Gotta be kids with a few years under their belt that you’d take a punt on. Kids who are super hungry to get a crack being on an AFL list.
1 Like
Again, generally I’d agree.
But in this specific situation I can see this decision costing either Neagle or Fletcher.
Probably Neagle.
Given we need a ruck, and again that’s not my preference but it’s dicey not to pick one up.
We have four list spots available, so are we really going to go Berry, Clarke, Fletcher, Neagle?
I don’t think we will.
And even if we do, we’re selling ourselves short with what’s out there.
Keeping Long costs, in some way.
I do like giving one of the VFL lads a spot each year. I think it is good for the strength of the club to encourage quality footballers to come through our lower levels.
Probably a few that could be considered, but I’d give Hind a spot. Certainly has elite speed, and knows how to use it. We talk about Long playing a position of need. Well, so does this bloke.
3 Likes
Hind replaces Colyer.
Yippee!
1 Like
I think It is possible we are keeping him so we have it easier next year.
You have to have three main list changes every season. We have better draft picks next season (two 2nd rounders instead of one, 3rd, 4th etc) So if we delisted Long now, the draft pick would be a later pick than if we delisted him next year. The pick would be one round earlier.
Looking ahead to end of next season, who are the three we get rid of?
Myers? Retire? But if his body is right he would want to play on.
Houlihan? Probably most likely to go if he doesn’t improve.
Mutch? Would be stiff as I think he could be a contributor at senior level.
Clarke? Similar to Mutch. Prefer Mutch though.
Hartley? Good depth.
Dea? Likewise.
Long.
Would be some tough calls in there. From that list I feel Long would be first out, unless he turns it around next season.
2 Likes
You know we can trade the blokes who are too good to just delist, right?
Can we?
No one really wanted our fringe players this year?
And we gave Colyer up for peanuts really.
I think the days of trading for fringe players are over. You can just pick them up as DFA.
Colyer is old.
And I don’t see how keeping one more fringe player when you think you’ll have to cut a lot of fringe players next year makes any sense at all.
1 Like
We have better draft picks next season. That’s why I think we are holding onto him.
I think that is a very bad reason.
One year contracts are a thing.
For a DFA we can offer a one year deal but if we want a kid from the draft they will get a two year deal.
So it’s Round 5 for two years this year
Or Round 4 for two years next year.
Or a DFA for one year this year or next year.
Yep. There has been a bit of a shift over the past couple of years. I think really good players are now worth more. Average players are worth less. Fringe players are just let walk out the door to wherever they wish to go.
Do all mature players count as DFA’s?
For example Clarke and other state rucks, Hind, someone in the top fifty or so VFL players, which Long is not?
Let alone Sheridan, Bugg and hwsnbn.
1 Like
I think there’s a mix of all these elements. Including that they know Long and Long knows the football program and can play a role.
I’m with wim on this.
I find it very hard to believe that this would be the club’s reasoning.
We’ll have no worries finding other blokes to delist at the end of next season. Hartley, Ambrose and Brown for example. A bad season from any of them could be their last.
Even if we look at better and younger players. If they’re squeezed out of the best 22 they might prefer to look for more opportunity elsewhere… whether they’re worth something to us in a trade or not is irrelevant to this discussion. An example could be a guy like Gleeson or maybe he finds career best form and blocks out guys like Ridley and Redman who then start looking elsewhere themselves.
Plenty of things could and will happen to open up list spots
Is that another coded Jay Neagle reference?
2 Likes
I don’t know who you mean?
1 Like
I’d usually agree with this but it will really all depend on how we rate Fletcher and Neagle. Our picks this year are: 34, 66, 84, 102. Of course I’m sure the last two (possibly three?) will come in more as other teams start passing, but if we rate Neagle as worth getting and are willing to list Fletch this year despite medical set backs then using our last two picks is hardly selling ourselves short. Most draftees in that range don’t make it. And if no one makes an earlier bid for either of those guys and we keep our next pick, using 66 on a mature ruck isn’t exactly wasting much either.
Having said that, I’d have delisted Long.
Edit: I should have said if you don’t rate Long the argument is that keeping a guy on the list that definitely won’t make it is always costing you (which I understand), but clearly if we keep him the club still have some hope.
2 Likes
This is where it gets confusing, of course.
Especially after Jerrett was given a one year contract this season.
Hope for what, exactly?
That he’ll be a 100 game player?
Something else?