The Rookie Draft Thread

[DST]

There's a simple one-word response to this: pathetic.

Either the other clubs vastly overrate NSW players (which would be a huge change of pace for them), we are utterly unable to persuade anyone to accept a local rookie listing with us, or we're nearly broke (which doesn't really gel with recruiting Canadians from France and sending blokes to Germany for surgery). Maybe there's a fourth possibility: the Swans are selfish and myopic when it comes to developing the game in NSW/ACT.

This article pushes the boundaries for disingenuousness, even by the standards of official club articles. It implies that we didn't have any picks other than those we used.

I've got an idea: cleaning out the position of "manager of player acquisition" should free up plenty enough money to give some local kids a decent go.

As far as I understand it, we have a full list (is it five or six) of NSW Scholarship holders so it's a bit rich to say we don't look to NSW/ACT for young players.

Facts are money is tight and not taking 3 more NSW listed rookies who need to be paid a set amount is probably the clubs first steps in cutting back the football department expenditure.

Don't blame the club for that, blame the Sydney public who continue to fail to buy a membership in the club in any great numbers. Purely on hometown membership numbers we are well behind every other club when you take out the 8,500 to 9,000 Melbourne members. It is this alone that is costing us at present.

DST

[jono2707]

I think you just whinged about people whinging.

If there's one thing I hate more than whingeing, or people whingeing about whingeing, its people whingeing about someone's whingeing about people's whingeing.

[Robbo]

Poor stuff from us.

Did we really need to re-draft Thornton? There was a lot more out there and it's already been established that Thornton is average at best. Plus we have a million blokes already just like him. And we took him at pick 12 nonetheless.

[liz]

Poor stuff from us.

Did we really need to re-draft Thornton? There was a lot more out there and it's already been established that Thornton is average at best.

You say this as if it is established fact, rather than just your opinion based on rarely - if ever - seeing him play.

[goswannie14]

You say this as if it is established fact, rather than just your opinion based on rarely - if ever - seeing him play.

C'mon Liz, you don't expect facts on here do you?

BTW if there was anyone whose "facts" I would believe, they would be yours Liz. You are probably the most informed person on this site.

[royboy42]

I have seen Thornton play and believe he would have played in 08 but for the injury. He was READY! The investment appears very sound to me, and the club obviously has faith in him.

[ShockOfHair]

Agree with you there GoSwannie. Too often on this site we see a good discussion ruined by facts. Let's stick to uninformed opinion and naked bias, folks.

[AnnieH]

You say this as if it is established fact, rather than just your opinion based on rarely - if ever - seeing him play.

I seem to recall another player who was dropped from the club and was re-signed and a few years later was made captain. Honest to Buddah, his name escapes me at the moment!

Good decision by the club ... better the devil you know and all. Thornton could very well surprise everyone. Time will tell.

C'mon Liz, you don't expect facts on here do you?

BTW if there was anyone whose "facts" I would believe, they would be yours Liz. You are probably the most informed person on this site.

How brown is your tongue today??

[liz]

C'mon Liz, you don't expect facts on here do you?

It's all opinion when it comes to players' worth - and clearly ours are based on far less information than insiders'.

But FWIW, Thornton had claims to being BOG up until 5 minutes before half-time of the pre-season game against the Power - the point at which his season ended. Agreed, there's not much flash about his game but if his knee is recovering well, he surely deserves another year as much as most of the other untried youngsters on our list (and looks more AFL likely than a couple).

Mind you, I'm the one who reckons Bruce had possibly the most impressive debut rookie-listed season over the past few years of any player other than maybe Flipper Phillips. And who reckons he has tons of attributes that would translate well to senior football. And who happened to be visiting the club a few weeks ago, before pre-season training resumed and saw someone who looked remarkably like Bruce training on his own in readiness for pre-season. And thus is surprised and highly highly disappointed he won't get another year. If there were three local lads the club preferred, it would be easier to stomach. But the fact that they decided three lots of N/A were preferable to another year for this kid, shows that I know very little about the attributes of young up and coming football players.

[T-bag]

As far as I understand it, we have a full list (is it five or six) of NSW Scholarship holders so it's a bit rich to say we don't look to NSW/ACT for young players.

Facts are money is tight and not taking 3 more NSW listed rookies who need to be paid a set amount is probably the clubs first steps in cutting back the football department expenditure.

Don't blame the club for that, blame the Sydney public who continue to fail to buy a membership in the club in any great numbers. Purely on hometown membership numbers we are well behind every other club when you take out the 8,500 to 9,000 Melbourne members. It is this alone that is costing us at present.

DST

Well said and not a truer word spoken

[caj23]

As far as I understand it, we have a full list (is it five or six) of NSW Scholarship holders so it's a bit rich to say we don't look to NSW/ACT for young players.

Facts are money is tight and not taking 3 more NSW listed rookies who need to be paid a set amount is probably the clubs first steps in cutting back the football department expenditure.

DST

You're joking aren't you? Most of these scholarship kids wont see the light of day, and the majority of the ones that are any good (Taylor Walker, Ranga, Scott Reed) have signed with opposition clubs

If money was so tight, this should have been identified when contracts were being re-negotiated during the season. Its just unfortunate that we've got a number of players on our list earning far higher $'s than their output on the field.

Very poor list management on the part of the club, and anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously satisfied with mediocraty

[Robbo]

Word.

[BSA5]

This is really weird. Two separate sources have stated that the Swans had only 4 picks in the rookie draft (the RD wrap-up on the Swans site, and an article on Bruce from the Canberra times), with a 6-man rookie list (which would be originally 8, minus 2 for veterans). Have the AFL withdrawn NSW pre-selection privileges for the Swans? Did we forget we had them?!

[liz]

You're joking aren't you? Most of these scholarship kids wont see the light of day, and the majority of the ones that are any good (Taylor Walker, Ranga, Scott Reed) have signed with opposition clubs

If money was so tight, this should have been identified when contracts were being re-negotiated during the season. Its just unfortunate that we've got a number of players on our list earning far higher $'s than their output on the field.

Very poor list management on the part of the club, and anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously satisfied with mediocraty

Pissed of as I am that we took no local rookies, there are a few parts of that which can't be left unresponded too.

Firstly, there are only two scholarship players so far who have played ANY senior AFL and the one who has played most, did it in the R&W. There is a long long way to go with the careers of all of these kids so to say that the only ones who are any good have been signed by other clubs is daft.

Talking about re-negotiating contracts doesn't really cut it either. Players sign contracts in good faith and unless there are exceptional circumstances, one should expect the club to honour them. We have to pay "market value" for the players we actually want or they will go elsewhere when they come out of contract. And most of those who are unproven will be on not much more than the minimum salary anyway.

You would think that the club should have had a pretty good idea about this year's result ages ago but we don't know a huge amount about financial forecasts for the coming year. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that they have recently lost some significant sponsorship money - Citibank has already been mentioned by some as a major sponsor whose dollars are highly likely to be at risk (if not already gone). So this might just be the easiest way to make an immediate cut to expenditure - and a cut that is easier to reverse in future years. (Unlike, for example, losing some of the top medical and conditioning staff.)

And while I repeat how disappointed I am that we've taken no NSW rookies, the success rate with these players hasn't been great. I still think the club has some kind of obligation to NSW players (notwithstanding their commitment to the scholarship programme) but the reality is that only Bevan can be considered to be an unqualified "get" as a local rookie, while Barlow is still making his way and I think Meiklejohn (long gone) is the only other one to ever play a senior game.

(And before someone reminds me that I've forgotten Kirk and Jack - yes they are NSWelshmen and yes they came via the rookie list but neither was technically a "NSW rookie".)

[The Big Cat]

Maybe ROK's new contract blew the rookie money. All other players were signed sealed and delivered.