2017 trading, drafting, list management

[mattybloods]

If true our TPP is not as tight as it's made out to be.

So should we recruit Fyfe AND Martin or just Fyfe?

[Boddo]

So should we recruit Fyfe AND Martin or just Fyfe?

IMO no. They would be great but going forward imo it's key forward depth we lack. I'd rather keep Reid n go to the draft this year looking at a key forward in say Balta, Sutherland, Hayes as suggested by knightmare in his ESPN column or if lucky enough n Brander slides pick him up and then next year hopefully Blakey picks us. If we were to recruit someone from another club again as suggested by nightmare I'd go Johannisen, gives us pace and a HBF we need n then it releases mills to the midfield permanently.

[bloodspirit]

Cat A - Edwards, Fox, Melican, Pink & Ronke
Cat B - Fisher, Murray & O'Riordan

Just to build on this excellent answer, from the AFLPA:

The rookie list will remain, but Category-A rookies will be available for senior selection and paid at an increased rate. By 2018, rookies will be paid up to 33% more than rookies were paid in 2016. Clubs must have a list of 44 players (primary and Category-A rookies), with between 38 and 40 primary listed players and a maximum of six Category-A rookies. Combining primary-listed players (38-40), Category-A rookies (4-6) and Category-B rookies (0-3), clubs can have no more than 47 on their list.

[Boddo]

Just to build on this excellent answer, from the AFLPA:

The rookie list will remain, but Category-A rookies will be available for senior selection and paid at an increased rate. By 2018, rookies will be paid up to 33% more than rookies were paid in 2016. Clubs must have a list of 44 players (primary and Category-A rookies), with between 38 and 40 primary listed players and a maximum of six Category-A rookies. Combining primary-listed players (38-40), Category-A rookies (4-6) and Category-B rookies (0-3), clubs can have no more than 47 on their list.

They basically have done exactly what they said they were going to do n that's scrap the rookie list. It's only a rookie list by name now for cat A. They are basically underpaid national draft picks.

[Meg]

They basically have done exactly what they said they were going to do n that's scrap the rookie list. It's only a rookie list by name now for cat A. They are basically underpaid national draft picks.

Is there a difference in the initial mandatory contract length between draft (two years) and rookie players? Is the first rookie contract only one year? I'm not sure.

[Boddo]

Is there a difference in the initial mandatory contract length between draft (two years) and rookie players? Is the first rookie contract only one year? I'm not sure.

From my understanding it's one year but with provisions to increase as outlined here

Rookie list - Wikipedia

See this is where it's wrong that their not main listed players as they can't be traded via the rookie list so apart from being ripped off they have no real bargaining power. It's rediculous because the reserves were abolished thus the need to reduce lists because the old list of 52 wasn't required now we've gone full circle back to reserves sides and increased lists of up to 47 but the bottom of the list players have not gone back to pay parity.

[ernie koala]

Zac still makes a fair few costly errors despite all his great work

Therefore do we need jones at all costs ?

Yes... He makes mistakes primarily because of his desire to take on the game and break lines, no matter what stage the game is at...That's gold for any team.

He also has plenty of mongrel, and general footy hardness...He's a beauty and, IMO, should be re signed as an absolute priority.

[dimelb]

Here is a quote from the AFLPA: "While not every player in the competition will have an uplift clause that will make them eligible for the increase to total player payments, every player will benefit financially from this CBA. Players with an uplift clause will automatically receive an increase to their salaries" See more here: CBA ? Frequently Asked Questions - AFL Players.

Is "uplift clause" the same as Boddo's "increase clause"? Or are they talking about something else?

[Boddo]

Is "uplift clause" the same as Boddo's "increase clause"? Or are they talking about something else?

Yes so if players had had a clause signed into their contract that their contract will increase with the corresponding percentage amount in the new cba they will get a pay rise of 20%. Buddy did not have this in his contract as has been reported several times.

So for example it was reported several times that Sinclair is on 400k per year if he has the clause in his contract he is on 480k now

[707]

At a guess, you would think that higher profile players who signed long term would have the % clause in their contracts but lesser players like Sinclair may have had a fixed amount for each year. But that's purely a guess on the basis that lesser players are thankful for the contract!

Buddy of course was a special case to get to $10mill total over 9 years. Given the much bigger than expected initial 20%, I think we are ahead of where we expected to be with Buddy's money.

The extra $1mill windfall over what clubs were allowed to budget for this season means that it is possible to rejig the distribution of future years money into this year or as is allowed, drag all or part of the extra into next year. Reckon all clubs are very pleased with the CBA outcome.

Rookie contracts are only one year, ND contracts are two year minimum. Good that now you don't need to upgrade Cat A rookies, you can just play them.

[Meg]

Rookie contracts are only one year, ND contracts are two year minimum. Good that now you don't need to upgrade Cat A rookies, you can just play them.

So clubs can still take a speculative punt on a player with potential but not proven ability through the rookie list, knowing they can delist after one year. However if potential is fulfilled, the rookie can play senior matches and win a subsequent senior contract. Plus rookies are getting a healthy salary increase. Sounds like a win-win.

[Boddo]

So clubs can still take a speculative punt on a player with potential but not proven ability through the rookie list, knowing they can delist after one year. However if potential is fulfilled, the rookie can play senior matches and win a subsequent senior contract. Plus rookies are getting a healthy salary increase. Sounds like a win-win.

It's an improvement. If they were part of the ND your scenario is exactly the same. They are basically in the same situation as players picked in the last round of the draft except they get paid less. They live, train etc exactly the same but get paid less. They are rookies only by name.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Could florent next year do as well if not better then Zac jones in the same role

Florent is deceptively fast - his chases this year surprised me because he looks so composed like jake Lloyd in his recruitment video yet he has some good speed

Florent has an amazing lateral vision and great penetrating kick

Florent reminds me of a bob Murphy type player

Zac still makes a fair few costly errors despite all his great work

Therefore do we need jones at all costs ?

I think we do because we need more players with his attributes. Mitchell we could afford to lose because we were so slow. Jones has leg speed and a bit of $&@? I've always thought that his his disposal skills were good. He makes the occasional mistake because he is a risk taker who takes the game on. His abilities are exactly what we are lacking.

[Markwebbos]

I think we do because we need more players with his attributes. Mitchell we could afford to lose because we were so slow. Jones has leg speed and a bit of $&@? I've always thought that his his disposal skills were good. He makes the occasional mistake because he is a risk taker who takes the game on. His abilities are exactly what we are lacking.

We need Jones and Florent

[707]

It's an improvement. If they were part of the ND your scenario is exactly the same. They are basically in the same situation as players picked in the last round of the draft except they get paid less. They live, train etc exactly the same but get paid less. They are rookies only by name.

Not correct, they are not in the same situation. Players picked in the last round of the ND get a two year contract, rookies only get a one year contract.

It's why teams pass with late picks in the ND where they could have grabbed a player they want but who then went before their first pick in the RD a couple of days later. There is enough doubt surrounding late picks that you don't want to be paying them more $ for two years when you can see what they've got for less $ for just one year.

Have I read your post correctly Boddo?

- - - Updated - - -

I think we do because we need more players with his attributes. Mitchell we could afford to lose because we were so slow. Jones has leg speed and a bit of $&@? I've always thought that his his disposal skills were good. He makes the occasional mistake because he is a risk taker who takes the game on. His abilities are exactly what we are lacking.

Leo Barry'ish?