2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[liz]

Liz, could we pick more than one player in the mid-season draft if one of our current players was to retire Grigg-style?

I am not entirely sure of the rules (unsurprisingly, since the AFL has an inclination to change all its rules and not always to publish them). I recall, many moons ago, when you had to put someone on the LTI in order to play a rookie, one club (St Kilda, I think, though I am not certain) came to an agreement with a player that they would retire mid-season, thus freeing up a spot on the main list. The AFL disallowed this move, amidst concerns from the Players' Association, that out-of-favour players could be arbitrarily pushed aside. The player wasn't injured to the point he was unable to play - ie he didn't meet the criteria required to place a player on the LTIL. He was just on the old side, no longer in the best 22, and headed for retirement (or delisting) at the end of the season.

I would imagine similar conditions apply here, though, as I say, I am not entirely sure. A club would need to demonstrate that the retiring player's injuries prevent them from continuing to play. Presumably that is what Richmond have had to demonstrate with Grigg. I haven't read anything that suggests the club thinks our current crop of older, injured players (eg Smith, Reg, Macca) can't return this season so it would be hard to argue that they meet my (imagined) criteria. Of course, if a player suffered a season-ending injury, such as rupturing an ACL or a bad leg break, there would be no need to retire them in order to draft another player at the mid-season draft. But it would need to be clearly season-ending, not merely long term. For example, the noises Hawthorn have made about the possibility of Tom Mitchell returning late this season, and news he is already about to resume playing, make it unclear whether they are able to replace him. They do, I think, already have at least one spot available relating to other player(s) who are confirmed as out for the season.

[barracuda]

I am not entirely sure of the rules (unsurprisingly, since the AFL has an inclination to change all its rules and not always to publish them). I recall, many moons ago, when you had to put someone on the LTI in order to play a rookie, one club (St Kilda, I think, though I am not certain) came to an agreement with a player that they would retire mid-season, thus freeing up a spot on the main list. The AFL disallowed this move, amidst concerns from the Players' Association, that out-of-favour players could be arbitrarily pushed aside. The player wasn't injured to the point he was unable to play - ie he didn't meet the criteria required to place a player on the LTIL. He was just on the old side, no longer in the best 22, and headed for retirement (or delisting) at the end of the season.

I would imagine similar conditions apply here, though, as I say, I am not entirely sure. A club would need to demonstrate that the retiring player's injuries prevent them from continuing to play. Presumably that is what Richmond have had to demonstrate with Grigg. I haven't read anything that suggests the club thinks our current crop of older, injured players (eg Smith, Reg, Macca) can't return this season so it would be hard to argue that they meet my (imagined) criteria. Of course, if a player suffered a season-ending injury, such as rupturing an ACL or a bad leg break, there would be no need to retire them in order to draft another player at the mid-season draft. But it would need to be clearly season-ending, not merely long term. For example, the noises Hawthorn have made about the possibility of Tom Mitchell returning late this season, and news he is already about to resume playing, make it unclear whether they are able to replace him. They do, I think, already have at least one spot available relating to other player(s) who are confirmed as out for the season.

I think they have freed up Smiths spot to upgrade James Bell, who is looking ready for a senior run. As I recall if Smith returns after round 14 Bell would then be returned to Cat b status. I am not sure they can use smiths spot to recruit in the mid year draft as he is still able to return after round 14. It might be different if he had an acl.

[Aprilbr]

I'm also intrigued about the impact of Boyd's sudden retirement on the Bulldog's salary cap. They AFL conceded nothing to us on Tippett and would not on Buddy if he suddenly retired. But then again we are not a Vic Club.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[barracuda]

I think they have freed up Smiths spot to upgrade James Bell, who is looking ready for a senior run. As I recall if Smith returns after round 14 Bell would then be returned to Cat b status. I am not sure they can use smiths spot to recruit in the mid year draft as he is still able to return after round 14. It might be different if he had an acl.

I did a bit more hunting and apparently there is now an inactive list which has the players who have retired or have a season ending injury. These players create the rookie spots for the mid year draft. The long term injury list is different and has players with six weeks or more of injury and this list enables cat b rookies to be upgraded and play seniors. Accordingly I think smiths move to the LTIL and not the inactive list only creates the opportunity to upgrade either bell or wicks from cat b.

[aardvark]

However, clubs can create additional list spots for the mid-season draft at any stage up until 12.00pm AEST on Monday, May 27 should they suffer a long-term injury or early retirement.

Indicative Mid-Season Rookie Draft order: Your club's picks - AFL.com.au

[caj23]

I'm also intrigued about the impact of Boyd's sudden retirement on the Bulldog's salary cap. They AFL conceded nothing to us on Tippett and would not on Buddy if he suddenly retired. But then again we are not a Vic Club.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Buddy was recruited as a free agent, we are locked in to the deal as otherwise teams could just offer long terms deals to free agents so that the existing club can't match, with with no intention of ever seeing them through.

Tippet is different again. Boyd has chosen to forgo the money due on the rest of his contract, whereas Kurt had to be paid out an agreed amount of his contract. That's the difference

[barracuda]

However, clubs can create additional list spots for the mid-season draft at any stage up until 12.00pm AEST on Monday, May 27 should they suffer a long-term injury or early retirement.

Indicative Mid-Season Rookie Draft order: Your club's picks - AFL.com.au

Yes, but I wanted to understand what long term injury meant regarding the draft. From what I have seen it means a season ending injury. For example Doedee from the crows is on the inactive list as his season is over. Players like smith who are expected to return later in the year go on a long term injury list. His spot is not available for the mid season draft but can be used to upgrade a cat b rookie. Hope that makes sense!

[liz]

Boyd's sudden retirements throws into relief my musings on whether players can be replaced via the mid-season draft if they are not suffering from an injury that prevents them playing. While mental health is more widely acknowledged and recognised as "real" than it was 10 or 20 years ago, there is still something of a distinction between a player not wanting to continue and not being physically able to. I presume the Dogs have already gotten clearance from the AFL that Boyd can be replaced, hence the timing of his announcement. However, it does somewhat muddy the waters around who can be replaced and for what reasons.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Agree
Interesting new baseline appears to be forming

[707]

Must be some value in the mid season draft given the sudden rash of retirements across the league.

[Markwebbos]

Boyd's sudden retirements throws into relief my musings on whether players can be replaced via the mid-season draft if they are not suffering from an injury that prevents them playing. While mental health is more widely acknowledged and recognised as "real" than it was 10 or 20 years ago, there is still something of a distinction between a player not wanting to continue and not being physically able to. I presume the Dogs have already gotten clearance from the AFL that Boyd can be replaced, hence the timing of his announcement. However, it does somewhat muddy the waters around who can be replaced and for what reasons.

Boyd may be physically able to continue, but mentally not. It's not a big jump from there to saying he can't continue for mental health reasons.

I presume when a player retires they have to come to some sort of agreement with the club about the remainder of their contract and what's "fair" for both parties. In the case of a player like Tippett it may be easier to argue that he got physically injured playing AFL through no fault of his own. This might be less clear-cut with a mental health related retirement (and with a 24 year old rather than someone Tippett's age, he may come good in the future, like Jonathon Marsh).

I did wonder if Kizza, Smith or Reg might not be in our plans for 2020 and therefore encouraged to retire before May 27?

[707]

Might be some value in the first 3 or 4 picks but reckon potential would be very diluted by a second round pick. We have one pick, I'm sure we'll use it, free hits are not to be passed up. Need more ex basketballers and Irish lads!

[Legs Akimbo]

Buddy wasn't the answer

https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/05/18/how-manchester-city-came-to-dominate-the-premier-league?frsc=dg%7Ce

OOnly problem is I'm unsure what the question was...

[bloodspirit]

The difference between Buddy and Boyd is that one was a restricted free agent and the other a trade deal.

Here are a couple of links to articles about prospects for the mid-season draft:

Clubs circle 205cm, 103kg former college basketballer - AFL.com.au

Swans and Power among five clubs interested in ex-Docker - AFL.com.au

[barry]

The difference between Buddy and Boyd is that one was a restricted free agent and the other a trade deal.

I can see the difference, but the lucrative offer by the fairypups would have been a big influence in him seeking a trade to start with. And GWS may have had the option of matching it to keep him.