List Sizes

[76woodenspooners]

Rules:
- what are they?

Our 2023 list:

• 44 players total
• 36 senior list players
• 7 Cat A rookies (Johnson, Begg, Carmichael, Murley, Dean, Markov, Steene)
• 1 Cat B rookie (Wilson)

8 Outs (6 senior, 1 Cat A, 1 Cat B)

• Adams traded (senior list)
• Bianco delisted (senior list)
• Draper delisted (senior list)
• Ruscoe delisted (senior list)
• Kelly delisted (senior list)
• Ginni traded (senior list)
• Murley delisted (Cat A list)
• Wilson delisted (Cat B list)

Ins:

• Shultz traded (senior list)
• Pick 19 (ish) (senior list)
• Pick 33 (ish) (senior list)

Promotions:

• Johnson been on rookie list for 3 years, needs promoting?
• Begg been on rookie list for 3 years, needs promoting?

The situation:

Senior list:
Given 36 min list size which we had in 2023, we have the 6 out, we’d need to replace all 6 at a minimum - which is Shultz, pick 19, pick 33, promotions to Johnson and Begg, plus one other spot?

Cat A list:
Not sure what the situation was last year with the Dean / Markov situation, but as far as I can see a club can have a list size of 44, and we have 44?
With 1 delisting and 2 promotions, that’d appear to leave up to 3 Cat A list spots to fill from the Rookie draft / SSP / MSD?

 

[Prexm]

Rules:
- what are they?

Our 2023 list:

• 44 players total
• 35 senior list players
• 8 Cat A rookies (Johnson, Begg, Carmichael, Murley, Ginni, Dean, Markov, Steene)
• 1 Cat B rookie (Wilson)

8 Outs (5 senior, 2 Cat A, 1 Cat B)

• Adams traded (senior list)
• Bianco delisted (senior list)
• Draper delisted (senior list)
• Ruscoe delisted (senior list)
• Kelly delisted (senior list)
• Ginni traded (Cat A list)
• Murley delisted (Cat A list)
• Wilson delisted (Cat B list)

Ins:

• Shultz traded (senior list)
• Pick 19 (ish) (senior list)
• Pick 33 (ish) (senior list)

Promotions:

• Johnson been on rookie list for 3 years, needs promoting?
• Begg been on rookie list for 3 years, needs promoting?

The situation:

Senior list:
I’d imagine our 2023 list size of 35 must be the minimum? (can’t find list rules anywhere)
Therefore given the 5 out, we’d need to replace all 5 at a minimum - which is Shultz, pick 19, pick 33, and promotions to Johnson and Begg and calling it done.

Cat A list:
Not sure what the situation was last year with the Dean / Markov situation, but as far as I can see a club can have a list size of 44, and we have 44?
With 2 delistings and 2 promotions, that’d appear to leave up to 4 Cat A list spots to fill from the Rookie draft / SSP / MSD?

The minimum is 36. Ginni was promoted for 2023.
Can have 36-38 and 4-6 rookies. Maximum is 42 plus 2 Cat B rookies if you want them.
We now have 33-4 which will go to 36-6.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The minimum is 36. Ginni was promoted for 2023.
Can have 36-38 and 4-6 rookies. Maximum is 42 plus 2 Cat B rookies if you want them.
We now have 33-4 which will go to 36-6.

Thanks, fixed

 

[Roverjg]

Oleg and Johnson have today been upgraded to the senior list

 

[Prexm]

Oleg and Johnson have today been upgraded to the senior list

Given it is Oleg instead of Begg , we must be allowed to keep Begg on rookie list given he has not played 3 full seasons , last I heard this was waiting clarification.
All reports have been we will take 1-2 picks in ND but maybe it will be 3. Think we have always taken 3 minimum in previous drafts.

 

[Mkcaptain]

I don't think I appreciated how many rookie/SSP list spots we'd have available. In that context I can see why they wouldn't have minded using one on Lycett.

 

[Jen2310]

So we currently have 33 and 4
Which means we have 3 senor and 2 rookie spots available.

36/6 is generally how we do the list.

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

So we currently have 33 and 4
Which means we have 3 senor and 2 rookie spots available.

36/6 is generally how we do the list.

This suggests that we will use 3 picks in national draft. Pick 80 will get moved up with other clubs passing. I have no problem using this last pick on a mature age or delisted player from another AFL club.

Rookie draft we might not use, if we want to allow additional time to assess players for Supplementary selection period.

 

[Prexm]

This suggests that we will use 3 picks in national draft. Pick 80 will get moved up with other clubs passing. I have no problem using this last pick on a mature age or delisted player from another AFL club.

Rookie draft we might not use, if we want to allow additional time to assess players for Supplementary selection period.

I am hoping we use the 3rd pick like we did last year , though hopefully this time someone bigger and better than Richards.

 

[Markfs]

Slightly off the main point, Joe Richards is a good example of what is wrong with the current system. He deserved his chance but it's just ridiculous to lock a club into holding on to him for two years. We need to give more opportunities to more players. Brody Micocek and Tom Stewart are just two examples of players who were late bloomers who were lucky to get on a list.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Slightly off the main point, Joe Richards is a good example of what is wrong with the current system. He deserved his chance but it's just ridiculous to lock a club into holding on to him for two years. We need to give more opportunities to more players. Brody Micocek and Tom Stewart are just two examples of players who were late bloomers who were lucky to get on a list.

We didn’t have to lock him in for 2 years. We could have just waited and taken him as a rookie.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Slightly off the main point, Joe Richards is a good example of what is wrong with the current system. He deserved his chance but it's just ridiculous to lock a club into holding on to him for two years. We need to give more opportunities to more players. Brody Micocek and Tom Stewart are just two examples of players who were late bloomers who were lucky to get on a list.

If Richards is really so terrible, why haven’t we just delisted and rookied him like we did with Murley?

 

[Markfs]

We didn’t have to lock him in for 2 years. We could have just waited and taken him as a rookie.

That's a matter of judgement. I'd just like to have guys like richards "tested out" more. They've introduced summer contracts for players - the one that markov was on before he got a proper positon. I think we should give season passes for players that have previously had an opportunity to be listed formally... or even 3 month contracts. People are getting excited by mid-season trading, and I support the idea of guys getting moved if a club doesnt want them, but I'm thinking more about guys outside the system who missed opportunities because they werent mature enough, or were unfashionable.

I very much believe that recruiting staff hate to admit that they are wrong and they find it hard to list mature players, but I would also agree that the risks are more because of situations like richards, where you take a guy on the strength of a good country season and he just doesnt translate to the AFL system.

 

[Markfs]

If Richards is really so terrible, why haven’t we just delisted and rookied him like we did with Murley?

i dont know if he's so terrible. I dont know the system but I think he HAD to be rookied didnt he? They promised him 2 years and it got downgraded to being rookied. I think they might have been happy to let him go entirely at the end of 2022 if the initial contract wasnt in place.

In fact, I would argue this supports my position. I think Wright probably told Hine to change his recruiting strategy and get off the murley and poulters but in murley's case, they were tied to keeping him......but you'd know better than me. I'm not an expert in the contract area

 

[Mollythedolly]

If Richards is really so terrible, why haven’t we just delisted and rookied him like we did with Murley?

My guess is that we didn't need to. Only reason to do it is to free up senior list spots but if we've got enough free to promote Markov then clearly it's not a priority.

 

[Mollythedolly]

That's a matter of judgement. I'd just like to have guys like richards "tested out" more. They've introduced summer contracts for players - the one that markov was on before he got a proper positon. I think we should give season passes for players that have previously had an opportunity to be listed formally... or even 3 month contracts. People are getting excited by mid-season trading, and I support the idea of guys getting moved if a club doesnt want them, but I'm thinking more about guys outside the system who missed opportunities because they werent mature enough, or were unfashionable.

I very much believe that recruiting staff hate to admit that they are wrong and they find it hard to list mature players, but I would also agree that the risks are more because of situations like richards, where you take a guy on the strength of a good country season and he just doesnt translate to the AFL system.

But we have a history of adding mature age recruits through both the ND and the rookie draft. Langers and Checkers 2 that come to mind.

 

[76woodenspooners]

My guess is that we didn't need to. Only reason to do it is to free up senior list spots but if we've got enough free to promote Markov then clearly it's not a priority.

Fair enough.

I guess the choice would be

(A) (Richards not re-rookied) - Richards + a late rookie / SSP / MSD on a 1 year deal

(B) (Richards re-rookied) - Richards + Late ND pick on a 2 year deal

And we’ve picked (A)

 

[Markfs]

But we have a history of adding mature age recruits through both the ND and the rookie draft. Langers and Checkers 2 that come to mind.

i said that i'd like to see greater opportunities for mature footballers. More tryouts. There is too much emphasis on recruiting staff picking winners.

As the experts on here say, you dont get much after the first couple of rounds of the draft. Some people are more attuned to the style of play and the lifestyle, the discipline etc.

 

[Anzacday]

If Richards is really so terrible, why haven’t we just delisted and rookied him like we did with Murley?

I think we are still able to do that

 

[Mollythedolly]

i said that i'd like to see greater opportunities for mature footballers. More tryouts. There is too much emphasis on recruiting staff picking winners.

As the experts on here say, you dont get much after the first couple of rounds of the draft. Some people are more attuned to the style of play and the lifestyle, the discipline etc.

We can have as many train on as we like, just need to get afl approval.

Who are these experts you claim are on here? I’ve only read fellow mug punters offering up opinions.

 

[Markfs]

We can have as many train on as we like, just need to get afl approval.

Who are these experts you claim are on here? I’ve only read fellow mug punters offering up opinions.

The experts who tell us that they know everything. I listen to them always.

As for training as many as we like, I dont think another 20 guys milling around the facilities is going to help.

At any rate, if you disagree, you disagree. I've got not interest in trying to convince you. I still think that there are a lot of mature age footballers who could do a better job that will kelly.....or any of the other guys that we've dropped off the list in the last few years. Thats what i think.

 

[sr36]

If Richards is really so terrible, why haven’t we just delisted and rookied him like we did with Murley?

He isn't so terrible. But there was no reason to do it - we don't need to free a main list spot.


And there's a risk of doing it. If he does come good next year, he's automatically a free agent ala Schultz.

 

[The Phantom]

I think the other relevant fact that needs be here is the impact on salary cap.
The more players on the list, the lower the average wage potentially paid to players.
BUT
The first $90k* of a Rookies wage sits outside the salary cap. (If someone can be bothered to fact check my memory, that’d be great).
I think there’s also a different pay scale for Rookies as well which also affects cap management.

So, theoretically, 4 Rookies extends the cap by $360k to be spent on them.

* just updated from $80>90k based on SEN article.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think the other relevant fact that needs be here is the impact on salary cap.
The more players on the list, the lower the average wage potentially paid to players.
BUT
The first $80k of a Rookies wage sits outside the salary cap. (If someone can be bothered to fact check my memory, that’d be great).
I think there’s also a different pay scale for Rookies as well which also affects cap management.

So, theoretically, 4 Rookies extends the cap by $320k to be spent on them.

Crazy that with all the interest in draft and trading etc that the AFL don’t publish the rules about list sizes, salary cap, etc in some easy to find place.

 

[The Phantom]

Crazy that with all the interest in draft and trading etc that the AFL don’t publish the rules about list sizes, salary cap, etc in some easy to find place.

Maybe because they’re about to change them regarding mid year recruit retention