2017 trading, drafting, list management

[Meg]

2017 trading, drafting, list management

Re Ludwig?s question of redrafting a Cat B rookie:

The AFL doesn?t appear to have released an update of its rules since May 2016 (see link below).

Rookie list players are covered in Clause 10 pp 57-64. I can?t see that explicitly answers the question but Clause 10.1(b) sets out the Rookie Cat B eligibility requirements and I would think each of them is cancelled out once a player has been on a club?s list , in any capacity.

So logically I think a player can?t be drafted a second time as a Cat B rookie.

[Meg]

2017 trading, drafting, list management

Don?t understand why my post has gone to muck!

Ps I?ve removed the link to the rules and voila! My post is now legible!

So if you want to read the May 2016 rules to which I referred, search for

www.afl.com.au/policies and click on the AFL Rules link.

[Meg]

2017 trading, drafting, list management

And finally Ludwig?s last question re number of 3rd year rookies -

See p.61 Clause 10.10 of the AFL Rules (caveat, these are dated May 2016), reproduced below. I read this to mean there is not a limit on number of 3rd year rookies, subject to the club meeting the other rookie rules.

10.10 Retention of Rookie List Players

(a) A Club may retain a Player on its Rookie List for a second season provided it nominates such Player or Players using Form 32, prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1(a) and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a second season.

(b) A Club may retain a Player on its Rookie List for a third season provided it nominates such Player or Players using Form 32 prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1(a) and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a third season. If a Player is retained under this Rule 10.10, any amount he is paid in excess of the 1st year third round draft selection Player payment will be included in the Club?s Total Player Payments.

(c) A Club may retain a Player included on a Club?s Rookie List under Rule 10.5(a)(i) and (ii) for a third season, using Form 32, provided it nominates such Player prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1 and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a third season. 1

[Meg]

I know we have had this discussion in the past on RWO and we should get a definitive answer next year when Blakey Jnr becomes eligible for the draft. Further, as his situation (eligible via Swans academy and two F/S clubs) will be unique I don?t rule out a rewrite of AFL rules next year to cover this scenario.

However, I remain of the view that under the current rules should the Swans nominate Blakey as an academy pick this would take priority over any F/S nomination. I base this on the fact that the F/S nomination explicitly refers to player consent (as shown by his signature on the nomination form) but there is no such explicit mention in regard to academy nominations.

There is a draft nomination form 39A which has to be completed for both academy and F/S nominations. I can?t access this from a tablet but if someone is interested enough to try from a desk top, it may become clearer (that is, does a player have to sign consent to an academy nomination). I think these forms can be found at: www.nabafldraftnom.com.au

Ludwig, now I have had a go at answering all your questions, if you have access to a non-mobile computing source how about you see if you can access the form 39A I refer to above.

My computer went to electronic heaven months ago and I haven?t go around to replacing it.

[707]

Ok, so you can delist a contracted player but you still have his contract money in your salary cap. Who are you delisting Ludwig? :-)

Shows how slow Trade Week/Fortnight is when we are looking at these questions!

[chuckie]

Adam Ramanauskas player manager said on Melbourne radio 927 this morning watch out for the Swans they have been sitting back nice and quiet but are really into getting Jack Watts and some other players no names mentioned.

[YvonneH]

Adam Ramanauskas player manager said on Melbourne radio 927 this morning watch out for the Swans they have been sitting back nice and quiet but are really into getting Jack Watts and some other players no names mentioned.

How much credibility do we put in rumours from the media (although Adam Ramanauskas is not technically media) aout us?

[RogueSwan]

How much credibility do we put in rumours from the media (although Adam Ramanauskas is not technically media) aout us?

Ramanauskas is just using the Akermanis playbook by name dropping the Swans as an interested club.

[111431]

How much credibility do we put in rumours from the media (although Adam Ramanauskas is not technically media) aout us?

he is a player agent as his main occupation

[Markwebbos]

Swans have got a reputation as masters of the behind the scenes deal, largely due to Buddy. But my recollection is he initiated that move not us.

[Markwebbos]

I?m secretly hoping that Horse and Dew are coming to an arrangement over Lynch.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I?m secretly hoping that Horse and Dew are coming to an arrangement over Lynch.

Not sure why people think that Dew is a Swans plant. Dew won't be putting his head on the chopping block for us. He's got a job to do and won't (and shouldn't) do anything that is detrimental to GCS.

[Ludwig]

Thanks Meg for researching those rules, as well a the others who have chipped in.

It seems that it is quite easy to manage the rookie list now and get the number of ND and rookie picks just the way you want them. I can see us not wanting to use a 3rd round pick in the 50s unless we feel there is a player worth a 2 year contract as compared to taking a player in the rookie draft with a 1 year contract. There is some consideration as to planning rookie elevations not only for this year but for next year as well.

I was thinking about the possibility of rookie elevations for more than just Melican, with COR, Murray and Fisher all in the picture. There are a number of scenarios where this may make sense, especially if we trade out a player, but don't want to use our 3rd rounder. It's also possible to use it to trade up a bit in this draft or something in next year's draft.

I figure we have 5 senior players that could be delisted without fear that they will be drafted by another club: Rose, Foote, Johnson, McVeigh and Tippett. We can redraft them as rookies to fulfill the money part of the contract and they would still be eligible to play, just like a primary list player. It's an easy way to make space for an extra ND pick, if that's what we were after. It might make trading for 3rd round picks more attractive in strong draft years, like last year or what is projected for next.

It would seem that an effective player swap trade could be orchestrated even after the trade period ends by each club in the trade delisting their player in the trade, hence making them DFAs, and then having the players signing with the other club. But it seems that the AFL would have to agree and might not allow it if it looks like an evasion of the rules, but who knows.

As for trades this year, I have already said that we should try to trade out a ruckman, preferably Tippett, but Sinclair or Naismith would do. Towers, Cunningham, Marsh and Robinson might have trade value and trades should be explored for them. I have all of them just outside my projected best 22 for next year. I know it's good to have depth, but it's possible to have too much depth and it's not fair for players after several years at a club to find themselves not playing regular senior footy if opportunities exist at other clubs. If they don't play senior footy, their trade value drops.

We are now sitting with a 40 man player list and can reasonably expect to add at least 2 good prospects with our first 2 ND picks this year. Maybe Foote and Rose are at the bottom of the prospects given that they have already had a few chances at senior level and haven't done that well, but it's not like they are that far off, like Hiscox was, for example. I think this is a bit too much depth and we should try to move on a couple of players if possible, opening more opportunities for our rookies to get a game.

I definitely think we should pass on Watts, even if we have the opportunity to get him. The priority should be giving opportunities to players already on our list so we don't lose good players for nothing, like Biggs and Membrey.

[Nico]

I didn't class Membrey as a good player for us. He has shown at the Saints that he can kick goals against lesser sides, but against better sides he might as well been drinking beers with the fans in the outer.

[707]

I didn't class Membrey as a good player for us. He has shown at the Saints that he can kick goals against lesser sides, but against better sides he might as well been drinking beers with the fans in the outer.

Both have shown to be good role players, or good ordinary players as some like to say, who left for more playing opportunity. Aliir & Dawson are the obvious players still in the NEAFL that probably should be at senior level.

Hard to know if our recruiters are having a lazy 10 days or are actually planning a raid. In the fullness of time .....

I see Essendon & Melbourne have finally got a trade come in. Stringer is the interesting one, Dogs vs Dodoro, we watch with interest now Essendon have traded out pick 11 that Dogs wanted. Bit like Hawks who traded out 14 last year and in the process annoyed the Suns who saw it as part of the O'Meara deal.