Perris Joins The Rookie List

[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!!!