Player Contract Status

[azabob]

Re: Player Contract Status

Last ones without a seat as the music soon to stop:

Mitch Wallis
Pat Lipinski
Lewis Young

Roarke Smith
Jordan Sweet

Stefan Martin
Will Hayes
Ben Cavarra

Sweet is likely dependent on Lewis Young?

[FrediKanoute]

Re: Player Contract Status

I think its fair to say that Wally and Lippa will go. Smith/Martin are probably safe, with Martin getting another year unless we can secure another ruck. I think Hayes and Cavarra are finished.

Young is the interesting one. Given he has played the last few games and don ok, I think there will be interest. That said I am not sure that we will trade him out/let him go as his games this year have generally been good.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Player Contract Status

Sweet is likely dependent on Lewis Young?

Who knows at this point? I’d think he stays under normal logic, but Bevo seems resistant to go near him after Gawn got him. Plus his form was really not good after it too. Toss of the coin. Being that Sweet & Khamis are both fourth year rookies you’d think a joint announcement if they were both wanted no matter what. So maybe his future relies on what Power does in trade week. At minimum we are no rush to give him another year it seems.

[jeemak]

Re: Player Contract Status

I have a feeling Sweet may be unlucky, and miss out. Giving him another year doesn't worry me too much.

[comrade]

Re: Player Contract Status

We'd have to have a definite target in mind if Sweet is delisted.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Player Contract Status

We'd have to have a definite target in mind if Sweet is delisted.

If you accept:

1. Martin
2. English
3. Sweet
4. Young (undersized)

Martin is shot. Young May go. If sweet goes. We have Tim, and only Tim. Darcy is a kid.

We’d need two mature rucks ready to sign on to have around Tim. One very good, one solid depth. What are the odds on that happening?

[soupman]

Re: Player Contract Status

Fwiw Young is ranked higher than Sweet. We haven't touched the latter in the second half of the year, despite there being a clear need for a ruckman. Young has been given multiple goes and was chosen as our number one ruck in a final. He has moved comfortably ahead of Sweet in the pecking order.

I would suggest we see the pecking order next year as:
1. Currently AFL listed recruit
2. English
3. Young
4. Darcy

We may bring in another if we think Young is more of a "play elsewhere fill in when required" option, as I doubt we have any expectations on Darcy to play next year and probably not ever as a proper ruck.

But this is the second season now where we have proactively found other players who are absolutely not the answer (Hannan and Dunkley prime examples) to avoid playing Sweet. That to me says we aren't interested in him.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Player Contract Status

Last ones without a seat as the music soon to stop:

Safe: Roarke Smith

Gone??: Mitch Wallis, Lewis Young, Jordan Sweet

All The Best: Stefan Martin, Will Hayes, Ben Cavarra


Vacancies, 2: Jong, Lipinski.

[Mofra]

Re: Player Contract Status

I have a feeling Sweet may be unlucky, and miss out. Giving him another year doesn't worry me too much.

The forth year rookie rule may come into play. I'd re-rookie him

[azabob]

Re: Player Contract Status

Cal Twoomey has been talking about a category B "Ruckman list" and is under serious investigation. It will give clubs the opportunity to draft young, raw ruckman and develop them away from the senior list for 2,3,4 years.

Could be an interesting development.

[Vred]

Re: Player Contract Status

Cal Twoomey has been talking about a category B "Ruckman list" and is under serious investigation. It will give clubs the opportunity to draft young, raw ruckman and develop them away from the senior list for 2,3,4 years.

Could be an interesting development.

If that's the case, Sweet stays on.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Player Contract Status

I think Sweet should be safe either way. He keeps progressing and our ruck stocks are as bare as as they get.

[FrediKanoute]

Re: Player Contract Status

Cal Twoomey has been talking about a category B "Ruckman list" and is under serious investigation. It will give clubs the opportunity to draft young, raw ruckman and develop them away from the senior list for 2,3,4 years.

Could be an interesting development.

The problem with all of these extra lists though are that they aren't used in the way they are intended. No way is Rourke a rookie. Sure he has played less than 50 games, but he has been in the system for what 6 years? We know whether he is going to make it or not and what we really know is that he is a quality team player that has a level.

Sweet, will end up on the supplemental developing ruck list. He has been in the system 3/4 years and played a handful of games. Maybe he fits the bill. But what about when we decide to take a punt on an aging Martin and put him on the ruck list or Lewy Young, using the argument that he is developing.

I am against supplemental lists. Cat B rookies for Next Gen talent I can live with, but Rookie's staying on rookie lists indefinitely.....

[soupman]

Re: Player Contract Status

Yeah there is no way if they were starting from scratch would they come up with the system we have now.

The rookie list is weird, the blokes on it have all the same commitments as the main listed guys but are put on a special list like they are all developmental players and not just the 38th best bloke available.

At the very least they should just combine it all into the same big list. Every side has to list 36 (? whatever they have now) players and then can list up to 6 more. Each of the extra list spots only increases the salary cap by the minimum wage so they are effectively the same as rookies but allows more flexibility and doesn't separate them from the rest of the squad.

Instead of special list spots for ruckmen they should bring back the reserves idea, and use it as an extended squad. Anyone who plays for your reserves side and has previously been eligible for the draft (so not underage players) is tied to your club. Can make it like the academy bidding system, or can make them automatically listable.

Both changes kind of just redefine the current system, rookie listed players just get recognised as main listers which is how the clubs treat them, and instead of giving clubs specific spots for semi-coordinated abnormally tall men they can have a bunch more players to develop, but I think they would both be good changes in simplifying this stuff and making it better for the overall AFL ecosystem.

[The Doctor]

Re: Player Contract Status

Jon Ralph saying Wallis 'expected' to re-sign