List Mgmt. FA & trade wash up, what list spots & draft picks do we have?

[Hardas]

I'm not so confident. He does deserve a spot on the list and losing him for nothing will certainly not help our list depth. But with us bringing in Mayne and WHE, and Elliot, Fasolo, Broomhead hopefully ready to go by round 1... Blair is in an interesting position and both he and his manager know it. Reckon at the moment he's obviously sounding out his options as a DFA and will walk if he finds a suitable offer. If we are only offering 1 year on not much $ then you can't blame the guy.

I hear he's been offered two years with an option for a third at a certain circus.

 

[Anzacday]

I hear he's been offered two years with an option for a third at a certain circus.

Has to be the Saints then surely!

 

[adammania9]

I hear he's been offered two years with an option for a third at a certain circus.

Gold Coast's smalls are pretty pathetic. They might be interested, although lists spaces are tight if they're getting in five on draft night. I think they need to make more delistings to fit anyone else.

Essendon maybe?

 

[Rorzza]

I wasn't expecting to find out who Gubby didn't rate for some time but with the mass exodus in recent weeks, it looks like Gubby has been busy around the Holden Centre tappiing marginal players on the shoulder and telling them to find a new home!

 

[TradeDraft]

I wasn't expecting to find out who Gubby didn't rate for some time but with the mass exodus in recent weeks, it looks like Gubby has been busy around the Holden Centre tappiing marginal players on the shoulder and telling them to find a new home!

Well he might not have a Long Time to do it

 

[Babylove]

Keeffe officially promoted (which we already knew), along with Smith (which we suspected and many of us hoped)...



http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2016-11-02/magpies-promote-keeffe

So based on that list, we currently have 36 senior listed players (we had 39 including Gault, 9 off, 6 on) leaving 2-4 vacant spots, 1 category A rookie leaving 3-5 vacant spots and 1 category B rookie if we find an eligible candidate to fill it. Have I got that right?

 

[35Daicos]

So based on that list, we currently have 36 senior listed players (we had 39 including Gault, 9 off, 6 on) leaving 2-4 vacant spots, 1 category A rookie leaving 3-5 vacant spots and 1 category B rookie if we find an eligible candidate to fill it. Have I got that right?

Clubs have been allowed to have up to 3 Category B Rookies in recent times, I assume that's still the case, so we should be able to add another 2, should anyone suitable be found.

Incidentally, the rules have recently been amended to cater for the indigenous and multicultural academies, and this article on that topic is worth reading:- http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-05/tigers-eyeing-off-kayle-kirby-as-a-category-b-rookie

The Tigers have nominated the 18-year-old as one of five players they will be able to automatically list as category B rookies under the new indigenous and multicultural academies.

The AFL has approved the full list of 33 players and circulated it to clubs last week. Under the newly formed rules, clubs will be able to list the players as category B rookies if the prospects are overlooked at the national and rookie drafts.

The club will need to lodge relevant paperwork immediately after the rookie draft on November 28 to secure the multicultural or indigenous talent.

If the relevant club does not choose to take the player as a category B rookie, or if they are an AFL nomination and are not selected in the rookie or national drafts, then any club can list the player as a category B pick.

 

[MagpieBat]

So based on that list, we currently have 36 senior listed players (we had 39 including Gault, 9 off, 6 on) leaving 2-4 vacant spots, 1 category A rookie leaving 3-5 vacant spots and 1 category B rookie if we find an eligible candidate to fill it. Have I got that right?

You can have up to 3 Category B rookies, which would mean 2 current Category B vacancies, but other than that, sounds about right.

EDIT: 35Daicos beat me to the punch!

 

[Hardas]

Gold Coast's smalls are pretty pathetic. They might be interested, although lists spaces are tight if they're getting in five on draft night. I think they need to make more delistings to fit anyone else.

Essendon maybe?

Nah, sorry - just a lame dwarf joke.

 

[Lefthanded]

Keeffe officially promoted (which we already knew), along with Smith (which we suspected and many of us hoped)...
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2016-11-02/magpies-promote-keeffe

Just like signing a DFA elevating Smith or Cox would have burnt 90 f/s points.

So either we are missing something (eg another senior player still to be delisted), the club are very confident the 90 points attached to pick 65 won't be needed, or the the club is inept. Would look very bad if they need those 90 points and can't use them. Personally I'm surprised we have already upgraded Keeffe & Smith given final list lodgement is after the draft http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-28/whats-next-all-the-afl-dates-you-need-to-know
Couldn't we have held off until then in case we wish to sign a DFA (currently available or still to be delisted) and wish to ensure we take as many points as possible into the draft for F/S?

 

[Anzacday]

So either we are missing something (eg another senior player still to be delisted), the club are very confident the 90 points attached to pick 65 won't be needed, or the the club is inept. Would look very bad if they need those 90 points and can't use them. Personally I'm surprised we have already upgraded Keeffe & Smith given final list lodgement is after the draft http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-28/whats-next-all-the-afl-dates-you-need-to-know
Couldn't we have held off until then in case we wish to sign a DFA (currently available or still to be delisted) and wish to ensure we take as many points as possible into the draft for F/S?

I came to the conclusion they're either delisting Marsh or dropping him back to the rookie list.
The speculation is we need to keep Marsh on the list for cap purposes, (even if he's never coming back).
Makes sense to me to delist him and split his salary between Smith and Keeffe.

 

[Lefthanded]

I came to the conclusion they're either delisting Marsh or dropping him back to the rookie list.
The speculation is we need to keep Marsh on the list for cap purposes, (even if he's never coming back).
Makes sense to me to delist him and split his salary between Smith and Keeffe.

Could well be but if I was the person making decisions at CFC I wouldn't (unless I had to) promote both Keeffe & Smith until such time that I was delisting or demoting whichever other player it's going to be. Keeffe & Smith don't need the public reassurance, they just need to know what is happening. Think of the BF posters and the angst it causes us to perceive them as not looking after the 90 points.

edit: I don't buy that we need to keep Marsh for cap purposes, we would have other ways to manage that. I suspect it's as simple as he has a contract for next year and we want him back. If he's having issues, it's not the best time to be discussing tearing up said contract (or demoting to rookie).

 

[Crazy Tails]

So based on that list, we currently have 36 senior listed players (we had 39 including Gault, 9 off, 6 on) leaving 2-4 vacant spots, 1 category A rookie leaving 3-5 vacant spots and 1 category B rookie if we find an eligible candidate to fill it. Have I got that right?

Yeah I have it as 9 off the list 6 on at the moment. I think we ran with 38 this year didn't we?

So if we run with a list of 38 again (pending any more drop offs Blair/Marsh) we only have 3 picks in the draft. I think we'll go with 39 on the list this year which gives us 4 picks in the draft and the ability to promote a rookie straight away i.e. Mason Cox.

If we want Cal Brown and Daicos I'm not sure how we've got the list flexibility to take any DFAs without dropping another one off. Not sure how we've done it with a whopping 9 off the list but we've painted ourselves into a bit of a corner.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barrackers]

Yeah I have it as 9 off the list 6 on at the moment. I think we ran with 38 this year didn't we?

So if we run with a list of 38 again (pending any more drop offs Blair/Marsh) we only have 3 picks in the draft. I think we'll go with 39 on the list this year which gives us 4 picks in the draft and the ability to promote a rookie straight away i.e. Mason Cox.

If we want Cal Brown and Daicos I'm not sure how we've got the list flexibility to take any DFAs without dropping another one off. Not sure how we've done it with a whopping 9 off the list but we've painted ourselves into a bit of a corner.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Had 39 in 2016, Babylove's figures are correct.

 

[barrackers]

So either we are missing something (eg another senior player still to be delisted), the club are very confident the 90 points attached to pick 65 won't be needed, or the the club is inept. Would look very bad if they need those 90 points and can't use them. Personally I'm surprised we have already upgraded Keeffe & Smith given final list lodgement is after the draft http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-28/whats-next-all-the-afl-dates-you-need-to-know
Couldn't we have held off until then in case we wish to sign a DFA (currently available or still to be delisted) and wish to ensure we take as many points as possible into the draft for F/S?

Yeah I think there's something else at play. As Anzacday says perhaps another delisting or alternatively perhaps we expect Daicos/Brown to go higher (use 28) or lower so we won't need the 90 points from that pick.

The only other thing I can think of is we might benefit from two interpretations this year:

• GWS is allowed to take 3 ghost picks into the draft as they held future picks from last trade season going into the trade period
• Hawthorn were able to trade both their 1st and 2nd round 2017 picks as they gained GWS' 2017 second rounder. The AFL okayed it as a second round pick equals a second pick

We briefly held St Kilda's future pick during the 2015 trade period, with a second round pick equaling a second round pick perhaps the ghost pick exception applies to our own second round pick?

 

[Crazy Tails]

Had 39 in 2016, Babylove's figures are correct.

Right. Well that would rule out running with a list of 38 + 6 as we need to take at least 3 players in the draft which would give us 39 + 5 at a minimum. With our lack of Ruck back up it would be highly doubtful we would go with 40 + 4 with the inability to upgrade Cox immediately.

So a list of 39 + 5 would give us only 3 live picks. It doesn't seem much considering the player types Hine raised at the members forum as being needs. Either there is more main list chopping to come or we are confident we can get a few decent long term prospects in the rookie draft where we should have 3-4 picks (I think).


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lefthanded]

Yeah I think there's something else at play. As Anzacday says perhaps another delisting or alternatively perhaps we expect Daicos/Brown to go higher (use 28) or lower so we won't need the 90 points from that pick.

The only other thing I can think of is we might benefit from two interpretations this year:

• GWS is allowed to take 3 ghost picks into the draft as they held future picks from last trade season going into the trade period
• Hawthorn were able to trade both their 1st and 2nd round 2017 picks as they gained GWS' 2017 second rounder. The AFL okayed it as a second round pick equals a second pick

We briefly held St Kilda's future pick during the 2015 trade period, with a second round pick equaling a second round pick perhaps the ghost pick exception applies to our own second round pick?

Anzacday suggestion is reasonably likely but I already had my say on that so won't dwell on it.
I think we are no chance of the ghost pick exception applying to us as we didn't hold the pick at end of 2015 trade period.

Other scenario would be they rate each of Brown & Daicos as roughly 25+ best player in the draft. Pick 28 allows us to match bids from pick 21 onwards. Suggests a bid earlier than this would not be matched. Even if Brown & Daicos were bid picks 22 & 23 we could match with picks 28, 44 & 51 so points after pick 51 considered irrelevant.
My next thought was that it gets tricky as club doesn't know exactly where our first pick will come due to academy & father son bids. Pick 30, 44 & 50 (see below reasoning) are enough to match bids from as early as picks 23 & 24 so our 4th & 5th picks are likely irrelevant from matching point of view and we are likely to pass on bids earlier than 23.

Below for detail orientated people to understand where I derived pick 30, 44 & 50 from - does not consider pick movements outside likely top 30 bids

However comparing list of nominations http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-31/adelaide-nominates-ben-jarman-as-potential-fatherson-recruit
with phantom draft http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-13/callum-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-october-edition
with list of each clubs picks http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/11/0...-every-teams-picks-in-order-and-club-by-club/
reveals only 4 other club players likely to be bid early:
Bowes - Suns. 5th in phantom and Suns hold picks 4,6,8,10 so match with their next pick and our picks don't change order
Scheer - Suns 25th in phantom Suns late picks 73,98 carry next to no points. Suggests they either don't match a bid before our first or will have to go into significant points deficit. Outcome for us - either no impact on our first pick or it moves back 1 pick - my best guess: move back 1 (Suns effectively use 1 of the 3 2017 2nd rounders they have (their own, Richmond's, Freo's) to match
Setterfield - GWS 7th in phantom
Perryman - GWS 9th in phantom

GWS hold picks 2,15,37,39,45,52,55,57,58,59,60. Pick 2 likely to be live pick and other 10 picks would be used to match in the extreme scenario bids at pick 3 & 4. In more likely scenario that they are bid around 7 & 9 it's their next 5 picks (15,37,39,45,52) that are used to match. Either way our first pick would move back 1 pick.

Likely outcome for us. (Hopefully my logic and understanding of matching rules is correct)
Our first pick, currently 28 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, another 1 by GWS matching Perryman, therefore we hold pick 30. (not affected by GWS matching Setterfield given it will use up pick 15)
Our 2nd pick, currently 44 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 1 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Stays at 44
Our 3rd pick, currently 51 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 2 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Becomes pick 50
Our 4th pick, currently 62 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 3 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Becomes pick 60 (or better if GWS matches bids earlier than 7&9)

Edit: any bid after 55 would be matched with our 4th pick and we won't be lucky enough to have both players bid after our 3rd pick, supporting that our 5th pick won't be relevant for F/S matching.

 

[barrackers]

Anzacday suggestion is reasonably likely but I already had my say on that so won't dwell on it.
I think we are no chance of the ghost pick exception applying to us as we didn't hold the pick at end of 2015 trade period.

Other scenario would be they rate each of Brown & Daicos as roughly 25+ best player in the draft. Pick 28 allows us to match bids from pick 21 onwards. Suggests a bid earlier than this would not be matched. Even if Brown & Daicos were bid picks 22 & 23 we could match with picks 28, 44 & 51 so points after pick 51 considered irrelevant.
My next thought was that it gets tricky as club doesn't know exactly where our first pick will come due to academy & father son bids. Pick 30, 44 & 50 (see below reasoning) are enough to match bids from as early as picks 23 & 24 so our 4th & 5th picks are likely irrelevant from matching point of view and we are likely to pass on bids earlier than 23.

Below for detail orientated people to understand where I derived pick 30, 44 & 50 from - does not consider pick movements outside likely top 30 bids

However comparing list of nominations http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-31/adelaide-nominates-ben-jarman-as-potential-fatherson-recruit
with phantom draft http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-13/callum-twomeys-phantom-form-guide-october-edition
with list of each clubs picks http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/11/0...-every-teams-picks-in-order-and-club-by-club/
reveals only 4 other club players likely to be bid early:
Bowes - Suns. 5th in phantom and Suns hold picks 4,6,8,10 so match with their next pick and our picks don't change order
Scheer - Suns 25th in phantom Suns late picks 73,98 carry next to no points. Suggests they either don't match a bid before our first or will have to go into significant points deficit. Outcome for us - either no impact on our first pick or it moves back 1 pick - my best guess: move back 1 (Suns effectively use 1 of the 3 2017 2nd rounders they have (their own, Richmond's, Freo's) to match
Setterfield - GWS 7th in phantom
Perryman - GWS 9th in phantom

GWS hold picks 2,15,37,39,45,52,55,57,58,59,60. Pick 2 likely to be live pick and other 10 picks would be used to match in the extreme scenario bids at pick 3 & 4. In more likely scenario that they are bid around 7 & 9 it's their next 5 picks (15,37,39,45,52) that are used to match. Either way our first pick would move back 1 pick.

Likely outcome for us. (Hopefully my logic and understanding of matching rules is correct)
Our first pick, currently 28 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, another 1 by GWS matching Perryman, therefore we hold pick 30. (not affected by GWS matching Setterfield given it will use up pick 15)
Our 2nd pick, currently 44 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 1 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Stays at 44
Our 3rd pick, currently 51 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 2 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Becomes pick 50
Our 4th pick, currently 62 - pushed back 1 by Suns matching Scheer, brought forward 3 by GWS matching Setterfield & Perryman. Becomes pick 60 (or better if GWS matches bids earlier than 7&9)

Edit: any bid after 55 would be matched with our 4th pick and we won't be lucky enough to have both players bid after our 3rd pick, supporting that our 5th pick won't be relevant for F/S matching.

The issue potentially comes if the first bid on both players comes after our first pick, but losing those 90 points doesn't cause much of a difference anyway. Taking our first pick out of the equation and assuming GWS use 37 and 39 to match academy bids:

With pick 65: 834 + 166 (20% discount) = 1000 points = ability to match bids on both 36 (4 point deficient won't shift next years pick)
Without pick 65: 744 + 148 (20% discount) = 892 points = ability to match bids at 38/40 (2 point deficient won't shift next years pick)

 

[Lefthanded]

The issue potentially comes if the first bid on both players comes after our first pick, but losing those 90 points doesn't cause much of a difference anyway. Taking our first pick out of the equation and assuming GWS use 37 and 39 to match academy bids:

With pick 65: 834 + 166 (20% discount) = 1000 points = ability to match bids on both 36 (4 point deficient won't shift next years pick)
Without pick 65: 744 + 148 (20% discount) = 892 points = ability to match bids at 38/40 (2 point deficient won't shift next years pick)

I don't see an issue as it's not 20% discount outside 1st round, it's 197 points (which is greater than 20%).
Eg (assuming my pick 30, 44, 50, 60 scenario from previous post)
We take a live pick at 30
Essendon (just going worst case for illustration) bid at 31 on Brown = 606 points less 197 = 409 points. We match
Essendon bid at their now pick 32 on Daicos = 584 points less 197 = 387 points. We match
409 + 387 = 796 points required
picks 44, 50, 60 = 362 + 273 + 146 = 781 points available (will be more if GWS academy players bid earlier than 7&9). Deficit of 15 would come off our 2nd rounder next year (which we don't have) so presumably comes off our next pick, presumably Lions 3rd rounder and it might be around pick 40 after FA compos. That might get moved back 1 spot if we have a deficit of 15. I can live with that (as long as some gun doesn't go 1 pick before that pick in 2017 draft )

Issue may be more that with current list size of 36 and the desire to be able to nominate Cox we only intend to take 3 live picks (hopefully 28/30 and the two FS). IF we got to pick 44 and there hasn't been a bid on either FS we might just take one there. If there is some other player we rate higher still available and we take them, we are then reliant on LTI to upgrade Cox or we must delist someone else before final list lodgement (assuming neither FS lasts to rookie draft).

 

[barrackers]

I don't see an issue as it's not 20% discount outside 1st round, it's 197 points (which is greater than 20%).
Eg (assuming my pick 30, 44, 50, 60 scenario from previous post)
We take a live pick at 30
Essendon (just going worst case for illustration) bid at 31 on Brown = 606 points less 197 = 409 points. We match
Essendon bid at their now pick 32 on Daicos = 584 points less 197 = 387 points. We match
409 + 387 = 796 points required
picks 44, 50, 60 = 362 + 273 + 146 = 781 points available (will be more if GWS academy players bid earlier than 7&9). Deficit of 15 would come off our 2nd rounder next year (which we don't have) so presumably comes off our next pick, presumably Lions 3rd rounder and it might be around pick 40 after FA compos. That might get moved back 1 spot if we have a deficit of 15. I can live with that (as long as some gun doesn't go 1 pick before that pick in 2017 draft )

Issue may be more that with current list size of 36 and the desire to be able to nominate Cox we only intend to take 3 live picks (hopefully 28/30 and the two FS). IF we got to pick 44 and there hasn't been a bid on either FS we might just take one there. If there is some other player we rate higher still available and we take them, we are then reliant on LTI to upgrade Cox or we must delist someone else before final list lodgement (assuming neither FS lasts to rookie draft).

Good point I forgot about the 197 floor on the discount.

With our current picks 28, 44, 51, 62 we can match the following without a future pick being effected.

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\20,21|1396|Nil 25 leftover|
\22,23|1266|Nil 155 leftover|Retain pick 62
\any bids from 23-27|||Retain pick 62
\29,37|742|Nil 2 leftover|
\30,35|757|13|Insufficient to change future pick
\31,34|754|10|Insufficient to change future pick
\32,33|753|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\33,39|615|Nil 129 leftover|Retain pick 62
\34,38|613|Nil 131 leftover|Retain pick 62
\35,37|611|Nil 133 leftover|Retain pick 62
\any bids from 36 onwards|||Retain pick 62

With 65 (currently can't take this pick to the draft)

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\19,20|1466|Nil 45 leftover|
\20,21|1396|Nil 115 left over|Retain pick 65
\any bids from 21-27|||Retain pick 65
\29,32|843|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\30,31|841|7|Insufficient to change future pick
\any bids from 31 onwards|| points leftover

 

[jmac70]

Good point I forgot about the 197 floor on the discount.

With our current picks 28, 44, 51, 62 we can match the following without a future pick being effected.

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\20,20|1430|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\22,22|1296|Nil 125 leftover|Retain pick 62
\29,37|742|Nil 2 leftover|
\30,35|757|13|Insufficient to change future pick
\31,34|754|10|Insufficient to change future pick
\32,33|753|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\33,33|732|Nil 12 leftover|
\33,39|615|Nil 129 leftover|Retain pick 62
\34,38|613|Nil 131 leftover|Retain pick 62
\35,37|611|Nil 133 leftover|Retain pick 62
\36,36|610|Nil 134 leftover|Retain pick 62

With 65

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\19,19|1502|Nil 9 leftover|
\20,21|1396|Nil 115 left over|Retain pick 65
\29,32|843|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\30,31|841|7|Insufficient to change future pick
\31,31|818|Nil 16 leftover

Impressive work, although I have no idea what it means.

 

[Lefthanded]

Good point I forgot about the 197 floor on the discount.

With our current picks 28, 44, 51, 62 we can match the following without a future pick being effected.

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\20,20|1430|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\22,22|1296|Nil 125 leftover|Retain pick 62
\29,37|742|Nil 2 leftover|
\30,35|757|13|Insufficient to change future pick
\31,34|754|10|Insufficient to change future pick
\32,33|753|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\33,33|732|Nil 12 leftover|
\33,39|615|Nil 129 leftover|Retain pick 62
\34,38|613|Nil 131 leftover|Retain pick 62
\35,37|611|Nil 133 leftover|Retain pick 62
\36,36|610|Nil 134 leftover|Retain pick 62

With 65

Bids|Points Req.|Deficient|Comments
\19,19|1502|Nil 9 leftover|
\20,21|1396|Nil 115 left over|Retain pick 65
\29,32|843|9|Insufficient to change future pick
\30,31|841|7|Insufficient to change future pick
\31,31|818|Nil 16 leftover

If going to that detail you should also factor in that we can't be required to match two bids at pick 20. If someone bids on Brown at 20 and we match, we have effectively used pick 20 and they drop back to pick 21, where they could then bid on Daicos.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

I think we may only have 1 potentially live pick in the draft, if we have committed to draft both Brown and Daicos.

Out (9): Macaffer, Witts, N Brown, Williams, Goodyear, Cloke, Toovey, Swan, Frost.

In (9): Wells, Mayne, Hoskin-Elliott, Dunn, Keeffe, Smith, C Brown, Daicos, Pick 28.

And another 4 rookie picks to replace Keeffe, Smith, Golds, Gault in the rookie draft.

 

[barrackers]

Impressive work, although I have no idea what it means.

It's an idea using our current picks of what father son bids we might be able to match without next years pick being bumped backwards.

Example:
If a side bids on Brown at pick 29 we can match a bid on Daicos at pick 37 without next year's pick being effected.
However if a side bids on Brown at pick 29 and a side bids on Daicos at pick 36 we don't have enough points this season and go into debt with those points deducted from 2017.

 

[Vicky Park]

Keefe was a no brainer, mate of mine reckons he has been flat out training like a man possessed, might surprise some of our regular Pies whingers one this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm one of those, in relation to Keeffe, so I hope your mail is correct. I'd love to be wrong about him.