Swans to offload youngsters

[ScottH]

...maybe.

Swans to sow seed of sorrow

The Swans top two draft picks from 2003, midfielders Josh Willoughby and Tim Schmidt, both 20-years-old, are yet to make their senior debut.

After playing a total of 19 career games in 2005, forward Luke Vogels and midfielder Jarred Moore also can't break into the Swans' best 22.

"I think that some of those guys will play before the end of the year," Roos said. "Probably

Vogels and Schmidt, who has been an emergency. And Dempster will no doubt get back in -- he's too good a player to be out -- and Bevan.

"But who knows what might happen.

"You might be faced with having to release some of those guys.

[Young Blood]

Re: Swans to offload youngsters

So ta ta to at least Williams, Spriggs, Doyle and probably Willoughby at the end of the year.

What about Bevan - he seems a long way back in the pecking order now. But do we keep him as a contingency for injuries?

Is Smoky Davis safe?

[bigswan]

There was no suggestion in that article or the article by John Longmire that Schmidt or Willoughby were to be off loaded. Quite the opposite. It seems that they are still very interested in them. Next year we might lose Willo, Spriggs, Doyle and perhaps Smokey Davis. Younger players will remain, particularly players who our number one and two draft picks. Paul Bevan will remain. These players need patience and form in the Reserves. You don't change a winning combination.

[NMWBloods]

We didn't really change losing combinations either.

In the other article Roos suggested some of the youngsters will go next year, which is disappointing.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
In the other article Roos suggested some of the youngsters will go next year, which is disappointing.

some youngsters go every year from every club. disappointing for them and particular fans sure, but some kids just aren't up to it.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by timthefish
some youngsters go every year from every club. disappointing for them and particular fans sure, but some kids just aren't up to it.

I'm talking about the ones who Roos won't put in our team and will go elsewhere to get a game, and might be pretty good.

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm talking about the ones who Roos won't put in our team and will go elsewhere to get a game, and might be pretty good.

Yep. There's definately no Leigh Brockman's, Scott Stevens or Sunqvist's in this lot. All of our youngsters have been highly rated so it definately won't be an easy decision this year.

[Legs Akimbo]

This year's draft is supposedly another superdraft we have some serious talent amongst our rookies already (they seem to figure in the reserves best more than our actual 2005 draftees). Our 3+ year players from earlier drafts are not getting a game. Something is going to give.

Williams will go at the end of the year, but aside from him, I don't see any age related retirements. I think if Spriggs is tearing up the reserves and still not getting a game, then he is as good as gone. I think Donkey is stuffed, he's gone at the end of the year. That's only three places and we have to take three in the draft.

In 2007, maybe Kirky, MOL, and Leo are the only possibilities for retirement.

The reality is that we may lose practically a whole year's drafting. Willoughby, Schmidt, Davis, Ericksen, are all from the 2003 draft - all must be contemplating what went wrong. Of the 2002 draftees, McVeigh, Malceski and Dempster are all now regular or semi regular players.

Strange and sad situation.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

How much space do we need, to participate we only need 3 spots for next years draft? I agree with Akimbo we can reasonable expect the delisting/retirement of Donk, Spriggs & Williams. and I believe MOL could go onto the Rookie/Veteran list next year. Isn't 4 choices enough?
Unless we plan to buy again (which I don't think sounds like a great idea to me).

Even on the Rookie list, I don't think there's anyone (with the exception of Garuba) who must be promoted or lost next year?

But I do agree with 'Bloods, I think it'd be a good idea to give some of the kids a game especially if they are starring in the 2's.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo


The reality is that we may lose practically a whole year's drafting. Willoughby, Schmidt, Davis, Ericksen, are all from the 2003 draft - all must be contemplating what went wrong.

True in that we don't need to send these guys off but you'll find particularly Willoughby, possibly Schmidt ask to be let go to a bottom 8 club where they are more likely to get game time, as per Sads and Fix. last year. Only problem with that idea is that with the draft supposedly packed with talent those sorts of clubs may well be less willing to trade.

[SimonH]

The subject of this article was always obvious, and has been commented on previously on RWO. It's just that Roos has been honest enough to concede it.

There is no-one we want to trade who would have any substantial trade value (leaving aside the hopefully remote possibility of an Ottens-style trade of an established unhappy player). In any event, if we trade for another player, it's a zero-sum game; if we trade for a pick, then unless we decide we want to take a punt on 4 picks (which would be very harsh given the quality of our current list), the effect on our list would be the same as delisting the tradee. The only difference will be to change the numbers of our 3 draft picks.

My wild guess at this stage of the year is as follows. Obviously massively prone to change depending on form and injuries.

Gone: Big Willo, Smokey Davis, Spriggs.
Veteran list: MO'L.
Promoted: The best-performed out of Prior, Currie, Barlow, Rowe and Wall (i.e. the big guys on the rookie list).

That will give us 3 draft picks. And will have the happy effect of saving all of the young midfielders from oblivion.

I couldn't even guess chapter and verse of who will be dumped from the rookie list, but (on my understanding of the rules) Garrubba will have to go; Phillips and Jack have at this stage done plenty to earn another year (but couldn't be promoted unless someone like little Willo was delisted); and at least one or two more of the big men will have earned another shot as well.

Fact is, we have too many midfielders, compounded with the decision to pick 3 of them in the 2005 draft (all of whom are safe this year); if you take away 2 in big Willo and Spriggs, we're a bit closer to equilibrium. Provided that, for the love of god, we don't draft any more.

We need more strong marking types, at least one of whom can come from the rookie list, and one from the draft. Sydney's list management at the moment is superior to most clubs'; the biggest structural problem with it is that we're relying over-heavily on Vogels and Grundy to become 100-game KPPs, especially now it's apparent that Richards doesn't have the bulk/presence to be a true KPP. Subject to the view of those who've been watching the 2nds, Smokey still doesn't seem to fit the definition of a 'strong marking type'.

Given question marks remaining over Ericksen, the fact that Chambers is (to put it politely) 'learning the trade', and the fact that Jolly seems to be playing every week at less than 100% fitness, I would be flabbergasted if Doyle was delisted, unless:
a) by some miracle we secured Spider, or
b) he sustains another serious injury and is on a long-term injured list come October (a substantial possibility, I know).

[Bas]

There is always the option of trading players on the main list for very low draft picks. That is, two players such as Fosdike and Dempster for a top 10 pick.

This way it free's up two places and we get a top 10 pick.

If our unplayable youngsters are so good, then wo don't have a problem.

[Old Royboy]

My call is that Wllo will retire plus 4 or 5 offloads. With Mick on the veterans list, that would leave six list spots. This year is supposed to be a super draft, thus the value of picks at the trade table will be higher. Clubs wishing to trade picks for players should be able to cut a better deal than in the past and with our track record, trading a pick for a player would be likely again.

So, six free spots will possibly give us 1 trade, 2 rookie elevations and 3 draftees.

As long as Ricky keeps digging up Nick Malceski?s in the draft dregs I can?t see the Swans changing their strategy.

[TheMase]

This may be a super draft, however just because a player is in the top 10 does not necessarily mean they will make it.

Dempster was picked under the father - son rule. If people knew what he was capable of (or would be), he would also have been a top 10 pick.

I would be VERY hesitant on trading someone like Dempster with a defense that is in its late 20s.

He is part of a group of young Swans that will play over 150 games IMO. Can play anywhere on the ground.

Someone like Fosdike, although playing pretty well at the moment, is probably not a requirement of our squad.
Might have good trade value.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Bas
There is always the option of trading players on the main list for very low draft picks. That is, two players such as Fosdike and Dempster for a top 10 pick.

Ah, only 8 rounds before a 'trade Fozzie' thread emerged.

I hope he ends up playing 200 games for the Swans. He was one of our best in the GF, loves the club and contributes every week.