Page 4 of 5

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:20 pm
by Pies4shaw
Yes, we're in heated agreement - 37 including Moore and 38 if we draft Frost.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:29 pm
by swoop42
Pies4shaw wrote:Yes, we're in heated agreement - 37 including Moore and 38 if we draft Frost.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.
So am I. :lol:

I'll be surprised if we don't go to the draft with the ability to use pick 48 as a live selection.

If so either a delisting to come or Frost as a short term rookie downgrade.

Now who's on first?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:28 pm
by jackcass
swoop42 wrote:Oxley was a rookie upgrade at the start of the season so doesn't that mean we can once again place him on that list?

Pretty certain rookies have to be drafted on to the list at the national draft to become a permanent senior listed player.

To be able to make use of 5 and 30 we'll need to be able to rookie list Oxley and Gault.

To use pick 48 we'll need to rookie list Frost or delist someone else.
Oxley was upgraded pick 92 in the 2013 ND.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:34 pm
by jackcass
4everpies wrote:
swoop42 wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:Swoop - I set it out, player by player in the OP. Like jackcass says, Oxley was drafted in 2013. He has been a senior-list player since then, not elevated. For avoidance of doubt, he was drafted at the National Draft in 2013 with pick 92.

There are presently 38 players on the (permanent) senior list, allowing for retirements, delistings, trades in and trades out.
I have it at 37 permanent senior list placements and 2 rookie upgrades in Frost and Gault.
Yes that's right there are 37 permanent senior list players at the moment, including the 3 trades and Darcy Moore.

We must take a minimum of 3 players in the draft, so we will use 5, 9 (Moore), and 30.

That will make 39 players and the extra spot can be used to upgrade Frost.

Gault could be upgraded (if good enough) at the start of the season with Scharenberg on the LTI list.
Don't think you have to take a minimum of 3 players, I think you have to delist a minimum of 3, how they're replaced (ND, rookie upgrade, trade) is at the discretion of the club.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:46 pm
by jackcass
Domesticated_Ape wrote:I reckon Jack Frost would be the sort of guy who'd be open to staying on the rookie list and being upgraded for Schrenberg preseason. As long as he still gets a decent contract.

Are there specific rules about how much rookies can be paid or how long a contract they're allowed to sign? He certainly deserves whatever payrise he was going to get if fully promoted IMO.
It is going to get increasingly tough to get a permanent place on the senior list though. Don't have a couple of likely retirees at the end of 2015 so it'll come down to delistings or players requesting trades to open up the vacancies. So while he gets a senior berth in 2015 courtesy of Mr Scharenberg, what happens come 2016?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:52 pm
by jackcass
swoop42 wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:Yes, we're in heated agreement - 37 including Moore and 38 if we draft Frost.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.
So am I. :lol:

I'll be surprised if we don't go to the draft with the ability to use pick 48 as a live selection.

If so either a delisting to come or Frost as a short term rookie downgrade.

Now who's on first?
Hard to see anyone being delisted but Ramsay and Gault would be the most vulnerable. Gault' a rookie so that doesn't help free up pick 48. Does Ramsay have to be deleted to be dropped to the rookie list or can the club just do that?

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:56 am
by Presti35
I say we use the three picks on best available and keep Frosty on the rookie list.

Like others have said he'll be upgraded for Scharenbergs LTI. (He is listed as 12 months yes?).

Then we go into the rookie draft with two picks?? Or three?? Which I think we take Tyler Roos (if he's there) and Leroy Jetta or a back up ruck.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:06 am
by E
jackcass wrote:
swoop42 wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:Yes, we're in heated agreement - 37 including Moore and 38 if we draft Frost.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.
So am I. :lol:

I'll be surprised if we don't go to the draft with the ability to use pick 48 as a live selection.

If so either a delisting to come or Frost as a short term rookie downgrade.

Now who's on first?
Hard to see anyone being delisted but Ramsay and Gault would be the most vulnerable. Gault' a rookie so that doesn't help free up pick 48. Does Ramsay have to be deleted to be dropped to the rookie list or can the club just do that?
He has to be dropped (and be technically at risk). Given that a player is generally the 40th player on a teams list at the time he gets "rookied", there seems to be an unwritten rule among the clubs that when a team tries to rookie someone, the other teams tend to keep their hands off. ONe day that will be broken, but for now, this etiquette seems to be holding form. Its a small risk anyway. Very few players who go from list to rookie list ever come back (maybe there is a story of a ruckman out there, but that'd be it i'd say. More often than not its just a case of - let's give the lad one more year befrore we confirm he aint gonna make it......

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:40 am
by John Wren
Presti35 wrote:I say we use the three picks on best available and keep Frosty on the rookie list.

Like others have said he'll be upgraded for Scharenbergs LTI. (He is listed as 12 months yes?).

Then we go into the rookie draft with two picks?? Or three?? Which I think we take Tyler Roos (if he's there) and Leroy Jetta or a back up ruck.
frost recently signed a new two year deal so that would suggest he will get upgraded.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:00 am
by jackcass
John Wren wrote:
Presti35 wrote:I say we use the three picks on best available and keep Frosty on the rookie list.

Like others have said he'll be upgraded for Scharenbergs LTI. (He is listed as 12 months yes?).

Then we go into the rookie draft with two picks?? Or three?? Which I think we take Tyler Roos (if he's there) and Leroy Jetta or a back up ruck.
frost recently signed a new two year deal so that would suggest he will get upgraded.
That'd be my preference. Shown enough to merit an upgrade.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:38 am
by Presti35
jackcass wrote:
John Wren wrote:
Presti35 wrote:I say we use the three picks on best available and keep Frosty on the rookie list.

Like others have said he'll be upgraded for Scharenbergs LTI. (He is listed as 12 months yes?).

Then we go into the rookie draft with two picks?? Or three?? Which I think we take Tyler Roos (if he's there) and Leroy Jetta or a back up ruck.
frost recently signed a new two year deal so that would suggest he will get upgraded.
That'd be my preference. Shown enough to merit an upgrade.
No doubt. Just means we can't use pick 48. But it does mean we can use an extra rookie pick.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 6:17 pm
by Domesticated_Ape
jackcass wrote:
Domesticated_Ape wrote:I reckon Jack Frost would be the sort of guy who'd be open to staying on the rookie list and being upgraded for Schrenberg preseason. As long as he still gets a decent contract.

Are there specific rules about how much rookies can be paid or how long a contract they're allowed to sign? He certainly deserves whatever payrise he was going to get if fully promoted IMO.
It is going to get increasingly tough to get a permanent place on the senior list though. Don't have a couple of likely retirees at the end of 2015 so it'll come down to delistings or players requesting trades to open up the vacancies. So while he gets a senior berth in 2015 courtesy of Mr Scharenberg, what happens come 2016?
Yeah it's a good point.

I suppose guys like Young, Dwyer and Armstrong might be make or break next year if the kids go past them. And Oxley and Ramsey as well, if they make it through this years cuts.

Getting 2 really good prospects at the back end of last years draft with Langdon and Marsh has put more pressure on list numbers than expected.

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:48 am
by E
Domesticated_Ape wrote:
jackcass wrote:
Domesticated_Ape wrote:I reckon Jack Frost would be the sort of guy who'd be open to staying on the rookie list and being upgraded for Schrenberg preseason. As long as he still gets a decent contract.

Are there specific rules about how much rookies can be paid or how long a contract they're allowed to sign? He certainly deserves whatever payrise he was going to get if fully promoted IMO.
It is going to get increasingly tough to get a permanent place on the senior list though. Don't have a couple of likely retirees at the end of 2015 so it'll come down to delistings or players requesting trades to open up the vacancies. So while he gets a senior berth in 2015 courtesy of Mr Scharenberg, what happens come 2016?
Yeah it's a good point.

I suppose guys like Young, Dwyer and Armstrong might be make or break next year if the kids go past them. And Oxley and Ramsey as well, if they make it through this years cuts.

Getting 2 really good prospects at the back end of last years draft with Langdon and Marsh has put more pressure on list numbers than expected.
Let's see what Dwyer, Oxley, Ramsay, Karnezis, Armstong, Young, Macaffer, Blair and Swan look like this time next year.

Age, injury and/or ability could easily catch up with anyone of these guys. that is potentially 9 open spots.

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:35 pm
by Pies4shaw
So Tony Armstrong has been delisted and Collingwood intends to pick him up again in the rookie draft. According to the article on the Club web-site, that "enables Collingwood to make up to five selections at the November 27 National Draft, which includes the addition of father-son selection Darcy Moore."

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/20 ... -armstrong

Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:23 pm
by magpieazza
Im confused as to why we gave away 67 with the Beams trade when I thought at the time it was because we were going to the rookie draft for a player if we needed. So now we need to go to the AFL draft and we have 80 odd instead of 60 odd.

Could've avoided that situation one would think.
Im just scratching my head that's all, I am not trying to be disruptive. I hope someone can shine a bit of light if I am wrong.

Go Pies !!!