Swans 2013 Draft Strategy

[sharp9]

Wasn't the gamble to take Reid a year earlier. As a result he came to us later in the draft than if we waited the following year when he would have been much higher and we would have missed out,

Billy Ray I reckon the one you are actually thinking about is Daniel Currie who we took as a very young ruckman and the club were very forward in saying that he was not ready to be drafted but that they thought that he would be a top 10 pick the following year so they took a gamble.

The Swans were (as all teams always are) "delighted" that Sam Reid was still available at 38....he was hardly an undercover project. The article mentions he was being talked to by Collingwood, Freo and Adelaide - so, sorry to say it was not a "gamble to take him year earlier" just a matter of trying to choose the most worthy draft pick.

[liz]

Then we might decide on using pick 53 on the spot, depending on who's available. It might even be set it aside for Mark Seaby, who could be the best backup ruck option in the draft and allow us to see how the development of Naismith and Mitchell goes.

Considering that we haven't delisted any rookies, and I can't see why we would as they've all played well this year, one additional rookie pick would seem to suffice; we've already added 2 with Perris and Pat Mitchell.

They might even think about upgrading another rookie. Just because they've announced Jack and Rampe I don't think precludes them from promoting another.

[Ludwig]

They might even think about upgrading another rookie. Just because they've announced Jack and Rampe I don't think precludes them from promoting another.

Yes. We now have 2 new rookies and 2 upgraded. So for every rookie selection we plan to make might entail an additional rookie upgrade. That would keep the list sizes the same as last year. If Armstrong is delisted, you would think that would be covered by a rookie upgrade. Then it will depend on what we do with pick 53.

- - - Updated - - -

They might even think about upgrading another rookie. Just because they've announced Jack and Rampe I don't think precludes them from promoting another.

Yes. We now have 2 new rookies and 2 upgraded. So for every rookie selection we plan to make might entail an additional rookie upgrade. That would keep the list sizes the same as last year. If Armstrong is delisted, you would think that would be covered by a rookie upgrade. Then it will depend on what we do with pick 53.

[BillyRayCypress]

Billy Ray I reckon the one you are actually thinking about is Daniel Currie who we took as a very young ruckman and the club were very forward in saying that he was not ready to be drafted but that they thought that he would be a top 10 pick the following year so they took a gamble.

The Swans were (as all teams always are) "delighted" that Sam Reid was still available at 38....he was hardly an undercover project. The article mentions he was being talked to by Collingwood, Freo and Adelaide - so, sorry to say it was not a "gamble to take him year earlier" just a matter of trying to choose the most worthy draft pick.

I had a look through the list to see if I had made a mistake and it was Reid I was thinking about. It's an insignificant point anyway now.

Seaby back at the Swans would be interesting. I thought his career was well and truly over with his crook knee.

So I'm guessing a pick in the PSD might be less of a gamble than pick 53 on an unknown.

[Ludwig]

I had a look through the list to see if I had made a mistake and it was Reid I was thinking about. It's an insignificant point anyway now.

Seaby back at the Swans would be interesting. I thought his career was well and truly over with his crook knee.

So I'm guessing a pick in the PSD might be less of a gamble than pick 53 on an unknown.

A pick in the PSD turns out to be the same as your last pick in the ND, doesn't it?

[liz]

A pick in the PSD turns out to be the same as your last pick in the ND, doesn't it?

Not necessarily. Some players only nominate for the PSD so can't be picked in the ND. But with delisted players available to be taken as free agents, a late PSD pick and no salary cap room to price a player we might like out of the reach of other clubs, it's hard to see an experienced player of value coming via the PSD this year (for Sydney).

[Melbourne_Blood]

Seaby's name has been mentioned quite a bit on here, haven't heard it anywhere outside of RWO. Apparently had a pretty good year in the Wafl, finished equal 8th In the sandover (equal with Paul Bevan, young Dayle Garlett finished equal 10th). You would have to question whether he has the desire to again relocate with his wife and daughter to Sydney, after just getting settled back in to WA. For maybe a year or two of being the back up ruckman on probably a rookie contract, who would only be playing seniors if Pyke were injured. Can't imagine it's a tantalizing prospect for a 29 year old.

[Ludwig]

Not necessarily. Some players only nominate for the PSD so can't be picked in the ND. But with delisted players available to be taken as free agents, a late PSD pick and no salary cap room to price a player we might like out of the reach of other clubs, it's hard to see an experienced player of value coming via the PSD this year (for Sydney).

If we are talking about Seaby, and he nominates for the ND, would there be any difference in taking him at pick 53 or the PSD? Is there a minimum contract length, and is it different for the ND and PSD?

- - - Updated - - -

Seaby's name has been mentioned quite a bit on here, haven't heard it anywhere outside of RWO. Apparently had a pretty good year in the Wafl, finished equal 8th In the sandover (equal with Paul Bevan, young Dayle Garlett finished equal 10th). You would have to question whether he has the desire to again relocate with his wife and daughter to Sydney, after just getting settled back in to WA. For maybe a year or two of being the back up ruckman on probably a rookie contract, who would only be playing seniors if Pyke were injured. Can't imagine it's a tantalizing prospect for a 29 year old.

I would think that Seaby would get more than the minimum contract. Let's say 100k. Suppose you were an Perth bank clerk on 40k and you were offered 100k/an plus moving expenses to come to Sydney for 2 years. Would you do it? Seaby surely knows he can't get an AFL gig in Perth with 2 teams there having the best ruck stocks in the league, so he knows a relocation would be on tap if he gets drafted.

[Dan]

Plus if you were only going to play for 2-3 years max you would want to go to a top team on the slight chance you could be lucky and end up playing in a flag instead of 2 years bashing your body playing for a lesser club with no real gain at the end.

[Ludwig]

The so called experts as News Ltd have posted their top 20 phantom draft:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/draft-experts-jay-clark-and-sam-landsberger-gives-their-predictions-ahead-of-the-afl-national-draft/story-fnelctok-1226747756197

They have us taking Matt Crouch (best rated inside mid in the draft - often compared to Tom Mitchell) at pick 15, but can't see us taking another pure insider midfielder. In fact, that would be the last thing I would be looking for in the draft. They always seem to think that playing at the SCG means you have to have a team overloaded with inside mids.

These guys have the much discussed Lewis Taylor at pick 17 and my favourite Blake Acres at 19 as well as Jono Marsh as a wildcard, so many of the names talked about as possibilities would still be in play for our first pick if they are right.

They have the Giants taking tall defender Darcy Gardiner at pick 14, which may be a good call, given that they lost Josh Bruce, Kristian Jaksch is rumoured to be unhappy and wanting to leave next year, and they didn't get an experienced key defender in the trade period. I thought that they might be interested in taking Crouch as someone who would benefit from having the big Mummy to play taps with.

Although I disagree with the player they assigned to us at pick 15, I actually do think they are spot on with the 1st 14 selections.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this kid Josh Pitson has the best highlight reel in draft. He's just an incredible user of the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcctMnFRGfY

[Auntie.Gerald]

i wasnt massive impressed by Crouch compared to a few other options

[barry]

We havent got a good ruckman from the draft in the last 10 years. Why start now.

Imo they take too long to develop. No good for at least 5 years. Best bet is to poach them, or through rookie system.

[Ludwig]

We havent got a good ruckman from the draft in the last 10 years. Why start now.

Imo they take too long to develop. No good for at least 5 years. Best bet is to poach them, or through rookie system.

+1

It's so easy to pick up a ruckman in trade period, it's hard to see why you would want to use a ND draft pick on one. We now have 2 development ruckmen, which sounds about right. I'm more than happy with our starting duo of Pyke and Tippett. The only question is whether LRT as a backup along with the inexperienced Naismith and Pat Mitchell are enough to cover potential injuries. You can't go too crazy worrying about injuries. Perhaps us fans are less unclear about the ruck depth than the list managers. I suppose we'll find out on draft day.

[top40]

The talk is that Tony A will be delisted. I wonder if they are waiting until he returns from Ireland to discuss a possible contract extension. I'd like to see him stay another year and see if some of the improvement he showed in the reserves is real. Anyway, with the loss of Jesse and Dre, we are really short on whipping boys at the moment.

Gee I hope we don't delist Tony Armstrong. He is not a bad player. Very much a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Further, can the Swans afford to see the end of yet another experienced player? If Armstrong is delisted, that would make it 8 departures for this year, with only 1 experienced player, Buddy, coming in.

With that in mind, I am disappointed by the results emerging from this year?s trade. It?s nothing like our exciting 2009 Trade, (Bradshaw, Mumford, Kennedy, Selby, McGlynn), and subsequent drafting (Jetta, Rohan)

In order for Sydney to have a player list of 38, and if Armstrong is delisted, six players will need to drafted from the 2013 National Draft. For better for worse, in Season 2014, a fairly large proportion of the Swans? Senior list, (about 42%, not including Kirt Tippett), will consist of young players drafted in the past two years:
1. Tom Mitchell 2011 National Draft, currently aged 20.
2. Jordan Lockyer 2011 National Draft, currently aged 20.
3. Harry Cunningham 2011 Rookie Draft (promoted) currently aged 19.
4. Dean Towers 2012 National Draft, currently aged 23.
5. Harry Marsh 2012 National Draft, currently aged 19.
6. Tim Membrey 2012 National Draft, currently aged 19.
7. Matthew Dick 2012 National Draft, currently aged 18.
8. Kurt Tippett 2012 Pre Season Draft, currently aged 26.
9. Dane Rampe 2012 Rookie Draft (promoted), currently aged 23.
10. Brandon Jack 2012 Rookie Draft (promoted), currently aged 19.
11. Number 15: 2013 National Draft
12. Number 32: 2013 National Draft
13. Number 35: 2013 National Draft
14. Number 44: 2013 National Draft
15. Number 53: 2013 National Draft
16. Number 71: 2013 National Draft

If I add the current and retained Rookies, (Shane Biggs (aged 22), Jake Llloyd (20), Sam Naismith (21), Xavier Richards (20), and Daniel Robinson (19)), with say, three new Rookies, that could mean that exactly half (23 out of 46), of the entire Players? List for 2014 will consist of young and obviously inexperienced players drafted in the past 2 years.

No, please don't de-list Tony Armstrong.

[Melbourne_Blood]

If Tony couldn't get a game last year when Biggs , Jack, Cunningham all got games, then I doubt he will next year. Those kids will have another pre-season under their belt, Biggs in particular showed good skill and poise, plays in Armstrongs position and plays with more pace. Add the return of injured players like Shaw and AJ and I think Tony should go if someone offers him an oppurtunity, and I can't see the swans standing In his way.