Trading talk thread

[caj23]

It wasn't my argument.
I was simply laying out both points of view.
Personally, I would be of the mindset that players are more akin to employees rather than a part of the 'blood spirit'

Yet you can't seem to see that the treatment of Schneider v Crouch is inconsistent with this mindset

Whatever you say.
You go ahead and provide your unequivocal proof that had we participated more in last years draft, that we would be in a better position now.
You can SPECULATE all you like.
And even then, please show me a post that you made last year stating how strong the draft was and how we need to delist more players for this reason.
Then show me a post where you anticipated that this years draft would be immensely weak.

Do I need to spell it out for you. This years draft has a shallow talent pool because the age limit has been lifted as a result of the entry of the Gold Coast. This has been common knowledge since before the 2008 draft. If you can't comprehend that less players to choose from = thinner draft than I am wasting my time explaining it any further


Maybe they all hated those players?
Your implication is that the club does not act with any compassion or feeling.
You can't come along and use that as a criticism when you are advocating the same thing having been done last year with Barry and Crouch.

I didn't critcise the club for acting without compassion, my criticism is that it is doesnt apply this philosophy across the board for all players

And in anticipation of that you say that we should have drafted more last year.
How about the year before?
How about the pre season draft?
What should we have done there?

Are you 12 years old? Because now you're just making stuff up

Shoulda Coulda Woulda

I still say that the Swans have done extremely well over the last 10 years in the drafts compared to most other clubs.
We'll do well again this year

That's great I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the quality of our drafting. Although if I wanted to be childish like yourself I would ask for "unequivacal proof" What I'm saying is that our list management could have been better and we would be better positioned now as a result

[Steve]

Buchanan is very highly rated within the club so I'd be surprised if he did leave - if his name is on the table it would be a J.Bolton scenario where it would take a very good deal for us to seriously consider it.

Perhaps as part of a deal for Lovett, which it looks like we're now back in the running for.

Re: players with pace, all clubs are obsessed with it now. "He (Lovett) has got an attribute that most clubs would probably be looking for and that is genuine speed," - that's not my opinion but from Voss (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/jo...-1225781854864)

Just don't be surprised if our best option for a ready-made option is Tenace as a guy who has at least played at AFL level (50+ games), and would come cheap. Lovett is clearly the priority but would probably take our second pick plus a reasonable player (perhaps Buchanan).

Re: Shaw's disposal, it was tidy this year, but like all defenders these days 80%+ of his kicks are short and not under great pressure. Efficiency stats are totally misleading - our top 15 this year in order were:

Barry, L - 84%
Bevan, P - 82%
Roberts-Thomson, L - 82%
Bolton, C - 81%
Mattner, M - 81%
Pyke, M - 81%
Richards, T - 81%
Shaw, R - 80%
Grundy, H - 77%
Buchanan, A - 76%
McVeigh, J - 76%
O'Keefe, R - 75%
Hall, B - 75%
Barlow, E - 73%
Moore, J - 73%

Supports my statement re: defenders' possessions. I agree with all that Shaw was very good for us this year - but because of the run he provided, not that he's suddenly a brilliant kick.

[AnnieH]

Hi all, I am new to this forum but thought it might be of interest to you that a friend of mine who is a massive Hawthorn fan and works at the SCG just bumped into the swans hierarchy in a fairly deep discussion with Ben McGlynn at the cafe there. McGlynn and Kennedy to Sydney???

Great stuff - I can't even generate innuendo and speculation by making stuff up let alone make my rumours plausible or credible.

Hi Mitchell. Welcome to my nightmare.

I'm with Cardinal ... what a great first post. Innuendo and speculation!! You just can't beat it.

[RogueSwan]

Re: Shaw's disposal, it was tidy this year, but like all defenders these days 80%+ of his kicks are short and not under great pressure. Efficiency stats are totally misleading - our top 15 this year in order were:

Barry, L - 84%
Bevan, P - 82%
Roberts-Thomson, L - 82%
Bolton, C - 81%
Mattner, M - 81%
Pyke, M - 81%
Richards, T - 81%
Shaw, R - 80%
Grundy, H - 77%
Buchanan, A - 76%
McVeigh, J - 76%
O'Keefe, R - 75%
Hall, B - 75%
Barlow, E - 73%
Moore, J - 73%

Supports my statement re: defenders' possessions. I agree with all that Shaw was very good for us this year - but because of the run he provided, not that he's suddenly a brilliant kick.

Could you provide the actual totals these are based on?
Looking at that list I imagine there are not too many with more disposals than Shaw. Probably Mattner and O'Keefe?

[CureTheSane]

Yet you can't seem to see that the treatment of Schneider v Crouch is inconsistent with this mindset

Of course it is.
Possibly with good reason.
Maybe not.
Craig O'Brien anyone?
You're arguing with yourself here.
I am not debating the inconsistencies with the trades/delistings.
Simply saying that I'd be happy to give the Swans the benefit of the doubt that they did not delist Barry and Crouch based on their perceived future contributions. The recruiters aren't prophets, they can only make their best call at the time.
If they had delisted Leo, there would have been an uproar from Swans fans, and possibly rightly so.

Do I need to spell it out for you. This years draft has a shallow talent pool because the age limit has been lifted as a result of the entry of the Gold Coast. This has been common knowledge since before the 2008 draft. If you can't comprehend that less players to choose from = thinner draft than I am wasting my time explaining it any further

what you are saying is taht the Swans were lax in their drafting and that they should have done things differently then they did.
You say that they should have been more aggressive knowing that the Gold Coast were about to stuff the draft.
fair enough.
Like I said, show me your posts from last year when you were saying this (at teh time when it mattered) and I will happily acknowledge that you are sticking to the POV you had when 'it mattered'
If not, it is simply hindsight on your part.

I didn't critcise the club for acting without compassion, my criticism is that it is doesnt apply this philosophy across the board for all players

Some players are valued more than others for many different reasons.
Some may be skills and ability. Some may be the inspiration they provide, some reasons may be the future potential.
The club also will make the calls when they see no future at the club for a player.
The Swans did this with Licuria. They set him free as they could not forsee him finding a place in the midfield.
This was a bad call, and I said so at the time.
Sure enough, within a few years Cressa, Schwass, and Kelly were gone and we needed midfielders.....

Are you 12 years old? Because now you're just making stuff up

13 1/2 - I got my first pimple yesterday.
Very exciting!

That's great I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the quality of our drafting. Although if I wanted to be childish like yourself I would ask for "unequivacal proof" What I'm saying is that our list management could have been better and we would be better positioned now as a result

Every single club could have drafted better than they did.
If only they had crystal balls.
Amazingly, I see crystal balls!
I could sell the Swans a beautiful crystal ball for around $300
I should email them and set it up

[10Totti10]

I have heard that Carlton are very keen on dealing with the Swans. Apparently Ratten really rates Barlow and wants him.

The deal is apparently:

Swans trade round 2 (pick 23 or whatever it is), Barlow, and a player
for Fevola.

[AnnieH]

I have heard that Carlton are very keen on dealing with the Swans. Apparently Ratten really rates Barlow and wants him.

The deal is apparently:

Swans trade round 2 (pick 23 or whatever it is), Barlow, and a player
for Fevola.

Fevwit will NOT be coming to Sydney.

Tell your source to go back to the drawing board.

[Steve]

Rank(Eff)/Player/Disposal Efficiency/Total Disposals
1. Barry, L - 84% 43
2. Bevan, P - 82% 269
3. Roberts-Thomson, L - 82% 331
4. Bolton, C - 81% 328
5. Mattner, M - 81% 363
6. Pyke, M - 81% 47
7. Richards, T - 81% 264
8. Shaw, R - 80% 532
9. Grundy, H - 77% 344
10. Buchanan, A - 76% 135
11. McVeigh, J - 76% 379
12. O'Keefe, R - 75% 525
13. Hall, B - 75% 111
14. Barlow, E - 73% 221
15. Moore, J - 73% 202
16. Smith, N - 73% 148
17. Meredith, B - 73% 69
18. Crouch, J - 73% 146
19. Hannebery, D - 71% 87
20. Bird, C - 71% 238
21. Jack, K - 70% 323
22. Kirk, B - 70% 468
23. White, J - 70% 142
24. Jolly, D - 69% 261
25. Bolton, J - 69% 471
26. O'Dwyer, M - 69% 48
27. Malceski, N - 68% 183
28. O'Loughlin, M - 68% 194
29. Ablett, L - 67% 155
30. Brabazon, R - 67% 21
31. Goodes, A - 66% 469
32. Veszpremi, P - 64% 36
33. Thornton, K - 64% 58

Shaw had most disposals, but 71% were uncontested, compared to (in order of total possessions):

O'Keefe - 61%
J.Bolton - 62%
Goodes - 58%
Kirk - 62%

[RogueSwan]

Rank(Eff)/Player/Disposal Efficiency/Total Disposals
... Shaw had most disposals, but 71% were uncontested, compared to (in order of total possessions):

O'Keefe - 61%
J.Bolton - 62%
Goodes - 58%
Kirk - 62%

Cool, that was a quick response! Now I have no idea of what I trying to prove or how to prove it.
Effective or uneffective doesn't really matter does it, all you want it to get the ball you teammate cleanly.
I suppose what I want to say is that I find it quite irksome that lots of RWOer's are heralding "pace" as the only answer to what we need with our first pick. Sure a quick guy would be good but a good kick can always travel faster than the next Boomer Harvey.

[Steve]

Effective or uneffective doesn't really matter does it, all you want it to get the ball you teammate cleanly.

I suppose what I want to say is that I find it quite irksome that lots of RWOer's are heralding "pace" as the only answer to what we need with our first pick. Sure a quick guy would be good but a good kick can always travel faster than the next Boomer Harvey.

Those stats are indicating how often they do get the ball to their teammate cleanly.

I think there are various comments re: pace - not all associated with pick 6. From memory Roos has been quoted as saying we'd take the best midfielder with good skills with that pick - if they had pace all the better. Kane Lucas foe mine is who we'll go with if available.

Lack of quick players is a major weakness throughout our list - which is why we're likely to add at least one experienced player wiht that attribute via a trade.

[DST]

I'm not knocking Crouch and Barry they have been great players. But by playing on in 2009 they cost us the opportunity to draft 2 players in a strong draft. We also only took a couple of rookies due to $'s avaialable, we could have taken a full quota of rookies without their salaries.

Where do I start with this.

How do two picks post pick 70 matter whether it's a strong draft or a shallow draft. Everything outside of the top 25 picks are a lottery and don't guarantee anything, even in a good year or bad year.

AFL head of junior talent Sheahan has today confirmed that this group has tested better than any other group in recent years and he is confident that that the top 25 are just as good this year as previous years. We have two picks inside of the top 25.

As for Leo's and Crouch's salary being an issue as to why we didn't draft rookies that is absolute horse poo.

If we had cut Crouch with a year left on his contract his salary would have been paid anyway, not to mention that we are bound to pay a set percentage of the money provided by the AFL distribution on listed players anyway not rookies, so it would have had to be paid to a listed player anyway.

We did take our full list of rookies, but didn't take the full compliment of our pre listed NSW rookies that we were entitled to do because of two reasons:

a) The club sees better value using the NSW scholarship program as they get the players younger with more time to spend on them

b) The NSW scholarship system has meant that all AFL clubs have had the chance to take NSW players over the last couple of years meaning that the pool of rookies that we can pre-list is not there at present

Maybe you could understand the system and the issues that are faced around it before chucking out random thoughts that have no bearing in the real world.

DST

[RedRosie]

DEFENCE !!!! All this talk about fast midfields accurate kicking etc etc! Someone tell me who have we got ! LRT ???? Bolton

[laughingnome]

LRT ???? Bolton

Both of which any club would kill to have in their side. LRT and Barlow are the first names mentioned that other clubs think they have a hope of trading for out of our defence. And then there is Grundy, who is developing nicely. It'd be nice to have another solid defender down back, but do we need one? No.

[RedRosie]

I agree, do want both, need both, but surely we need someone else ! One injury puts us in an very uncompromising position. Someone BIG MASSIVE HUGE GINORMOUS INTIMIDATING (oh and attractive) !

[RogueSwan]

Those stats are indicating how often they do get the ball to their teammate cleanly.
...

whoops, I meant 'contested or uncontested'.