Combined Trades Thread

[DST]

Originally posted by gossipcom
I'm going to ask a really dumb question so excuse my ignorance here

If a club delists a player now can they nominate for the draft? Or is it too late all together?

Yes they can gossipcom, but only if they are delisted can they nominate for the main draft.

If you are a player coming out of contract for next year and want to move on then your contract does not run out until after the main draft (AFL requirement), so you can only be traded or nominate for the pre season draft.

DST

[sharpie]

Although it sounds good that the swans took pick 45 for Stevens in the belief that they were using it for another trade, perhaps for Ray Hall, I find a flaw in this.

If that was the case, they would have done it in a 3-way deal in one go, instead of one trade and then the other. It just doesnt make sense that they got one deal done, and then ran out of time for the other.

I would have to say that the best explanation is that Stevens was going to be delisted, so instead they tried to get some draft picks out of him. If so, then we have done ok I think. Otherwise it is a trading disaster for the Swans.

[gossipcom]

DST thanks for clearing that up for me

[NMWBloods]

Just watching "Trading Places" on FoxFooty and they were dumbfounded (not that hard to do!!) by the Swans' trade. They thought Stevens for #45 was very cheap and they could only rationalise it by suggesting salary cap pressures. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this once the drafts are finished. If we don't get something from this #45 pick then it may mean that the Swans have simply stuffed up and given Stevens away.

[sharpie]

How is it possible that the Swans are under salary cap pressure? The team is made up of far too many youngsters and only a small number of guys who would command big money.

If the swans are under this pressure, where does it leave the team in a year or two? It is not going to get any better without changes to the side, and those changes are not going to include picking up some superstars, its going to mean that we lose some.

This has got me very worried

[liz]

Originally posted by sharpie

I would have to say that the best explanation is that Stevens was going to be delisted, so instead they tried to get some draft picks out of him. If so, then we have done ok I think. Otherwise it is a trading disaster for the Swans.

Simple explanations are normally the correct ones and I think this is probably the case here. I heard last week that the club had decided to move Scott along but the info was 3rd or 4th hand so I had no idea on its accuracy at the time.

And realistically, what more could we have got? I don't think he was worth a 2nd round pick. Maybe the only realistic improvement would have been for Sydney and Adelaide to swap first round picks rather than second round picks, but even then the increase in value of the trade would have been marginal.

[NMWBloods]

I find it difficult to acknowledge that the Swans had decided that Stevens was no good and were going to de-list him. It will be interesting to watch his progress at Adelaide.

[Charlie]

Well... if the deal was going to be pick 45 for Ray Hall, I'd say that he'll be delisted by Richmond. At that stage in the draft, I'd be very surprised if anyone bothered to take him if he wanted to return to Sydney... so why couldn't we take him with the pick anyway?

I think that we would be quite smart to do that. Realistically, a tall with experience is going to be more value than a highly speculative #45/47 draft pick in a weak draft.

[Triple B]

Has anybody actually stopped to think that a conversation between Scott and the club may have gone along these lines:

Scott: Roosy, am I a realistic chance of permanently breaking into the seniors next year?

Paul: Possibly, but realistically there is not a spot at the minute

Scott: Well, if that is the case, I would be happy to be considered for a trade or I will nominate for the draft.

Paul: OK Scott. Where would you like to go?

Scott: Back to WA or to the Crows who I supported as a kid.

Paul: OK mate, let's see if we can get something for you from those options.

Scott: Thanks.

Not an unrealistic scenario that Stevens was happy to move.

The club got some recompense for his leaving and anybody who thinks we were grossly 'robbed' by the Crows is surely kidding, or way overates players just because they pull on the Red and White. I personally think that it is a pretty even deal.

Anybody who believes the club should refuse a youngish player who would like to leave to improve his chances of making the grade on the grounds that he is good to have in the reserves 'in case' we have injuries is very hard-hearted indeed.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by BBB
Paul: Possibly, but realistically there is not a spot at the minute

This part of the conversation does not ring true. For a tall guy in a team with an undersized backline, there would be a spot. He hadn't made it yet, but he'd only had one season and limited opportunities down back.

[Triple B]

This part of the conversation does not ring true. For a tall guy in a team with an undersized backline, there would be a spot. He hadn't made it yet, but he'd only had one season and limited opportunities down back.

Hello!!! He hasn't been able to gain a spot in our 'undersized backline' this year. If there was a spot for him, he would be there already!!!

Bottom line is, he is seen as no more than a back-up at the moment and seeing as we will start next season with the same backline as last, not withstanding any backline player which we may obtain in either of the drafts which may force him further down the list, how can you say there 'would be a spot'.?

Please don't use the 'only limited opportunitied down back' excuse. He was recruited as a forward and he tried to make it as a forward and failed to make the grade and was moved to the backline purely as an afterthought/last resort. He may make it as a backmen and good luck to him, but nobody can claim that the Swans have not given him a chance.

[liz]

Originally posted by BBB
Hello!!! He hasn't been able to gain a spot in our 'undersized backline' this year. If there was a spot for him, he would be there already!!!

I think that's spot on. And he would have been competing for that "next spot" for a tall (skinnyish) defender with Powell, Hunt, maybe James, maybe Dempster, maybe LRT (depending on where he will land up on the ground) before the recruitment of anyone else to the list.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by BBB
Hello!!! He hasn't been able to gain a spot in our 'undersized backline' this year. If there was a spot for him, he would be there already!!!

I was simply saying that "but realistically there is not a spot at the minute" makes no sense. Rather it would be "there is a spot which we need to fill but Stevens is not up to it."

I've not said that he hasn't failed as a forward. I've simply said that he's had only a limited opportunity to try out in the backline. A number of players have failed in the forward line and gone back to become great defenders (eg: Dunkley). Stevens didn't really get much of a shot at trying that.

As I say, there is definitely a spot for a tall backman, but Stevens most likely is not that man.

[Steve]

Initially I wasn't so sure, but thinking about it the trade is very unlikely to come back to haunt us.

He just never really looked like commanding a key role in the team - always looked good but at no stage really got out of second gear.

You could take the 'things could've changed if we'd persevered and committed to playing him forward/back for 22 games next year' view, but in reality he was too far down the pecking order in either position for that to be feasible.

I think they'd have looked at it and thought that even someone like O'Keefe could produce what Stevens would have up forward.

Hall and O'Loughlin are pretty much set as CHF and FF, and the plan would appear to be to have either Doyle or Ball down there a fair bit as well.

Perhaps one of the final deciding factors was that they envisaged using LRT and perhaps even bringing through Dempster and Hunt as the floating tall forward that Stevens was - retaining him would have meant fewer opportunities for players they feel have a bigger future.

Good luck to him at Adelaide, but I reckon he could easily become another Fitzgerald or Schell for them.

[liz]

Originally posted by Steve

Good luck to him at Adelaide, but I reckon he could easily become another Fitzgerald or Schell for them.

Hopefully not another Fitzy - wouldn't wish that kind of "luck" on any player.