| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | Hey inx88 - I believe the AFL have changed the rules this year so that late picks where no primary list spot exists are deleted pre-draft and cannot be used for matching bids. The updated "Final Order of Selection" I have from the AFL shows us having picks 28 (677 DVI points), 44 (362 DVI points), 51 (259 DVI points), 61 (135 DVI points) and 64 (101 DVI points). |
Looks like I may have got this one correct
_________________
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
 |
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| inxs88 wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | Hey inx88 - I believe the AFL have changed the rules this year so that late picks where no primary list spot exists are deleted pre-draft and cannot be used for matching bids. The updated "Final Order of Selection" I have from the AFL shows us having picks 28 (677 DVI points), 44 (362 DVI points), 51 (259 DVI points), 61 (135 DVI points) and 64 (101 DVI points). |
Looks like I may have got this one correct |
Nope - Gillon covered it in his pre-draft address. We only had the 5 live picks.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | inxs88 wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | Hey inx88 - I believe the AFL have changed the rules this year so that late picks where no primary list spot exists are deleted pre-draft and cannot be used for matching bids. The updated "Final Order of Selection" I have from the AFL shows us having picks 28 (677 DVI points), 44 (362 DVI points), 51 (259 DVI points), 61 (135 DVI points) and 64 (101 DVI points). |
Looks like I may have got this one correct |
Nope - Gillon covered it in his pre-draft address. We only had the 5 live picks. |
My original premise was that if the Pies pick 3 new players (not father and son or Rookie list upgrades) we would need to delist 1 more player from Primary list. That fact that we only took 2 last night validates that
_________________
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What makes it impossible? |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| inxs88 wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | inxs88 wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | Hey inx88 - I believe the AFL have changed the rules this year so that late picks where no primary list spot exists are deleted pre-draft and cannot be used for matching bids. The updated "Final Order of Selection" I have from the AFL shows us having picks 28 (677 DVI points), 44 (362 DVI points), 51 (259 DVI points), 61 (135 DVI points) and 64 (101 DVI points). |
Looks like I may have got this one correct |
Nope - Gillon covered it in his pre-draft address. We only had the 5 live picks. |
My original premise was that if the Pies pick 3 new players (not father and son or Rookie list upgrades) we would need to delist 1 more player from Primary list. That fact that we only took 2 last night validates that |
Your original post showed 8 picks. My point was that we only went into the draft with 5 picks because with Keeffe and Smith already upgraded (now allowed pre-draft) we only had a max of 5 primary list spots (you can't delist after the draft to make room). This was a new rule for this draft aimed at preventing academy and F/S clubs stockpiling late picks they have no intention of actually using other than as points. We used 4 of those picks and have a primary list of 39 (1 less than the maximum of 40).
Re your most recent post we could have taken one more (going to 40 on the list), but we chose not to. From memory this gives us some flexibility re a nominated rookie (likely to be Cox) that we wouldn't otherwise have. It basically seems to be designed to keep Cox's salary out of the salary cap (Category B rookies are excluded), but still allow him to play seniors.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So we do or dont have an open spot on the senior list?
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Presti35 wrote: | | So we do or dont have an open spot on the senior list? |
By my calcs (35+4=39<40) we do, but as I say above we may not be intending to fill it with an FA because of Cox. Need to check but I don't think we get a nominated rookie from rd1 if we have 40 ... anyone know for sure?
EDIT: Can nominate a rookie if you have 38 (not including veterans) and satisfy the TPP. Do we have a veteran? Pendlebury would have the 10 years service at one club, so I assume he qualifies as a veteran.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So does that also mean we will have a pick in the (what I'd just about call obsolete) Pre-Season Draft?
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Presti35 wrote: | | So does that also mean we will have a pick in the (what I'd just about call obsolete) Pre-Season Draft? |
I think we would, but I wouldn't expect us to use it.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Geez, I think we should depending on who has a pick and who is taken before us.
I'm wondering if the 6 clubs before us have filled their lists?
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | Presti35 wrote: | | So we do or dont have an open spot on the senior list? |
By my calcs (35+4=39<40) we do, but as I say above we may not be intending to fill it with an FA because of Cox. Need to check but I don't think we get a nominated rookie from rd1 if we have 40 ... anyone know for sure?
EDIT: Can nominate a rookie if you have 38 (not including veterans) and satisfy the TPP. Do we have a veteran? Pendlebury would have the 10 years service at one club, so I assume he qualifies as a veteran. |
The old veteran's list doesn't exist anymore. Hasn't for about four or five years now. So no, you can't list veterans outside the primary list in order to open up another spot. Veterans count in the total of primary list players.
If you have a primary list of 40, you cannot nominate a rookie. If you have 39 (as we do), you can nominate 1 rookie. If you have 38, you can nominate two.
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat. |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | | MightyMagpie wrote: | | Presti35 wrote: | | So we do or dont have an open spot on the senior list? |
By my calcs (35+4=39<40) we do, but as I say above we may not be intending to fill it with an FA because of Cox. Need to check but I don't think we get a nominated rookie from rd1 if we have 40 ... anyone know for sure?
EDIT: Can nominate a rookie if you have 38 (not including veterans) and satisfy the TPP. Do we have a veteran? Pendlebury would have the 10 years service at one club, so I assume he qualifies as a veteran. |
The old veteran's list doesn't exist anymore. Hasn't for about four or five years now. So no, you can't list veterans outside the primary list in order to open up another spot. Veterans count in the total of primary list players.
If you have a primary list of 40, you cannot nominate a rookie. If you have 39 (as we do), you can nominate 1 rookie. If you have 38, you can nominate two. |
Actually the veteran's list existed up until 2016, but what you say is no doubt correct for 2017: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-08/new-veterans-rule-put-all-clubs-on-a-level-playing-field
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
MagpieBat
Joined: 27 Nov 2010
Location: Brooding in a cave... somewhere... maybe...
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It existed for the purposes of an allowance under the TPP. But clubs haven't been able to sit their veterans outside the primary list in order to open up list spots for the last five years...
| Quote: | “There is no veterans list anymore, so the maximum number on your primary list is 40 and you can still have veterans, but the veteran criteria has changed … which is 10 years service to your club. The age limit of 30 years has been dropped and you can have as many veterans as you’d like on your primary list, who fulfill that category of 10 years service and you get roughly $130,000 per player outside of your cap.
“So they become primary listed players, instead of being on the veterans list, so that’s the fundamental change.” |
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-02/dees-to-fill-six-spots-on-list
_________________
I am vengeance. I am the night. I am MagpieBat. |
|
|
|
|
Presti35
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK, so we have a spot to fill.
Which means we can;
1. Sign a delisted free agent before 2pm today.
2. Draft a player in the PSD.
or 3. Upgrade a rookie listed player at some stage.
For interest sake, of the teams who finished below us in 2016, Fremantle have 38 on their list and Richmond 39. All the others have 40. Which, I think, means we'll have pick 3 in the PSD.
So unless a delisted free agent is signed today the PSD will be:
Pick 1 Fremantle.
Pick 2 Richmond.
Pick 3 Collingwood.
Pick 4 Fremantle. (Didnt check the other clubs above us, so there might be a team or two between Freo's second pick)
Is that correct?
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MagpieBat wrote: | It existed for the purposes of an allowance under the TPP. But clubs haven't been able to sit their veterans outside the primary list in order to open up list spots for the last five years...
| Quote: | “There is no veterans list anymore, so the maximum number on your primary list is 40 and you can still have veterans, but the veteran criteria has changed … which is 10 years service to your club. The age limit of 30 years has been dropped and you can have as many veterans as you’d like on your primary list, who fulfill that category of 10 years service and you get roughly $130,000 per player outside of your cap.
“So they become primary listed players, instead of being on the veterans list, so that’s the fundamental change.” |
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2012-11-02/dees-to-fill-six-spots-on-list |
OK. Thanks. I stand corrected, veterans but no separate veterans list in 2016. Anyway, the upshot is we can nominate a rookie Rd1 if we go with 39.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
