Near as I can piece it together
April 18 Mutch goes on the LTI, replaced by McNiece
May 24 we placed Smith on the Inactive List
June 20 Mutch comes off the LTI list
Also June 20, Smith (already Inactive) is also placed on the LTI list, replaced by McNiece
Daniher was ruled out just before the MSD, but never officially placed on the LTI or Inactive lists. Stewart was ruled out in August, ditto never put on the LTI.
I have no idea what any of this means.
My best guess would be either they thought there was some haily mary of Daniher being available deep into finals (which, god bless optimism on both parts of that), or there’s some weird salary cap crap that influences those decisions.
i think the reasons we didnt take 2 selections is simple.
our plan was the ruck swans got and snelling or pickett.
given the ruck guy and pickett guy gone we didnt pick.
maybe we should have went with riccardi.
i doubt that the kid ruck Bowman who was talked up would have played a AFL game for us this year, but would have got him in the system i guess.
and extra player means extra $$$ payable salary cap wise.
Ok, so Blitz is in agreement that Long should be given another 3 years.
And Zlarke I think. Assuming you tick it off.
I don’t like you!
Nicely done
Yes as I suspected we only had Smith on inactive list so only had 1 spot available.
Had we of put JD/Stewart/Mutch on inactive list also OR moved McNeice back to CatB spot we could have picked another player.
Except of course the glaring distinction that no other club wants him.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t Cat B Rookies still just come in and play anyway? Or was that changed, … or they had to have another qualification to be able to do that?
Don’t think CatB, only primary list rookies.
Used to be that all rookies had to wait for an LTI spot to open up before they could play. Now it’s only category B rookies that have to wait.
Obligatory “here’s a long post about all this crap if you can’t get to sleep or have run out of grit to rub directly onto your eyeballs”
But we also had 1 main list spot free at the start of the season. We ran with 39 main list and 5 rookies (Zlarke was on the rookie list, not the main list) this season. So if Smith was on inactive list, we had 2 spots free.
I’m not sure that’s right ??
Can only have 44 in total yes? But can choose to have more than 4 rookies and less than 40 main listed, helps with cap etc. 40/4, 38/6 etc
39 and 5 rookies (inclusive of Zlarke) still is the 44. If McNeice was promoted into an LTI’s spot and Smith was the only one made inactive that only frees up one spot which Snelling took.
I want it on record, because I seem to have people every year assuming I’m pushing for him to be retained. I think Long should be delisted. Hasn’t developed as much as he should have after 4 years in the system. I also said this this time last year
Now recorded in Donsard.
Well that’s right…but surely McNeice was actually promoted into an LTI spot…or if not, then that’s just a ■■■■ up from the club and they could/should have switched that and then used the vacant spot for a mid season rookie.
I’m no Dodoro basher, but I don’t believe his comments here for a second.
If it is related to the LTI / Inactive lists in some way, then I think it’s just another example in a long list of stuff-ups from the club in relation to LTI’s. Back when the LTI list mattered more than it does now (when rookies couldn’t be promoted without one) we regularly ■■■■■■ that up by not putting guys on there when we should have, therefore not having in form rookies available when they would have been useful.
I do recall you saying that. You should make one correction this year though.
Hasn’t developed as much as he should have after 5 years in the system
I think it may come down to this inactive list status. If they are on it then can’t come back for season at all (unless perhaps someone else gets put onto it)
So players we thought were a chance to return later in season (like JD, Stewart, Mutch) were just left as LTI’s which did not free up list spots needed to take another MSD selection.
Not many clubs had space to pick 2 players. And some didn’t take any at all.
The main purpose of the MSD was clubs losing players for the entire year.
recruiting team would have taken pickett regardless of injury but were over ruled / or not supported by senior executive once finger injury was known. Sometimes what is said to the media is to tow the company line even if you don’t agree.
for every Stack and pickett there are 100’s of failures.
point is we have a poor draft position at this stage. a pick in the 80’s or 90’s is a low % pick. Long was always going to be a long development proposition and the truth is when played at AFL level hasn’t performed that badly. Was also one of the better performed players across the VFL finals campaign.
A new coach (rutten) may see him get deserved opportunities ahead of the next McNiece - which should have happened this year.
Bomberthug is 100% correct about Pickett - The finger injury was not the only thing in play.