Message to Mr. Roos, Barham & the hierarchy.

[NMWBloods]

I was referring to O'Keefe having the ball kicked to him, not delivering it to forwards himself.

He's a forward option and a bloody good one, not to mention everything else he offers the team. Not easily replaced.

Despite his poor kicking for goal, if he actually played as a permanent forward I might agree with you, but he spends far too much time upfield and hence I think he can be replaced, particularly as someone like Goddard is equally capable of playing as a leading tallish forward.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

DeadlyAkkuret, it would then be up to the club to appoint someone with the ability to work with the list. Though if that happened I wouldn't be suprised if John Longmire took over anyway, I might be wrong but I think he maybe getting groomed for the eventual replacement.
In any case I think Roos may be planning to stick around for a while yet, he seems to be really enjoying the challenge and is on the verge of building another Premiership challenge.

Well I do hope you're right, but you have to look at all avenues to success. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way of moving up the ladder, but what's worked in the past might not eventuate this time around.

[Swans_Lad11]

I just take the view that what we are doing now is the right way, simply because the last 6 seasons speak for themselves. If it was to fail and we end up slipping down the table then at that point you have to look at using the draft picks you end up with. I just keep looking at St.Kilda who did spend some time near the bottom and picked up a lot of potential but have contstantly failed to turn it into anything substantial. Having said that they did make Preliminary Finals in 04,05 and 08 and maybe the faliure to go on was more to do with the sides they met. 2004 was away to Port who were bound for a flag, 2005 was us and we were almost unstoppable at the time and finally this season Geelong. So maybe I am being a bit harsh, but then to be the best you have to beat the best and St.Kilda have constantly failed in that area.

[SimonH]

...
Fast tracking doesn't necessarily mean "bottoming out" and continuing with the "Best 22" theory till the death doesn't necessarily avoid going to the bottom (Melbourne anyone???) (West Coast 2000???).

Actually come to think of it maybe fast tracking does equal bottoming out! I can't think of any team that has gone "we're playing the kids" without finishing bottom four as a result. Mind you it's a bit chicken and egg. The reason St. Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, West Coast, Hawthorn, Essendon etc started "playing the kids" was that their senior players were just not cutting it and the team was already in the bottom four as it was. ...

Hey, sharp9, you're at least identifying the real issues. (To talk of the number of 'top 16' players in a side... like, derr: almost every team gets a top 16 pick every year. You'd hope that the club's top pick for the year is going to be a reasonable player more often than not.)

I think that 'we're playing the kids' is an after-the-fact argument, i.e. it's after you're down the bottom and are hopeless, you have to sell to the members and board some reason not to sack you. 'We're getting experience into our kids with a view to building a premiership list in 3 years' time' is the stock-standard response. It's only in very recent years that some clubs have actually started taking the hype seriously, and actually dumped top 22 older players and deliberately promoted kids who hadn't earned a spot on form. If you were to look at the average age of the playing group of the above clubs, when they were way down the bottom, I suspect it would not have been substantially below the average age of the the top clubs that year.

Strangely enough, I agree with a large part of originalswan's proposed methods, if not the reasoning behind them. Good list management in the contemporary age requires that you take some brutal decisions, always keeping an eye to future age, size and (so far as you can gauge it) talent requirements as well as next year's. Towards that end, we should do around 3 of the following beyond the obvious/inevitable step of delisting Nicky D (not all of them, as this would be too disturbing to the list):

• Trade BBBH for any decent market value, preferably a classy runner and good user of the footy from the Dogs (this is the #1 option, with the downside being very minimal)
• Trade ROK only if we can get very substantial value for him (he's both structurally important and a chance of playing in another Swans' flag)
• Trade Nic Fosdike if we get a decent offer
• Trade Jude Bolton if we get a decent bite (acknowledging that he's in 5-year-best form right now)
• Delist Jared Crouch (knowing full well that he would likely continue to be in our best 22 in 2009-- we have enough young players of his type, and that means he's just the type of player you need to turn over in an ageing list)
• Trade Adam Goodes if we get a really substantial offer for him. (He turns 29 in the new year, and his market value could potentially be huge to some clubs.)

We do have a problem with succession planning, in that BBBH, MOL, Leo Barry and Tadhg are all likely to finish at the Swans at the end of 2009. I think Brett Kirk's contract is also likely to be up then, albeit on current form we would certainly want him to play on.

My point ultimately is that even if the Swans take the most aggressive trading and delisting strategies, we should both hope and expect that they can make the 8 next year. And if all goes well, the top 4. As we've proved before, if you can make top 4, then anything goes after that. 'Hoping' that we fall apart on the field and finish bottom 3, is both perverse and unnecessary.

[johnno]

As someone wrote (and I read) in a big footy forum, the term "bottoming out" is the biggest con job pulled on AFL fans by there respective clubs. "Bottoming out" is just a technical or constuctive way of not saying "our team are @@@@ and we had a @@@@ year". Richmond have been bottoming out for 28 years now, where's their premiership?...actually how many finals campaigns have they participated in in that time? Bottoming out...give me a break.

[RED&WHITE BUNNY]

Every team has there chance at a flag,some more then others it's the circle of footy.Getting the best draft pick won't get you that flag every time.It's luck and the team around the team that gets you there. 6 different teams have won in the last 6 years

[giant]

Good list management in the contemporary age requires that you take some brutal decisions, always keeping an eye to future age, size and (so far as you can gauge it) talent requirements as well as next year's. Towards that end, we should do around 3 of the following beyond the obvious/inevitable step of delisting Nicky D (not all of them, as this would be too disturbing to the list):

• Trade BBBH for any decent market value, preferably a classy runner and good user of the footy from the Dogs (this is the #1 option, with the downside being very minimal)
• Trade ROK only if we can get very substantial value for him (he's both structurally important and a chance of playing in another Swans' flag)
• Trade Nic Fosdike if we get a decent offer
• Trade Jude Bolton if we get a decent bite (acknowledging that he's in 5-year-best form right now)
• Delist Jared Crouch (knowing full well that he would likely continue to be in our best 22 in 2009-- we have enough young players of his type, and that means he's just the type of player you need to turn over in an ageing list)
• Trade Adam Goodes if we get a really substantial offer for him. (He turns 29 in the new year, and his market value could potentially be huge to some clubs.)

We do have a problem with succession planning, in that BBBH, MOL, Leo Barry and Tadhg are all likely to finish at the Swans at the end of 2009. I think Brett Kirk's contract is also likely to be up then, albeit on current form we would certainly want him to play on.

My point ultimately is that even if the Swans take the most aggressive trading and delisting strategies, we should both hope and expect that they can make the 8 next year. And if all goes well, the top 4. As we've proved before, if you can make top 4, then anything goes after that. 'Hoping' that we fall apart on the field and finish bottom 3, is both perverse and unnecessary.

Wouldn't dumping Schneider & Dempster qualify as "brutal decisions"? Without checking the numbers, it seems to me like we've done a fair bit of culling in recent years.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be averse to the club doing (as you say) some but not all of the trades above, except Goodes who gives us critical X factor - as long as we looked like a better squad at the end of it - no trading for trading's sake (other than salary cap management).

My view was that we weren't that far off the top this year (and that was kinda confirmed by Saturday's result) but there was a real difference that needs to be addressed - the ability of the Swans to address that difference AND not fall in a hole when the players you mention retire in a couple of years time is gonna take a hell of a balancing act - but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Andrew Bromham]

Be interesting to see how the West Coast goes over the next couple of years after tanking out. If they trade Kerr for two first round picks it will give them 5 picks in the top 20 this years.

[AnnieH]

Be interesting to see how the West Coast goes over the next couple of years after tanking out. If they trade Kerr for two first round picks it will give them 5 picks in the top 20 this years.

I'm more interested to see how Carlton will finish in the next couple of years.
They've been accused of "tanking" to get draft picks - we'll see if it worked for them in the next two or so years.

[Andrew Bromham]

I think WC are in a stronger position than Carlton and will be back in the top 8 next year.

[originalswan]

Hey, sharp9, you're at least identifying the real issues. (To talk of the number of 'top 16' players in a side... like, derr: almost every team gets a top 16 pick every year. You'd hope that the club's top pick for the year is going to be a reasonable player more often than not.)

I think that 'we're playing the kids' is an after-the-fact argument, i.e. it's after you're down the bottom and are hopeless, you have to sell to the members and board some reason not to sack you. 'We're getting experience into our kids with a view to building a premiership list in 3 years' time' is the stock-standard response. It's only in very recent years that some clubs have actually started taking the hype seriously, and actually dumped top 22 older players and deliberately promoted kids who hadn't earned a spot on form. If you were to look at the average age of the playing group of the above clubs, when they were way down the bottom, I suspect it would not have been substantially below the average age of the the top clubs that year.

Strangely enough, I agree with a large part of originalswan's proposed methods, if not the reasoning behind them. Good list management in the contemporary age requires that you take some brutal decisions, always keeping an eye to future age, size and (so far as you can gauge it) talent requirements as well as next year's. Towards that end, we should do around 3 of the following beyond the obvious/inevitable step of delisting Nicky D (not all of them, as this would be too disturbing to the list):

• Trade BBBH for any decent market value, preferably a classy runner and good user of the footy from the Dogs (this is the #1 option, with the downside being very minimal)
• Trade ROK only if we can get very substantial value for him (he's both structurally important and a chance of playing in another Swans' flag)
• Trade Nic Fosdike if we get a decent offer
• Trade Jude Bolton if we get a decent bite (acknowledging that he's in 5-year-best form right now)
• Delist Jared Crouch (knowing full well that he would likely continue to be in our best 22 in 2009-- we have enough young players of his type, and that means he's just the type of player you need to turn over in an ageing list)
• Trade Adam Goodes if we get a really substantial offer for him. (He turns 29 in the new year, and his market value could potentially be huge to some clubs.)

We do have a problem with succession planning, in that BBBH, MOL, Leo Barry and Tadhg are all likely to finish at the Swans at the end of 2009. I think Brett Kirk's contract is also likely to be up then, albeit on current form we would certainly want him to play on.

My point ultimately is that even if the Swans take the most aggressive trading and delisting strategies, we should both hope and expect that they can make the 8 next year. And if all goes well, the top 4. As we've proved before, if you can make top 4, then anything goes after that. 'Hoping' that we fall apart on the field and finish bottom 3, is both perverse and unnecessary.

Thank you for pointing out the bleedin obvious as they say - yes every team usually does have a pick in the top 16.

I'm not trying to make this personal but I do take offence when people indirectly attempt to mock my intelligence based on incorrect assumptions; Let me just give you an idea of what I meant by the reference to top 16 picks in a side.

The Swans in the past have consistently traded their first pick in the draft for a player they believed would be of benefit in the short term. In the last 8 drafts the Swans have traded away their first pick on 4 occassions, that is 50% of the time for your info! My thinking for the next few trading periods would be to hang onto these top 16 picks (unless of course an absolute superstar becomes available) to hopefully build up a reasonable young squad as per the Hawthorn model - that can take us the next step. I'm not suggesting I'm an expert in this area but simply pointing out that the youth route has worked quite well for the Hawks and many other teams such as Carlton have now undertaken such a model.

Here is some recent trade examples of the Swans first pick in the draft (and the pick used):

2005 - Our first pick was Matthew Laidlaw (No. 51 overall)

2004 - Jared Moore (No. 31)

2001 - Mark Powell (No. 28)

2000 - Like Ablett (No. 24)

[Triple B]

2000 - Like Ablett (No. 24)

I wish he was like Ablett (No. 29).

[originalswan]

To think he's only one key away from being "like ablett"

[Matty10]

Here is some recent trade examples of the Swans first pick in the draft (and the pick used):

2005 - Our first pick was Matthew Laidlaw (No. 51 overall)

2004 - Jared Moore (No. 31)

2001 - Mark Powell (No. 28)

2000 - Like Ablett (No. 24)

But what do these examples really indicate? They were in the lead-up to our premiership win, apart from the 2005 selection, although the window was still open, and the early picks were presumably traded away (philosophically) to that end.

But you are of course right that we should keep our first round picks moving forward - provided they are going to give us something in return - quite often the difference in quality between a late first round pick and mid second round pick is not that far apart (and if you can trade something useful for it why not?)

[Melbournehammer]

I'm hearing we are offering hall to western bulldogs for peter street and a second round pick.

i can only assume that if this is true the second round would be passed on for something else because that would be the greatest win for the bulldogs ever - a ruckman who is pathetic around the ground for our best forward.