List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023

[Babylove]

I haven't followed the draft stuff as closely this year. If we aren't taking any rookies but we are looking at the SSP ( I think you mentioned this TradeDraft) how does that all work?

We can invite some eligible candidates to train with us and add them during the SSP window dates. I believe there are two windows, one this side of Christmas and one closer to the start of the season (though I don’t recall where I read that). We currently have three spots available so I’d imagine we’ll 3-6 train on players to have a look at, and sign one or two through the SSP as Hine has said we want to take at least one spot into the MSD.

This is how we recruited Steene and Markov at the start of the 2023 season.

 

[Babylove]

Maybe there’s no deadline yet and the club hasn’t decided which rookie gets the promotion?

In the past I believe this had to be done by the list lodgement post the Draft, but I’m not sure if that has changed with the addition of the SSP.

 

[35Daicos]

I haven't followed the draft stuff as closely this year. If we aren't taking any rookies but we are looking at the SSP ( I think you mentioned this TradeDraft) how does that all work?

We can invite some eligible candidates to train with us and add them during the SSP window dates. I believe there are two windows, one this side of Christmas and one closer to the start of the season (though I don’t recall where I read that). We currently have three spots available so I’d imagine we’ll 3-6 train on players to have a look at, and sign one or two through the SSP as Hine has said we want to take at least one spot into the MSD.

This is how we recruited Steene and Markov at the start of the 2023 season.

AFL locks in dates, clarifies rules for pre-season SSP

The pre-season supplemental selection period will run from November 27 to February 19

www.afl.com.au

 

[TradeDraft]

I haven't followed the draft stuff as closely this year. If we aren't taking any rookies but we are looking at the SSP ( I think you mentioned this TradeDraft) how does that all work?

Basically you are allowed to have players not on your List trying to earn the SSP/Rookie List Spot on the list

 

[JuniorB]

AFL locks in dates, clarifies rules for pre-season SSP

The pre-season supplemental selection period will run from November 27 to February 19

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 1859400
View attachment 1859401

The rookie draft is on its last legs.
It's now mainly about redrafting delisted players as rookies.
The AFL should just allow clubs to transfer players directly to the rookie list rather than having to delist them first.
Or better yet, just get rid of rookie lists altogether, because "rookie" lists now are populated by players who are anything but.
It makes a lot more sense to try before you buy via the SSP.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The rookie draft is on its last legs.
It's now mainly about redrafting delisted players as rookies.
The AFL should just allow clubs to transfer players directly to the rookie list rather than having to delist them first.
Or better yet, just get rid of rookie lists altogether, because "rookie" lists now are populated by players who are anything but.
It makes a lot more sense to try before you buy via the SSP.

Beginning of the end was many years ago when Essendon played the cancer card to rookie list Adam Ramanaskus, the first non rookie to be rookied iirc. It’s had a steady decline in relevance since. Maybe get rid of the rookie draft and call it a supplementary list, where all clubs can select whoever they want as long as players mutually agree.

 

[Hardas]

The rookie draft is on its last legs.
It's now mainly about redrafting delisted players as rookies.
The AFL should just allow clubs to transfer players directly to the rookie list rather than having to delist them first.
Or better yet, just get rid of rookie lists altogether, because "rookie" lists now are populated by players who are anything but.
It makes a lot more sense to try before you buy via the SSP.

Pies are definitely going their own way on this with the 'training contest'.

Maybe other clubs have already done this too, for all I know, but the 'wait & see' approach seems sensible enough if you're not sure yet.

 

[Babylove]

The rookie draft is on its last legs.
It's now mainly about redrafting delisted players as rookies.
The AFL should just allow clubs to transfer players directly to the rookie list rather than having to delist them first.
Or better yet, just get rid of rookie lists altogether, because "rookie" lists now are populated by players who are anything but.
It makes a lot more sense to try before you buy via the SSP.

I agree about the rookie draft. It and the PSD are pretty pointless at this point. The only value of rookie list A is the salary cap concession (I believe at least part of salary (depending on how much they are paid) sits outside the salary cap). But you could achieve the same by just allowing clubs to nominate up to 6 players that fit a specific criteria to have a certain amount of their wage outside the salary cap like the old veterans list. Rookie list B which are for recruiting players like Cox still has some merit.

I do also agree about the SSP, it actually makes more sense given excluding the players being dropped and re-rookies are players that are typically project types or had some knock on them that stopped them being taken in the ND. Why take them blind when you can try them inside your program before committing to them.

 

[partypie]

The new management will just change the rules for the rookie draft to close the loophole so that primary listed players can't just be shuffled back to the rookie list.

I doubt that the new management at AFL house will have any qualms about fixing something that is now being exploited by all clubs in a manner contrary to the initial intent of the rookie draft when it was introduced way back when.

 

[barrackers]

The only value of rookie list A is the salary cap concession (I believe at least part of salary (depending on how much they are paid) sits outside the salary cap). But you could achieve the same by just allowing clubs to nominate up to 6 players that fit a specific criteria to have a certain amount of their wage outside the salary cap like the old veterans list.

Your traditional rookie also only has a one year contract guarantee. A sliding contract system in the national draft could overcome this though, R1 3-4 years, R2 2-3 years, R3 2 years, R4 1 year.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

It's actually the minimum picks & FS / NGA rules that are the problem.

Clubs have to take 3 picks (inc. rookie upgrades).
The have to have enough primary spots for picks they want to spend on FD/ NGA.

So they have no choice but to move players between primary and rookie to free up the spots.
Or, in the case of us last year, moving Murley to rookie just so we can meet the min ND picks.

So nominating players etc won't actually solve the root of the problem.....

It's the ony mechanism cubs have to play within the ND/NGA / FS rules.

 

[sr36]

It's actually the minimum picks & FS / NGA rules that are the problem.

Clubs have to take 3 picks (inc. rookie upgrades).
The have to have enough primary spots for picks they want to spend on FD/ NGA.

So they have no choice but to move players between primary and rookie to free up the spots.
Or, in the case of us last year, moving Murley to rookie just so we can meet the min ND picks.

So nominating players etc won't actually solve the root of the problem.....

It's the ony mechanism cubs have to play within the ND/NGA / FS rules.

It's also the salary cap benefit of someone being on the rookie list - clubs don't want to have more than 36 on the main list - so they shift players to the rookie list for that reason too. Just get rid of the rookie list. You can still keep the cap discount for any numbers listed above 36 to encourage teams to list the full quota rather than them going with the minimum to save salary cap.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

It's also the salary cap benefit of someone being on the rookie list - clubs don't want to have more than 36 on the main list - so they shift players to the rookie list for that reason too. Just get rid of the rookie list. You can still keep the cap discount for any numbers listed above 36 to encourage teams to list the full quota rather than them going with the minimum to save salary cap.

Yup understand that.
Add to that 1 year contracts vs two.
'above 36' is too simplistic....as there would then be a mechanism required to number players on the list and move them around.....

As would a 'nomination' process require a way to change that nomination around on your list.

So if they just went back COVID times and allowed movement without the de-list / redraft rubbish.....pretty much same thing!

Only way to do away with it is to change up the NGA / FS / ND rules to scrap the reasons people are moving down to rookie listed.....

 

[RobJD]

Really Kelly himself should be water under the bridge,the club has tried it,s best with him and it has not worked for him or the club.

I think 5yrs is enough time to decide whether or not he can play at the level and he has consistently shown he cannot.

The only question that needs to be asked is whether Kelly has the potential to play a role in our success in 2024 - if he is the best available candidate to assist us this year, then I'd take him, if not, then pick someone who can.

 

[Babylove]

Your traditional rookie also only has a one year contract guarantee. A sliding contract system in the national draft could overcome this though, R1 3-4 years, R2 2-3 years, R3 2 years, R4 1 year.

That is a good idea although unless they tidy things up so that the first round doesn’t make up almost half the draft I think the sliding scale should be based on draft number rather than round.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Couldn't add to it

 

[barrackers]

That is a good idea although unless they tidy things up so that the first round doesn’t make up almost half the draft I think the sliding scale should be based on draft number rather than round.

Yeah, agree. Draft rounds have become messy and aren’t really a true gauge anymore

 

[sr36]

Yup understand that.
Add to that 1 year contracts vs two.
'above 36' is too simplistic....as there would then be a mechanism required to number players on the list and move them around.....

As would a 'nomination' process require a way to change that nomination around on your list.

So if they just went back COVID times and allowed movement without the de-list / redraft rubbish.....pretty much same thing!

Only way to do away with it is to change up the NGA / FS / ND rules to scrap the reasons people are moving down to rookie listed.....

Nah. The extra cap doesn't have to be attached to a particular player. 37 on the list and your cap goes up by a minumum wage, 38 it goes up by two minimum wages - etc... Which is effectively how it is already (not counting the minumum wage or adding the value of the minumum wage to the cap has the same effect) - but there's some stupid rookie processes involved in it.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

Nah. The extra cap doesn't have to be attached to a particular player. 37 on the list and your cap goes up by a minumum wage, 38 it goes up by two minimum wages - etc... Which is effectively how it is already (not counting the minumum wage or adding the value of the minumum wage to the cap has the same effect) - but there's some stupid rookie processes involved in it.

Least of the problems is the cap discount. Easiest part to solve (as you have pointed out).
I wasn't really focused on that.

the 1v2 year contracts is a bit more difficult......Or are you suggesting that goes as well?
i guess you could allowing 6x1 year contracts where its the first contract.....but not if they are in the first 3 rounds of the draft.
or something....

Like i said, beyond cap savings (easily solved) & 1v2 year contracts.....the only reasons for the shenanigans is the forced rules around drafts.
So i'd prefer solve those problems rather than create rules that are purely based on preserving those stupid limitations.

 

[sr36]

Least of the problems is the cap discount. Easiest part to solve (as you have pointed out).
I wasn't really focused on that.

the 1v2 year contracts is a bit more difficult......Or are you suggesting that goes as well?
i guess you could allowing 6x1 year contracts where its the first contract.....but not if they are in the first 3 rounds of the draft.
or something....

Like i said, beyond cap savings (easily solved) & 1v2 year contracts.....the only reasons for the shenanigans is the forced rules around drafts.
So i'd prefer solve those problems rather than create rules that are purely based on preserving those stupid limitations.

They can still have a one year contract draft if they want it - without the player going on to a separate list; however, we're already seeing the bulk of that draft being used to shuffle players - so I'd just get rid of it. SSP players can be signed for one year.

 

[RobJD]

That is a good idea although unless they tidy things up so that the first round doesn’t make up almost half the draft I think the sliding scale should be based on draft number rather than round.

They could also consider a sliding scale too - so your contract terms depends on the percentile that you fall within rather than a skewed definition of round - they could consider doing something like that with draft pick points too - the draft value index doesn't really represent value until at least all picks with points are utilized - this year there were 9 picks with points that were deemed by eligible clubs to be of zero value.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

They can still have a one year contract draft if they want it - without the player going on to a separate list; however, we're already seeing the bulk of that draft being used to shuffle players - so I'd just get rid of it. SSP players can be signed for one year.

oh....so a rookie draft.

I like it. We should petition that AFL to have that!

Again, only issues are the rules for drafting as to why its being used the way it is.
The list itself isn't an issue.

just how and why movement has to happen.

So doesn't matter what solution is used....until the provisions around min picks & NGA / FS bids is sorted....its going to be broken.

 

[sr36]

oh....so a rookie draft.

I like it. We should petition that AFL to have that!

Again, only issues are the rules for drafting as to why its being used the way it is.
The list itself isn't an issue.

just how and why movement has to happen.

So doesn't matter what solution is used....until the provisions around min picks & NGA / FS bids is sorted....its going to be broken.

Yeah a rookie draft, if they want a one year contract draft, keep it.

Just get rid of the distinction between rookie and main list. What purpose does it serve? It just creates a stupid situation. Just get rid of the separate list. And keep whatever other elements you like - the salary cap incentive to list more players - the one year contract draft if clubs and players want it. Are there any other benefits of the current rookie system?

Fixing up matching is a different issue which shouldn't involve the concept of rookies.

 

[JuniorB]

VAFA star, ex-Port ruck, Saints mid to train at Pies for rookie spot

Sam Sofronidis, who was a standout in Victoria's amateur competition, will train with Collingwood for a spot on the rookie list

www.afl.com.au

 

[Harry O]

VAFA star, ex-Port ruck, Saints mid to train at Pies for rookie spot

Sam Sofronidis, who was a standout in Victoria's amateur competition, will train with Collingwood for a spot on the rookie list

www.afl.com.au

Might pacify all the whingers over a lack of talls for 5 minutes