The Rookie Draft Thread

[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

Oh dear, that is just so wrong on so many levels.

You claim we have missed out on the best NSW Scholarship talent when we have the only one to this stage (Bird) to play a senior game. Granted Taylor, Ranga and maybe Reed all look capable but the scholarship scheme was not set-up for the Sydney Swans to cherry pick the best young players, it is a level playing field for all 16 clubs and is designed to get as many young NSW kids onto senior lists as possible. Who's to say our current crop are any better or worse than the three you pointed out.

Secondly, the current situation we find ourselves in re budget constraints has nothing to do with the negiotations of current player contracts (most of which were done 2, 3 or 4 years ago), nor does it have anything to do with last years cash loss or provisional write offs for the gaming venue.

We have a cash shortfall coming this year (for many reasons as explained on here re smaller membership in Sydney, less corporate support etc) and the club is accordingly looking to make cuts to controlable expenses this year. It would seem that one of these controlable cuts is to not run with the three NSW listed rookies this year but to continue to use the alternative and cheaper NSW Scholarship system.

DST

[DST]

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 Have the AFL withdrawn NSW pre-selection privileges for the Swans?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?!

We did only have four live selections in the rookie draft.

This is because if we wanted to use the three NSW slots we would have had to pre select them before the rookie draft.

When we choose not to use them this year we were limited to four selections of which two of them were already committed for Pyke and that other Irish bloke.

They join the other two retained rookies in Orreal and Murphy.

DST

[The Big Cat]

We did only have four live selections in the rookie draft.

This is because if we wanted to use the three NSW slots we would have had to pre select them before the rookie draft.

When we choose not to use them this year we were limited to four selections of which two of them were already committed for Pyke and that other Irish bloke.

They join the other two retained rookies in Orreal and Murphy.

DST

I guess the question still remains as to why we didn't preselect the NSW blokes. Was it merely budgetary or weren't there any players felt promising enough?

[BSA5]

We did only have four live selections in the rookie draft.

This is because if we wanted to use the three NSW slots we would have had to pre select them before the rookie draft.

When we choose not to use them this year we were limited to four selections of which two of them were already committed for Pyke and that other Irish bloke.

They join the other two retained rookies in Orreal and Murphy.

DST

No, we had 2 live selections, Thornton and Gilchrist, and 2 preselections, Coney and Pyke, to go with Murphy and Orreal, making 6 in total (the 6-man rookie list referred to in the article about Bruce from the Canberra times when it says "He was not upgraded on to the senior list last month, but was invited to keep training to audition for a spot on the Swans' 2009 six-player rookie list.").

The article on the Swans website implies that we only had 4 selections as well ("The Swans had already committed two of their four picks at the draft to international rookies Kyle Coney and Mike Pyke")

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/bruce-chases-second-chance/1387215.aspx

Beatson pleased with Swans' sortie - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans

[liz]

No, we had 2 live selections, Thornton and Gilchrist, and 2 preselections, Coney and Pyke, to go with Murphy and Orreal, making 6 in total (the 6-man rookie list referred to in the article about Bruce from the Canberra times when it says "He was not upgraded on to the senior list last month, but was invited to keep training to audition for a spot on the Swans' 2009 six-player rookie list.").

The article on the Swans website implies that we only had 4 selections as well ("The Swans had already committed two of their four picks at the draft to international rookies Kyle Coney and Mike Pyke")

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/sport/afl/bruce-chases-second-chance/1387215.aspx

Beatson pleased with Swans' sortie - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans

But none of that explains why we only had 2 live picks when we were entitled to another 3 (locals) under the list rules. Actually we were entitled to another, since Pyke could have counted outside the list.

If the rules had bizarrely been changed so that we were not entitled to three local rookies, we wouldn't have had three N/As (aka passes) at the end of the draft.

So the decision that we only had two live picks was clearly an internal club decision, not one governed by the AFL's rules. If budgetry constraints say that we couldn't afford another couple, fair enough. But it would be nice for the club to actually acknowledge that to us, their public. It is hard to believe they considered none of Bruest, Klemke or Bruce worthy of a spot based on their U18 credentials compared to those of prior year local picks.

[BSA5]

But none of that explains why we only had 2 live picks when we were entitled to another 3 (locals) under the list rules. Actually we were entitled to another, since Pyke could have counted outside the list.

If the rules had bizarrely been changed so that we were not entitled to three local rookies, we wouldn't have had three N/As (aka passes) at the end of the draft.

So the decision that we only had two live picks was clearly an internal club decision, not one governed by the AFL's rules. If budgetry constraints say that we couldn't afford another couple, fair enough. But it would be nice for the club to actually acknowledge that to us, their public. It is hard to believe they considered none of Bruest, Klemke or Bruce worthy of a spot based on their U18 credentials compared to those of prior year local picks.

I know. That's what's so weird. For some reason, both the Canberra times and the Swans website indicated we only had a 6 man rookie list, comprised of Murphy and Orreal (retained from last year), and 4 picks, only two of which were live (Thornton and Gilchrist), with the other two dedicated to Coney and Pyke. Neither source make any mention of the 3 NSW picks, and both imply that they don't exist. But that is completely at odds with the AFL website's coverage of the draft, as well as simple logic.



EDIT: Just thought of a possibility.

From what I can tell, Brisbane have only compiled a 6 player rookie list. However, they used one zone selection, so zone selections still definitely exist. Perhaps the rule has been changed so that we can still preselect local rookies, BUT, we don't get the extra three spots on the rookie list. If we want to use them, they have to be in place of a normal rookie. So, our rookie list becomes the same size as everybody else's.

This would explain why we were given a potential selection in the last three rounds: if we wanted to preselect a NSW player, that's where they would be taken. However, if we wanted to use live picks, they would be taken in the earlier part. We went with the live picks (Thornton and Gilly), hence they were used in the first two rounds. Coney and Pyke were preselected as international rookies, which filled up our list. Hence, the final three rounds weren't just voluntary "passes", they were actually not applicable (N/A), as they were for rookie spots that didn't exist any more.

In Brisbane's case, they used one live pick, one QLD preselection, and two 3rd year rookie preselections (Tippett and Dfuzer). The live pick came in the first round, and then they passed the next 3 rounds, which could have been dedicated to live picks, and used the final three picks, reserved for preselections, on those three players, adding four players to their two retained rookies, Hanley and Garner.

That explains everything but Pyke being selected on the main list. However, that may simply be because there was never any rule that said he wouldn't count to the total rookie list, and some of us were simply mistaken.

[liz]

EDIT: Just thought of a possibility.

etc

That is a plausible explanation. Especially since the Lions also seem to be three players short (and Lions fans over on BF are scratching their heads about that too).

The reasoning might be along the lines of...

- These extra rookies were all about providing more opportunities to Queensland and NSW kids, not providing an additional benefit to the Lions and Swans

- All clubs have been granted an additional two picks this year, so it is as good a time as ever to phase out these additional picks

- The scholarship scheme in NSW and the imminent introduction of G17 (with some players already given contracts) means there has already been a major expansion of opportunities for young players in these states

- We still get a minor advantage by being able to priority list locals, if we want to use them in our total quota. That must be the case or the N/As at the end wouldn't make sense. If this theory is correct, they really were N/As - as in not availables because we had no spots left to fill.

Still, all of this is guesswork. Wouldn't it be nice - if the rules have been changed - TO ACTUALLY TELL US ABOUT THE CHANGED RULES RATHER THAN LEAVE US SCRATCHING OUR HEADS? (sorry for shouting )

[goswannie14]

But it would be nice for the club to actually acknowledge that to us, their public.

Still, all of this is guesswork. Wouldn't it be nice - if the rules have been changed - TO ACTUALLY TELL US ABOUT THE CHANGED RULES RATHER THAN LEAVE US SCRATCHING OUR HEADS? (sorry for shouting )

Why do you think the club MUST advise its supporters about these sorts of things. The amount of people who are really interested about all of this sort of thing would be a fraction of 1% of its supporter base. Most supporters are really only interested in what happens on the field and that we have on field success.

[liz]

Why do you think the club MUST advise its supporters about these sorts of things. The amount of people who are really interested about all of this sort of thing would be a fraction of 1% of its supporter base. Most supporters are really only interested in what happens on the field and that we have on field success.

So your advice to the Swans would be to just shut their website down? The AFL too?

Maybe not everyone wants to know more than who scored a goal and whether we won but the extensive AFL media (and wider sports media, not to mention discussions boards such as this, suggests that it's far far more than a "fraction of 1%" who is interested in more than just what happens onfield. Personally I don't really give much of a toss about the latest AFL player to go on a drinking binge but I do like to know about when rules change and some information on how the footy side of the club is won.

[dimelb]

I think that not having your full quota of players is a very live issue indeed. And you can bet your boots that for every poster puzzling over it here, there are dozens of others asking the same questions. I tend to assume that the club officials know what they're doing, but it is now obvious that many of us don't know what they're doing, and would like to. We know they check the websites, why not say something?

[caj23]

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.

Actually Liz either you are "daft" for not reading my post properly or you deliberately misquoted me to suit your own argument. The fact is that the Swans pursued Reed and Davis but they chose to go elsewhere, Ranga played in our 2's and admittedly with Walker, Adelaide is closer than Sydney. 3 of these were All Australia reps and were highly rated by the so called experts. Bird aside, which of our scholarship holders are rated higher than these 4????

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.

I work in finance and am well aware that they couldnt simply walk up to a contracted Barry Hall and ask him to take a pay cut. However this type of planning should be long term and there have been some very dubious decisions recently such as signing Crouch to a multi year deal late in his career when he just missed a full season of football. Whichever way you choose to view it, the planning in this area has been poor

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.)

Agreed, however the current economic predicament has been coming for a long time. If finances were tight, why trade for Rhys Shaw on $200-$300 when a first year draftee would have cost $60?

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.

How is this relevant to whether Kade Klemke or Breust will cut it at the top level? If you want to use this logic, than we should of passed on our first round ,pick because Willoughby, Fitzgerald and O'Keefe haven't made it[/I]

(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".)

If anyone is suggesting that a smaller list is a good thing than they've got rocks in their head

[goswannie14]

So your advice to the Swans would be to just shut their website down? The AFL too?

Now you're just being silly. Those that are part of this and other Footy forums are only a small percentage of the people that follow football. Most people on here would be in the small percentage that are interested in all of the nitty gritty, behind the scenes stuff that the majority of football followers couldn't give a stuff about.

I guess IMO it comes down to the fact that even though I love the Swans and footy, it is only a game, and there are much more important things in life to get stressed about. I, for one, would rather enjoy footy for the game it is (I get stressed enough at Swans games without stressing about what happens behind the scenes).

But then, that's just one persons opinion.

[ugg]

gs14, while I will acknowledge that most supporters wouldn't care about such minute details, it doesn't invalidate the interests of those who do care. I don't see how the release of such information would be detrimental to you.

If the club is not informing their members and supporters because they're assuming we don't care, then it doesn't surprise me that this sport will remain a second class citizen in this city. A simple statement e.g. we can't afford the costs of an extra 3 players or we didn't any of them were good enough would have sufficed. Then we could have debated about the validity of such statements. I suspected such a 'cover-up' wouldn't have gone unnoticed at a Melbourne or Adelaide or Perth club.

[chammond]

If anyone is suggesting that a smaller list is a good thing than they've got rocks in their head

On 5 Dec 2008, Paul Roos said:

"I think you can tend to have too many sometimes. The reality is in a footy team is that you can only play 22 players, so if you've got 15 kids on the list, it's unlikely they're going to play anyway, so we don't take kids just for the sake of it." and:

"I'm not sure, again you don't want to take kids or rookies just for the sake of it, you've got to be pretty sure they're going to play AFL football because it's an expensive exercise developing kids, and you can tend to waste money,"

Which, based on your logic, means that either he has rocks in his head . . . or you do?

[-Doogs-]

It's business. Of course they arent going to throw all the details out there regarding why they did, what they did and for what reasons. The people who are paid to make the decisions have made the decisions and as fans we have to accept them.

The endless whining in this thread by so called experts is amazing! Get over yourselves. If half of you knew what you are talking about you'd be working for the Swans in their recrutiment department!

Good luck to all the players selected.