List Mgmt. List Management 2022

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Oliver - 7 year extension
Christian Petracca - 7 year extension
Angus Brayshaw - 6 year deal

Longer contracts seem to be in fashion at the moment. Following on from Cripps' 6 year deal signed last year, don't be surprised if we follow suit with both Harry and Charlie.

Makes a lot of sense too - you're taking a slight risk by locking away a player for longer than what you may have otherwise done, but the ability to spread the total value of the contract over more years affords the club far greater flexibility with its payments structure.
 
Your argument is to cut him, not move him to the Rookie List.
And we had a different list composition when we moved Kennedy to the Rookie List.
I think you are missing the point, we have a significant number of injury prone players who are consistently missing large chunks of the season year on year, we are in a position to be challenging the next few years, but rather than sit on our hands, let's continue to be proactive on improving our list to take the next step.

And whether we like or not decisions at year-end on a number of injury riddled players eg McDonald & Cunningham will need to be made, in the case of Cunningham we know he has talent, so rather than delisting, placing him on the rookie list seems a reasonable option to consider.
 
I think you are missing the point, we have a significant number of injury prone players who are consistently missing large chunks of the season year on year, we are in a position to be challenging the next few years, but rather than sit on our hands, let's continue to be proactive on improving our list to take the next step.

And whether we like or not decisions at year-end on a number of injury riddled players eg McDonald & Cunningham will need to be made, in the case of Cunningham we know he has talent, so rather than delisting, placing him on the rookie list seems a reasonable option to consider.
No, you're missing the point.
There is no reason to move Cuningham to the Rookie List. There is no benefit. We won't desperately need that Senior List spot. He'll get paid whatever his new contract is. We'll get the cap saving across the 6 Rookies we keep.

From a player's point of view, the only difference between being on the Rookie List and being on the Senior List is when you are drafted.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No, you're missing the point.
There is no reason to move Cuningham to the Rookie List. There is no benefit. We won't desperately need that Senior List spot. He'll get paid whatever his new contract is. We'll get the cap saving across the 6 Rookies we keep.

From a player's point of view, the only difference between being on the Rookie List and being on the Senior List is when you are drafted.

You might be surprised who we shift to the rookie list and who we elevate
 
Clayton Oliver - 7 year extension
Christian Petracca - 7 year extension
Angus Brayshaw - 6 year deal

Longer contracts seem to be in fashion at the moment. Following on from Cripps' 6 year deal signed last year, don't be surprised if we follow suit with both Harry and Charlie.

Makes a lot of sense too - you're taking a slight risk by locking away a player for longer than what you may have otherwise done, but the ability to spread the total value of the contract over more years affords the club far greater flexibility with its payments structure.
Curnow’s contract will come with a lot of risk imo.
6 years for Harry will see him through until his 31. It’s a no brainer
 
View attachment 1458021

This is....promising.

If Paddy can continue to get these kinds of wraps for the remainder of the year I'd be very keen to see him retained (ie. any trade approaches rejected).
Confirmation of a “really hard tag”…. Interesting….

Very positive though.

That attitude, to me, doesn’t sound like a man moving clubs at seasons end. And nor should he, he will get his opportunity soon enough.
 
So Matt Crouch is seemingly available, for a pick in the 60's/70's.

Salary might be an issue but I don't hate the idea. Extracts the pill really well, perhaps not the best user. Only 27, so another midfield body to throw into the mix. Free up a Walsh/Cripps etc.
 
I would like to see the draft age lifted by a year.

Sound idea, unfortunately it's in line with the last year of schooling. They would need to change the juniors to an Under 19 competition and the belief, they would lose players if they have to tread water between last year of school, to a working life
 
Last edited:
No, you're missing the point.
There is no reason to move Cuningham to the Rookie List. There is no benefit. We won't desperately need that Senior List spot. He'll get paid whatever his new contract is. We'll get the cap saving across the 6 Rookies we keep.

From a player's point of view, the only difference between being on the Rookie List and being on the Senior List is when you are drafted.
We will see what happens but l believe there is a good chance this will happen.

The comment we won't need a senior list spot, why not are you saying our list is perfect and requires no further improvement.
 
So Matt Crouch is seemingly available, for a pick in the 60's/70's.

Salary might be an issue but I don't hate the idea. Extracts the pill really well, perhaps not the best user. Only 27, so another midfield body to throw into the mix. Free up a Walsh/Cripps etc.

We have enough players that can play an inside mid role, we need more speed/agility and improved kicking skills
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We have enough players that can play an inside mid role, we need more speed/agility and improved kicking skills
That's valid. Was thinking it might free up Walsh a bit more but you're right.
 
The comment we won't need a senior list spot, why not are you saying our list is perfect and requires no further improvement.
No, I'm not saying that at all. It's about the spots. 2 already gone, Ed will retire, Fog an easy cut.
Owies will get elevated, but that's already 3 Senior spots without trying.

Meanwhile, we have 8 Rookies, with a maxium of 6. We need to cut 2 just to get to the max.
 
So Matt Crouch is seemingly available, for a pick in the 60's/70's.

Salary might be an issue but I don't hate the idea. Extracts the pill really well, perhaps not the best user. Only 27, so another midfield body to throw into the mix. Free up a Walsh/Cripps etc.

Anyone know if his Mrs is from Adelaide???

Just got engaged and a baby due in January.

He's going to have plenty on his plate if she's an SA native. Can't see him leaving early if she's not a Victorian
 
So Matt Crouch is seemingly available, for a pick in the 60's/70's.

Salary might be an issue but I don't hate the idea. Extracts the pill really well, perhaps not the best user. Only 27, so another midfield body to throw into the mix. Free up a Walsh/Cripps etc.

He'd be moving for opportunity given the Crows have told him he's unlikely to be in their selection frame.

I don't think we could promise him a spot in the 22, which probably rules us out for him rather than the other way round. He'd be great depth, on the cheap, but he'll want more than that.

Perfect pickup for Essendon, NM, maybe even GWS. Potentially Richmond if Dusty goes.
 
Curnow’s contract will come with a lot of risk imo.
6 years for Harry will see him through until his 31. It’s a no brainer

All longer contracts carry an additional element of risk. That risk can be offset somewhat by stretching the salary across the entirety of the contract.

Given the way Charlie has come back and is playing, I'm pretty happy taking that risk.
 
All longer contracts carry an additional element of risk. That risk can be offset somewhat by stretching the salary across the entirety of the contract.

Given the way Charlie has come back and is playing, I'm pretty happy taking that risk.
We haven’t got much choice with Charlie but if it goes wrong everyone will be an expert with the benefit of hindsight saying we were mad to sign a ~$6mil contract to someone with his injury history.
 
We haven’t got much choice with Charlie but if it goes wrong everyone will be an expert with the benefit of hindsight saying we were mad to sign a ~$6mil contract to someone with his injury history.

Not worried about what the media or any hindsight hero has to say.

Not sure it'll be $6m but it may very well be 6+ years.
 
Discussion regarding Cuningham dragged from elsewhere



Our rookie list is both a godsend and a curse.

Parks (2 years)
McDonald (2 years)
Mirkov. (1.5 years)
Boyd (1.5 years)
Cottrell (1 year)
O’Brien (1 year)
Durdin (.5 year)
Hayes (.5 year)

Players can spend a maximum of three years on the rookie list. As stated, we have to get back to six maximum. FWIW, as things sit I believe we will delist two directly and favour tweener defender Parks and last on Hayes as those two. I am sure we will also promote at least one to the main list, and possibly a second along with Matt Owies who must be promoted from the Cat B list.

It would actually be advantageous to flick a main list player back to the rookie list to reset tenure and allow promotions without finding more delistings. Pretty sure last year had to be contracted and could be “relegated” between the main draft and the rookie draft, thus reducing the main list. If we were comfortable that no one would poach an uncontracted player, we could simply delist and rookie as we did with O’Brien and Cottrell last year.

If we don’t elevate a couple this year, we could be forced to elevate three or even four players at the end of next season or reset the main/rookie list split. (I am assuming we will retain Mirkov, Boyd, Cottrell and O’Brien long term) If, as strongly rumoured we re-sign McDonald, I expect an SSP period reset to allow him another three years on the rookie list. Delist, train-on to ensure his back issues are fixed then re-sign.

This sort of juggling would also allow us to sign a speculative prospect or perhaps reward a state league player on our list. We have a couple in the twos, worthy of the recognition.

Going by that list, at the end of the year i would (and club may have already with LOB and Cotts)
Parks - delist
McDonald - delist
Mirkov - retain
Boyd - retain
Cotts - main list
LOB - main list
Durdin - delist (maybe retain if there is no other key tall that we like)
Hayes - delist

Move Cuningham to Rookie List
 
I might well be.
They should just scrap the Rookie List. It's hardly for rookies anymore.
Give the clubs the extra $500k or so in the cap, 1 year contracts from round 4 in the draft.

I would like to see 3 year contracts for all 18 year old draftees
What about a bit of both...?

First two rounds of draft open to 18 and over, 3-year deals.
Third round 19 and over, 2-year deals.
Fourth round onwards, 19 and over, 1-year deals.

No rookie list. May need a split in the draft after either 2nd or 3rd round with allowance for list movements (similar to prior to rookie draft now).

Keep Cat-B rookies with current requirements.
 
Going by that list, at the end of the year i would (and club may have already with LOB and Cotts)
Parks - delist
McDonald - delist
Mirkov - retain
Boyd - retain
Cotts - main list
LOB - main list
Durdin - delist (maybe retain if there is no other key tall that we like)
Hayes - delist

Move Cuningham to Rookie List
What would be the point of elevating LOB and Cottrell this year, and moving Cuningham to the Rookie list?
 
What would be the point of elevating LOB and Cottrell this year, and moving Cuningham to the Rookie list?

reward and incentive.

reward for cotts and LOB for good years
incentivise cuningham like we have with Kennedy and LOB - last chance warning

LOB and cotts have resigned havent they? i would be very surprised if they signed a rookie contract mid season and not wait for more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top