List Mgmt. 2022 Trade & List Management Thread III

[giantroo]

Spoiler: Confirmed Trades

Spoiler: 2022 Draft Pick Order

AFL Draft - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

www.afl.com.au

Spoiler: 2023 Draft Pick Order

Spoiler: Key dates

AFL Trade Period Key Dates - AFL.com.au

When does Free Agency begin? How long does the Trade Period go for? Find out on AFL.com.au.

www.afl.com.au

Key Dates:

Friday 07 October at 5.00pm
Close of AFL Restricted Free Agency Offer and Unrestricted Free Agency Period.

Monday 10 October
NAB AFL Draft Nominations open (9am)
AFL Restricted Free Agency Matching Offer 3 Day Period Ends (5pm)

Wednesday 12 October at 7.30pm
AFL Trade Period closes – players and selections


Thursday 03 November at 9.00am
AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) commences

Wednesday 09 November at 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) closes

Friday 11 November at 9.00am

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) commences

Tuesday 15 November by 5.00pm

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) closes
AFL Trade Period closes – selections only

Monday 21 November by 3.00pm

NAB AFL Draft Nominations close

Monday 28 November at 7.10pm

2022 NAB AFL Draft Round One (Venue TBC)

Father/Son, Academy & NGA and Players Bidding opens.

Tuesday 29 November

AFL Trade Period – selections only (5.45pm to 6.30pm)

2022 NAB AFL National Draft Round two until completion (7pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period opens (10pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences (10pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period closes (11pm)

AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes (11pm)

Wednesday 30 November

NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft (3pm, online)
NAB AFL Rookie Draft (3.20pm, online)

Thursday 01 December by 4.00pm

Final AFL Club List Lodgement

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Name	Years Service	Status
Aaron Hall​	5​	Non-Free Agent​
Aiden Bonar​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Ben McKay​	8​	Restricted Free Agent​
Charlie Comben​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Flynn Perez​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
​	​	​
Jack Mahony​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Jack Ziebell​	15​	Unrestricted Free Agent​
Jackson Archer​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Jacob Edwards​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Josh Goater​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Lachie Young​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Luke Davies-Uniacke​	6​	Non-Free Agent​
Miller Bergman​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Phoenix Spicer​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Todd Goldstein​	17​	Unrestricted Free Agent​

The above is our OOC players in 2023. We need flexibility not only to hit the draft with the two first rounders and third rounder but then potentially Choppy Jr as a father/son and any other free agency or trade moves we may make. It's possible we need 6 main list spots for next year, at least 5. That's not to mention we will need to elevate Edwards to the senior list on the assumption he will be continuing with us.

Assuming Ziebell and Hall retire, likely Goldstein that's three down but if we delisted Mahony and Spicer this year to draft a late kid or two in the 40's then you have to look at that list and figure out who would also have to make way to build our list again. Immediately you could suggest Bonar and Young but you never know what can happen in Bonar gets a healthy run under Clarkson and if Young improves as much as he did in 2022 he isn't going anywhere. That's not to mention the club would still hope to get something out of Mahony and Spicer under new tutelage, it's easy to forget all of our draft crop of the last three years have been through some real upheaval. The other problem is, we've been garbage for an extended period now but when you focus on youth you're kind of obliged to seek the best from them. The main point is if we have more players contracted from this draft our rookie picks look good for 2023 but to bring in what we need we're writing off other guys. It's not a matter of pick 40 and 43 being better than Spicer/Mahony, it's a matter of them being better than Archer/Bergman/Perez etc.

The trade yesterday, in isolation, looks garbage (a lot of our recent trading hasn't looked great but this is the one causing concern right now) but it was a trade of necessity. We may well have traded an unusable pick to become another one but many clubs aren't drafting deep this year. It had to go yesterday, this was the best offer we had. It's become a minor asset for 2023, just like the potential freed up list spots by not delisting and rookieing guys already on our list. The 2022 haul will end up two traded in players, four national draft, four rookie draft. It's a fair influx, one that doesn't really lead to hitting and hoping on third rounders.

 

[Jimmac31]

Yes let's do that, I will inform the relevant clubs today via a well worded email.

I will report back with their thoughts....

Was just an opinion. And that specific comment I known it is not possible with any club. And that a big footy board doesn't complete the trade.

Do I not comment a trade opinion on a trade thread?

Anyway, I did agree reading some benefits discussed a couple of weeks ago with pick 23 for ~pick 20 (2022). We get an extra year development into a kid. 40 + 43 would ideally have been put towards a future 2nd. It hasn't, so hopefully we can get something to improve our club next year.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Psicosis]

We are the only team that goes into the draft committed to maxing out our primary list which subsequently devalues our picks. It's a mistake that no other club has made and was the reason we had to dump a pick for stuff all yesterday.

The Giants have four picks – No.1, 12, 18 and 19 – inside the first 20 selections and are likely to use five picks in total, while the Bombers, Eagles and Hawks are all expected to use between four and five picks. The Kangaroos, Dockers and Blues will take four picks to the draft

Brisbane has father-son pair Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher coming through the door and is likely to use three or four picks across the draft, while St Kilda, Sydney, Collingwood and the Western Bulldogs are all expected to use three selections.

Geelong could use two or three picks, while Adelaide, Melbourne, Port Adelaide and Richmond look most likely to use only two picks. Gold Coast has pick No.5 and could just use that selection or potentially one more pick.

AFL rules force clubs to use three picks at the national draft but these spots can also be filled by upgraded rookies or by clubs re-selecting delisted players if they choose.

How many picks your club is set to use at the 2022 NAB AFL Draft

GWS is expected to be the most active at the 2022 draft, while the likes of Gold Coast, Melbourne and Richmond are tipped to use only a handful of picks

www.afl.com.au

NORTH MELBOURNE

Arrivals: Griffin Logue (traded/Fremantle), Darcy Tucker (traded/Fremantle)

Departures: Jed Anderson (delisted), Atu Bosenavulagi (delisted), Kyron Hayden (delisted), Jason Horne-Francis (traded/Port Adelaide), Tom Lynch (retired), Matt McGuinness (delisted), Kayne Turner (delisted), Josh Walker (delisted), Patrick Walker (delisted)

Uncontracted: None

Contracted: 37 (no category B rookies)

ADELAIDE

Arrivals: Izak Rankine (traded/Gold Coast)

Departures: Luke Brown (retired), Ben Davis (delisted), Billy Frampton (traded/Collingwood), James Rowe (delisted), Brett Turner (delisted)

Uncontracted: None

Contracted: 41 (two category B rookies)

How your club is placed ahead of the list lodgement deadline and upcoming AFL draft

AFL draft state of play: How every team is placed and the key calls still be made in crucial month

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[the flying ham]

Not sure how many times I need to say it, but I'm not suggesting we generate list spots to draft kids. We are the only team that goes into the draft committed to maxing out our primary list which subsequently devalues our picks. It's a mistake that no other club has made and was the reason we had to dump a pick for stuff all yesterday

Correct, it's a low pick in a weak draft, it's worth stuff all.

 

[Jimmac31]

How can a trade be a loss when we haven't even use that pick to select a player? Trades aren't 'won' or 'lost' on paper.

It's only when we use that pick that a trade can be judged and even then the player needs several years to develop and start realising their potential before it can be truly judged.

This mindset of 'wining' and 'losing' trades is so short-sighted.

Agree mostly. 98% of draftees won't show their full potential for years. So it comes down to systems and development.

Draft picks is positioning yourself to pick your preference over the next club. I guess it is a win loss in terms of when you have the potential to select a player. I admittedly don't know the latter half draft crop vs 2023s draft. So our pick 43 preference (or lack of list spots and trade capital) may be equal to our current pick 55 prerefence.

On an extreme level, 12 picks apart could be saying trading pick 2 for pick 14 is break even until we see development of a player. But everyone would be up in arms. 3rd round to 4th picks being more of a gamble and less of a talent gap makes it more platable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still excited for the potential. We'll see what the club can do with this years players and next years picks.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The acurate one]

Was just an opinion. And that specific comment I known it is not possible with any club. And that a big footy board doesn't complete the trade.

Do I not comment a trade opinion on a trade thread?

Anyway, I did agree reading some benefits discussed a couple of weeks ago with pick 23 for ~pick 20 (2022). We get an extra year development into a kid. 40 + 43 would ideally have been put towards a future 2nd. It hasn't, so hopefully we can get something to improve our club next year.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes of course you can and should and I just feel that sometimes folk on BF think the club doesn't see the forest for the trees. Not talking about you fyi.

That isn't fair, we of course would have traded 23 & 40 for say 14, but no one would entertain that. I again think we've identified that after our 3rd choice it is slim pickings. Seems most other clubs are in agreeance with that.


I have been extremely critical of our club for years, but we are getting our shit together and seems we have a plan and are sticking to it.

As others have stated, Tucker, Logue, Sheezel, Wardlaw, Harvey and up to four experienced rookies is a very good outcome.

we made the most out of a bad situation with JHFF and turned 2x picks 1 into 2, 3 and a F1. And as we all know the player slated to go pick1/2 isn't someone we're interested in.

I think we will win 6-9 games in 2023, we have been rudderless on field and that is about to change. That would see us finish between 15th-12th.

Make our second rounder 22-25.

 

[perplexed]

Name	Years Service	Status
Aaron Hall​	5​	Non-Free Agent​
Aiden Bonar​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Ben McKay​	8​	Restricted Free Agent​
Charlie Comben​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Flynn Perez​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
​	​	​
Jack Mahony​	4​	Non-Free Agent​
Jack Ziebell​	15​	Unrestricted Free Agent​
Jackson Archer​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Jacob Edwards​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Josh Goater​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Lachie Young​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Luke Davies-Uniacke​	6​	Non-Free Agent​
Miller Bergman​	2​	Non-Free Agent​
Phoenix Spicer​	3​	Non-Free Agent​
Todd Goldstein​	17​	Unrestricted Free Agent​

The above is our OOC players in 2023. We need flexibility not only to hit the draft with the two first rounders and third rounder but then potentially Choppy Jr as a father/son and any other free agency or trade moves we may make. It's possible we need 6 main list spots for next year, at least 5. That's not to mention we will need to elevate Edwards to the senior list on the assumption he will be continuing with us.

Assuming Ziebell and Hall retire, likely Goldstein that's three down but if we delisted Mahony and Spicer this year to draft a late kid or two in the 40's then you have to look at that list and figure out who would also have to make way to build our list again. Immediately you could suggest Bonar and Young but you never know what can happen in Bonar gets a healthy run under Clarkson and if Young improves as much as he did in 2022 he isn't going anywhere. That's not to mention the club would still hope to get something out of Mahony and Spicer under new tutelage, it's easy to forget all of our draft crop of the last three years have been through some real upheaval. The other problem is, we've been garbage for an extended period now but when you focus on youth you're kind of obliged to seek the best from them. The main point is if we have more players contracted from this draft our rookie picks look good for 2023 but to bring in what we need we're writing off other guys. It's not a matter of pick 40 and 43 being better than Spicer/Mahony, it's a matter of them being better than Archer/Bergman/Perez etc.

The trade yesterday, in isolation, looks garbage (a lot of our recent trading hasn't looked great but this is the one causing concern right now) but it was a trade of necessity. We may well have traded an unusable pick to become another one but many clubs aren't drafting deep this year. It had to go yesterday, this was the best offer we had. It's become a minor asset for 2023, just like the potential freed up list spots by not delisting and rookieing guys already on our list. The 2022 haul will end up two traded in players, four national draft, four rookie draft. It's a fair influx, one that doesn't really lead to hitting and hoping on third rounders.

Except nobody anywhere that I have seen has suggested delisting players in order to draft players in the forties this year. They would have gone back to the rookie list to open up spaces on the senior list so can take extra picks to the draft. These picks could have been live traded to teams needing points for better picks than F4's next year. By pushing players back now we open up primary list spots both this year and next. Greenwood was the most obvious choice to me, but anyway, the chance is lost for this year, not sure why everyone seems to want to pretend it didn't exist. Last year most teams went with the minimum 36 on their primary list, this year we have committed to 38 before the draft and are subsequently the only team who have been forced to pick dump, it doesn't look like great list management to me.

Correct, it's a low pick in a weak draft, it's worth stuff all.

It's worth points to Brisbane and Essendon, but yes, probably stuff all if we were taking a player.

 

[Clarence2norton]

I think the thing most people who are unhappy about the trade yesterday are forgetting is the current list strategy we are embarking on this off-season.

Sure it’s all well and good to say ‘why didn’t we move one of spicer or Mahoney to the rookie list’ but what that does is takes away a rookie spot from some much needed mature depth, which Brady and Clarko have made very clear is our intention to pick up in the rookie draft.

You move Spicer/Mahoney to the rookie list and bring in an 18yr old kid in a shallow draft and there goes a much needed bigger body from our VFL side who can (hopefully) drive standards at training and keep pressure on the players in the firsts.

We need mature bodies on our list, we are still too small and underdeveloped, bringing in an extra kid from the draft just for the sake of it is not the answer.

The trade itself was crap in isolation but no one was going to offer us anything better so I’m happy we got something for it instead of the pick disappearing all together.

We need bigger bodies and high end talent, not low-end draft talent just for the sake of it.

 

[Jimmac31]

Yes of course you can and should and I just feel that sometimes folk on BF think the club doesn't see the forest for the trees. Not talking about you fyi.

That isn't fair, we of course would have traded 23 & 40 for say 14, but no one would entertain that. I again think we've identified that after our 3rd choice it is slim pickings. Seems most other clubs are in agreeance with that.


I have been extremely critical of our club for years, but we are getting our s**t together and seems we have a plan and are sticking to it.

As others have stated, Tucker, Logue, Sheezel, Wardlaw, Harvey and up to four experienced rookies is a very good outcome.

we made the most out of a bad situation with JHFF and turned 2x picks 1 into 2, 3 and a F1. And as we all know the player slated to go pick1/2 isn't someone we're interested in.

I think we will win 6-9 games in 2023, we have been rudderless on field and that is about to change. That would see us finish between 15th-12th.

Make our second rounder 22-25.

Yep. I'm often a Big Footy spectator, rarely a poster. Most sides of the debate are posted so it's often not worth repeating something. The club definitely sees the forest, hopefully the whole national park. Though sometimes a few trees just look way too exciting.

This year shows how shallow this draft is. Overall we've done well this trade period. I think we've improved the bottom 25% of our players, filled a couple of needs, and removed some bad eggs.

I see us finishing more the 6 wins, 15th area. But hope you're right on the 9 wins 12th. The club might be backing itself in for that too.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ball Dont Lie]

I am not sure why people are getting so upset about fringe players and fringe list positions. If the first 33 on the list are any good the chances are you will go far. Not sure how much difference spots 34 onwards and the 4 rookies will be come game day. Anyone thinking the difference between spicer, lizzard, and some speculative draft picks are kidding themselves. Culture, development, System, injuries, player intent. All this is way more important than the last half a dozen list spots

 

[perplexed]

I think the thing most people who are unhappy about the trade yesterday are forgetting is the current list strategy we are embarking on this off-season.

Sure it’s all well and good to say ‘why didn’t we move one of spicer or Mahoney to the rookie list’ but what that does is takes away a rookie spot from some much needed mature depth, which Brady and Clarko have made very clear is our intention to pick up in the rookie draft.

You move Spicer/Mahoney to the rookie list and bring in an 18yr old kid in a shallow draft and there goes a much needed bigger body from our VFL side who can (hopefully) drive standards at training and keep pressure on the players in the firsts.

We need mature bodies on our list, we are still too small and underdeveloped, bringing in an extra kid from the draft just for the sake of it is not the answer.

The trade itself was crap in isolation but no one was going to offer us anything better so I’m happy we got something for it instead of the pick disappearing all together.

We need bigger bodies and high end talent, not low-end draft talent just for the sake of it.

This is becoming a zombie argument. If we had pushed players back it wouldn't affect our ability to take mature players. We would just have 36 + 8 instead of 38 + 6.

 

[My Left Foote]

Except nobody anywhere that I have seen has suggested delisting players in order to draft players in the forties this year. They would have gone back to the rookie list to open up spaces on the senior list so can take extra picks to the draft. These picks could have been live traded to teams needing points for better picks than F4's next year. By pushing players back now we open up primary list spots both this year and next. Greenwood was the most obvious choice to me, but anyway, the chance is lost for this year, not sure why everyone seems to want to pretend it didn't exist. Last year most teams went with the minimum 36 on their primary list, this year we have committed to 38 before the draft and are subsequently the only team who have been forced to pick dump, it doesn't look like great list management to me.


It's worth points to Brisbane and Essendon, but yes, probably stuff all if we were taking a player.

'Live' trades on the night are worked out well in advance. Brady isn't sitting there on draft night spontaneously thinking; Wonder if I can get *'s Pick 22 for 40 & 43. If there was a club that wanted our picks for something this year that trade would have been facilitated or pre-meditated like what we're doing with Pick 40 and Brisbane.

BTW elite username to content ratio from your good self.

 

[perplexed]

'Live' trades on the night are worked out well in advance. Brady isn't sitting there on draft night spontaneously thinking; Wonder if I can get *'s Pick 22 for 40 & 43. If there was a club that wanted our picks for something this year that trade would have been facilitated or pre-meditated like what we're doing with Pick 40 and Brisbane.

BTW elite username to content ratio from your good self.

Yes they are, and everyone seems to love doing deals with Brady, he's so nice. Brisbane have two spare F2's, we probably could have had them both instead of just one, but can't now. Or maybe if Essendon couldn't do better take Brisbane's F3 and do 40 + 2 x F3 for 22. On that Brisbane deal, I'm a little worried that we might be doing something dodgy that involves us delaying our bid on Ashcroft.

 

[The acurate one]

Yep. I'm often a Big Footy spectator, rarely a poster. Most sides of the debate are posted so it's often not worth repeating something. The club definitely sees the forest, hopefully the whole national park. Though sometimes a few trees just look way too exciting.

This year shows how shallow this draft is. Overall we've done well this trade period. I think we've improved the bottom 25% of our players, filled a couple of needs, and removed some bad eggs.

I see us finishing more the 6 wins, 15th area. But hope you're right on the 9 wins 12th. The club might be backing itself in for that too.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes, our possible wins for the season will reveal itself once the fixture is released. There we five other ordinary sides in the comp last season, and ordinary is being generous. Wouldn't be a great stretch to push them. There is also a couple of flighty sides as well.

Reckon we'll be primed for the Poort clash just quietly.

 

[Devington]

Yes they are, and everyone seems to love doing deals with Brady, he's so nice. Brisbane have two spare F2's, we probably could have had them both instead of just one, but can't now. Or maybe if Essendon couldn't do better take Brisbane's F3 and do 40 + 2 x F3 for 22. On that Brisbane deal, I'm a little worried that we might be doing something dodgy that involves us delaying our bid on Ashcroft.

"spare"

 

[Heaps of fun]

I heard Essendon offered us 22 for 43 but we value next year's draft higher so we took Fremantle's deal.

 

[perplexed]

"spare"

Meaning they currently have 3 F3s but are only able to trade two of them for points in this year's draft. They are basically getting wiped out of both drafts by the Ashcroft and Fletcher bids and may as well shift those picks forward as our picks are likely to be worth more points than the future picks they hold.

 

[Mixed Results]

I don’t mind the trade so I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here.

If we’re interested in Ethan Phillips, then moving somebody to the rookie list and taking Phillips at #43 would still achieve the goal of bringing in four mature bodies and would also give us an additional crack at a premium option. I don’t see anybody else mentioning this so I thought it was worth bringing up.

The downside would be we wouldn’t be able to delist Phillips after one year. There’s also the morale issues with moving a player to the rookie list and also having them be a permanent free agent for their career.

Edit: Moving a veteran to the rookie list eliminates both additional downsides. Aaron Hall

43

Aaron Hall

Age

33

Ht

185cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.0

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

7.2

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

3.3

5star

MG

268.3

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

8.9

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

268.3

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.6

5star

for example seems like the type who would be happy to help out the club. The Hugh Greenwood

1

Hugh Greenwood

Age

32

Ht

190cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.9

4star

K

8.8

3star

HB

8.1

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

6.8

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

17.4

4star

K

10.4

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

1.5

2star

T

8.9

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

16.4

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.2

3star

T

7.6

5star

CL

4.4

5star

precedent exists in that situation, but the more we see of Hugh the more I think there may have been something else happening there.

 

[Jimmac31]

Yes, our possible wins for the season will reveal itself once the fixture is released. There we five other ordinary sides in the comp last season, and ordinary is being generous. Wouldn't be a great stretch to push them. There is also a couple of flighty sides as well.

Reckon we'll be primed for the Poort clash just quietly.

Hopefully we double up on some of Hawthorn, West Coast, GWS and Essendon. St. Kilda maybe.

But we'll probably get Geelong and Sydney twice.

And Port better be at Marvel. That's the game the entire club, incl. supporters, will be playing.

 

[tiltraise]

Delisting players to re-rookie them does open up the possibility of losing those players.

Sure we hold pick 1 in the rookie draft but we may be hoping certain players make it through the ND so we can pick them up on a 1 year deal. Perhaps a Lemmey/Skully type makes it through.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I don’t mind the trade so I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here.

If we’re interested in Ethan Phillips, then moving somebody to the rookie list and taking Phillips at #43 would still achieve the goal of bringing in four mature bodies and would also give us an additional crack at a premium option. I don’t see anybody else mentioning this so I thought it was worth bringing up.

The downside would be we wouldn’t be able to delist Phillips after one year. There’s also the morale issues with moving a player to the rookie list and also having them be a permanent free agent for their career.

Edit: Moving a veteran to the rookie list eliminates both additional downsides. Aaron Hall for example seems like the type who would be happy to help out the club. The Hugh Greenwood precedent exists in that situation, but the more we see of Hugh the more I think there may have been something else happening there.

Hall if anybody would have been the logical rookie switch but could there be a rule in place when a player re-signs in a year they can't be delisted (which they would have to be, to be rookied). IMO his contract extension could have waited for this very reason. Would also explain Greenwood (as he triggered an extra year) but at the same time I can't see him being enthused with being delisted considering what happened with GC last year.

 

[Clarence2norton]

This is becoming a zombie argument. If we had pushed players back it wouldn't affect our ability to take mature players. We would just have 36 + 8 instead of 38 + 6.

It absolutely would impact our ability to take mature players.

We have a limited number of spots on the list available, if we move a fringe player to the rookie list and take another young kid in the draft it’s still using up a list spot that has been reserved for mature players as per the list strategy irregardless of the primary list/rookie list composition.

 

[The Dingrel]

Gerard Healy and Brad Johnson preview the 2023 seasons of Geelong, Gold Coast, GWS, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne - Tuesday November 15

Gerard and Johnno with their second part of their three-part AFL preview series.

player.whooshkaa.com

13:00 mark, they discuss North.

Johnno talks us up and sounds enthusiastic and then reckons 3 or 4 wins for the season.

 

[perplexed]

It absolutely would impact our ability to take mature players.

We have a limited number of spots on the list available, if we move a fringe player to the rookie list and take another young kid in the draft it’s still using up a list spot that has been reserved for mature players as per the list strategy irregardless of the primary list/rookie list composition.

Oh dear, not again. 36 + 8 = 38 + 6. Exactly the same players, no extra young kids, no fewer retreads.

 

[shinboner magic]

Delisting players to re-rookie them does open up the possibility of losing those players.

Sure we hold pick 1 in the rookie draft but we may be hoping certain players make it through the ND so we can pick them up on a 1 year deal. Perhaps a Lemmey/Skully type makes it through.

Yeah only delist guys we don’t mind losing