2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Thunder Shaker]

Peter Ladhams, Angus Sheldrick, Matthew Roberts, Corey Warner and Lachlan Rankin don't have numbers yet. Nor does Paddy McCartin, assuming we add him to the list.

Unallocated numbers are 2, 15, 19, 29, 34, 37, 39, 40. I expect 37 will remain unallocated for the time being.

Chad Warner has number 1. Corey Warner gets number 2.
Tom McCartin has number 30. Paddy McCartin gets 29 (he's older). Paddy Mac had number 32 at St Kilda.

At least that's how I would allocate these numbers.

Ladhams had number 38 at Port Adelaide, so he could get number 39.

As for the other draftees, I don't know - maybe Sheldrick gets the coveted number 34, Roberts gets 15 and Rankin gets 19?

[Ludwig]

Draft Guru website has the following list for the Swans: https://www.draftguru.com.au/lists/2022/sydney

I would give some credence to the list solely because they might have access to the actual list lodgements, which we do not.

Total list size is 43 players:
37 senior list players
Cat A (5) : Taylor, McLean, Fox, Wicks, McAndrew
Cat B : BOC

[i'm-uninformed2]

I don't think a club is obliged to promote someone to the senior list just because they give them a new (multi-year) contract. But he'll need to be promoted next year as he will have spent the maximum time on the rookie list (more than the normal maximum). It is pretty much immaterial whether he's on the senior list or rookie list, other than whether the first $80k of his salary counts under the cap or not. I don't see why a club would elect for something to be counted under the cap that they didn't need to.

I can't recall if McLean was given a new one or two year contract. If we want to keep him, he'll need to be promoted next year too.

I have no idea why the AFL doesn't just abolish the whole Cat A rookie list and merge it with the senior list. There is no reason (that I can think of) to keep them separate. You can always give clubs the option of just offering one year initial contracts to players taken later in the draft. It would mean journalists wouldn't have to write articles each year on how stupid it is that the likes of Lewis Taylor and Jared Polec are on rookie lists.

McLean got two (in my view well deserved) years

[liz]

I was under the impression that Wicks signing recently for a couple of years, meant that he was now on the senior list. But that may have been according to my idea of what is just, rather than any concrete information.

I don't think a club is obliged to promote someone to the senior list just because they give them a new (multi-year) contract. But he'll need to be promoted next year as he will have spent the maximum time on the rookie list (more than the normal maximum). It is pretty much immaterial whether he's on the senior list or rookie list, other than whether the first $80k of his salary counts under the cap or not. I don't see why a club would elect for something to be counted under the cap that they didn't need to.

I can't recall if McLean was given a new one or two year contract. If we want to keep him, he'll need to be promoted next year too.

I have no idea why the AFL doesn't just abolish the whole Cat A rookie list and merge it with the senior list. There is no reason (that I can think of) to keep them separate. You can always give clubs the option of just offering one year initial contracts to players taken later in the draft. It would mean journalists wouldn't have to write articles each year on how stupid it is that the likes of Lewis Taylor and Jared Polec are on rookie lists.

[dejavoodoo44]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot about McAndrew. He is a rookie, which means someone else must be on the senior list, and I think that is Amartey. (Serves me right for not counting "my" senior list properly.)

I was under the impression that Wicks signing recently for a couple of years, meant that he was now on the senior list. But that may have been according to my idea of what is just, rather than any concrete information.