2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Auntie.Gerald]

smart by the swans
make it look like to the fans and clubs that everything is the long way round for the swans
nothing easy

too many people still think the swans get it easy

[dejavoodoo44]

One, plus the possibility of adding another by placing Naismith on the inactive list. I suspect they'll hold off on that latter move for a while - to give the opportunity to Sheather or BOC to play senior footy, or to take a player in the mid-season draft.

I don't suppose our verified list is published somewhere? With definitive information on who's on the main list, who's a cat A and who's a cat B?

[liz]

I don't suppose our verified list is published somewhere? With definitive information on who's on the main list, who's a cat A and who's a cat B?

Not that I know of (I haven't gone looking) but it's not too hard to work out (in all likelihood).

BOC and Sheather are Cat B rookies. (One could have been promoted but it would be illogical for the club to do so as it gives them less list flexibility. The only reason to have done so was if they wanted to add another Cat B rookie.)

McLean, Fox, Amartey, Taylor and Wicks are Cat A rookies. (One could have been promoted to the senior list, but again, there was no rationale for doing so as none had to be promoted this year, and it makes no difference to their eligibility to play senior footy.)

The rest (36) are on the main list.

I can't think of any logical reason why it should be any different.

[rb4x]

Not that I know of (I haven't gone looking) but it's not too hard to work out (in all likelihood).

BOC and Sheather are Cat B rookies. (One could have been promoted but it would be illogical for the club to do so as it gives them less list flexibility. The only reason to have done so was if they wanted to add another Cat B rookie.)

McLean, Fox, Amartey, Taylor and Wicks are Cat A rookies. (One could have been promoted to the senior list, but again, there was no rationale for doing so as none had to be promoted this year, and it makes no difference to their eligibility to play senior footy.)

The rest (36) are on the main list.

I can't think of any logical reason why it should be any different.

Some lists I have seen have MacAndrew instead of Amartey as a Cat A rookie.

[liz]

Some lists I have seen have MacAndrew instead of Amartey as a Cat A rookie.

Sorry, you're right. I forgot about McAndrew. He is a rookie, which means someone else must be on the senior list, and I think that is Amartey. (Serves me right for not counting "my" senior list properly.)

[dejavoodoo44]

Sorry, you're right. I forgot about McAndrew. He is a rookie, which means someone else must be on the senior list, and I think that is Amartey. (Serves me right for not counting "my" senior list properly.)

I was under the impression that Wicks signing recently for a couple of years, meant that he was now on the senior list. But that may have been according to my idea of what is just, rather than any concrete information.

[liz]

I was under the impression that Wicks signing recently for a couple of years, meant that he was now on the senior list. But that may have been according to my idea of what is just, rather than any concrete information.

I don't think a club is obliged to promote someone to the senior list just because they give them a new (multi-year) contract. But he'll need to be promoted next year as he will have spent the maximum time on the rookie list (more than the normal maximum). It is pretty much immaterial whether he's on the senior list or rookie list, other than whether the first $80k of his salary counts under the cap or not. I don't see why a club would elect for something to be counted under the cap that they didn't need to.

I can't recall if McLean was given a new one or two year contract. If we want to keep him, he'll need to be promoted next year too.

I have no idea why the AFL doesn't just abolish the whole Cat A rookie list and merge it with the senior list. There is no reason (that I can think of) to keep them separate. You can always give clubs the option of just offering one year initial contracts to players taken later in the draft. It would mean journalists wouldn't have to write articles each year on how stupid it is that the likes of Lewis Taylor and Jared Polec are on rookie lists.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I don't think a club is obliged to promote someone to the senior list just because they give them a new (multi-year) contract. But he'll need to be promoted next year as he will have spent the maximum time on the rookie list (more than the normal maximum). It is pretty much immaterial whether he's on the senior list or rookie list, other than whether the first $80k of his salary counts under the cap or not. I don't see why a club would elect for something to be counted under the cap that they didn't need to.

I can't recall if McLean was given a new one or two year contract. If we want to keep him, he'll need to be promoted next year too.

I have no idea why the AFL doesn't just abolish the whole Cat A rookie list and merge it with the senior list. There is no reason (that I can think of) to keep them separate. You can always give clubs the option of just offering one year initial contracts to players taken later in the draft. It would mean journalists wouldn't have to write articles each year on how stupid it is that the likes of Lewis Taylor and Jared Polec are on rookie lists.

McLean got two (in my view well deserved) years

[Ludwig]

Draft Guru website has the following list for the Swans: https://www.draftguru.com.au/lists/2022/sydney

I would give some credence to the list solely because they might have access to the actual list lodgements, which we do not.

Total list size is 43 players:
37 senior list players
Cat A (5) : Taylor, McLean, Fox, Wicks, McAndrew
Cat B : BOC

[Thunder Shaker]

Peter Ladhams, Angus Sheldrick, Matthew Roberts, Corey Warner and Lachlan Rankin don't have numbers yet. Nor does Paddy McCartin, assuming we add him to the list.

Unallocated numbers are 2, 15, 19, 29, 34, 37, 39, 40. I expect 37 will remain unallocated for the time being.

Chad Warner has number 1. Corey Warner gets number 2.
Tom McCartin has number 30. Paddy McCartin gets 29 (he's older). Paddy Mac had number 32 at St Kilda.

At least that's how I would allocate these numbers.

Ladhams had number 38 at Port Adelaide, so he could get number 39.

As for the other draftees, I don't know - maybe Sheldrick gets the coveted number 34, Roberts gets 15 and Rankin gets 19?

[liz]

Chad Warner has number 1. Corey Warner gets number 2.

Why? I daresay they'll spend a lot of time together regardless. Why intensify that in the locker room. I'd stick Corey as far away from Chad as possible.

I noticed that Corey wore number 34 for WA in the u19 championships, so maybe he'd like to reoccupy that number.

[rb4x]

Draft Guru website has the following list for the Swans: https://www.draftguru.com.au/lists/2022/sydney

I would give some credence to the list solely because they might have access to the actual list lodgements, which we do not.

Total list size is 43 players:
37 senior list players
Cat A (5) : Taylor, McLean, Fox, Wicks, McAndrew
Cat B : BOC

Sheather is definitely a Cat B unless he was put on the Senior list when he was extended. I would doubt that.

[bloodspirit]

Sheather is definitely a Cat B unless he was put on the Senior list when he was extended. I would doubt that.

Sheather may well have been promoted to the senior list because, unlike Cat A rookies, I don't think Cat B rookies are available for senior selection.

[bloodspirit]

Draft Guru website has the following list for the Swans: https://www.draftguru.com.au/lists/2022/sydney

I would give some credence to the list solely because they might have access to the actual list lodgements, which we do not.

Total list size is 43 players:
37 senior list players
Cat A (5) : Taylor, McLean, Fox, Wicks, McAndrew
Cat B : BOC

If that is right, does that mean our only list spot is for a Cat B rookie until Naismith is put on the long term injury list?

[lwjoyner]

cant see when sheather was prompted. i have 36 on main list with seven on rookie (bad name not with so many different types of rookies) leaves us with 43 and one spot free unless naismith put on long term injry list which i think should happen