Acquiring "ready made" players

[Xie Shan]

Fair thread ROK, I think we've generally done ok, you are right in saying that the ones that have done well for us did not come cheap, I think we gave up first-round picks for each of Jolly, Ted, Hall and Willo, perhaps we gave too much for Ted but that's what you get for trading with Sheedy

B2 was the only real 'bargain' pick-up that worked out, though I stubbornly maintain that Vogels had the talent and would have made it given increased opportunities. Grr. You could say the same for Spriggs though! But Schauble was terrific for us and IIRC played some of his best football in his first couple of years here, though I cannot remember what we gave Collingwood for him. (A 2nd-rounder?)

[BSA5]

Jolly couldn't get a game behind White because the latter was so good. Jolly always had the potential just not the opportunity.

Exactly the same as Bolton, and yet we're happy to say Bolton was a success. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

That's the whole POINT of this recruiting strategy: recruit players with potential that others don't see, because of limited opportunity.

Bolton, Mattner, Hall, Richards, and Jolly, ALL improved markedly after coming to the Swans. Hall, well, he might have developed that way anyway, but really, his improvement after coming to the Swans was quite remarkable, and I'm not sure you can put it down to just normal development after 6 comparatively mediocre years at the Saints. The others, barring maybe Jolly, would have been never played footy again had they not gone to the Swans. Jolly would have stuck around at Melbourne, but wouldn't have had much more opportunity, and could well have been dropped after another season or two.

The strategy isn't about turning discards into superstars. A turnaround like Craig Bolton's is a rare one indeed. Success in this recruiting strategy is about turning apparently average players into very solid contributors, and that is what the Swans have done well.

[NMWBloods]

That's the whole POINT of this recruiting strategy: recruit players with potential that others don't see, because of limited opportunity.

It's not potential others don't see but potential others can't use. Some players are of different value to different clubs.

[BSA5]

It's not potential others don't see but potential others can't use. Some players are of different value to different clubs.

Either/or, really. In Bolton's case, it was probably that. In Richards' case, it wouldn't have been seen by anybody, really. Probably because he was expected to play as a traditional man-on-man defender, when he is far better suited to playing loose, which Sheedy didn't realise.

[NMWBloods]

Or maybe Sheedy did and didn't want someone who can only play loose man in defence.

[BSA5]

Or maybe Sheedy did and didn't want someone who can only play loose man in defence.

Maybe. Or maybe he just didn't realise. Maybe Leigh Matthews never did see Bolton's potential. We can't read the coaches' minds, we can only go on what is more likely.

[reigning premier]

Congrats ROK.... A lucid, well thought out, intelligent thread propogated mainly by yourself.

Kudos to you. It's much more impressive than some of your other posts don't you think???

[SimonH]

The whole thesis seems a bit confused. The headline seemed to be, 'The strategy of bringing in mature players isn't terribly good (and so "it is time for Sydney to go back to the draft for its talent")'. But once we drilled down to the detail, it was 'there are only 2 or 3 very good trades (or pickups for nothing) where we got significantly better than we gave'.

But the latter doesn't prove the former. Ted Richards for pick 19 might turn out to be a perfectly balanced trade, i.e. the market value given by both parties was identical. In the annals of positive/negative trading, it comes out a zero. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good decision by Sydney to make the trade, in that it filled the team's needs at the time and for the next few years better than keeping the pick to use on an untried 18 year old who you then spend time developing, with potentially more upside but also significantly greater cost and uncertainty about whether they'd ever make it at all. Not to mention that in Sydney's opinion there may not have been any players worthy of a pick 19 that year, of Ted's size and position.

Talking of Brennan and Vogels just confuses the issue further, because they were pure rookie picks with no trade involved, i.e. they did involve Sydney getting its talent from the draft.

Trading for mature players (or occasionally getting them for zilch) works just fine. There are a dozen players listed in this thread, who prove that point. The $64,000 question is whether it's better than using a draft pick. And the answer, of course, is: depends who you're trading for, and depends who you would have taken with the pick.

In addition, in part it's a question of list management: in particular, Sydney right now should go very very easy on trading in anybody aged 25-28 years, 'cos we have too many players in that age range on our list already.

[ROK Lobster]

The whole thesis seems a bit confused. The headline seemed to be, 'The strategy of bringing in mature players isn't terribly good (and so "it is time for Sydney to go back to the draft for its talent")'. But once we drilled down to the detail, it was 'there are only 2 or 3 very good trades (or pickups for nothing) where we got significantly better than we gave'.

[...]

In addition, in part it's a question of list management: in particular, Sydney right now should go very very easy on trading in anybody aged 25-28 years, 'cos we have too many players in that age range on our list already.

Thanks Simon. Some of the confusion probably comes from the misuse of the word "trade" by me. I should have stuck with "acquire". My general point is that we seem to congratulate ourselves on picking up players others have discarded/missed and turn them into good players. I think it is a bit a stretch.

[Bear]

There seems to be a common belief that the Swans are very good at picking up other club's discard and turning them into champions.

The only champion IMO in the Sydney era has been Tony Lockett. He was already a champion at St K, and remained a champion with us.
Apologies to Paul Roos, who was great for us, but his champion days were at Fitzroy.

I think the Swans have been good at picking up players and raising their level, but the term Champion is reserved for... Champions.

[Yakety_Yak]

Um, that's the point. It is a limited recruiting strategy without a great deal of success to show for it and hardly enough to justify the reputation the strategy has. Bolton, Jolly are good examples of good players picked up who were not getting a chance behind a good team or a better player. However, Jolly was hardly a discard and hardly came cheap.

Not sure why you accuse me of trolling, but I remember that you have snuck out before and had a snipe before disappearing again.

J Ball A Schubble C Bolton D Jolly T Richards M Mattner, all were outside best 22 and struggling to get a game at their former sides! Most except bold bottom 8 sides at the time!

It is a relative thing! Name another side who has taken that many this decade and have become regular certain well inside best 22 selections in a finals team?

Others have argued about Brennan and Vogels Rookies both pushed for top 22 selection despite either delist or no selection anywhere else

If you have not worked it out in your original premise Sydney have most often had at least 12 picks before them ( sometimes more)

I will try to explain and type slowly for you and take it step by step!Each side has a mandatory 3 minimum picks or changes often 5-6 new selections. This means that for every pick Sydney have had to wait for at least 12 others to make their choice before taking the best of the rest (every pick)

The ACTAFL is not nearly as strong as other reserves comps ( yes some decent sides but also some shockers) this means that players who have come up against good quality opposition each week in VFL SANFL WAFL develop quicker. KPP and ruckman particularly suffer from lack of regular quality opposition. Thus making it more attractive to pick someone like Jolly even if he did cost late first round rather than wait for younger ones to develop.

Relatively Sydney have done exceptionally well with trades for fringe players and have and do not have the luxury of low or early draft picks.

This reputation is further enhanced by the large number of very high >40 draft order picks or Rookies who have become quality players and even a few would meet your harsh "definition" of champion O'Loughlin, Goodes O'keefe Kirk Kennelly Barry... with more on the way !

You are right, I disappear because I come here very infrequently! However be assured I go straight to your numerous threads first to remind myself as to why?,... that is so!

However if you are serious ... then I hope this helps your footy education!

[Darren Thomson]

Anyone who would call Willo a run of the Mill player is clearly deranged. He is the class we are so sadly lacking in our midfield right now. Other names here have already been mentioned, Jolly, BAll, there once was a bloke named Lockett we traded for, Roos. Currently, yes B2, Superted is super, there are others but I think our recruiters have known what they are about for some time now

[goswannie14]

Schauble and Williams come to mind, but they were pretty run of the mill trades IIRC.

Williams - You call Paul Williams run of the mill?!

No one called Williams run of the mill.

Anyone who would call Willo a run of the Mill player is clearly deranged.

I reiterate ROK's second quoted post above, "no one called Williams run of the mill", the statement was that the trade itself was run of the mill. There is a big difference, if you read the post again you will see that.

[NMWBloods]

I reiterate ROK's second quoted post above, "no one called Williams run of the mill", the statement was that the trade itself was run of the mill. There is a big difference, if you read the post again you will see that.

Novel concept...

[2005]

ROK ,

What about Stewart Maxfield : Club Captain.
Not a bad pick up

Maybe not a champion in the comp, though a GUN at our club and the key of our success in 2005. He was CHAMPION at our club

We have done very well getting other players from other clubs ROK , better than anyone else as we have to so we remain competative.
Whether or not they are CHAMPIONS remains a debating point though we do it better than other clubs.