Page 158 of 198 FirstFirst ... 58108148154155156157158159160161162168 ... LastLast
Results 1,885 to 1,896 of 2366

Thread: 2022 List management, trading, drafting

  1. #1885
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post

    I would like to keep Ronke if he can't find another club to take him. I think he's good enough to play in our AFL side if we restructure our forward line to exclude a tagger. If we let go Naismith and Bell and bring in Francis, our list size would be 39, which would be enough for 3 ND picks, 1 rookie pick and an open spot for the midseason draft. We might be stuck with Melican for another year, but if we can get him off our books we might look at recruiting a developing ruckman.
    .
    Not sure that's the case. At the moment we have three retirements from our senior list, one delisting from our Cat A rookie list and one from our Cat B rookie list. But also two Cat A rookies who've been on the rookie list for three seasons so need to be accommodated on the senior list and one Cat B rookie who's been there for two years and so, prima facie, needs to be accommodated on the Cat A rookie list. And one extra rookie picked up in the MSD.

    So with no more changes we would have one spot spare on the senior list, no spare spots on the Cat A rookie list and two spare spots on the Cat B rookie list.

  2. #1886
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    The rule about having to take a certain number of first round picks to the actual draft over a certain number of years is separate from the restriction on trading all your future picks now. I am not aware of a club that has ever obtained an exemption on the rule that you can't trade your future first now if you don't hold a future second and future third (and maybe future fourth- not sure about that). That's not something the Lions can fix up next year.
    I wasn't aware of that rule. I'm surprised it's not being talked about in the media.

  3. #1887
    scott names the planets stellation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    peaches eaten, trousers rolled
    Posts
    9,693
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Please no. NO.
    I tried to add as many caveats as I could!
    I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
    We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

  4. #1888
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Not sure that's the case. At the moment we have three retirements from our senior list, one delisting from our Cat A rookie list and one from our Cat B rookie list. But also two Cat A rookies who've been on the rookie list for three seasons so need to be accommodated on the senior list and one Cat B rookie who's been there for two years and so, prima facie, needs to be accommodated on the Cat A rookie list. And one extra rookie picked up in the MSD.

    So with no more changes we would have one spot spare on the senior list, no spare spots on the Cat A rookie list and two spare spots on the Cat B rookie list.
    I haven't been following the numbers on Cat B rookies. I don't even know who they are. I thought Sheather and McAndrew were Cat B. The AFL seems to be giving CAT B Extensions if you ask, see:

    AFL statement - Category B Rookie Extensions

    I've been working toward a list size of 44 and assuming the categories will take care of themselves. I doubt Naismith or Bell will retain a senior list spot, either delisted or rookie listed.

    My count starts at 45 with the HHK addition. We have 5 going out: BOC, COR, JPK, Taylor and Sinclair, which gets us to 40 total.

    I don't know why the AFL just don't get rid of the rookie list. It just causes a lot of time wasting jockeying around players to fit the categories. I think the league can still maintain a 1 year rookie type contract without having a specific category of player.
    Last edited by Ludwig; 6th October 2022 at 06:10 PM.

  5. #1889
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I wasn't aware of that rule. I'm surprised it's not being talked about in the media.
    Lots of media have NFI about the rules, Trade Radio apparently among the worse for complete lack of knowledge.

    You can trade your future first only or if you hold your future first you can trade out the remainder of your future picks. It's to protect a clubs current administration burning their future, a bit like previous administration at Norf made dreadful list management decision the current administration is now wearing.

    People do sometimes talk about future picks as if they're all worth the same within a band, but Norf's future second is a world away from Geelong's future second, like 19 versus 37! Trade futures in and out at your own risk.

    SOS traded a future first for pick 19 on trade night to grab Stocker, turned out Carlton had a bad season and the future first was a pick 6!

  6. #1890
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I haven't been following the numbers on Cat B rookies. I don't even know who they are. I thought Sheather and McAndrew were Cat B. The AFL seems to be giving CAT B Extensions if you ask, see:

    AFL statement - Category B Rookie Extensions

    I've been working toward a list size of 44 and assuming the categories will take care of themselves. I doubt Naismith or Bell will retain a senior list spot, either delisted or rookie listed.

    My count starts at 45 with the HHK addition. We have 5 going out: BOC, COR, JPK, Taylor and Sinclair, which gets us to 40 total.
    Sheather and BOC were our Cat B rookies. I was aware the AFL had given some upgrade exemptions, though thought this was mostly for International players. It might be harder to argue COVID development hardship for an ex-academy player. But I agree there is a possibility that the club could turn a Cat B available spot into a Cat A available spot. It would mean Sheather can't play senior football until we have someone on the LTIL.

  7. #1891
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Sheather and BOC were our Cat B rookies. I was aware the AFL had given some upgrade exemptions, though thought this was mostly for International players. It might be harder to argue COVID development hardship for an ex-academy player. But I agree there is a possibility that the club could turn a Cat B available spot into a Cat A available spot. It would mean Sheather can't play senior football until we have someone on the LTIL.
    Reckon those without contracts will need to wait and see if we have list spots

  8. #1892
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Sheather and BOC were our Cat B rookies. I was aware the AFL had given some upgrade exemptions, though thought this was mostly for International players. It might be harder to argue COVID development hardship for an ex-academy player. But I agree there is a possibility that the club could turn a Cat B available spot into a Cat A available spot. It would mean Sheather can't play senior football until we have someone on the LTIL.
    Maybe we can add Webster as a Cat B rookie if we want to keep the list size at 44, or perhaps we just cut our list size by one or two. I can't see how we can keep Naismith and Bell under the circumstances and maybe Ronke as well, unless Melican can find another club. Our list might be devoid of list cloggers by the end of the year, then what are we going to talk about?

  9. #1893
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Maybe we can add Webster as a Cat B rookie if we want to keep the list size at 44, or perhaps we just cut our list size by one or two. I can't see how we can keep Naismith and Bell under the circumstances and maybe Ronke as well, unless Melican can find another club. Our list might be devoid of list cloggers by the end of the year, then what are we going to talk about?
    Confused? So where does this leave the Francis trade given we have 3 picks in the draft. Something has to give.

  10. #1894
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Maybe we can add Webster as a Cat B rookie if we want to keep the list size at 44, or perhaps we just cut our list size by one or two. I can't see how we can keep Naismith and Bell under the circumstances and maybe Ronke as well, unless Melican can find another club. Our list might be devoid of list cloggers by the end of the year, then what are we going to talk about?
    I think it's highly likely that we add one Cat B rookie. Webster would be my choice but they may also think about Edwards or Anderson. My point was that, unless an exemption is applied for and received for Sheather, there are limited choices for filling available list spots if we want to retain the same total list size.

    I am working under the assumption that Melican can be found a new home if we bring in Francis. Otherwise my "one available senior spot" decreases to "no available senior spots" before any other changes are made to the list.

  11. #1895
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    Confused? So where does this leave the Francis trade given we have 3 picks in the draft. Something has to give.
    We have as many picks in the ND as we need to fill the list, but subject to a minimum of two. There is a normal minimum of three picks in the ND but a rookie elevation can count for one of those (but not more).

    I think it's clear that something will give. We're not going to have all (or possible any) of Bell, Ronke and Naismith on the list by the end of the list lodgement process. Unless another unexpected trade out pops up from somewhere, or Cunningham accepts an offer elsewhere. And even then, some of the band of three are likely to be moved out.

  12. #1896
    Reefer Madness
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in a yellow submarine
    Posts
    4,359
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Please no. NO.



    Please no. NO.
    Ok, that’s that then.

    I do agree on Crouch. He’s slow, can’t kick and can’t defend because he can’t cover the ground. The antithesis of where the game is heading. Even his contested v uncontested numbers are highly unflattering for a supposed inside bull. He seems to live on receipt of short handballs, before giving off another.

    As for Mathieson, I doubt it. I get the temptation but you’d only get him as an inside bull, and he’s not ‘that’ much of one. And he’s actually poor defensively, which is why he doesn’t crack a regular game.
    'Delicious' is a fun word to say

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