if he feels his opportunities might be limited at the Swans, especially in the next couple of seasons. He's played alongside Lloyd for the whole season, and watched him (Lloyd) put in one of the most consistently good seasons I've ever seen from a rookie listed player, and yet get bypassed by others with more standout physical attributes. Others have commented that Perris and Lloyd are quite similar players and I agree with that. You couldn't blame Perris for thinking he might get better opportunities at a club without such an even squad of young midfield talent.

Someone asked earlier in this thread whether the club can carry both on its list. Of course they can, but the Swans staff need to take a holistic view of the list. They obviously have views on the developing players that will differ from those supporters have, and will have a pretty good idea of what type of player they need to target in the draft and who might be available.

Something else to bear in mind when comparing Lloyd and Perris is the age difference. Lloyd is clearly more accomplished now, but he is also two years older than Perris. So you have to project forward how much more scope for improvement Perris might have compared to Lloyd. Their physical stature is relevant here. Both are currently quite slight. They might both remain slight, which would be an obstacle to succeeding at senior AFL level. (It's probably the thing most clearly holding JL back at the moment.) But given the age difference, Perris has more time on his side.

I am sure the club won't take their final decision lightly. They know far more about Perris than any of us, and their views on the kind of player he might develop into are far more expert than ours. What I do know is that if Perris lands up at a different club and goes onto become a very handy senior AFL player, it will be as painful to watch him run around for another club as it is seeing Bruest carving it up at Hawthorn.

[BillyRayCypress]

There isn't really any ambiguity. Perris is not allowed to refuse a spot on the Swans' senior list if it is offered to him. Or at least, he can, but he can't then nominate for the draft with a view to being picked up by someone else. He can go and apply for a plumbing apprenticeship instead, though.



First it was Roos, and now are you saying Paul Kelly will grab him?

Wait till Caroline Wilson reads this.


What I do know is that if Perris lands up at a different club and goes onto become a very handy senior AFL player, it will be as painful to watch him run around for another club as it is seeing Bruest carving it up at Hawthorn.

Don't forget Simpkin who took a longer route than Kirky to get to a Grand Final.

[Ludwig]

Thanks Liz for that comprehensive write-up on Perris.

Given that Perris is a free pick, so to speak, wouldn't it make sense to try to trade someone like Lamb, who might fetch something like a pick 30, in order to make space for Perris on the senior list. Effectively it would be like trading Lamb for Perris and a second round pick, which seems like a good deal.

It's a bit uncanny the similarities, especially physically, between the 2 Lloyds. But the lack of bulk doesn't seem to stop JL from being a ferocious tackler. I hope we find room to keep both of them.

[Meg]

Whether Perris has any obligation to accept the Swans' rookie list offer is a personal thing for Perris himself - ie it is an ethical question, not a contractual one. The reality is that he has received scholarship money from them for the past three years and enjoyed the benefits of the coaching staff, primarily via the Academy but he's almost certainly trained with the senior squad at times. While I don't know this for sure, I would expect he also received medical / rehab assistance from the club when he did his knee, something that wouldn't have been available to most 16/17 year olds playing with St George.


Thanks Liz, your whole post is really informative. While pure speculation on my part, I suspect that you have hit the mark with the para above. If the Swans were planning to rookie list Perris, and Roos/Demons have convinced Perris he can do better, then the basis for the Swans' anger becomes clearer for all of the above reasons.

[liz]

At the most basic level, there is no need to free up a senior list spot for Perris. The club has to free up senior spots anyway so that it can add a minimum of three new players to the senior list. Perris can be one of those three players. The club may want to free up more than three spaces, especially if it wants / needs to elevate more than one current rookie listed player. (Rampe must be a certainty.) However, only one elevated rookie can count towards the minimum three new draftees, so either way, two new players need to be added.

However, given how tight spots are on the list, they may feel the list can be better balanced by using its quota on different kinds of player, especially if they think it is unlikely Perris will seriously push for senior selection in his first season.

Another slight complication is that the rookie list will also be pretty tight for spots and there is a case for retaining most, if not all, of the current crop. We get an extra three spots on the list for NSW players (whether from the Academy / scholarship or elsewhere). I am not entirely sure, but I think that second year retained rookies might be able to count towards that quota of three. We have four NSW lads on the current rookie list and I am not entirely sure which were the three designated NSW rookies last year. If I have to guess (plundering the depths of my memory) I think it was BJ, Robinson and Naismith, with Rampe classified as a normal rookie. Suppose they intend to promote BJ to the senior list and offer Naismith and Robinson a second year on the rookie list. That means there is one spare NSW spot. Perris can fill this spot. But if they are forced to put him on the senior list instead that NSW spot only gets used if there is another local player they want to offer the spot too. While there are a few reasonable candidates from the toppies we have seen this year in the reserves, maybe the club has decided none of them is quite worthy. Perris taking up a senior spot might cost one of the non-NSW rookies - Lloyd, X, Biggs - a spot on at least one of the lists for next season. There used to be a limit (3) on how many second year rookies you could retain but I am not sure if that still applies, so often have they fiddled with the rookie list rules.

[Auntie.Gerald]

he might like to play for freeo and be the only midfielder under 90kg and 6 feet 3 inches :)

[Ludwig]

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? :hmmmm2:

[hot potato]

This thread has done my head in.

[jono2707]

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.

[ugg]

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.

[ernie koala]

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

[liz]

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.

[Ludwig]

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.

[Reggi]

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

[southsideswan]

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!!

[Reggi]

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

[Ludwig]

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.

[Mug Punter]

There isn't really any ambiguity. Perris is not allowed to refuse a spot on the Swans' senior list if it is offered to him. Or at least, he can, but he can't then nominate for the draft with a view to being picked up by someone else. He can go and apply for a plumbing apprenticeship instead, though.

He can also accept an offer from the Swans to go onto the rookie list and bypass the National Draft. However, he is not contractually obliged to.

Whether Perris has any obligation to accept the Swans' rookie list offer is a personal thing for Perris himself - ie it is an ethical question, not a contractual one.

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 - - -


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

Agreed!!

Richard just wants to have hi scake and eat it too....

[Ludwig]

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

Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying it's a simple matter and then saying all we have to do is trade out or delist a player? Ir actually does demonstrate that we do have a limitied number of spots and some tough decisions about having to choose between 2 players that we would like to be on our list.

[Mug Punter]

Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying it's a simple matter and then saying all we have to do is trade out or delist a player? Ir actually does demonstrate that we do have a limitied number of spots and some tough decisions about having to choose between 2 players that we would like to be on our list.

Not at all!!

The debate and wrist-slitting here is based on the assumption that we have to be able to elevate Xavier, BJack and Rampe in this draft therefore having limited sopts.

Drafting and list management will always involve some tough decisions - it's a simple question, is he worthy of a spot in our top 42? If he is not then why the hysteria about him going somewhere where he is valued that highly? Shouldn't we instead wish him all the best and be happy that an additional NSW kid is on an AFL List? Shouldn't we be happy that the Academy is working even if we don't rate the kids it produces yet?

If we rate him in the top 42 we just have to make it happen. Don't draft Xavier Richards, trade a fringe player for a late round draft pick and use that pick, do whatwever we need to do

It clearly demonstrates the depth we have in ouir squad but I would think that having had a good look at this kid over a number of years Kinnear Beetson will make the correct call if he is draftable. What is irking Colless so much is that we would have hoped to hide him on our rookie list and have the draft pick..

As I said, if we don't draft him then he is not rated in the top 42 in our club and I fail to see how we can then vilify Roosy if he (allegedly) "steals" our 43rd - 48th best player....

W

[KTigers]

Lloyd Perris was one of the kids pulled out of NSW/ACT State Zone Trials in 2010 and given a "scholarship" with the Swans.
Others were given scholarships with other AFL Clubs.
He was the captain of the zone he was in (Pigeons/Sydney South) and probably the best player. But only just, there were lots of good players in that zone team. They won the bulk of their games in that 2008-2011 period at the SZT, regularly beating the Southern NSW & Riverina area Zone teams. He was given a great opportunity, and he seems to have made something of it so far, playing very well in the latter half of the NEAFL season. Good luck to him wherever he ends up.

[Mug Punter]

Lloyd Perris was one of the kids pulled out of NSW/ACT State Zone Trials in 2010 and given a "scholarship" with the Swans.
Others were given scholarships with other AFL Clubs.
He was the captain of the zone he was in (Pigeons/Sydney South) and probably the best player. But only just, there were lots of good players in that zone team. They won the bulk of their games in that 2008-2011 period at the SZT, regularly beating the Southern NSW & Riverina area Zone teams. He was given a great opportunity, and he seems to have made something of it so far, playing very well in the latter half of the NEAFL season. Good luck to him wherever he ends up.

Agreed

To me the key to the Academy system is that it (hopefully) means that the next Longmire or Carey to come out of our zone is locked in to the Swans.

It's not really about borderline talent such as Perris, though there is real merit in the junior development program separate from Swans draft benefits.

[Triple B]

It's not really about borderline talent such as Perris,.....

Methinks you may be surprised....

[Mug Punter]

Methinks you may be surprised....

Well, if he is that great he's worth a draft pick!!!

My point that is that the academy was designed to give the northern states an incentive to develop their own champions and if there are any standout locals then we can have essentially a geographical priority pick. Perris may be a good prospect but it doesn't sound like he is a first round draft pick.

As I said before, Kinnear Beetson and his list management team need to determine if he is in our top 42. It's the same process as for any other recruit, the difference being that if we decide he is then we have certainty of drafting him

[KTigers]

Academy training has the kids playing more an uncontested style of junior footy these days as opposed to before. They run and spread and their kicking is way better. Some of the games almost look like basketball with little contact though, and that is a bit of a problem for a number of the kids when they run into less technically skilled but more physical opponents in the older age groups. Lloyd Perris comes from the earlier in and under era of junior footy, where a lot of the games resembled rugby style rolling mauls (not unlike the first half of the Swans-Freo prelim I might add) and was certainly whacked around a bit by bigger aggressive opponents. It will probably stand him in good stead if he starts to play against men rather than boys in the AFL eventually.

[Ludwig]

From the Swans club perspective the first purpose of the Swans Academy is to try to bring young NSW talent into the club. As a by product of that process, it will build greater interest in Aussie Rules in the region, which will also benefit the Swans.

There are very few talents that make it through the academy system to become 18 year olds with genuine AFL talent. Perris is clearly one of those, and considering all that goes into getting at best just one quality player out of the system a year, we should take every advantage to make it pay off.

For all that goes into the Academy, the main payoff is that we can get a first crack of these players if we want them. Perris is the last of the scholarship rules players which grant even a greater benefit in that we can add him to our list without using a draft pick. Without this benefit, Perris would likely cost a second round draft pick based on how draft watchers have rated him. It's like getting a second round pick for free. Dayne Beams went for pick 29 and Hanners for pick 30 in the 2008 draft. That could be what exercising our rights to Perris could mean. So I think it's significant.

I congratulate those who think it's an easy decision to determine whether Perris would be in our top 42, and who should drop out in his stead. For me, it seems much harder. I don't think its an easy decision to delist Tony Armstrong, for example, and pay out his 2014 because he's number 43 on my list. I don't know if putting Perris on our primary list to the exclusion of Jake Lloyd or Biggs, will cause them to opt for the national draft. I don't want lose any of them. I don't know if having Perris, Lloyd and Lamb all vying for similar spots is too much of the same thing in one team, and if it is, who to let go of.

I think when you have so few players out of contract, and not necessarily the right ones, and so many rookies doing well, when its far more common that none succeed, and in the same year the best quality talent to come out of the scholarship program reaches drafting age, you are going to have list management problems and some very hard decisions to make.

[Triple B]

Well, if he is that great he's worth a draft pick!!!

My point that is that the academy was designed to give the northern states an incentive to develop their own champions and if there are any standout locals then we can have essentially a geographical priority pick. Perris may be a good prospect but it doesn't sound like he is a first round draft pick.

As I said before, Kinnear Beetson and his list management team need to determine if he is in our top 42. It's the same process as for any other recruit, the difference being that if we decide he is then we have certainty of drafting him

My read of the whole business is not that the Swans think he is not worth a draft pick, far from it, but with the VERY unusual circumstances this year of trying to get at least 2 of Rampe, BJ, X-Man and Biggs onto the senior list the list may be better served to pre-select and rookie list Perris which they can do with his blessing.

Colless obviously believes with Paul Roos sniffing around suggesting to Perris a spot is there on the Melbourne senior list if the Swans don't elect to place him directly on the senior list undermines what plans the Swans may have had in place for him and the club list going forward.

As I said earlier, somewhere, the way the rules are nowadays the rookie list is just an extension of the senior list anyway. I don't see too many rookies being denied a game in the seniors at any club if they are good enough.

[Mug Punter]

My read of the whole business is not that the Swans think he is not worth a draft pick, far from it, but with the VERY unusual circumstances this year of trying to get at least 2 of Rampe, BJ, X-Man and Biggs onto the senior list the list may be better served to pre-select and rookie list Perris which they can do with his blessing.

Colless obviously believes with Paul Roos sniffing around suggesting to Perris a spot is there on the Melbourne senior list if the Swans don't elect to place him directly on the senior list undermines what plans the Swans may have had in place for him and the club list going forward.

As I said earlier, somewhere, the way the rules are nowadays the rookie list is just an extension of the senior list anyway. I don't see too many rookies being denied a game in the seniors at any club if they are good enough.

True but most players would take being on the list proper any day..

Reality is that the Swans only have a "right" over Perris if we draft him, if not then factors such as the player's wishes and other clubs come into play.

As I have said, if he is our top 42 then draft him. If Roos is actually interested in drafting him then he has actually done us a favour by flagging his interest as we may have complacently thought that no other club could come in for him and leave him rookie listed

[Ludwig]

True but most players would take being on the list proper any day..

Reality is that the Swans only have a "right" over Perris if we draft him, if not then factors such as the player's wishes and other clubs come into play.

As I have said, if he is our top 42 then draft him. If Roos is actually interested in drafting him then he has actually done us a favour by flagging his interest as we may have complacently thought that no other club could come in for him and leave him rookie listed

Clearly we want him, since it appears that we've offered him a rookie spot. Rookie listing Perris makes the list management process a bit easier.

Now the ball is in Perris's court. If he turns it down, because he wants to be on a primary list, then the ball is back in our court. We will probably grant him his wish to be placed on our primary list, because he's probably a top 30 draft pick. It's more a matter of trust between the parties and whether forcing the Swans to take him on the primary is the best way to start a long term relationship. On the other hand, it is a professional sport, so all parties need to look after their own respective interests.

[Dosser]

Isnt there also a $ difference between rookie and list?

[Ludwig]

Isnt there also a $ difference between rookie and list?

There is, but you can always pay more. Someone can be rookie listed but get a primary list pay package. I think Perris was offerred 2 years when usually rookie contracts are for one.

[ugg]

We will probably grant him his wish to be placed on our primary list, because he's probably a top 30 draft pick.

Here's the problem, we don't know whether the Swans regard him as a top 30 pick.

[Ludwig]

Here's the problem, we don't know whether the Swans regard him as a top 30 pick.

What do you think Ugg? You've seen him play. If seen him on the NEAFL video and he looked pretty good. I'm just going by what outsiders have rated him. Obviously we like him, because we offered him a spot and RC was pretty upset about any attempt to make him look elsewhere, so I would take that as rating him highly. Top 30? Who knows?

[ugg]

He's very good I don't dispute that but having watched none of the AFL U18 championships or any underage football for the matter I have nothing to compare him to.

[Ludwig]

He's very good I don't dispute that but having watched none of the AFL U18 championships or any underage football for the matter I have nothing to compare him to.

I've got the AFL video package and watched the U18 championships on video. I wasn't overly impressed with many of the highly touted players. A few midfielders that did catch my eye as players that were safe bets to make it at AFL level were Christian Salem, James Battersby and Dominic Sheed (who was voted best player). I don't know how to compare the under 18s stars with a mature aged NEAFL, but feel certainly skills-wise, Perris can match it with the better young mids. As noted, he's a bit small at present, but that will be fixed in due course. There are actually lots of small hightly rated players in the draft this year.

I don't play fantasy footy, but understand what it's about. A big thing is building value into the team, i.e., getting the most bang for the buck. I think real footy is a lot like that. If you can add value to the team, it's probably worth to do it.

Take the Jesse White situation. Last year we couldn't give him away, but circumstance allowed his value to rise where we may be able to convert his value into something we are in need of, like a draft pick that gets us a KPD. In some ways in matters as much how others value Perris, because he becomes a commodity that can be traded (or allow you to trade another listed player) for something you may need more.

By the time most of the younger players are ready for senior level, the needs and circumstances of the team can change dramatically from the time of the original draft. That's why so many list managers just go for who they think is the best available player, rather than positional considerations.

[Mug Punter]

Clearly we want him, since it appears that we've offered him a rookie spot. Rookie listing Perris makes the list management process a bit easier.

Now the ball is in Perris's court. If he turns it down, because he wants to be on a primary list, then the ball is back in our court. We will probably grant him his wish to be placed on our primary list, because he's probably a top 30 draft pick. It's more a matter of trust between the parties and whether forcing the Swans to take him on the primary is the best way to start a long term relationship. On the other hand, it is a professional sport, so all parties need to look after their own respective interests.

I guess this is where I differ in my view of the new drafting rules re scholarship players. Basically it guarantees who we consider the best local talent for us which is a huge bonus, especially if he is a first round pick as we effectively get two first round draft picks if we can grow one (wait for this to change if it becomes successful...)

So, if Perris is top 30 we have the comfort knowing he is ours and that he cannot be drafted by any other clubs. Provided we actually draft him ourselves a

[Ludwig]

I guess this is where I differ in my view of the new drafting rules re scholarship players. Basically it guarantees who we consider the best local talent for us which is a huge bonus, especially if he is a first round pick as we effectively get two first round draft picks if we can grow one (wait for this to change if it becomes successful...)

So, if Perris is top 30 we have the comfort knowing he is ours and that he cannot be drafted by any other clubs. Provided we actually draft him ourselves a

The rules that apply to Perris are the old and final instance of the scholarship program. After this is becomes a F/S type selection process, which is much less of an advantage than the scholarship system.

I think you have to look at it as if you think Perris is better than what the alternative might be for the LAST pick you would be using, because this is the one you will be using to get Perris.

Let's say that the last pick we can use is our 3rd pick at 54. So the decision is whether we would prefer to use pick 54 for Perris or some other prospect that might be available at that stage of the draft. Those are the actual alternatives in effect. excluding rookie upgrade choices.

Or alternatively, you could promote a rookie and add new rookie selection at the time of the rookie draft instead of taking Perris at all. There could be any number of reasons you might want to do this. Some have been discussed in this thread.

[sharp9]

Rampe has a new 2 year contract so he is already guaranteed an upgrade to senior list...the article doesn't say do but having been on the primary list since April he's hardly going to sign a Rookie contract is he?

[ernie koala]

.

I congratulate those who think it's an easy decision to determine whether Perris would be in our top 42, and who should drop out in his stead. For me, it seems much harder. I don't think its an easy decision to delist Tony Armstrong, for example, and pay out his 2014 because he's number 43 on my list. I don't know if putting Perris on our primary list to the exclusion of Jake Lloyd or Biggs, will cause them to opt for the national draft. I don't want lose any of them. I don't know if having Perris, Lloyd and Lamb all vying for similar spots is too much of the same thing in one team, and if it is, who to let go of.

I think when you have so few players out of contract, and not necessarily the right ones, and so many rookies doing well, when its far more common that none succeed, and in the same year the best quality talent to come out of the scholarship program reaches drafting age, you are going to have list management problems and some very hard decisions to make.

Looking through the Senior list the 3 that have done nothing or little at senior level are...

Armstrong
Lockyer
Walsh
Are these 3 all contracted for next year? If so, maybe we can find another club for at least 1 of them...

If we loose a few talls, ie Mummy and/or White, then Walsh will be given another chance as a backup player. Other wise he is a luxury we have no room for.

Armstrong just doesn't cut it, at senior level, for mine. Maybe there is a club out there who might want to give him a another go..Stkilda, Melbourne(if Roos will even talk to us)

Don't know much about Lockyer, but he's yet to even crack the emergencies list. So that puts him down the end of the queue I suppose....Maybe Westcoast.

[wolftone57]

Perris will be a very good player. He has natural ability and is very good defensively for a young bloke. I think we would be stupid not to draft him. He and Jake Lloyd are very similar build but Jake is faster. Both have beautiful kicking skills and can play inside or outside. They can both break a side apart with their run and work-rate. Lloyd was pivotal in the win against Belconnan and Lokan was trying everything to stem his run to the point of playing on Lloyd himself. That did not work and he won't be roughed up, he just runs off and gets plenty of ball. The same applies to Perris, he is not intimidated at all.

In another thread someone was talking about how our mids seemed to be very jaded toward the end of the season. Here is the perfect opportunity to use young players rotating through the mids to rest the senior players. In other words in easier games rest one or two mids to keep them fresh. This would be proactive in two ways 1) to keep out senior players fresh 2) to blood the younger blokes and get them ready for longer stays in the seniors

We have huge mids depth and they should be used and if we have a problem matching up on a particular team then because of the plethora of mids we have we can find a good match up. I think we need to go down that path rather than keeping our mids static. Most clubs are looking at strategies rather than totally set game plans and our strategy needs to include being flexible in all areas.

[Ludwig]

Looking through the Senior list the 3 that have done nothing or little at senior level are...

Armstrong
Lockyer
Walsh
Are these 3 all contracted for next year? If so, maybe we can find another club for at least 1 of them...



I believe all 3 are contracted.

My feelings are that Walsh has no trading value as he has now played 4 years between us and the Saints without showing much and is coming off a serious injury. I'm sure he would be delisted if not for his contract. Probably will be anyway.

Armstrong has been a bit of a disappointed. Contrary to Walsh, he has shown something at senior level with his kicking skills and attack on the ball, but has a number of weaknesses as well, particularly with his defensive game. He's gone back the ressies and has played well. He seems to have tried to fix his weaknesses. He will only be 24 next year, so still has plenty of time. I would let him play out his contract. Not sure if he has any trade value. If he does, it wouldn't be much. He may get dropped just because we need the list space.

Lockyer still has a year left on his 3 year contact. He seemed to be a high value draft pick as some had rated him as possibly going late in the first round. He started his first year looking good, then got injured and missed most of his first season. He started this year slowly, but finished well. My big criticism of Lockyer is that he telegraphs his disposal and is slow to execute by hand and foot; he will have to learn to react and execute more quickly to succeed under the pressure of AFL footy. He's a good size and has good speed. Looks likely to develop into a Grundy sized defender, but quicker. He does need to continue his improvement next year, but is worth the wait, especially since he is still contracted. Probably won't make it, but time will tell.

[sharp9]

Armstrong has two really serious problems....1) He is the slowest thinker/decision maker I think I have ever seen at AFL level. Worse than Everitt and that's saying something!!!! 2) I think he may be the weakest player (physically) I have ever seen.....just cannot tackle AT ALL - and gets bumped off line by players going at 60%!!! His kicking when under no pressure is certainly better than average for an AFL player...so that's something :-)

Actually 3) He is very, very slow....but this is related to problem 1) - he can't possibly be as slow a runner as he appears to be...it's just that he takes sooooooo long to decide where to go that it looks like he is standing in mud when he has the ball in hand. Massive contrast to genuinely slow player like Bird/Pendlebury/Mitchell (S and T)/Harvey etc.. who can give themselves time/space by DECISIVE movement in the correct direction!!!

[Ludwig]

More to the point Sharp, Armstrong is not a slow thinker, but rather a poor decision maker. You WERE right about Everitt, but he has improved so much during this year. I wouldn't call him a good decision maker, but he's made a lot of progress this year to the point where I no longer think it is a weakness.

If not for the fact that Armstrong has another year left on his contract he would be gone for sure. Maybe he will be delisted anyway. But given Dre's improvement in both defence and decision making this year, and that Armstrong has shown improvement in these areas in the reserves, I don't think it would be beyond him to turn the corner next year.

[monopoly19]

Put him on the rookie list and tell him if he works hard and is good enough, he'll get a senior spot (whilst pointing to Rampe, BJ, X). If he decides to go elsewhere, wish him good luck, just not against the Swans.

[aardvark]

Perris has signed a 2 year rookie contract and will taken with our last pick in the draft.

[Auntie.Gerald]

great news

[liz]

No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/sydney-signs-exciting-prospect-lloyd-perris-to-rookie-deal/story-fni5fan6-1226731780193)

Here's media confirmation.

This article also states that Everitt is also set to leave. From the Swans' point of view he would be useful depth to keep but, much like Jesse, it is understandable if he'd rather go to a club where he'll get senior opportunities without relying on injuries. And he's just put together a decent string of games that will hopefully convince another club that he's worth taking. He deserves that.

[Ludwig]

I thought Everitt made a lot of progress this year, rounding out his game quite nicely. I saw him as a long term LRT replacement, someone that could play many roles.

I hope we can package up players and picks, because third rounders won't be worth much in this draft. Although Beatson may have some hidden gems that aren't getting much publicity. With the way he nailed the rookie draft last year, maybe we should just take the minimum 2 picks in the National Draft.

[Reggi]

Wow a momentous off season

[sharp9]

Everitt did make a lot of progress this year...but towards the end he put in some absolute shockers...not whole games, but getting caught in possession and terrible disposal - which just shouldn't happen because he is very, very quick and a great kick (plus he can rhyme).

So maybe it was just mental tiredness and, as a consequence, the ridiculously slow thinking returned and made him look a big, white Armstrong. But Teddy used to do a bit of that in 2008-2009. Dre is a player who needs to not think, do. To get him to that point will take another year at least. Unfortunately as soon as there is a bit of pressure he reverts to dithering old habits (like a lot of players, of course). It's only the truly gifted (Ablett, Pendelbury etc) who never seem to even notice pressure...they just DO their thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Strong suggestion here http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/sydney-signs-exciting-prospect-lloyd-perris-to-rookie-deal/story-fni5fan6-1226731780193 that Everitt is definitely on the move....so the above conversations are moot. I assume we will give him to his club of choice for a low pick.

[ernie koala]

With the Mummy and White trades, it looks like ,in the ND, we'll have...

1 x first round
1 or 2 x second round
2 or 3 x third round

That's 5 picks in the first 3 rounds.

So a late pick for Everitt, or any other player, will be next to useless, unless on traded in some other package.

I would think we'll probably use at least one of these early picks to sercure another player in the trade period.

[aardvark]

Everitt would get a regular game at GWS. Maybe we could package him with Mummy for a slightly higher pick?

[ugg]

Everitt has been linked to Port but then again so have a lot of players

[southsideswan]

I must have come to the wrong threat ... I think for the Club, if news correct on Perris, this is a real bonus. It gives us more flexibility with the seniors intake.
I only hope it is a long term real benefit for him as well. It will give him 2 years of transition into senior footy while still at home and allow full development. No rush if you can get a career for 15 years on the field.

[ernie koala]

Everitt has been linked to Port but then again so have a lot of players

I'd like to see Armstrong moved on, and keep Everitt if he wants to stay.

[scolsey22]

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2013-10-03/perris-to-join-the-swans

Good to hear

[DK_]

I'd like to see Armstrong moved on, and keep Everitt if he wants to stay.

Much like White, Everitt's never going to be as valuable as he is now. He was give his opportunity to shine this year and did well, which would have grabbed the attention of other clubs.

But, with AJ, LRT and maybe Reid competing for tall positions next year, barring injury he's unlikely to hold down a regular spot in the firsts. The longer he plays in the NEAFL, the more his trade (and, for him, potential salary) value will fall.

Now is the time for him and he should go with our best wishes and thanks for the work he did standing up during a very difficult year.

[ugg]

I think this hints to a promotion for Brandon Jack. Our current rookie list consists of

Category A (max of 6, depending on size of senior list)
Dane Rampe
Jake Lloyd
Xavier Richards
Shane Biggs

Category B (max of 3)
Brandon Jack
Daniel Robinson
Sam Naismith

Perris would be classed as a Category B (not sure if they could classify him as a Category A if the Swans wanted to) and we also have the American Patrick Mitchell joining Category B. That means 2 spots will have to be cleared, one should be Jack getting a promotion to the senior list but the second spot is a bit iffier. Delisting or promoting Robinson and/or Naismith doesn't make much sense, perhaps they can somehow slide them over to Category A, with Rampe certain to get a promotion too and probably Biggs as well.

[sharp9]

I thought Internationals were extra and not counted as "locals"...they certainly used to be. Also....for the last freakin' time....Rampe has ALREADY signed a contract so he MUST be on primary list already (for 2014) unless he was completely stoooopid and signed a rookie contract halfway through a season when he was in the top five first year players IN THE LEAGUE!

Isn't Perris, technically, a scholarship player rather than NSW rookie? Maybe he is a category A then rather than B.

[Primmy]

Best description of Lloyd Perris comes by way of a tweet from Brandon Jack. He called him a minimorto.

Pretty close I would say. Without the upchucking.

He WAS a scholarship and has been signed to Sydney Rookie status. Works all round. How many rookies were upgraded this year for the Swans? Just about all of them, so it leaves doors open all round.

[sharp9]

Best description of Lloyd Perris comes by way of a tweet from Brandon Jack. He called him a minimorto.

Pretty close I would say. Without the upchucking.

He WAS a scholarship and has been signed to Sydney Rookie status. Works all round. How many rookies were upgraded this year for the Swans? Just about all of them, so it leaves doors open all round.Thanks for the clarification...as for Rookie Upgrades...yes there were four - but it is common for players who play from rookie list to not get upgraded for the following season. No reason to do so for Richards, Biggs and Jack...if we have 3 picks under, say, 40 we would be mad to upgrade rookies who don't need to be upgraded. Biggs and Jack might get drafted elsewhere but I doubt they'd run the risk of ending up at St. Kilda or Gold Coast.

[Ludwig]

Wasn't Robinson a scholarship player? If so, then I would imagine Perris would or could fall into the B category as well.

After Rampe, I would upgrade Lloyd and Biggs. Given that it doesn't seem that we will be landing as many top round picks as originally thought, we should have the space for 3 upgrades; it's a bit too early to tell at this point how many slots will open. It may come down to what happens with Armstrong and Walsh.

I think there will be at least 8 leaving the club and so far Franklin and Perris coming in, excluding Pat Mitchell, who comes outside of the list totals.

[ugg]

Rookie list rules here

Rookie Players - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players)

[ShockOfHair]

I thought Everitt made a lot of progress this year, rounding out his game quite nicely. I saw him as a long term LRT replacement, someone that could play many roles.

.

If he's getting offers elsewhere, good luck to him but I'll be sad to see him go. He was one of our good news stories this year. With his height and pace he's a handy player to have on the list.

I count six players out (Mattner, Mumford, Morton, White, Bolton, Everitt) and one (probably) in. We better not have any injuries next year.

[Triple B]

Also....for the last freakin' time....Rampe has ALREADY signed a contract so he MUST be on primary list already (for 2014) unless he was completely stoooopid and signed a rookie contract halfway through a season when he was in the top five first year players IN THE LEAGUE!


Curse and shout all you like, he's not on a senior list until draft day and I haven't seen any suggestion here or elsewhere that he won't be upgraded when the draft rolls around.

Please point me to the post that suggested he won't be on our senior list next year so I can place that poster on my 'grain of salt' list...

- - - Updated - - -


If he's getting offers elsewhere, good luck to him but I'll be sad to see him go. He was one of our good news stories this year. With his height and pace he's a handy player to have on the list.

My now 21yo daughter has #13 on the back of her jumper from her Schneider infatuation as an 11yo.

I told her that we may get rid of Incy so Buddy can wear thirteen, thirteeeeeeeeen!!!!!

[sharp9]

Curse and shout all you like, he's not on a senior list until draft day and I haven't seen any suggestion here or elsewhere that he won't be upgraded when the draft rolls around.

Please point me to the post that suggested he won't be on our senior list next year so I can place that poster on my 'grain of salt' list...

- - - Updated - - -



My now 21yo daughter has #13 on the back of her jumper from her Schneider infatuation as an 11yo.

I told her that we may get rid of Incy so Buddy can wear thirteen, thirteeeeeeeeen!!!!!Sorry Triple B but you are at least the fourth person to wonder "if" or suggest we "might" upgrade Rampe...or to suggest we might keep him on Rookie List to get a better pick in. Great call on number for Buddy.

[Triple B]

Sorry Triple B but you are at least the fourth person to wonder "if" or suggest we "might" upgrade Rampe...or to suggest we might keep him on Rookie List to get a better pick in...

I would like to see my post which suggested either of those things. Trust me, if I ever used the words 'if' or 'might' in relation to whether Rampe will be upgraded, it was a typo.