List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading (Part 2)

[PeterSalt]

Do you have a link to the article? I can't find anything on Google or the AFL website. Not doubting you, just trying to find the article you referenced.

From the article below:

"For instance, it would have allowed Adelaide to list one of Rory Sloane or Taylor Walker as a veteran for 2024 and opened up another spot on their primary list. The idea was designed to keep veterans in the game without sacrificing a list spot that a youngster may have taken, with the veteran’s full payments still counted in the salary cap."

Roos target pick one, Dee to go on, big Dog to stay

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

There's a link in the post above

 

[1970crow]

What a strange angle.

So they improved their list by trading in players that are not 1st year draftees? No other analysis needed?

Didn’t read the ‘walk up starts in the 22’ bit?

 

[Dangerousfield]

As we saw when Sydney signed Franklin, the AFL is not afraid of changing the rules if they want to punish a club

There will be no Bobby Bonilla day in the AFL

and the VFL loves giving us a whipping!

What is the date of the List Lodgement that finally sets ND picks in stone? Seems to be a number of clubs that have to delist more players to activate the later picks they are holding to match bids

Edit -

• List Lodgement 2*: Tuesday, November 14, 2pm

 

[50BC]

Here's a salary cap loophole that I'm not sure if anyone has tried to exploit yet

1. Sign a gun player to a $7.5 million deal over 6 years
2. Pay them $900k per year for the first 5 years
3. In the final year of their contract, they are owed $3 million backended
4. One year before going out of contract, re-sign the player for a further 38 years, but spread out the $3 million payment over 38 years
5. Transfer the player to the rookie list where $80k of their salary sits outside the cap
6. Pay off $3 million fully outside the cap via rookie payments over 38 years
7. As the rookie payment outside the cap increases over the years, gradually re-contract the player to shorten the payback period

0 chance AFL would approve a rort like that.

 

[dogs105]

You'd sign another/separate contract with the player that stipulates this re-contracting would occur to a set timeline with all the years for delistings and re-draftings and re-contractings laid out

You could just put this bit in an email...

 

[Mostyn]

You'd sign another/separate contract with the player that stipulates this re-contracting would occur to a set timeline with all the years for delistings and re-draftings and re-contractings laid out

So you're going with a list size one short for the next 30 years?

I reckon who ever is running the club 20 years into that might be a bit annoyed by that decision.

 

[Mostyn]

If Reid was serious about his job, he would have gone to the player manager of every gun midfielder we potentially could shake loose & let them know we are willing to make a life changing long term deal. We have the cap space.

I assume he has. Why wouldn't he have? Managers do most of the actual trades.

What then, though?

You offer $1.2m to someone - that's maybe $200k more than their own club would offer them. That becomes $100k after tax, then management fees, costs of relocating etc.

Money really only makes decision-making sense to those players who aren't guns yet but could become it, and their club isn't willing to throw out their salary cap in case it doesn't happen. Like Zac Williams or Charlie Cameron.

 

[El Doederino]

0 chance AFL would approve a rort like that.

Neither would the player

 

[CryptoCrow]

T

You'd sign another/separate contract with the player that stipulates this re-contracting would occur to a set timeline with all the years for delistings and re-draftings and re-contractings laid out

his Can be the new afl standard self managed super fund

 

[Mostyn]

You'd sign another/separate contract with the player that stipulates this re-contracting would occur to a set timeline with all the years for delistings and re-draftings and re-contractings laid out

I feel like this has happened in baseball?

There's probably someone smarter than me that could confirm that ...

 

[Vader]

Would have to pick him up in the rookie draft - we don’t get first dibs on him.

That's not entirely true. By delisting him we make him a DFA. There is a DFA window between the ND and RD (can't remember whether it's before or after the PSD). We could sign him as a DFA, adding him to our Cat A rookie list, before the RD.

... but he still needs to make it through the ND (and possibly the PSD) without being selected. He also needs to be willing to re-sign with Adelaide, rather than signing with another club (e.g. Port).

 

[Vader]

I think we’ll fill our rookie list this season (up to 6), particularly with the LTIs for Schoenberg and Murray.

So far we have Keane and Parnell, leaving 4 spots.

We will only have 4x rookie list positions available, given that our senior list will be full. That will leave us with 2 or 3 selections in the RD, depending on whether or not Parnell needs to be upgraded (I can't believe we're still waiting on this decision by the AFL).

Clubs have the following list structure options:

• 38x senior + 4x Cat A rookies
• 37 + 5
• 36 + 6

Given what we know about the club's list mathematics (i.e. they already need to delist/re-sign a player just to use pick #20), there is zero chance of us going 37/5 or 36/6.

Given the reported weakness of this draft, beyond the top-20 or so players, it's quite possible that they may not choose to fill the rookie list.

 

[WeeBlake]

Here's a salary cap loophole that I'm not sure if anyone has tried to exploit yet

1. Sign a gun player to a $7.5 million deal over 6 years
2. Pay them $900k per year for the first 5 years
3. In the final year of their contract, they are owed $3 million backended
4. One year before going out of contract, re-sign the player for a further 38 years, but spread out the $3 million payment over 38 years
5. Transfer the player to the rookie list where $80k of their salary sits outside the cap
6. Pay off $3 million fully outside the cap via rookie payments over 38 years
7. As the rookie payment outside the cap increases over the years, gradually re-contract the player to shorten the payback period

Amazing, you should go make millions on wall st

 

[GreyCrow]

I feel like this has happened in baseball?

There's probably someone smarter than me that could confirm that ...

As we saw when Sydney signed Franklin, the AFL is not afraid of changing the rules if they want to punish a club

There will be no Bobby Bonilla day in the AFL

 

[Tarasque36]

Here's a salary cap loophole that I'm not sure if anyone has tried to exploit yet

1. Sign a gun player to a $7.5 million deal over 6 years
2. Pay them $900k per year for the first 5 years
3. In the final year of their contract, they are owed $3 million backended
4. One year before going out of contract, re-sign the player for a further 38 years, but spread out the $3 million payment over 38 years
5. Transfer the player to the rookie list where $80k of their salary sits outside the cap
6. Pay off $3 million fully outside the cap via rookie payments over 38 years
7. As the rookie payment outside the cap increases over the years, gradually re-contract the player to shorten the payback period

Try it again without breaking the 3year maximum on the Rookie List rule.

 

[Tarasque36]

That's not entirely true. By delisting him we make him a DFA. There is a DFA window between the ND and RD (can't remember whether it's before or after the PSD). We could sign him as a DFA, adding him to our Cat A rookie list, before the RD.

... but he still needs to make it through the ND (and possibly the PSD) without being selected. He also needs to be willing to re-sign with Adelaide, rather than signing with another club (e.g. Port).

Are you sure a 3 year capped out Rookie doesn't include both Cat B and Cat A rookie lists combined? Either/Or?

After 3 years on either, they must be upgraded or de-listed was my understanding.

(For those who say Rookies have had 4 years, it's a simple equation that 2020 didn't count due to Covid restrictions.)

 

[Vader]

Are you sure a 3 year capped out Rookie doesn't include both Cat B and Cat A rookie lists combined? Either/Or?

After 3 years on either, they must be upgraded or de-listed was my understanding.

(For those who say Rookies have had 4 years, it's a simple equation that 2020 didn't count due to Covid restrictions.)

Yes, both Cat A and Cat B rookies need to be delisted after 3 years. We're still waiting on the AFL re: Parnell, as they are currently deciding whether or not to give MSD players 3.5 years on the rookie list.

The thing is that we don't need to wait for the RD, before re-signing them to the rookie list. The mechanism is exactly the same as it is for moving players from the senior list to the rookie list:

1. Delist player.
2. Player becomes a DFA.
3. Player nominates for, but is not selected in, the ND.
4. Re-sign player (as a Cat A rookie) during the DFA window between the ND and RD.

We don't need to worry about being gazumped by another club drafting him in the RD, before our pick. We do need to worry about being gazumped during the ND, and by other clubs wishing to sign him as a DFA.

 

[Tarasque36]

Yes, both Cat A and Cat B rookies need to be delisted after 3 years. We're still waiting on the AFL re: Parnell, as they are currently deciding whether or not to give MSD players 3.5 years on the rookie list.

The thing is that we don't need to wait for the RD, before re-signing them to the rookie list. The mechanism is exactly the same as it is for moving players from the senior list to the rookie list:

1. Delist player.
2. Player becomes a DFA.
3. Player nominates for, but is not selected in, the ND.
4. Re-sign player (as a Cat A rookie) during the DFA window between the ND and RD.

We don't need to worry about being gazumped by another club drafting him in the RD, before our pick. We do need to worry about being gazumped during the ND, and by other clubs wishing to sign him as a DFA.

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain my query clearly enough.

Once a player has served 3 years as a Rookie (either A or B), I didn't think they could be re-rookied by that club.

 

[Vader]

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain my query clearly enough.

Once a player has served 3 years as a Rookie (either A or B), I didn't think they could be re-rookied by that club.

Absolutely they can, though they need to be delisted first, after which they are eligible to be signed by any club (as a DFA), including the one which delisted them.

Clubs have always had the option of re-drafting rookies, if they didn't want to upgrade them. The only difference is that this can now be done via DFA, rather than the RD.

 

[spenze]

Will Kelly the only one I'd have any interest in? KPD swingman

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-2023-deadline-looms-for-the-out-of-contract-players-ahead-of-the-afl-draft-and-delisted-free-agency-period/news-story/70c1fd55348e9dddcbe6fb6600691dac

STUCK IN LIMBO​

Players without contracts for 2024

• Adelaide – James Borlase
• Brisbane Lions – Dayne Zorko
• Collingwood – Aiden Begg, Josh Carmichael, Will Kelly, Nathan Kreuger
• Essendon – Jaiden Hunter, Patrick Voss, Will Snelling
• Geelong – Mitch Hardie, Flynn Kroeger
• Gold Coast – Sandy Brock, Sam Day, Oskar Faulkhead, Hewago Oae, Bodhi Uwland, Jeremy Sharp, Jake Stein, James Tsitas
• Melbourne – Andy Moniz-Wakefield, Kye Turner
• Port Adelaide – Orazio Fantasia, Sam Hayes, Scott Lycett
• Richmond – Mate Colina
• St Kilda – Tom Campbell, Tom Highmore, Dan McKenzie
• Sydney – Sam Reid, Sam Wicks
• West Coast – Zane Trew
• Western Bulldogs – Dominic Bedendo, Hayden Crozier, Roarke Smith

I’d get Mate Colina how good would he be for Lols on the field. “ Get it mate, kick it mate, tackle him mate, FFS mate”

 

[Tarasque36]

Absolutely they can, though they need to be delisted first, after which they are eligible to be signed by any club (as a DFA), including the one which delisted them.

Clubs have always had the option of re-drafting rookies, if they didn't want to upgrade them. The only difference is that this can now be done via DFA, rather than the RD.

A player who has served their 3 years is 'not eligible to be retained as a rookie' I believe is the wording.
I always took that as must be upgraded to primary list.

But, maybe it does mean can be re-listed - as technically they are not 'retained as a rookie' - they were released and then selected again.

However, I'm probably still in the camp of no they can't, as it exceeds the '3 straight years on the rookie list' rule.
We'll see in the next few weeks, it's not the AFL make everything clear.
Thanks for the chat.

IMO, Borlase isn't worth keeping anyway.

 

[BucketsNj]

We really have nothing to talk about, do we?

 

[Vader]

A player who has served their 3 years is 'not eligible to be retained as a rookie' I believe is the wording.
I always took that as must be upgraded to primary list.


But, maybe it does mean can be re-listed - as technically they are not 'retained as a rookie' - they were released and then selected again.

However, I'm probably still in the camp of no they can't, as it exceeds the '3 straight years on the rookie list' rule.
We'll see in the next few weeks, it's not the AFL make everything clear.
Thanks for the chat.

IMO, Borlase isn't worth keeping anyway.

There have always been 2 options - upgrade, and delist/re-draft. The only difference is that delist/re-draft has now been replaced by "delist/re-sign as DFA".

Delisting a player puts them on the open market, where any club can draft them (or sign them as a DFA). This satisfies the AFL's requirement for non-retention. Re-drafting them, or re-signing them as a DFA, resets their rookie list clock.

FWIW, I agree with you on Borlase.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Here's a salary cap loophole that I'm not sure if anyone has tried to exploit yet

1. Sign a gun player to a $7.5 million deal over 6 years
2. Pay them $900k per year for the first 5 years
3. In the final year of their contract, they are owed $3 million backended
4. One year before going out of contract, re-sign the player for a further 38 years, but spread out the $3 million payment over 38 years
5. Transfer the player to the rookie list where $80k of their salary sits outside the cap
6. Pay off $3 million fully outside the cap via rookie payments over 38 years
7. As the rookie payment outside the cap increases over the years, gradually re-contract the player to shorten the payback period

I understand it's just a bit of a fun scenario .....remember the AFL stipulated with Buddy Franklin, SYD could not alter the Contract terms at any stage, to avoid the possibility of a similar scenario .....maybe not as extravagant though

It would also mean running a list spot short for 38 years ....remembering a) you're bound by a total list number, rookies and main list .....and b) in all likelihood there won't be a terminology differential in the future, just a number of players on the main list who can have a 12 month Contract

 

[1970crow]

Is it really worth all that trouble for a player that at best is going to be a depth option only?

Then we can just delist Ned and swap one depth option with another. Borlase is at least depth for a role that we're presently a little light on for numbers.

 

[Crow till I die]

Then we can just delist Ned and swap one depth option with another. Borlase is at least depth for a role that were presently a little light on for numbers.

Amen to that. Borlase serves a much more important role (esp with the injuries we have had to our KPD stock and the loss of Deodee) than a guy thats competing with a dozen others