No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1526 times
No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
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?
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"
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22730
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8640 times
- Been thanked: 3788 times
Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.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?
- 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?
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.kosifantutti wrote: Or was it bad management that we had so many fringe players who were still contracted next year?
There's no rush to promote Marshall IMO, he could easily play all year in the VFL next year.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1526 times
Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
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.saynta wrote:Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.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?
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
It would seem from club statements that we are going to use all 4 picks in the draft.kosifantutti wrote: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.saynta wrote:Too early to say. At least two more players, maybe three have to be delisted.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?
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.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
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.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
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?
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?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1422
- 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?
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 mixCQ 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?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: No youngsters delisted from main list. Good or bad?
So, 3 draft picks and 2 rookies if we delist Holmes...I presume. 3 kids and 2 mature bodies maybe?saint6709 wrote: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 mixCQ 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?