Rookie List

[Legs Akimbo]

What is the process with the Rookie list management/ When do they decide who to drop, promote, retain?

Can other teams draft our rookie list players this week and vice versa?

Please excuse my ignorance.

[BeeEmmAre]

Not 100% sure but I believe the Swans get first option to promote them onto the senior list and if they elect not to, they are open slather for the draft.
If not drafted, I think Sydney then gets first crack at keeping them on our rookie list before the rookie draft.

Again, not sure, I just think this is right.

[Snowy]

If they have had 2 years on the rookie list, they automatically go back in the draft. However you still have the option of listing them on your main list before that happens. Similar scenario with a bloke who's had 1 year on the list, you have the option of promoting him. You would be surprised if Vogels wasn't promoted given the number of retirements.

[Charlie]

Given our shortage of talls, I'd think Shaw and Grundy will get promoted as well.

[Benevolent Ert]

The club has a few options with most of the rookies

The first option is to promote to the senior list, I'd say Vogels is a certainty, and Shaw and Grundy outside chances - but I think those two will stay on the rookie list

Option two is retain them as rookies for a second year. Guy Campbell and Nick Potter are the only two not eligible for this option

Option 3 is give them the chop - they then become eligible for the National, pre-season and (if young enough) rookie draft.

If the club wanted to retain Nick Potter on the rookie list without promoting him they would have to delist him and redraft him in the rookie draft.

Guy Campbell will be too old to be on a rookie list in 2006, so he will need to be promoted or cut.

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by Snowy
You would be surprised if Vogels wasn't promoted given the number of retirements.

I thought he was already promoted due to injury?

[Benevolent Ert]

Vogels was temporarily promoted due to the long term injury to Stephen Doyle, and can be returned to the rookie list when Doyle is ready to play

What we are talking about is permanent promotion to the senior list

[Tuesday]

Cheers, Ert.
I hope he will be promoted permanently, then. He's certainly been a find. Will be interesting to see how season 2006 turns out for him.

[Benevolent Ert]

I think there's a fair chance of it happening - he certainly showed enough this year to prove he's worth persisting with

[Charlie]

Number crunching adds up to Grundy and Shaw most likely being promoted. Vogels is a certainty. You don't leave players who are knocking on the door of your best 22 off the list.

38 - Maxfield - Ball - Schauble - James - Saddington - Powell - Fixter (probable) - Sundqvist (probable) = 30.

Let's say we get a ruckman and perhaps Ted Richards through trade = 32.

Promotion of Vogels = 33.

Mandatory three picks (almost certainly won't take anymore) = 36.

The Swans then have the option of a) persevering with Fixter and Sundqvist when we lack key position depth, b) going through the PSD when we are unlikely to get a decent uncontracted player or c) taking more draft picks when we don't have any decent picks, and the draft is rubbish anyway.

It adds up to good news for Grundy and Shaw.

[bandwagon]

A reasonable scenario that, Charlie. But Roos was on record as stating (I think) Fixter was in our best 22 at the start of the year, so that may buy him one last chance.... In that case Shaw could be left on the rookie list and elevated if Doyle gets injured again.
Whadya reckon?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Most of our Rookies showed at least enough to be retained.
SHaw, Grundy and Vogels everyone has mentioned. Stefan Garubba should also be retained given the improvement he showed and his phenomenal speed.
Campbell is too old to be ratained and will probably be in the SANFL next year (interesting to see him in the grandfinal sprint).
Ed Clarke was a great disapointment.
Andrew Hayes may be worth another year.
Nick Potter has had his 2 years and I get the feeling that he's doing the best he can and it's not quite good enough (on the other hand the same was said for this years medalist).

So we'll probably promote Shaw and Vogels, at least retain Garubba and Grundy, probably retain Hayes.
So we have 5 new players on the Rookie list in 2006.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Ert
Guy Campbell will be too old to be on a rookie list in 2006, so he will need to be promoted or cut.

My gut reaction was that all rookies were required to get 2 years (regardless of how old they were when rookie-listed). However, a quick squiz at the collective bargaining agreement at www.aflpa.com.au is rather vague on whether there's any such protection.

Clause 18.7 certainly protects draftees, but "first year Player" (as used in that clause) isn't defined in the agreement (only "first year draft choice Player", which definitely excludes rookies). However, from the context of the CBA as a whole it seems likely that rookies aren't intended to be caught by this rule.

If there isn't such a protection, then it's pretty rough to have to shift your whole life with a guaranteed income of a princely $25,750, only to face the possibility of being thrown on the scrapheap 12 months later. Whether or not Guy Campbell has (or ever had) what it takes to succeed at AFL level, it would be hard not to feel sorry for him if this is how it pans out. It might not be workin' down the salt mines, but the power imbalance between AFL clubs and young kids chasing a dream is so marked, that the potential for exploitation is obvious.

[liz]

There used to be a rule that any rookie taken from interstate had to be given two years but they abolished that a while back, fearing that it might be cutting opportunities of some players to get a chance.

If Campbell had had to be guaranteed two years as a rookie, he simply would never have got the chance. My guess is that he would rather have had the one year to show what he had than never to have got the chance at all.

That said, with a number of spots opening up on the list and seemingly no desire to fill up spots with youngsters from the dregs of a thinnish draft, I wonder whether the Swans might consider putting Campbell on the senior list for a year. His form this year doesn't really warrant it, but he did get much better towards the end of the year and he is a mature body who can be thrown into the ruck.

I think it will depend on the club's success in finding another ruckman from the trading season, and also whether they have their eye on any potential Chris Bryans out there plying their wares at VFL or even country level. The Vogels story shows us that they do cast their net far wider than the traditional recruiting routes.

[SimonH]

On another topic: can anyone clarify exactly what Sydney's 'local boy' rookie allowance is, and in particular how it ties in with the AFL's usual 'maximum list size' rules?

The rules seem to be pretty clear that a team can't have more than 6 rookies, and complete team lists top out at 44 players: that's regular list, veterans, rookies, the lot. We had roughly 47 (of which 8 were rookies inc. Vogels) on our list in 2005. So what gives?