The end of year cannon - who should be fired into the sun?


#1465

I’m not sure how delisting our worst players is a one size fits all approach. Wouldn’t delisting our worst players be common sense.

I’ve never defined who our worst players are. Your just making assumptions about who I want to cut. Paraphrase “Why would you delist someone who’s internally rated”, yes indeed why would you.


#1466

Myers, Colyer, Mutch, Clarke and Mynott according to what you’ve said in this thread.

If that’s wrong, why don’t you enlighten us


#1467

I never said I would delist them this year.

I said they would be starting next year playing for their careers. Given next year is the last year of their contracts it’s hardly controversial. I would expect at least 1 or 2 of them to be cut next year.


#1468

So who are the extra players you’re delisting this year then?


#1469

Is that ever a problem anyone has had?
If you develop your list to the point where you think your worst 3 blokes are pretty good. Well that is an excellent thing, not a problem. But you still cut them, because they are still your 3 worst blokes and won’t be getting a game anyway.
But better yet, if that actually ever happened (it won’t), you could trade rather than delist your 3 worst blokes, cos someone will want them.


#1470

Long

1 of Dea or McNeice

Look at trading 1 of Ambrose, Hartly, Brown. Primarily to give someone more opportunity, as they can all play AFL but probably won’t for us next year.

That’s still being conservative but opens 6 spots.


#1471

Well what could actually happen is that you’d be delisting three possibly rated but uncontracted players, just to keep all those extra late draftees you just took because of their minimum contrcts


#1472

That looks fairly common sense to me. I’d have no issues with that. Although I’d hate to see Mitch go. You can never have enough accountants.


#1473

Or you could take late picks as rookies instead, who get just 1 year, not 2.
Not a real problem.


#1474

There are restrictions on the number of rookies you can have.

Also I can’t see the point in deliberately taking later picks, just so they’re easier to delist later


#1475

But you can see the point of keeping players who aren’t good enough, so you can delist them next year…


#1476

No, I can’t see the point in delisting players who haven’t had the chance to properly develop yet, for the least valuable draft picks available, with the flow on effect of having to potentially delist someone else of quality the next year.


#1477

Why? You know our kick-in strategy will be to kick it backwards to the pocket from the edge of the 18 metre ‘square’


#1478

Is that the pass to Colyer, who then drops the mark, fumbles the pick up … … and … …


#1479

Wow…you really do get inside information form the club.


#1480

So, which of Leuey, Dea, Long, Baguley, Brown, Hartley haven’t had the chance to develop properly yet?


#1481

Maybe there’s a cannon that can be fired into the Suns?


#1482

I’m not sure anyone cares enough to bother.


#1483

I’m just thinking with May leaving, they could just be crazy and desperate enough to consider at late 2nd rounder for Harts or Ambrose.

Fantasy stuff I know, but with Ambrose/Harts/ even Brown, I just think there is at the very least an opportunity to get something (trade pick ) that could help secure a player in a position of greater need.

Either during the trade period or at the draft

The emergence of Zerk Thatcher/Francis has given me great confidence that the succession plan in replacing Hurley and Hooker is well under way.


#1484

You aren’t a list clogger if its a time you’re challenging for a premiership. Miles has hardly played in two years, he’s still good depth for Richmond if they have a horror group of injuries from Friday’s game.

None of the “kids” or Gleeson have shown they can actually defend as well as Dea yet. Our best period of the year was when we had more of a blend of defence and attack in our team, and Dea is important to that.

Is currently best 22 for mine.