No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
kosifantutti
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8568
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
Location: Back in town
Has thanked: 524 times
Been thanked: 1522 times

No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704778Post kosifantutti »

I can't remember another year where we did not delist a young player who hadn't really made it. Coughlan was on the rookie list, Holmes if he goes was a completely different kettle of fish. And of course Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster all had long careers.

But there was no Curren, Templeton, or Murdoch this year.

Does that mean we have a great list of youngsters who all have a future in the AFL?
Was it due to already having 3 "retirees"?
Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?


Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
saynta
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 22436
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
Has thanked: 8355 times
Been thanked: 3703 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704786Post saynta »

kosifantutti wrote:I can't remember another year where we did not delist a young player who hadn't really made it. Coughlan was on the rookie list, Holmes if he goes was a completely different kettle of fish. And of course Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster all had long careers.

But there was no Curren, Templeton, or Murdoch this year.

Does that mean we have a great list of youngsters who all have a future in the AFL?
Was it due to already having 3 "retirees"?
Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?
Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.


User avatar
dragit
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 13047
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704789Post dragit »

kosifantutti wrote: Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?
I think it is this, not sure how we ended up with so many fringe players contracted for 2018… at this rate we have to either delist and payout one or two or move them to the rookie list.

There's no rush to promote Marshall IMO, he could easily play all year in the VFL next year.


User avatar
kosifantutti
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8568
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
Location: Back in town
Has thanked: 524 times
Been thanked: 1522 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704847Post kosifantutti »

saynta wrote:
kosifantutti wrote:I can't remember another year where we did not delist a young player who hadn't really made it. Coughlan was on the rookie list, Holmes if he goes was a completely different kettle of fish. And of course Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster all had long careers.

But there was no Curren, Templeton, or Murdoch this year.

Does that mean we have a great list of youngsters who all have a future in the AFL?
Was it due to already having 3 "retirees"?
Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?
Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.
Yeah, I probably went a bit early but I think everyone except Holmes has a contract for next year. So if someone else is delisted we are paying for them.


Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
User avatar
ace
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
Location: St Kilda
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 789 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704855Post ace »

kosifantutti wrote:
saynta wrote:
kosifantutti wrote:I can't remember another year where we did not delist a young player who hadn't really made it. Coughlan was on the rookie list, Holmes if he goes was a completely different kettle of fish. And of course Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster all had long careers.

But there was no Curren, Templeton, or Murdoch this year.

Does that mean we have a great list of youngsters who all have a future in the AFL?
Was it due to already having 3 "retirees"?
Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?
Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.
Yeah, I probably went a bit early but I think everyone except Holmes has a contract for next year. So if someone else is delisted we are paying for them.
It would seem from club statements that we are going to use all 4 picks in the draft.
Plus we have added Logan Austin.
If Marshall remains on the rookie list then we need 5 vacancies.
We have made 3 - Riewoldt, Montagna & Dempster.
That leaves two more - Holmes does not have a contract, he is doomed.
He was probably told that he would only be retained if another club took one of Longer or Hickey in a trade.
But that leaves one more required.
That must be someone already contracted.

Almost certainly someone with a contract that was not renewed this year.
Someone who did not get much game time this year but has been on the list a few years.
Someone who thought they were safe when they left for a holiday because they were contracted for next year.
One of Wright or Minchington may have a cruel end to their holiday.


The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
CQ SAINT
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6060
Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 1551 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704888Post CQ SAINT »

I am a bit confused.

We currently have 39 players on our list and 4 rookies making it 43 in total. We can extend that to 47 and apparently after changes to the rookie rules, all 47 will be available from round one.

If we delist Holmes, I believe we will, we will have 5 vacancies and 5 draft picks.

Is this correct?


saint6709
Club Player
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 22 Sep 2009 8:23am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704893Post saint6709 »

CQ SAINT wrote:I am a bit confused.

We currently have 39 players on our list and 4 rookies making it 43 in total. We can extend that to 47 and apparently after changes to the rookie rules, all 47 will be available from round one.

If we delist Holmes, I believe we will, we will have 5 vacancies and 5 draft picks.

Is this correct?
I don't know if it's correct but if it is it makes a lot of sense- no big fish caught this year - but we will need some cap space for next years fishing expedition - also allows us to hedge our bets re who might make a significant and perhaps unexpected improvement next year ---so keep everyone on and pay them and perhaps cull the list back to 43 next year with a star or 2 added into the mix


CQ SAINT
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6060
Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 1551 times

Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?

Post: # 1704903Post CQ SAINT »

saint6709 wrote:
CQ SAINT wrote:I am a bit confused.

We currently have 39 players on our list and 4 rookies making it 43 in total. We can extend that to 47 and apparently after changes to the rookie rules, all 47 will be available from round one.

If we delist Holmes, I believe we will, we will have 5 vacancies and 5 draft picks.

Is this correct?
I don't know if it's correct but if it is it makes a lot of sense- no big fish caught this year - but we will need some cap space for next years fishing expedition - also allows us to hedge our bets re who might make a significant and perhaps unexpected improvement next year ---so keep everyone on and pay them and perhaps cull the list back to 43 next year with a star or 2 added into the mix
So, 3 draft picks and 2 rookies if we delist Holmes...I presume. 3 kids and 2 mature bodies maybe?


Post Reply