Do category B rookies need to go undrafted at ND or ND and rookie draft?The latter.
Does that mean the first one or the last one?
The latter.
Ta 
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.
It appear the list management is as logical as the selectionâŚ
This is very disconcerting!
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.
I donât follow that reasoning.
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.I donât follow that reasoning.
Basically, that taking two delisted free agents*, thus forcing us to exit the draft at only pick 29, made the delisting and re rookie-ing of Smack more likely than when we thought we were only going to take 1 DFA, which seemed the case when we were last discussing this.
I suppose reading what you said more closely though it wouldnât impact on your opinion too much either way that we shouldnât rookie him, so apologies for that.
- Not confirmed obviously but sounds like a distinct possibility (Richards, Green).
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.I donât follow that reasoning.
Basically, that taking two delisted free agents*, thus forcing us to exit the draft at only pick 29, made the delisting and re rookie-ing of Smack more likely than when we thought we were only going to take 1 DFA, which seemed the case when we were last discussing this.
I suppose reading what you said more closely though it wouldnât impact on your opinion too much either way that we shouldnât rookie him, so apologies for that.
- Not confirmed obviously but sounds like a distinct possibility (Richards, Green).
Oh, Ok. I totally approve of Smackâs delisting, but would rather get a real ruckman on the rookie list who has a better than even chance of forging a career. Even those who approve of Smack being rookied realise his chances of surviving on the list for more than 12 months is very, very slim.
Why do wqe stop at 29? I thought we were entitled to 5 picksâŚassuming we stay at 4 rookiesâŚand since the rookie list is restrictive and nonsense, I think we should keep our players available to play.
Why do wqe stop at 29? I thought we were entitled to 5 picks...assuming we stay at 4 rookies...and since the rookie list is restrictive and nonsense, I think we should keep our players available to play.
We wonât be stopping at 29 now thatâs for sure, which is sensible.
With Smack delisted from the primary list we will pick up to and including pick 68 if we sign ONE delisted free agent, or up to and including pick 41 if we sign TWO.
That is presuming we choose to run with a 40/4 list structure which isnât certain of course.
Why do wqe stop at 29? I thought we were entitled to 5 picks...assuming we stay at 4 rookies...and since the rookie list is restrictive and nonsense, I think we should keep our players available to play.We wonât be stopping at 29 now thatâs for sure, which is sensible.
With Smack delisted from the primary list we will pick up to and including pick 68 if we sign ONE delisted free agent, or up to and including pick 41 if we sign TWO.
That is presuming we choose to run with a 40/4 list structure which isnât certain of course.
YeahâŚi just recounted. Iâd left Stewart out.
Since Iâve come back from holiday I wanted to get my head around whatâs happened. So here is an updated summary, which hopefully is actually correct. Have I got anything wrong?
Senior List
Confirmed out: Cooney, Pears, Hibberd, Gwilt, Ashby, Edwards, Kommer, Eades, McKernan,
Confirmed in: Walla, Dea, Kelly, Stewart, McKenna, Green
Current draft spots: #1, #20, #29, #41, PSD1
So currently 3 picks, or 4 if we use the âspareâ senior slot available.
Possible Changes
Possible out: spare senior slot/extra rookie slot
Possible in: draftees
Main Rookie List
Confirmed Out: Walla (promoted), Hams, Wallis
In: Rookie pick #1, #19, #37
Possible Changes
Possible Outs: spare senior slot/extra rookie slot
Possible Ins: Eades, McKernan
Cat B Rookies
Confirmed out: McKenna
Possible In: Up to 3 multicultural/indigenous Cat B rookies
2017 players at risk:
Due to quality: Jerrett, Morgan, Bird, Howlett, Green
Due to age: Kelly, Goddard, Stanton, Watson
Rookies in danger: Long (3 years on list), McKernan/Eades (if rookied)
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.
Taking two DFA still means we take up pick 41.
Just say we pick up a delisted free agent (Josh Green for argument's sake) which as mentioned would bring our draft selections to a close at #41, would anyone be in favour of shifting Smack onto the rookie list?Obviously when I say shift I mean de-list and publicly guarantee that we would re-draft him as a rookie, which there seems to be a gentlemans agreement about.
Would basically mean we can pick down to #68 in the National draft where we might get access to someone we still like which we mightnât otherwise have had a chance at getting in the rookie draft.
Smack and Long on the rookie list would still allow for an additional 2 rookie selections (if going with the 40/4 list split).
41 just seems early to finish up and there are often still some gems on the board after this point.
Or nah?
If you are going to demote Smack, you might as well delist him. I donât think the bottom club should ever have a player on the list in case of injury unless that player is young enough to develop into a best 22 at some point.
Haha howâs that.
We had this discussion a while back when I mentioned the possibility of shifting Smack onto the rookie list.
However at that stage I thought we might only take the 1 DFA.
Taking two, and potentially finishing up at pick 29 probably meant this kind of thing had to be done.Taking two DFA still means we take up pick 41.
lol read it again my friend.
This was regarding shifting Smack onto the rookie list and making what you said above possible.
Since I've come back from holiday I wanted to get my head around what's happened. So here is an updated summary, which hopefully is actually correct. Have I got anything wrong?Senior List
Confirmed out: Cooney, Pears, Hibberd, Gwilt, Ashby, Edwards, Kommer, Eades, McKernan,
Confirmed in: Walla, Dea, Kelly, Stewart, McKenna, Green
Current draft spots: #1, #20, #29, #41, PSD1So currently 3 picks, or 4 if we use the âspareâ senior slot available.
Possible Changes
Possible out: spare senior slot/extra rookie slot
Possible in: drafteesMain Rookie List
Confirmed Out: Walla (promoted), Hams, Wallis
In: Rookie pick #1, #19, #37Possible Changes
Possible Outs: spare senior slot/extra rookie slot
Possible Ins: Eades, McKernanCat B Rookies
Confirmed out: McKenna
Possible In: Up to 3 multicultural/indigenous Cat B rookies2017 players at risk:
Due to quality: Jerrett, Morgan, Bird, Howlett, Green
Due to age: Kelly, Goddard, Stanton, Watson
Rookies in danger: Long (3 years on list), McKernan/Eades (if rookied)
AntsâŚ
Confirmed out Dempsey
AntsâŚ
Comfirmed out Rookies Nyuon
Ok, I did know those two but had forgotten them/missed them in the summary. Right, so we have 4 (or 5 with no spare rookie spot) senior list spots right now, and 4 (3) rookie spots, although one will likely go to McKernan and one possibly to Eades.