2023 List Management

[BRS328]

Rb4x
I would normally agree with you but obviously all clubs use this which is an obvious loophole. It is up to the AFL to address this.
I am quite sure Sam has no plans to retire, and who could blame him. He is a professional footballer and more importantly from the Swans perspective can play when he is not injured

[liz]

The purpose of the rookie draft was to give rookies (newbies) a chance to get onto an AFL list with less risk to the club taking the chance and drafting them as they could be given a one year contract at a lower base than the AFL draft. Placing Sam Reid on the rookie list is an abuse of this process in my opinion as he is the most senior player an the Swans list. If they do this I will be extremely disappointed in the Swans for gaming the system. Sam should either be retained on the senior list or given the opportunity to retire.

You're describing a conception of the rookie list that hasn't existed for many years.

Your concerns also aren't really relevant. The Swans have clearly determined that Reid is more valuable on the list next year than an extra 18 year old. Whether he is on the rookie list or senior list doesn't affect how many overall list spots we have, and therefore how many new players we take. I imagine the main reason for shifting him to the rookie list is to get salary cap relief. If he stays on the senior list, all his salary is counted in the cap. If he is moved to the rookie list, the first $90k (or thereabouts) sits outside the cap.

There are some other minor benefits - like allowing us to carry one extra pick into the draft to contribute points to matching a bid on Cleary, but that doesn't appear to be relevant this year unless the club has plans to trade back into the early parts of this year with some future picks.

[BRS328]

Thank you Liz for this explanation.
My understanding now is while Sam will cost the Swans a rookie draft pick, no other club has access to him via the rookie draft

[liz]

Thank you Liz for this explanation.
My understanding now is while Sam will cost the Swans a rookie draft pick, no other club has access to him via the rookie draft

No, every club now has access to him via the draft. Not just the rookie draft. To the best of my knowledge, players can't just nominate for the rookie draft. (They can just nominate for the PSD, but PSD picks go onto a senior list.)

But the chances of another club doing this are remote. Every club uses this ruse to move players around, and they will respect other clubs doing the same.

More to the point, if another club did see value in Reid and wanted to lure him to the club, they'd pick up the phone, talk to his agent, and maybe talk to him about joining them as a delisted free agent. They would have to place him on the senior list. If we went undrafted (ie if Sydney changed their minds about taking him in the rookie draft) he could join another club's rookie list as a pre-season supplementary selection (PSS). I have lost track of whether players (who've already been on a list) can skip the draft and go straight to the PSS. I think originally this was not the case but the AFL might have changed the rules on this. Paddy McCartin joined us as a PSS: I can't recall if he did/had to nominate for the drafts beforehand.

[lwjoyner]

get a look at draft cnetrals 2023 draft guide. mine arrived by email this morning. great insight to draftees

[stevoswan]

The purpose of the rookie draft was to give rookies (newbies) a chance to get onto an AFL list with less risk to the club taking the chance and drafting them as they could be given a one year contract at a lower base than the AFL draft. Placing Sam Reid on the rookie list is an abuse of this process in my opinion as he is the most senior player an the Swans list. If they do this I will be extremely disappointed in the Swans for gaming the system. Sam should either be retained on the senior list or given the opportunity to retire.

If he wanted to retire, he would just retire....surely.

[Auntie.Gerald]

sometimes it depends on the quality of the bottle of red on a Saturday night ? lol

[Mark26]

I for one am glad we are giving Reid another year. If it's his 'healthy' year, he could offer us a lot up front.

[Blood Fever]

It would be good if we could aim for him to play 10-12 games and stay fit. No doubt about his quality. Fingers crossed for him to be sound and kick straight when he plays. Amartey is also suspect fitness wise.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I suspect just like when Reid went missing playing the back up role to Hickey it hurt us in the GF 2022

It would be similar if McLean went down in 2024 for a significant finals game or period of games

To have both as options is smart to get thru 2024

[Blood Fever]

Not that it would have made a difference, it still bothers me that we played Reid in 2022 Gf. Same with 2016 GF when we played McVeigh and Mills when they weren't quite right. Should have learnt from that.

[Maltopia]

Re Reid, there was a situation about three years ago, where a team delisted a player with the intent of re-signing him via rookie draft (was it a Greenwood?). GC (I think) swooped in and offered him a two year contract which he accepted.

Not likely to happen here with Reid, but there is always a small risk.

[BRS328]

Yes it was Greenwood, and he was a Gold Coast player, and they delisted him with a promise of a spot on the rookie list on the same contract money. It was North who jumped in and took him. Ironically he turned out to be a failure at North

[sharp9]

But that was a bit different in that Greenwood was unhappy about the situation IIRC. So, I think North knew that would be OK to go there.

[111431]

Not that it would have made a difference, it still bothers me that we played Reid in 2022 Gf. Same with 2016 GF when we played McVeigh and Mills when they weren't quite right. Should have learnt from that.

I fully agree. I hope we have learnt