How many do we delist

[chuckie]

The start of the season we had a list of 40 players, which included 2 veterans, fosdike and Kennelly. Unless we have some players that are eligible to go on the veterans list we are going to have to make at least 10 changes.
They will have to make a decision on Orreal and Murphy whether they are going to place them on our senior list or delist them and then hopefully redraft them. Pyke and Thornton can be put back onto the rookie list for one more year but more than likely they will be promoted to the senior list. If all 4 rookies mentioned are placed on our list then 10 players will have to go to give us our usual one traded player and 3 draft picks. Going by what Roos has said of late I think he plans on having more than 3 draft picks.

Retired.
Kennelly
Fosdike
O'loughlin

Probably
Barry
Crouch

Under the Pump
Hall
Ablett
Buchanan
Playfair
O'Dwyer
D O'Keefe
Laidlaw
Brabazon
Bevan
Schmit
Barlow

Several players under the pump are there because of constant injuries.

[Bas]

You forgot potential trades. Realistically, I think O'keefe will be traded because of his desire to go back to Melbourne.

Unfortunately, we don't really have any other trade material.

[Donners]

I don't think we can afford to cut many senior players when we're already going to have to replace six (doubt Hall will be there next year).

I don't see Barlow as under the pump if he can peform anywhere near as well as in the last game, but there are a few others who need to find a senior role.

[BSA5]

I made a huge post relating to this and Henry Playfair in another thread. I'll go through the basics again quickly.

Firstly, a note: when I say "delist", I will be referring to both retirements and the club dropping a player from the list.

Basically, Leo and Magic are veteran listed. However, Kirk, Crouch, and possibly Jude and Craig Bolton, O'Keefe, Goodes, etc, can also be veteran listed (depending on exactly how the rules work). If only Kirk and Crouch can be veteran listed, which I suspect is the case, then it is of no benefit in terms of senior list size to delist Crouch, as even if he's on the list he will be a veteran and not counted, and nobody else could take that spot. The only benefit would be an additional rookie spot, but we didn't use the full quota last year, so I doubt that will be of much use anyway. Surprising, I know, but there you go.

I think this year should be a year in which we promote a number of rookies and look to the rookie draft for a lot of our new talent. This is because firstly, it is a shallow draft. Apparently after the top 30 or so, it falls away quickly. Given talent in drafts tends to flatten out, the rookie draft is likely this year to be as successful as fourth or even 3rd round picks. Secondly, we can't really trade a bunch of players for high picks, as teams will be hesitant to give away picks with GC looming. Best chance is to try to upgrade 3rd rounders to 2nd rounders, that sort of thing. If we could get 3 picks in the first 2 rounds, or 4 picks inside the first 3 rounds, that would be a good result. An example I used in the other thread would be a hypothetical trade to Collingwood of Luke Ablett and a 4th rounder for a 2nd rounder. That would give us a first rounder, two second rounders and a third rounder. Perhaps the 3rd rounder and Buchanan for a high-ish second rounder could be done as well, something like that (to Carlton maybe?).

Anyway, let's say the Ablett trade, or something structurally similar, were to occur. We upgrade a fourth rounder to a second rounder, lose a senior player. We then have four high-moderate draft picks, and a gap before the low picks. If we were to set aside the four top picks as active picks, we could then use two of the lower picks on our Scholarship boys, recruiting them straight onto the senior list and negating the disadvantage of having a bunch of low picks. Elevating a few of the rookies would also help refresh the list without worrying about draft pick positions. If both Scholarship boys were put on the senior list, and all four rookies were elevated, that's a total of 10 list additions (this is a maximum, remember). With Leo, O'Loughlin, Fosdike and Kennelly definitely leaving, and the senior player from the hypothetical trade gone, that still leaves 5 more potential delistments.

We'll assume Crouch is staying for the moment, because as outlined at the start of this post, it makes no difference to list room whether he does or not. So for this particular scenario, we can delist between 0 and 5 players. Hall is a chance, as is Brabazon. MOD is under huge pressure. Playfair is probably a certainty, especially if Hall stays. I reckon that past what has already been noted, I can find maybe 2-3 players not deserving of another contract. If Hall goes, Playfair is 50-50, if he stays, Playfair is gone, and I think MOD will probably end up gone unless he can crack the team and impress a few times this year. If Brabazon fails for the rest of the year he's at risk as well. This being the case, we wouldn't elevate as many rookies, and would maybe put Bottin-Noonan on the rookie list rather than the senior list, to make up for less space on the list being created.

So yeah, I'd say 2-3 delistments on top of those already leaving.

And despite my efforts, this post is still way too long.

[liz]

Even without delistments - ie just looking at likely retirements - we are likely to cut quite deeply into the list. Reports are that this is a shallow draft, so there is limited value in stocking up on multiple players in the ND with lowly picks. Hopefully we'll pick up one or two gems with lower picks but you wouldn't want too many. The rookie draft has an advantage over the ND that you only have to commit one year to them to start with. You can have a close look and then decide whether you want to see more after a year is up.

With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised to see a number of the last places on the senior list taken up by rookie promotions.

We can keep one of Murphy or Orreal on the list as a 3rd year rookie, but only one. I think the process is that you delist them, but then pre-nominate them as a 3rd year rookie before the draft. Orreal is still ultra skinny and still has a huge amount to learn. But finding decent ruckmen is so hit and miss that I reckon he's shown enough for them to stick with him for a 3rd year. He was always going to be an ultra-long-term project given his build and his background. Chances of him being ready to play senior footy in 2010 are very slim though- especially ahead of Pyke, Currie, Jolly and even ruckman White.

On the other hand, from what I have seen of them, I think Murphy and Gilchrist are capable of playing a decent amount of senior footy next year, depending on opportunities. Gilchrist might be ready right now if it were not for how skinny he is. But give him an extra summer in the gym and he might not be far off. Malceski was very skinny still when he made his debut (and still is pretty slight).

So I'd not be surprised to see them promote Murphy and Gilchrist, and maybe Pyke and/or Thornton too. I'm a bit agnostic on Thornton at the moment. He's shown glimpses that he has the skill set to play regular senior footy but I am not sure what role they see him playing. He's not an on-baller, where with more experience he'll land up finding more of the ball. Can he become a medium sized defender? Or a run-with player in the Troy/Adam Selwood mode?

Some of the careers of the fringe players might be dependent on the injury prognosis of Playfair and Laidlaw. Are they ever going to get/stay in one piece long enough to get a run at being regular senior contributors? DOK seems to have emerged from his nightmare two years reasonably well and is now playing decent enough footballl to be safe for another year, you'd reckon.

[liz]

I
Basically, Leo and Magic are veteran listed. However, Kirk, Crouch, and possibly Jude and Craig Bolton, O'Keefe, Goodes, etc, can also be veteran listed (depending on exactly how the rules work)

A veteran must have played 10 seasons at the club and turn 30 during the year (season?) in which he is listed as a veteran. Which means that both Goodes and Jude qualify as veterans in 2010 if the club wants to list them as such. ROK is still a year too young, while CraigBolts hasn't been at the club long enough.

Crouch also qualifies, but clearly there is a marginal cost (in terms of list places) to keeping him on as we have three others who qualify (assuming Kirky stays on).

[BSA5]

A veteran must have played 10 seasons at the club and turn 30 during the year (season?) in which he is listed as a veteran. Which means that both Goodes and Jude qualify as veterans in 2010 if the club wants to list them as such. ROK is still a year too young, while CraigBolts hasn't been at the club long enough.

Crouch also qualifies, but clearly there is a marginal cost (in terms of list places) to keeping him on as we have three others who qualify (assuming Kirky stays on).

Ah, so the player doesn't have to be 30 when the lists are lodged, only turning 30 in the year applicable? Well that then makes whether Crouch stays on relevant, as before if he stayed he would have just been essentially a bonus player. And you're right about O'Keefe, was going off memory. Pity about C.Bolts as well.

So now if Crouch goes, that may save a player like MOD.

[Bas]

I'm a bit agnostic on Thornton at the moment. He's shown glimpses that he has the skill set to play regular senior footy but I am not sure what role they see him playing. He's not an on-baller, where with more experience he'll land up finding more of the ball. Can he become a medium sized defender? Or a run-with player in the Troy/Adam Selwood mode?
.

As Thornton has had a page dedicated to him in the Swans magazine I received today, he'll be in the list somewhere next year.

[UglyDuckling]

I think list management would be planning for goodes to go onto the vetrans list because only half of the pay is counted in the salary cap for vetrans. I heard earlier in the year that goodes's contract is heavily back ended so for only half of that to count next year would create some space in the cap and maybe help us try and lure a big name in.

Was there an extra spot on the lists that came in half way through the season to compensate for the gold coast draft concessions?

[liz]

Was there an extra spot on the lists that came in half way through the season to compensate for the gold coast draft concessions?

The rookie list was extended by two spots at the start of this year, with the ability to promote one to play senior footy from the midpoint of the season regardless of long-term injuries.

[UglyDuckling]

The rookie list was extended by two spots at the start of this year, with the ability to promote one to play senior footy from the midpoint of the season regardless of long-term injuries.

Oh ok thanks so it doesnt realy help with delistings at the end of the year

[Bob Neil]

A veteran must have played 10 seasons at the club and turn 30 during the year (season?) in which he is listed as a veteran. Which means that both Goodes and Jude qualify as veterans in 2010 if the club wants to list them as such. ROK is still a year too young, while CraigBolts hasn't been at the club long enough.

Crouch also qualifies, but clearly there is a marginal cost (in terms of list places) to keeping him on as we have three others who qualify (assuming Kirky stays on).

Let Crouch play on until he's wheelchair-bound.
Was suprisingly quick at times yesterday - thought he looked slow earlier on this year. Puts in.

[Bloody Hell]

I'm a bit agnostic on Thornton at the moment.

Can you explain this sentence please? I understand what the words mean, I just don't know what you mean!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I just assumed it meant she has her doubts. Am I missing something here?

[ShockOfHair]

Can you explain this sentence please? I understand what the words mean, I just don't know what you mean!

Liz hasn't found God in Thornton, though she might.


Didn't Roos say last week he expected to pick up between five and eight players in the draft this year?