Picks 36 and 52

[mightytiges]

Given Kel Moore will be promoted from the rookie list, we will most likely have a senior list of 32 out of a maximum of 38 before draft day. With 6 spots to fill and one of them being the PSD pick that will only leave us with 5 picks in the draft (1,4,12,16,20) meaning we would have to pass on our 3d round pick #36 and 4th rounder #52, etc...

Should we delist one or more players and use one or more picks? If so who do you reckon will be delisted out of our out-of-contract blokes - Hilton, Pettifer, Weller and Newman   

[WilliamPowell]

I would de-list one and use pick 36.

I would de-list Hilton - he is very lucky to  be there IMO. I think his knee injury might have saved him because his efforts for a lot of his games certainly wouldn't.

But if Pettifer wants to walk - let him go and that solves the problem easily

[Harry]

I thought the maximum was 40 players and the minimum was 38.  We had 39 last year and we were 1 short.  Therefore if we were to go 1 short again we would need to fill 39 spots.  Thus we need another 7.  6 in the PSD (using pick 36) and 1 in the PSD.

If the above is correct then I would also go further and delist another 2 and utilise picks 52 and 68.  I would delist Hilton and Fleming without hesitation. 

This would result in a total turnover of 11 players.  Probably a conservative amount considering our pathetic performance of late.

The club would be absolutely negligent if did not use at least picks 36 and 52, considering we are rebuilding.

[Fwoy3]

Given Kel Moore will be promoted from the rookie list, we will most likely have a senior list of 32 out of a maximum of 38 before draft day. With 6 spots to fill and one of them being the PSD pick that will only leave us with 5 picks in the draft (1,4,12,16,20) meaning we would have to pass on our 3d round pick #36 and 4th rounder #52, etc...

Should we delist one or more players and use one or more picks? If so who do you reckon will be delisted out of our out-of-contract blokes - Hilton, Pettifer, Weller and Newman   

Better bloody not be Newman!

[mightytiges]

I thought the maximum was 40 players and the minimum was 38.  We had 39 last year and we were 1 short.  Therefore if we were to go 1 short again we would need to fill 39 spots.  Thus we need another 7.  6 in the PSD (using pick 36) and 1 in the PSD.

The maximum number of players is actually 44 when you include senior listed players, rookies and Vets. 38 is the max for the senior list and the Clubs have the option of including their Vets separately in place of rookie spots. Also from 2005 you are not allowed to go "short".

This year we had Cambo and Duncan on the Vets list and used the option of not including them on our senior list (meaning we had at most 4 rookie spots in which we used 3 of them) so you're right Harry in saying that we had 37+2=39 "senior" players. Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38. So we now have 6 rookie spots available each costing the far lesser amount of about $25K (probably use half of them = 3 again). 

[Harry]

Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38.

Has this been confirmed anywhere ?

I would be disappointed if we didn't use picks 36 and 52.

We are in a rebuilding phase and we must not neglect these 2 handy picks.  We got Jackson at 53 and Raines much later on.  There are other cost cutting measures, but do not sacrifice young talent.  Delist others to make room.

[JohnF]

Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.

[mightytiges]

Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38.

Has this been confirmed anywhere ?

Miller said something along those lines about 3-4 weeks ago. Then again then circumstances may have changed since then with Otto and Fiora gone and us picking up picks 12 and 16.

http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=857.msg8510#msg8510

[H Tiger]

Absoultely MUST use those two picks.

I said this B4....... this year is supposed to be a fairly deep draft. Every year young players are fitter stronger and more ready for the rigors of AFL footy.

By passing on two Draft picks for two average (at best) players we are slitting our own throats.

I'm a young guy, 25, and I still play competitive sport (and I'm not crap by any means) but I know that I am not up to some of the younger developing kids I compete against. If we don't take up the Draft pick on offer I would be so dissappointed.

I would liken it to being offered a new HSV (fords suck) and knocking it back because you like your toyota crapbox which is five years old (in paris Hiltons cace this would be a Toyota Crown 82 model).

I equation is simple Tiger fans we must take the Kids

[H Tiger]

I just made a few errors in that last post because I'm a bit passionate about this subject but you get the drift.

[Harry]

I'm with you H Tiger.

Not drafting up to pick 52 would be a mistake and not drafting up to 36 would be a complete joke.  Other clubs would laugh at us.  I don't care how much it will cost, we must use these picks !!

What I want to see is this -

- Promote Moore and Foley
- Delist Hilton and one other (Pettifer, Weller or Fleming)
- Pick up 7 kids in the draft (1,4,12,16,20,36,52)
- Pick up another kid in the PSD (either Salopek or Hadlee)
- Pick up another 4 rookies in the rookie draft.

So therefore along with the 6 kids we got last year, plus Schulz, Moore, Foley and Tuck, plus the 7 picked in the national draft, one in the PSD and 4 in the rookie draft, it would all in all give us 22 players under the age of 20/21. 

Recruit in this fashion for a couple more years then in about 4-5 years you will DEFINATELY catch up to the pack.

If a third of these kids recruited in the next few years turn out to be good/great players then we will be halfway to being flag contenders.

This is the way to go !!

If we continue to be conservative then we will stagnate as we have been for so long.

[mightytiges]

I don't disagree with that Harry and HT.

 As WP pointed out in another thread Moore will most likely be promoted as he has already spent the maximum 2 years as a rookie and either we promote him or delist him. Foley I'd reckon will remain on the rookie list. If we promoted both we would need to delist 3 players to be able to use both picks 36 and 52.

[disco08]

Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.

Have to disagree with you about Tuck JF. He was in the bests almost every week for Coburg (don';t ask me why he couldn't get a game in the ones). He's also got good size and is pretty hard at it.

Agree with the others though.

Also, I think we'd be crazy not to use pick 52. Going on GH's mock on footydraft, players like Gilham, Knights, May and JD Smith may all be available. No way is it worth keeping Hilton etc if we can get one of these guys.

[Bulluss]

I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.

Correct me if i am mistaken.

[Harry]

I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list.  Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list.  Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet.  Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet.  Therefore need 7 more to make 38.  6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD.  Can someone confirm ?