Trading period nerves

[Steve]

I don't know what it is but in the last week I've been hoping the trade week would come and go ASAP.

Maybe it has something to do with the 3 who are our most obvious trade bait - Seymour, Nicks and Warfe.

There's just something distasteful in trading someone who a couple of weeks prior was awarded life membership of the club.

Warfe has been a loyal servant and played 83 games for the club.

Nicks 149 and seems to be well liked amongst the player group.

I guess this is the really hard part of each post season - it's easy to put forward potential trades sitting in front of a keyboard. There?s the harsh reality and inevitability of opportunities drying up, but there?s deep scars that have been inflicted due to poor handling of this sort of thing.

In summary I hope whatever is done is done properly (not suggesting I think it won't be).

The other thing I fear is that we'll lose a couple of players that I think we should keep - obviously Roos has a wish list and when push comes to shove I have a sneaking suspicion a couple of players might be offloaded. Particularly if they're no takers for Nicks etc.

Perhaps one (or two) of Stevens, Fosdike, O'Keefe or Ablett. Maybe even a Leo Barry if they want to be totally ruthless and send a 'don't get too comfortable with yourselves' message.

Personally I'd like to keep them all - hence my trepidation about the coming week.

[chammond]

Maybe it has something to do with the 3 who are our most obvious trade bait - Seymour, Nicks and Warfe.

That's interesting, because I must admit that I thought that Stevens, O'Keefe and Ablett would be our main trade bait.

Do you think that there will be much demand for the older players? I can see Roos trying to place them elsewhere if he thinks their days are numbered at the Swans, but I'd hardly see that as 'trade bait'.

If the younger players are involved in trades, I hope they get to go home . . . at least that might obviate any ill-feeling. Given the Swans' history of diffculties in getting and keeping quality youngsters from other states, it makes sense to avoid giving the impression that these youngsters are being discarded.

It would be a very dangerous tactic to trade useful players just to give the squad a bit of a gee-up.

[liz]

Re: Trading period nerves

Originally posted by Steve
Maybe even a Leo Barry if they want to be totally ruthless and send a 'don't get too comfortable with yourselves' message.

I would be flabbergasted if Leo were traded. I've commented this before, but he and Roosey seem to be ideally suited to each other. Roosey encourages the players to take some risks, and of all the team, Leo most epitomises this. I just can't see him thriving under a more rigid coach, and the Swans' dash from the back line would be much the poorer without Leo.

I also can't see him being made an example of in terms of getting too comfortable. If ever there were a player who risks life and limb every week for the cause, it is Leo. The passage of play late in the Port match when he launched himself at the contest (and took out Wanganeen in the process) still has me clapping every time I watch the video. His 'one-percenter' award at the B&F indicates that the coaching staff recognise this.

[Steve]

I guess it depends on how you define 'trade bait'.

From a club's POV I would say it is the players you put on the table and say 'just name your price'.

But then there are others who you don't actively put forward, but when there are enquiries, you say 'well, they are a required player, but ...'.

I should also clarify what I was saying about making an example and Leo.

I can't see it happening, and I wasn't suggesting that I thought it should. J

ust that if it were decided that we had to give up something to get something in the trade period, and in addition it was thought that perhaps someone should be sacrificed to send a message (again I don't really think it would happen), then obviously you wouldn't use an Adam Goodes to send that message.

It's a very harsh and ruthless view to take, but for a number of reasons Barry has most likely already played his best football for Sydney. There is no doubt he is going to get targeted as HBF's such as D.King, Pickett, even Nicks have for being too loose - teams will direct play through Barry's man a lot more in the future.

So either Leo still plays fairly loose and gets exposed, or he tightens up and the offensive side of his game suffers.

Also the (albeit brave) way he plays is prone to injury.

We saw in the latter half of the season that a combination of injury and greater oposition pressure being placed on him certainly reduced his effectiveness.

I hope it doesn't come across as though I'm pushing for him to be traded - just that IF (and it's a massive IF ) we had to sacrifice a player with reasonable market value, Leo would be one I would reluctantly look at.

I guess basically he's a lot easier to replace than a Saddington, Doyle, J.Bolton etc.

[liz]

Originally posted by Steve

I guess basically he's a lot easier to replace than a Saddington, Doyle, J.Bolton etc.

I think that's where we disagree. I reckon he'd be one of the most difficult players in the Swans line-up to replace, just because he plays like no other. Sure, he's not the best footballer going around but he brings something unique to the team.

It's always a possibility that a player's best footy is behind them, but I don't see any reason why that should be the case for Leo. He's in his prime, age-wise. Why shouldn't he be able to carry on like he has for a few more years. And it's not as if his improvement has been sudden. He was a highly rate junior (certainly by the Swans, who were very keen to get him to the club at a young age) and since he switched to defence he's been gradually getting better.

You say he plays loose - to a degree I concur. But he somehow manages to be fairly accountable for his opponent, and has shown the ability this season to play tight on his man when the occasion warranted it. In that respect he is a far more complete and versatile defender than his partner on the other flank (not really a criticism of Kennelly given where they are in their respective careers).

I agree that other players and coaches will work him out and he will have to adjust his game as he goes. But that goes for every good player playing the game, and the really good ones manage to cope and evolve. I reckon Leo can too.

For the examples you mentioned:-

Good as Bolton has been this year, he wouldn't be that hard to replace - there are many other mid-sized, conventional midfielders going around, though I agree his physical attack at contests is better than most.

I also reckon Saddo could be replaced. Don't want to replicate the debate happening on another thread, but regardless of one's view on Saddo's ability, we do have other players who could play his role.

Doyle - who knows? Until he manages to stay on the ground for extended periods it's hard to make any comment. A fit Doyle would be a huge filip for the team but they managed to do OK without him this year.

[taurus]

Re: Trading period nerves

Originally posted by Steve
I don't know what it is but in the last week I've been hoping the trade week would come and go ASAP.

Maybe it has something to do with the 3 who are our most obvious trade bait - Seymour, Nicks and Warfe.
...
There's just something distasteful in trading someone who a couple of weeks prior was awarded life membership of the club.
...

Personally I'd like to keep them all - hence my trepidation about the coming week.

I must say that I also find something unpleasant about this as well. This is not just because I like two of those so called trade baits... There is something unkind and almost inhumane about the process.

Yes, I am aware and accept that footy is business. Yes, these guys cannot play to their previous levels. However I believe that these guys can still offer experience and other valuable services to the club, for example, Nicks is genuinely liked (by both non/playing staff) and is an off-field leader (this is from someone who breifly worked at the club).

I do accept the possiblity that some or all of these guys may be traded. I don't like the atomosphere of meat market the trade week generates. As another poster pointed out, we can't demand loyalty and not give it.

Just my two cents...

[SWANSBEST]

A TRAUMATIC WEEK BEGINS . Let us hope that we do reasonably well and that we pick up a inside midfielder and a strong tall backman. Someone mentioned trading Barry . This will not happen as he is crucial to the Roos game plan.


Big fish for AFL trade bait

By CHRIS LINES

October 13, 2003

AFTER a fortnight of shadow boxing, the AFL's official trade period begins today with clubs given five days to complete a frenzy of player and draft pick exchanges.


Headlining the big name free agents are Nathan Brown (ex-Western Bulldogs), Nick Stevens (ex-Port Adelaide), Jade Rawlings (ex-Hawthorn) and Dean Solomon (ex-Essendon).

Sydney and Essendon might enter a trade if Bomber Mark McVeigh is to be re-united with his Swan brother, Jarrad.


The Swans have tried to trade veteran trio Brad Seymour, Matthew Nicks and Rohan Warfe to a reluctant Carlton while Scott Stevens could arouse attention.


Nick Stevens wants to go to Collingwood but without an early draft pick, the Pies would have to offer a top-line player in exchange. Heath Scotland, Rupert Betheras, Mark McGough and Steven McKee are being shopped around but would only fetch a lower-order draft pick.


Richmond and Essendon head the long queue for Brown.


Essendon are central to many of the deals in trade week and will play hard-ball over Solomon. Defender Danny Jacobs is also being sought by several clubs.


The Kangaroos are favourites to land Rawlings. They might also get back Corey McKernan from Carlton fairly cheaply.


Richmond have shown strong interest also in Solomon.


Tiger Ben Holland might move to Melbourne.


Brisbane's Luke Power has been the subject of some rich bids from his native Victoria, with late talk connecting Mal Michael to a move. Tim Notting and Shane Morrison have also attracted interest.


The Lions have a slew of senior players out of contract including Power, Nigel Lappin, Michael, Daniel Bradshaw, Martin Pike and Alastair Lynch.


At Carlton the movement of Anthony Koutoufides on to the veterans' list and the possible retirement of captain Andrew McKay frees up plenty of cash. Some clubs had been sniffing around forward Lance Whitnall.


Carlton also have the No. 2 pick in the draft as bait.


Port have been linked to Kangaroo Daniel Motlop and have inquired about Jacobs.


St Kilda might try to broker a deal for Heath Black, with a swap for Fremantle's Trent Croad possible.


Melbourne have two draft picks in the first five putting them in a strong position to chase some big signings. They are keen on Stevens, Rawlings and Solomon plus Jacobs should he become available.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1264&storyid=325468

[Reggi]

Personally I think we should focus on building a team not a list - the majority of successful clubs have been that way because they have kept a playing group together.

Not through chopping and changing it.

Can't see the logic in trading for tradings sake.

Technically Lizz players can be replaced - but in reality it takes a long time for teamates to learn the capability of other players - and have guys fit into the fabric of a side.

Hawthorn believed they could easily replace Trent Croad - technically yeah - in reality they have gone backwards

Our club has been very very quiet in the media - don't think that really means anything though.

I understand there is speculationnwe are in the lead for Notting. 1st rnd pick would be a high price IMHO

[liz]

Originally posted by Reggi
Personally I think we should focus on building a team not a list - the majority of successful clubs have been that way because they have kept a playing group together.

Not through chopping and changing it.

Can't see the logic in trading for tradings sake.

Technically Lizz players can be replaced - but in reality it takes a long time for teamates to learn the capability of other players - and have guys fit into the fabric of a side.

I agree Reggi. My comments on those three players being "replacable" were only meant relative to Leo's "replacability" and only from the perspective of the role they play in the team. I'm not advocating that the club does try to change for the sake of change, though any club does need to bring fresh blood in each year (whether from outside or internally) to keep things moving along.

[CureTheSane]

Firstly, Seve, that IF wasn't all that massive Des, we need bigger fonts for times like this

Also, I guess long term players face the axe more these days.
Sucks for them, but it's the way things are done more.
Personally I think Nicks and Warfe have been given their opportunities and have not done well enough.
Seymour is one of my favorite players, and I think he played well when he got a run.
With some of the other injury prone players we have held on to it's hard to reason that the Swans would ditch him because of injury probs.
But Roos knows Seymour well enough having played beside him and I guess if he doesn't have room in the team for a player like him, then so be it.
I'd be sorry to see him go, and that is pretty rare.

The only other Swans I have really been sorry to see go was Licuria.
The reason given was that the midfield was full which I didn't accept.
We could sure use him now, but that's history, and my point is that IMO the Swans have traded pretty well in the recent past.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
and my point is that IMO the Swans have traded pretty well in the recent past.

We have not traded well in the recent past depending on how recent you mean.

Last year we did really well.But what about those essendon guys we took a couple of years back and Daffy.Retaking Plugger turned out to be a bad idea too.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Bleed Red Blood
We have not traded well in the recent past depending on how recent you mean.

Last year we did really well.But what about those essendon guys we took a couple of years back and Daffy.Retaking Plugger turned out to be a bad idea too.

The Essendon guys (O'Connor and Bomford) were '99. A few other ordinary trades too, no doubt, such as Allison ('00) and Russell ('99).

Daffy was part of the deal to get Hall, so it was a very very good trade.

Plugger didn't cause any trading/drafting problems and who knows what could have happened if he didn't injure himself first up.

Plenty of good pickups though - Ball ('00), Lockett ('95), Roos ('95), Bolton ('03), Davis ('03), Dyson ('96), Schwass ('98), Maxfield ('96), O'Brien ('96), Schauble ('00), and Williams ('01).

[chammond]

The Essendon guys (O'Connor and Bomford) were '99. A few other ordinary trades too, no doubt, such as Allison ('00) and Russell ('99).

O'Connor, Allison and Russell weren't trades.

All they cost were two very late National Draft picks and a pre-season draft pick.

As far as I can see, we finished up ahead on all three.

[DST]

Originally posted by chammond
O'Connor, Allison and Russell weren't trades.

All they cost were two very late National Draft picks and a pre-season draft pick.

As far as I can see, we finished up ahead on all three.

Exactly right, sometimes late in the draft you take a punt and O'Connor, Allison and Russell were all punts that cost us absolutely nothing.

As I see it, trading and drafting are two totally different things.

In reallity we have traded very well in the last 5 years while you could say that after this years performance we have drafted reasonably well, with the likes of Bolton and Fosdike finally taking the next step.

Names like O'Connor, Allison, Russell and Tingay are always bandied about like it was some great brain implosion when we drafted them, but they were all used to secure other players or taken late in the draft for a bit of experience.

In the end can you name a player that we have drafted or traded for with a first or second round pick that was clearly a dud, I can't think of one?

DST

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
O'Connor, Allison and Russell weren't trades.

All they cost were two very late National Draft picks and a pre-season draft pick.

As far as I can see, we finished up ahead on all three.

Ah yes - they were late draft picks like Tingay. I couldn't remember which were trades and which were draft picks. Overall, I think our record hasn't been as bad as many people believe.