Delistings

[Tuco]

Originally posted by Wil
Hmm. This just shows that when it comes to recruitment Roos has no idea. We are still playing with Eade's influence... it is probably a smart idea that Roos retires when Eade's players start to.

Bit harsh to pot-shot Roos for the Recruitment we've done since the end of 2002: Craig Bolton, Davis, Jolly, Richards, Moore, Amon (re-drafted), Schmidt etc

We've made a lot of room with these current delistings, but I might wait to see what happens with the PSD and the National draft (where a Shaw might even find their way back onto the list).

[Brandon]

Do we have to decide whether MOL and Leo go outside the main list before the National Draft occurs? Or can we take a look at what slips through before deciding whether we want to take more picks in the National Draft instead of having more rookies?

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Brandon
Do we have to decide whether MOL and Leo go outside the main list before the National Draft occurs? Or can we take a look at what slips through before deciding whether we want to take more picks in the National Draft instead of having more rookies?

I thought they had to turn 30 before the beginning of the season and neither MOL or Leo did?

[caj23]

Originally posted by Brandon
Do we have to decide whether MOL and Leo go outside the main list before the National Draft occurs? Or can we take a look at what slips through before deciding whether we want to take more picks in the National Draft instead of having more rookies?

Will check it out but there is an initial list lodgement date before the ND and then another one after it.

I don't think there is any chance that leo and mick won't be on the veterans list as I understand our salary cap it pretty tight. I'm sure the addition of Spida has compounded this problem

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
I thought they had to turn 30 before the beginning of the season and neither MOL or Leo did?

No. They can turn 30 in the year that they're veteran listed (provided their birthday is before 30 September). They will turn 30 in Feb and May 2007, so they qualify.

Originally posted by Brandon
Do we have to decide whether MOL and Leo go outside the main list before the National Draft occurs? Or can we take a look at what slips through before deciding whether we want to take more picks in the National Draft instead of having more rookies?

From the 2003-2008 players' Collective Bargaining Agreement:
13.1 (a) An AFL Club may nominate for each AFL Season up to two eligible Players
to be transferred from its Primary List to the Veterans List and/or any
number of eligible Players to be classified as a veteran on its Primary List,
provided the transfer or classification occurs no later than two weeks after
the Pre-Season Draft prior to the relevant AFL Season.
(b) An AFL Club which classifies a Player on its Primary List as a veteran, may,
at a later stage, but no later than two weeks after the Pre-Season Draft prior
to the relevant AFL Season, transfer the Player to the AFL Club?s Veterans
List.

So it's even more generous than not having to do it before the national draft. We don't even have to do it until after the PSD and rookie draft. That said, however, if we take 'too many' rookies in the rookie draft, our hands will already be tied, because outside vets have to be traded off against rookie numbers.

[Go Swannies]

"From the 2003-2008 players' Collective Bargaining Agreement"

Is the Federal government aware of this commie-inspired union monopoly? I bet things change in 2008. We must go to individual workplace agreements and then we can see how the free market works.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
"From the 2003-2008 players' Collective Bargaining Agreement"

Is the Federal government aware of this commie-inspired union monopoly? I bet things change in 2008. We must go to individual workplace agreements and then we can see how the free market works.

It's like that great Australian tradition, National Party socialism. The free market is great, as long as you can only win in the marketplace, you can't lose. Which is where Governments come in.

You are about as likely to see a Liberal Federal Government speak out against the salary cap and CBAs (which go hand in glove; you can't have the former without the latter) as you are to see them abolish all farm subsidies. The reason? 'The North Melbourne Football Club/wheat farmers [delete as applicable] are an Australian institution'.

[jude_boltons_babe]

i cant belive Earl Shaw has gone

[Nico]

Frankly I think they know exactly what they are doing.

Chambers may have been a dud but Richards isn't. And their strategy of trading for established players and potentially quality fringe players has delivered a flag and a 1 point GF loss.

Like top horse trainers who have an eye for a good potentialled horse, so do the top recruiting managers of the AFL have an eye for a good player, and Barham is right up there with the best of them.

Their strategy seems a little more expanded this year and it appears to me they are going for a cheap pick up in the preseason draft.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Nico
Frankly I think they know exactly what they are doing.

Chambers may have been a dud but Richards isn't. And their strategy of trading for established players and potentially quality fringe players has delivered a flag and a 1 point GF loss.

Like top horse trainers who have an eye for a good potentialled horse, so do the top recruiting managers of the AFL have an eye for a good player, and Barham is right up there with the best of them.

Their strategy seems a little more expanded this year and it appears to me they are going for a cheap pick up in the preseason draft.

I'd say you are spot on Nico. Furthermore, the recruiting strategy compliments the approach of the club. Sydney don't like missing the 8 and are not likely to ever bottom out. Therefore high draft picks are a bit of a dream, certainly building a p'ship team out of them is. There is probably little difference between pick 10 and pick 50 - it's basically a lottery. The Swans have done well with lower picks - they are patient enough to let them develop and see who has the goods. They therefore are happy to offload their higher picks for blokes that they figure they can make come good, and who they have a fair idea about and it probably helps them assess them in other ways too. Chambers was an aberration but that's they way it goes. Spriggs had more to offer IMO but that's the way it goes too. Jolly has been a good get, though I still think Doyle may end up a better player, C Bolt was a great pick up, Ted has shown a bit. And delisting just makes room if the draft falls your way - if not the names can be added back on the list. And as has been said, who knows what that does to motivate them - seems not to have done Kirk or Buchy any harm.

[originalswan]

Originally posted by liz
Yes and no. It isn't long enough to tell whether a player will make it, but if you look upon the system as a chance to give an extended trial to a handful of marginal kids, it at least gives the club a chance to assess the intangibles, like their determination and work ethic, it makes sense. Rather than have to make the two year committment, they can trial them for just a year and see whether they have the personality traits to compensate for not being quite as naturally talented as the cream of the crop.

Things may not always pan out in accordance with the above theory, as there are always certain individuals who mature at a slower rate. Sometimes circumstances that may occur over this period will not give a true indication of potential/talent/traits of an individual.

The one year rule if applied to certain players would certainly have ended up with egg all over the face of recruiters eg. Gary Ablett, Gary Dempsey, Graham Teasdale and more recently Shane Tuck, Chris Grant and our very own Daryn Cresswell.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I'd say you are spot on Nico. Furthermore, the recruiting strategy compliments the approach of the club. Sydney don't like missing the 8 and are not likely to ever bottom out. Therefore high draft picks are a bit of a dream, certainly building a p'ship team out of them is. The Swans have done well with lower picks - they are patient enough to let them develop and see who has the goods. There is probably little difference between pick 10 and pick 50 - it's basically a lottery. They therefore are happy to offload their higher picks for blokes that they figure they can make come good, and who they have a fair idea about and it probably helps them assess them in other ways too. ...

For 15 other AFL clubs, the stats would indicate that you're clearly wrong (that is to say, of course it's a lottery, but your odds of winning the lottery are far far better at #10 than #50).

However, for Sydney, it's a little less clear-cut. The list below seems to indicate that 10-30 is generally significantly better than 31-50 (even though Goodesie is like an elephant sitting on the see-saw for the latter camp); but Sydney's proportion of hits to misses with the absolute dregs of the draft (51 and down) is so much better than the average, it does start to throw the whole 'early picks heaps better' thesis into doubt.

You can judge for yourself about which list has offered better value over the last 10 years of drafts:
Picks 10-30: Brett O'Farrell, Rowan Warfe, Troy Cook, Jason Saddington, Heath James (first time around), Scott Stevens, Stephen Doyle, Luke Ablett, Mark Powell, Josh Willoughby, Tim Schmidt.
Picks 31-50: Will Sangster, Shannon Corcoran, Fred Campbell, Adam Goodes, Josh Thewlis, Andrew Ericksen, Jarred Moore, David Spriggs.
Picks 51- end of draft: Brett Rose, Ryan O'Connor, Dwayne Simpson, Simon Feast, Ryan O'Keefe, Brett Allison, Amon Buchanan (first time around), Jarrad Sundqvist, Daniel Hunt, Adam Schneider, Ricky Mott, Nick Malceski, Matt Davis, Matt Laidlaw, Kristin Thornton, Ryan Brabazon.

[Layby]

With all due respect, the above is nonsense.

It does not take into consideration picks swapped/players recruited for same.

Plus, our position on the ladder & why we were willing to take a punt on a nondraft camp or injured 'talent'. As opposed to say a St Kilda or Bulldogs who had a number of very early picks so (more or less) knew who they would get.

Plus, where you picked your cut off points etc etc etc. all very subjective.

Just my opinion.

[liz]

Originally posted by SimonH

You can judge for yourself about which list has offered better value over the last 10 years of drafts:
Picks 10-30: Brett O'Farrell, Rowan Warfe, Troy Cook, Jason Saddington, Heath James (first time around), Scott Stevens, Stephen Doyle, Luke Ablett, Mark Powell, Josh Willoughby, Tim Schmidt.
Picks 31-50: Will Sangster, Shannon Corcoran, Fred Campbell, Adam Goodes, Josh Thewlis, Andrew Ericksen, Jarred Moore, David Spriggs.
Picks 51- end of draft: Brett Rose, Ryan O'Connor, Dwayne Simpson, Simon Feast, Ryan O'Keefe, Brett Allison, Amon Buchanan (first time around), Jarrad Sundqvist, Daniel Hunt, Adam Schneider, Ricky Mott, Nick Malceski, Matt Davis, Matt Laidlaw, Kristin Thornton, Ryan Brabazon.

I think that all that list proves is how hit and miss drafting is.

You list 36 players.

One is top echelon.

Two more are within the top 10 players at the club.

Three more are established best 22 players with the potential to become top 10 players.

One has been hanging around for many years with moderate success but could yet become an established player if his body holds together.

One played some decent football for the club before moving on.

One was a decent servant before injuries and then retirement got the better of him.

One didn't hang around very long but at least netted a decent trade.

Two have been on the list for 2 or more years and are yet to establish themselves.

Three it is far far too early to tell.

So of that 36, you could argue that nine have provided decent to very good value. On six more, the jury is still out.

So if you exclude those where it is not fair to make a judgement call, just over half provided little or no value to the team, at least in a playing sense.

Of course, if you look at individual stories, there are all sorts of reasons why they didn't provide that value. Chronic injuries were certainly a factor in some cases. But from an overall success rate it doesn't really matter why they didn't provide any value. The reality seems to be that a lot of players will be cut down by injury before they can carve out a career.

This makes the Swans strategy of trading even reasonably high picks look pretty sensible. If you take a 50% hit rate as the norm, the two teens picks that Hall cost could have been expected to net one value player. Williams cost one more. Richards and Jolly maybe cost one more between them. And one more between Chambers and Davis.

Given the quality that Hall and Williams delivered, the match-winning ability of Davis and the potential for Jolly and Richards to become pretty important players over a decent period of time, that looks like smart trading.

[Layby]

so, what i said then !