List Mgmt. 2024 List Management 📃

[HaydossJ]

For Jack Carroll, has he actually shown anything that indicates he will be a longer term afl player? People keep mentioning him going back to WA, would either club want him?

I think he might be offered a 1 year minimum contract with us at most, and 50/50 chance to not be on an afl list next year.

Agree - more likely to sign with Fremantle or WCE as a DFA..

 

[Opium]

Where would you play him?

Gets exposed as a small defender. Not quick either. Hard pass from me.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

For Jack Carroll, has he actually shown anything that indicates he will be a longer term afl player? People keep mentioning him going back to WA, would either club want him?

I think he might be offered a 1 year minimum contract with us at most, and 50/50 chance to not be on an afl list next year.

Everyone develops differently but I liken him to Kennedy as that slower / classy strong bodied midfielder. Matt was still struggling up until 2022. So he was 25 before he came good - Jack is still 21. Plenty of supporters wanted Kennedy delisted prior to '22 also and was only retained on our rookie list in 2020.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Agree - more likely to sign with Fremantle or WCE as a DFA..

Might end up another Nick Holman - nothing flash but able to carve out a 100 game career.

I'd like to see him go around for us for another year. Crippa seems to rate him so let's see what his guidance results in ??

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

It sounds like the AFL is going to allow players to stay on the rookie list for 5 years (previously 3) the proviso might be that it is done to develop rucks, key positions etc so their might be a games limit imposed so that regular senior players aren't just hidden there. Apparently the clubs are in agreement.

Well that sounds fair, I always thought Carlton placing Eddie Betts on the rookie list at 33 years of age was not within the spirit of the list's intentions.(but was within the rules)

 

[Revenant1965]

I think the big issue for the likes of J.Carroll, and also the 'big 3 often injured', being retained is simply list spaces available - not only this year, but next year.

 

[Sickblue]

So what your telling us is because Durds re-injured his shoulder again, we should trade him back to SA....

Not at all, but with TDK due for a monster pay day next year, Williams becoming a forward and Owies further improving again I’d think one may get squeezed out and if one did, it would be him in my eye. We now have a lot of forward half depth and list spots will be tight.

 

[BigBreakfast]

For Jack Carroll, has he actually shown anything that indicates he will be a longer term afl player? People keep mentioning him going back to WA, would either club want him?

I think he might be offered a 1 year minimum contract with us at most, and 50/50 chance to not be on an afl list next year.

He has shown enough to earn a crack, just unlikely to get it with us. Wet Toast could use a young mid to link up with Harley

 

[BluStreak]

I would think that Geelong would be in the hunt for a ruckman.
Pitto would easily take the number one spot down there. He would complement their midfield.
That would leave us with a very shakey Ruck division but If Pitto went to Geelong then one of their rucks might be available cheaply. Maybe turn Young into a fulltime ruck until HoK is ready.

 

[BigFrizz36]

I would think that Geelong would be in the hunt for a ruckman.
Pitto would easily take the number one spot down there. He would complement their midfield.
That would leave us with a very shakey Ruck division but If Pitto went to Geelong then one of their rucks might be available cheaply. Maybe turn Young into a fulltime ruck until HoK is ready.

We'd want a great deal to let (the long term contracted) Pitto go to Geelong and to take one of their nowhere near as good rucks in return.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Owies is a real interesting one. It wouldn’t surprise me if a club offers him 4 years at that ~$450k mark. I would be hesitant going that long.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

It sounds like the AFL is going to allow players to stay on the rookie list for 5 years (previously 3) the proviso might be that it is done to develop rucks, key positions etc so their might be a games limit imposed so that regular senior players aren't just hidden there. Apparently the clubs are in agreement.

Maybe the rookie list should be extended by 3-4 places and players with more than 50-60 AFL games be excluded.
Newly drafted 18 year olds should be considered rookies and allowed to develop and not be part of the senior list.

 

[BluStreak]

We'd want a great deal to let (the long term contracted) Pitto go to Geelong and to take one of their nowhere near as good rucks in return.

i am thinking that their 'no good' ones would be VFL capable

 

[Blue__Balls]

Maybe the rookie list should be extended by 3-4 places and players with more than 50-60 AFL games be excluded.
Newly drafted 18 year olds should be considered rookies and allowed to develop and not be part of the senior list.

It's probably not a bad approach, simplify it heavily and do away with the rookie draft.

Currently it's a senior list size of 36-38 and a rookie list of 0-6, with a maximum of 42 players across the two lists. Rookie's can only spend 3 years on the rookie list, and the "minimum" rookie contract value portion of their salary is excluded from the TPP (ie. if you want to pay them the minimum, they take up no cap space, but if you need to pay them extra for any reason that starts to impact your cap). Cat B rookies are separate again, 0-2 spots, their full salary sits outside the cap. Once upon a time you had to elevate rookies to even be able to select them in the senior side, but these days it's pretty much purely a financial tool.

I don't know why you couldn't just say that the senior list size is 36-42 players, and at the final list lodgement up to X of those players can be designated as rookies provided they have played less than 30* games (*pick any number you want though). Those players have $XX,000 of their salary excluded from the cap, whether they're first round draftees, Pick 95 in the draft or an SSP selection. Do away with the rookie draft completely and just let the national draft run out an extra 30 picks each year.

Functionally it doesn't change much - most clubs would have 15-20 players who meet the criteria, so if you capped it at 8 or 10 players then everyone will be getting the same value from it. But it does away with all the list manipulation crap with rookies needing to be elevated using token draft picks that aren't getting used for anything else and players being delisted and re-rookied to free up senior list spots when clubs only want to actually delist rookie listed players. It's all stupid. One list, players who qualify at the start of the year can be considered rookies for cap space, if by the next year they no longer qualify (played too many games) then the club nominates another new draftee instead.

 

[Stamos]

It's probably not a bad approach, simplify it heavily and do away with the rookie draft.

Currently it's a senior list size of 36-38 and a rookie list of 0-6, with a maximum of 42 players across the two lists. Rookie's can only spend 3 years on the rookie list, and the "minimum" rookie contract value portion of their salary is excluded from the TPP (ie. if you want to pay them the minimum, they take up no cap space, but if you need to pay them extra for any reason that starts to impact your cap). Cat B rookies are separate again, 0-2 spots, their full salary sits outside the cap. Once upon a time you had to elevate rookies to even be able to select them in the senior side, but these days it's pretty much purely a financial tool.

I don't know why you couldn't just say that the senior list size is 36-42 players, and at the final list lodgement up to X of those players can be designated as rookies provided they have played less than 30* games (*pick any number you want though). Those players have $XX,000 of their salary excluded from the cap, whether they're first round draftees, Pick 95 in the draft or an SSP selection. Do away with the rookie draft completely and just let the national draft run out an extra 30 picks each year.

Functionally it doesn't change much - most clubs would have 15-20 players who meet the criteria, so if you capped it at 8 or 10 players then everyone will be getting the same value from it. But it does away with all the list manipulation crap with rookies needing to be elevated using token draft picks that aren't getting used for anything else and players being delisted and re-rookied to free up senior list spots when clubs only want to actually delist rookie listed players. It's all stupid. One list, players who qualify at the start of the year can be considered rookies for cap space, if by the next year they no longer qualify (played too many games) then the club nominates another new draftee instead.

Simpler still would be to add the current max cap exclusion ($480k ie 6 x 80k) to the salary cap, absorb cat A rookies into the senior list to a list of 42.

1st round picks get 3 year contracts
2nd & 3rd round get 2 year contracts
4th + get 1 year

Then Cat B as is, or similar.

 

[Burgers45]

Jake Niall The Age Carlton with tight salary cap - Struggling with new contracts Carroll & Owies...

Blues’ contracts on hold amid salary cap squeeze

A tight salary cap is behind two Carlton players not yet being offered new deals.

t.co

 

[Stamos]

Jake Niall The Age Carlton with tight salary cap - Struggling with new contracts Carroll & Owies...

Blues’ contracts on hold amid salary cap squeeze

A tight salary cap is behind two Carlton players not yet being offered new deals.

t.co

Interesting.
So assuming they are wanted as per the article, that leaves, Cunners, Marchy and Martin out, or a contracted player (at a minimum.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Interesting.
So assuming they are wanted as per the article, that leaves, Cunners, Marchy and Martin out, or a contracted player (at a minimum.

It sounds very much like that our plan to have enough cap space if Hayward came over was to clear a few off the decks like Martin, Owies and Carroll maybe.

 

[JustOneTime]

It also means Owies if retained would want a chunk of that Hayward pie. Other players too.

I'm sure various players mgmt will be pushing.

Carlton can find the money if it wants (exhibit Hayward).

 

[Jatz]

Interesting that we could somehow have fit Hayward in but now it's tight.

Who was the player that's been saved by Will staying at Sydney?

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

Jake Niall The Age Carlton with tight salary cap - Struggling with new contracts Carroll & Owies...

Blues’ contracts on hold amid salary cap squeeze

A tight salary cap is behind two Carlton players not yet being offered new deals.

t.co

Cue the “brown paper bags” comments from dips*** colonwood Richmond and * supporters

 

[JustOneTime]

Interesting that we could somehow have fit Hayward in but now it's tight.

Who was the player that's been saved by Will staying at Sydney?

Owies?

Remember, this would have been 12 months in the planning?

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

Cue the “brown paper bags” comments from dips*** colonwood Richmond and * supporters

The village idiot Andrew Gaze already banging on about it on SEN and Bounce trying to get a cheap laugh.

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

The village idiot Andrew Gaze already banging on about it on SEN and Bounce trying to get a cheap laugh.

Course he has.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Interesting that we could somehow have fit Hayward in but now it's tight.

Who was the player that's been saved by Will staying at Sydney?

TDK turning into an AA level ruck will have thrown a spanner in the works re cap space