Benny Gale on KB's show Wed 14/10/09

[mightytiges]

I am not saying he should stay I am not saying he should go. Just think with this new rookie rule he has more chance of staying. On promotion to the senior list ..... again just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted. I actually think he is up to AFL standard and a lot quicker than people think. If you have a look at some really early games of Will Thursfield you'd question whether he was ever going to make it too, look at him now 

Will played well on and beat O'Loughlin and Nick Riewoldt in his first 7 games before he did his knee. Not a bad start for a 19 year old . The only time Will has looked "slow" was in round 1 this year when Robinson on debut gave him a bath. Will was struggling with off-field 'issues' though and it was a poor match-up to begin with.

Silvester is 24 going on 25 in January. He's hardly shown anything at AFL level and there's hardly any improvement left in him.

And besides if Silvestor does get promoted it will be great for ...............the likes of Jordie McMahon because it mean there's another whipping boy for the masses, might take the fog lights of Jordie for 3 minutes 

LOL. I wouldn't wish that on anyone  .

MT you are assuming though that the promoted rookie is only getting one year deals - what if they are to get 2 years? The financial argument becomes redundant

I agree WP. Sorry I probably didn't explain that too well. I was referring the Greg Miller's argument that the reason we kept players on in past rather than picking up more kids late in the National draft was because the Club saved money and wasn't restricted to 2-year deals that you must give all new kids picked up in the ND no matter how late that pick is. My argument against Greg's was why keep a player on who you know isn't up to it even for one more year. You're better off back your recruiting staff and going with a kid late in the draft.

I look at it this way, if the draft talent pool is so shallow this year, which is the better option? Promoting a rookie eg Nahas who has shown he can play at AFL but needs more development or using pick 80 odd on a kid that is more likely not to succeed than to succeed. Remembering that come the end of 2010 you maybe in the position to be able to trade the promoted rookie to another club for a earlier draft pick than number 80. If someone like Nahas improves on his 2009 he will worth more alot more to us in 2010 come trade time

The National draft comes before the rookie draft though. I would've thought the chances (however slim) of finding a diamond in the rough would be greater if it's a kid taken late in the ND rather than waiting for the rookie draft where GC17 has the first 5 picks and every other club has picks in ladder order. Clubs this year will be also looking at state league players especially in the SANFL. Apparently it's rumoured we are keen on someone from the WAFL.

Clubs in the past usually skipped the late picks in the National draft and waited for the rookie draft because the cost of taking a kid is about a quarter to a third of that of a kid taken in the National draft. It's more a financial decision and encourages clubs to take on more kids. With such a shallow draft I think it'll be necessary to jump ahead of other clubs and use late ND picks and/or even our PSD pick on a kid(s) who may go before our pick 7 in the rookie draft.

[WilliamPowell]

I am not saying he should stay I am not saying he should go. Just think with this new rookie rule he has more chance of staying. On promotion to the senior list ..... again just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted. I actually think he is up to AFL standard and a lot quicker than people think. If you have a look at some really early games of Will Thursfield you'd question whether he was ever going to make it too, look at him now 

Will played well on and beat O'Loughlin and Nick Riewoldt in his first 7 games before he did his knee. Not a bad start for a 19 year old . The only time Will has looked "slow" was in round 1 this year when Robinson on debut gave him a bath. Will was struggling with off-field 'issues' though and it was a poor match-up to begin with.

Silvester is 24 going on 25 in January. He's hardly shown anything at AFL level and there's hardly any improvement left in him.

Sorry I didn't explain to well - I wasn't talking about his early AFL games I was talking about his early beginnings at Coburg

I suppose this is where we disagree on Silvestor. I have think he has shown something at AFL level especially  in the games against North & Essendon. I think his skill level by footy is a helluva lot better than some of his more establsihed team mates. Also, there are some commentators (one was Alves who I rate highly) who were impressed with his limited AFL exposure who believe there is something to work with

The National draft comes before the rookie draft though. I would've thought the chances (however slim) of finding a diamond in the rough would be greater if it's a kid taken late in the ND rather than waiting for the rookie draft where GC17 has the first 5 picks and every other club has picks in ladder order. Clubs this year will be also looking at state league players especially in the SANFL. Apparently it's rumoured we are keen on someone from the WAFL.

Clubs in the past usually skipped the late picks in the National draft and waited for the rookie draft because the cost of taking a kid is about a quarter to a third of that of a kid taken in the National draft. It's more a financial decision and encourages clubs to take on more kids. With such a shallow draft I think it'll be necessary to jump ahead of other clubs and use late ND picks and/or even our PSD pick on a kid(s) who may go before our pick 7 in the rookie draft.

Disagree if Nahas is a better long term option than say a speculative pick 80 or PSD pick 2 - he should be on the senior list. I would think that the late picks in this years ND (say 60-70+) are going to be used on VFL, SANFL or WAFL players and I see promoting a Nahas a much better option as it stands at the moment

[Infamy]

Sorry I didn't explain to well - I wasn't talking about his early AFL games I was talking about his early beginnings at Coburg

I suppose this is where we disagree on Silvestor. I have think he has shown something at AFL level especially  in the games against North & Essendon. I think his skill level by footy is a helluva lot better than some of his more establsihed team mates. Also, there are some commentators (one was Alves who I rate highly) who were impressed with his limited AFL exposure who believe there is something to work with

Yes except Thursfield only played half a season Coburg reserves in his first year was elevated to AFL level in Round 14 and performed admirabily on some very dangerous forwards. He had only just turned 19 when he debuted at AFL level.

Silvestor had his first taste of AFL level at 23 years old in the NAB Cup and had a diabolical performance in a game that wasn't even full speed/intensity AFL level. He was 24 on debut and will be 25 next year, yet while he's done a couple of OK things on the field, he's not exactly made shown any sign of being anything but a last resort depth player in defence. He'll be 25 next year which means his scope for improvement is minimal.

I'd understand keeping him as a rookie in case our defenders are hit with injury. However if we can pick up a couple of kpps in the draft, especially another defender, then I really don't see much point in keeping him.

I agree with your point of Thursfield not showing much at Coburg level before he was elevated, however I don't get your comparison. Thursfield showed nothing at VFL reserves level but showed plenty at AFL level. Silvestor has done everything he possibly can at VFL level, but shown very little at AFL level despite being far more mature, he's still more than a year older than Thursfield.

[WilliamPowell]

I agree with your point of Thursfield not showing much at Coburg level before he was elevated, however I don't get your comparison. Thursfield showed nothing at VFL reserves level but showed plenty at AFL level. Silvestor has done everything he possibly can at VFL level, but shown very little at AFL level despite being far more mature, he's still more than a year older than Thursfield.

It's just my opinion Infamy. the comparison? I just think we seem to rate his performance on what people think it should be for a person of his age as opposed to what he has shown. If we based opinions soley on first up performanaces then half the players on our list would be elsewhere (I can hear the screams of so they should ). Kel Moore was  another that when he first played AFL foorty after what was it? 2 years as a rookie and close to nearly 3 years at Coburg he had people asking questions, it probably took 2 full years playing AFL before he was considered one of our main back 6

Bottom line is personally I rate Silvestor higher than some blokes that are currently senior listed.

As for his first up NAB Cup performance - agree it was terrible but he wasnt the first and definteily wont be the last to start off that way. What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( source = Chutney)...I sometimes wonder what may have been if they had bitten the bullet played him earlier.... 

[Infamy]

Moore had plenty of injury problems which affected him making an impact earlier
He had a very promising few games during his first year as a rookie

[mightytiges]

Disagree if Nahas is a better long term option than say a speculative pick 80 or PSD pick 2 - he should be on the senior list. I would think that the late picks in this years ND (say 60-70+) are going to be used on VFL, SANFL or WAFL players and I see promoting a Nahas a much better option as it stands at the moment

At this moment Nahas is a better option because we know what he offers and looking at him in isolation he would be deserving of a senior list spot. However from perspective of looking at our whole list and the upcoming draft we'd be better off keeping him on the rookie list and using "his" would be senior list spot on a kid. Now I know what I'm suggesting sounds crazy as senior list spots should really be for those who are more deserving of them but with the compromised drafts I'm making an exception for two reasons:

(i) with only one veteran next year we now have the right to nominate a rookie to play seniors from round 1 without requiring anyone to be on the LTIL. Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.

(ii) With the shallow draft getting in early will be an advantage (however small) at least from the view of first in gives you a greater number of kids to choose from. I'm talking about using our last National draft pick and/or PSD pick as a means of getting in early on the rookie draft especially as GC17 will have the first 5 picks. The chance of finding a kid in the rookie draft that will be as good if not better than Nahas will be next to none if the National draft alone beyond pick 40 is shallow. From our list prespective it's more advantageous to keep Nahas and Browne as rookies and use the National draft to load up on kids. Effectively using our last ND pick or two (picks 83, 99 say) as pseudo early rookie picks.

[mightytiges]

What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( source = Chutney)

What fantastic list management  . So we said we won't play someone on our list because we wanted to wait until the following year before seeing whether he can play at AFL level. Whose pea brain idea was that?    .



ps. Infamy said what I would say about Silvester WP. I know it can be argued that Silvester may be better than others on our list but that's more an indictment on our list  . The Cat is terrific at VFL level and gives his all so I don't like bagging him but IMO I just don't see anything that convinces me he'll make it at AFL level especially in a top 4 side which is what we want to become.

[WilliamPowell]

What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( source = Chutney)

What fantastic list management  . So we said we won't play someone on our list because we wanted to wait until the following year before seeing whether he can play at AFL level. Whose pea brain idea was that?    .

All had to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - you know it's cheaper to keep 'em on the rookie list. But it doesn't matter now all in the past 

ps. Infamy said what I would say about Silvester WP. I know it can be argued that Silvester may be better than others on our list but that's more an indictment on our list  . The Cat is terrific at VFL level and gives his all so I don't like bagging him but IMO I just don't see anything that convinces me he'll make it at AFL level especially in a top 4 side which is what we want to become.

As I said it's just my opinion and to see others on the list, that are lucky to be there and he isn't gets me goat up a bit. As I said I reckon given a clear run (say -10 games straight) he would show he is worth it

[Smokey]

.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.

Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT?  Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?

[Infamy]

.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.

Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT?  Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?

You can, but anything over the standard set salary is now included in the TPP
GC17 were going to use the loophole in the rule to pay Karmichael Hunt $1m over 3 years or $1m per year and have it outside the TPP
Something like that anyway, not sure what is happening with that now the AFL have changed the rule

[mightytiges]

.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.

Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT?  Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?

You can, but anything over the standard set salary is now included in the TPP
GC17 were going to use the loophole in the rule to pay Karmichael Hunt $1m over 3 years or $1m per year and have it outside the TPP
Something like that anyway, not sure what is happening with that now the AFL have changed the rule

Not sure in Hunt's case but you'd think with the salary cap concessions both new clubs are getting, GC17 will be able to fit Hunt in. The AFL will make sure it's allowed anyway given the publicity Hunt's switch of codes has generated.

As for Robbie we should be stretching to reach the 92.5% minimum so we should have plenty of salary cap room to play with.

[mightytiges]

All had to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - you know it's cheaper to keep 'em on the rookie list.

And even cheaper not having them on our list altogether

But it doesn't matter now all in the past 

Fair enough. Let's hope basing list management decisions on finances and trying to save a short-term buck is in the past as well. It's hurt us far too often holding onto list cloggers for far too long. The mantra at Richmond should be "unknown" kid > known dud with no future. Clubs who put their faith and resources into the draft eventually succeed.