Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
2018 Season Preview

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RudeBoy 



Joined: 28 Nov 2005


PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:32 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Geek wrote:
E wrote:
MightyMagpie wrote:
Ramsay training, but uncontracted. I assume he may be rookied.


Personally, I think Ramsey would be a better rookie choice than Oxley. Neither of them have had a good run injury wise and both appear unlikely to make the team given how stacked we are for wingers and HBFers

Varcoe, Wells, Sidebottom, WHE all ahead of Oxley

Langdon, Scharenberg, Maynard, Goldsack, Crisp all well ahead of Ramsey.

I think that if Scharenberg's career didn't get back on track, Ramsey might have gotten another contract.


I'd say that Varcoe and Wells have 2 seasons left each at most and will miss a fair bit of footy between here and retirement. Oxley mightn't set the world on fire but he has exposure to the top level and did ok when given the opportunity. Provided he can keep himself out of the medical room, he would be decent enough backup and cheap as chips too.


Hope I'm wrong, but I suspect this may well be Reid's last year as well.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:54 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Confirmed today Lynch and Thomas retained as rookies so I will update OP to reflect Thomas on rookie list.
_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

By my calculations, we have 5 list vacancies so we go into the draft with picks 6, 38, 56, 61 and 70 (rule to prevent stockpiling picks for points). If I have that wrong, then the next possible pick is 80.

We have promoted Cox from the rookie list so will be required to make a minimum of 2 selections at the National Draft.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies2016 



Joined: 12 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

As our resident expert on the draft father son points system ( amongst other areas of course ; ) this one is for MightyMagpie.

Is there a draft pick " ceiling " that we would need to achieve so that we no longer need to reserve our pick 38 on Tyler.
By example, this ain't my area of expertise but I'm guessing if Tyler's name wasn't read out by pick 30ish ( ? ) then we would know our pick 38 could then be used for someone else.
For those who will watch the draft, knowing the " ceiling " draft pick ( if it's that's simple ) helps to recognise the cut off point where pick 38 no longer needs to be put aside for Brown.

I'm also working on the assumption that if his name was to be called out by another club after pick 38, then 55 and 61 would get it done ?
Obviously the club would have done the maths and it appears that we may have gained swans pick 70 as some sort of plan B selection insurance if we have to use both 55 and 61 on Brown.
Anything you can provide to clarify the maths, would be much appreciated.
Cheers.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies2016 wrote:
As our resident expert on the draft father son points system ( amongst other areas of course ; ) this one is for MightyMagpie.

Is there a draft pick " ceiling " that we would need to achieve so that we no longer need to reserve our pick 38 on Tyler.
By example, this ain't my area of expertise but I'm guessing if Tyler's name wasn't read out by pick 30ish ( ? ) then we would know our pick 38 could then be used for someone else.
For those who will watch the draft, knowing the " ceiling " draft pick ( if it's that's simple ) helps to recognise the cut off point where pick 38 no longer needs to be put aside for Brown.

I'm also working on the assumption that if his name was to be called out by another club after pick 38, then 55 and 61 would get it done ?
Obviously the club would have done the maths and it appears that we may have gained swans pick 70 as some sort of plan B selection insurance if we have to use both 55 and 61 on Brown.
Anything you can provide to clarify the maths, would be much appreciated.
Cheers.


Points are deducted starting from next pick after the bid so any bid after 6 and before 38 will result in pick 38 moving back in the order.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The official line is this: What picks does Collingwood have?
Collingwood will take selections No. 6, No. 38, No. 56 and No. 61 into Friday’s meeting, with further picks to be used in the Rookie Draft the following Monday.

Who have I missed on my primary list in the OP?

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies2016 



Joined: 12 Sep 2014


PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyMagpie wrote:
Pies2016 wrote:
As our resident expert on the draft father son points system ( amongst other areas of course ; ) this one is for MightyMagpie.

Is there a draft pick " ceiling " that we would need to achieve so that we no longer need to reserve our pick 38 on Tyler.
By example, this ain't my area of expertise but I'm guessing if Tyler's name wasn't read out by pick 30ish ( ? ) then we would know our pick 38 could then be used for someone else.
For those who will watch the draft, knowing the " ceiling " draft pick ( if it's that's simple ) helps to recognise the cut off point where pick 38 no longer needs to be put aside for Brown.

I'm also working on the assumption that if his name was to be called out by another club after pick 38, then 55 and 61 would get it done ?
Obviously the club would have done the maths and it appears that we may have gained swans pick 70 as some sort of plan B selection insurance if we have to use both 55 and 61 on Brown.
Anything you can provide to clarify the maths, would be much appreciated.
Cheers.


Points are deducted starting from next pick after the bid so any bid after 6 and before 38 will result in pick 38 moving back in the order.


Cheers MM ! I didn't realise we had to utilise our NEXT pick even though there would be scenarios in this system where you could produce the total points total with a grouping of later picks.
So if a bid comes in at say pick 36, then we offer up 38 but we at least have a few left over points to come back in with another late pick.
I guess the simple and best outcome is that we don't hear Tylers name called until we have already chosen our pick 38 selection.

Thanks again.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

@SidebySide (John Murray) is suggesting Josh Smith has been recontracted so he is probably the one missing from my primary list. Can't find any confirmation of an extension anywhere although he does appear on the website senior list.

I will update the OP.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Updated OP for draft selections.
_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:25 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Are we allowed to go with a smaller playing list, i.e. simply not fill all spots?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
Are we allowed to go with a smaller playing list, i.e. simply not fill all spots?


38, 39 or 40 ... it affects the number of rookie spots.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyMagpie wrote:
K wrote:
Are we allowed to go with a smaller playing list, i.e. simply not fill all spots?


38, 39 or 40 ... it affects the number of rookie spots.


I see.

I was wondering whether the sum of senior-list and rookie-list players is fixed, or whether clubs are allowed to go short on that...

Update: I see at
http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players
it says the following.

Quote:
Rookie lists are now recognised as a key list management tool and designating a minimum number of rookies is no longer necessary as it is purely a club decision.


I guess then a club could have 38 players with no rookies. The point is that this affects the salary cap. A club could go all out to retain or recruit high-end players by doing this.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
MightyMagpie wrote:
K wrote:
Are we allowed to go with a smaller playing list, i.e. simply not fill all spots?


38, 39 or 40 ... it affects the number of rookie spots.


I see.

I was wondering whether the sum of senior-list and rookie-list players is fixed, or whether clubs are allowed to go short on that...

Update: I see at
http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/rookie-players
it says the following.

Quote:
Rookie lists are now recognised as a key list management tool and designating a minimum number of rookies is no longer necessary as it is purely a club decision.


I guess then a club could have 38 players with no rookies. The point is that this affects the salary cap. A club could go all out to retain or recruit high-end players by doing this.


The big difference under the new CBA is that category A rookies can be selected for senior games - no longer restricted to nominated and promoted rookies - at least that is how I read it.

The new list rules from 2018 are:

16. Player Lists – 2018 - 2022
(a) Each AFL Club shall maintain their Lists during the Term as follows:
(i) The number of Players on the Club’s Primary List shall be not more than 40 and not less than 38;
(ii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category A Rookie List shall be not more than 6 provided that a Club must not have more than 44 Players on their Primary List and Category A Rookie List at any time;
(iii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category B Rookie List shall be not more than 3.
(b) Any amount paid to a Rookie Player in excess of the base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be included in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be excluded in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments for each Rookie Player.
(c) Players included on a Category A Rookie List shall be eligible for selection in a Match from 1 November 2017 notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Agreement or the AFL Rules. Prior to 31 October 2017, AFL shall make all necessary amendments to the AFL Rules so that they shall provide for a Player on a Category A Rookie List to be eligible for selection in any Match played after 1 November 2017.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

MightyMagpie wrote:
...

The big difference under the new CBA is that category A rookies can be selected for senior games - no longer restricted to nominated and promoted rookies - at least that is how I read it.

The new list rules from 2018 are:

16. Player Lists – 2018 - 2022
(a) Each AFL Club shall maintain their Lists during the Term as follows:
(i) The number of Players on the Club’s Primary List shall be not more than 40 and not less than 38;
(ii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category A Rookie List shall be not more than 6 provided that a Club must not have more than 44 Players on their Primary List and Category A Rookie List at any time;
(iii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category B Rookie List shall be not more than 3.
(b) Any amount paid to a Rookie Player in excess of the base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be included in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be excluded in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments for each Rookie Player.
(c) Players included on a Category A Rookie List shall be eligible for selection in a Match from 1 November 2017 notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Agreement or the AFL Rules. Prior to 31 October 2017, AFL shall make all necessary amendments to the AFL Rules so that they shall provide for a Player on a Category A Rookie List to be eligible for selection in any Match played after 1 November 2017.


Thanks for the info, MM. Rule (b) looks highly relevant to the context of this discussion, i.e. it seems that going without rookies does not really help clear salary-cap space. It seems that going with only 38 primary-list players does help with salary-cap space, though, so doing that and stacking the Rookie List seems to help. [I started thinking about this because some commentators claimed in the live coverage that our passing at the draft indicated we are really, really tight on salary-cap space. This claim seemed unconvincing to me, because the minimum salary for a late draftee is not much more than for a Rookie (it looks like only a few thousand dollars difference), but rule (b) seems to indicate they are right about it making a difference.]
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MightyMagpie 



Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:16 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
MightyMagpie wrote:
...

The big difference under the new CBA is that category A rookies can be selected for senior games - no longer restricted to nominated and promoted rookies - at least that is how I read it.

The new list rules from 2018 are:

16. Player Lists – 2018 - 2022
(a) Each AFL Club shall maintain their Lists during the Term as follows:
(i) The number of Players on the Club’s Primary List shall be not more than 40 and not less than 38;
(ii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category A Rookie List shall be not more than 6 provided that a Club must not have more than 44 Players on their Primary List and Category A Rookie List at any time;
(iii) The number of Players on the Club’s Category B Rookie List shall be not more than 3.
(b) Any amount paid to a Rookie Player in excess of the base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be included in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be excluded in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments for each Rookie Player.
(c) Players included on a Category A Rookie List shall be eligible for selection in a Match from 1 November 2017 notwithstanding any contrary provision in this Agreement or the AFL Rules. Prior to 31 October 2017, AFL shall make all necessary amendments to the AFL Rules so that they shall provide for a Player on a Category A Rookie List to be eligible for selection in any Match played after 1 November 2017.


Thanks for the info, MM. Rule (b) looks highly relevant to the context of this discussion, i.e. it seems that going without rookies does not really help clear salary-cap space. It seems that going with only 38 primary-list players does help with salary-cap space, though, so doing that and stacking the Rookie List seems to help. [I started thinking about this because some commentators claimed in the live coverage that our passing at the draft indicated we are really, really tight on salary-cap space. This claim seemed unconvincing to me, because the minimum salary for a late draftee is not much more than for a Rookie (it looks like only a few thousand dollars difference), but rule (b) seems to indicate they are right about it making a difference.]


My reading is a National Draft draftee is (2 years x) base payment of $80,000 (after pick 40) included in TPP plus match payments and bonuses. I read clause (b) as saying that for a Rookie Draft draftee on a base of $75,000 plus match payments and bonuses ONLY the amount above $80,000 is included.

Therefore, if spot 40 on the primary list is left vacant the club saves base payment of $80,000 plus match payments and bonuses on TPP. If the Club goes with an extra rookie then only payments above the $80,000 get included in TPP.

$80,000 is not insignificant if we are pushing the limits as the Club has admitted in the slideshow that Channel 7's Tom Browne live-tweeted looking through the window of the boardroom.

_________________
All We Can Be
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group