List changes and trade bait

[Matt80]

I saw nothing, in my limited watching of the ressies this season, to suggest he was ever going to get close to becoming an AFL standard player. Worth a try for the club, but he never looked likely.

MCS. If you were 18 years old again and had Pat Mitchell's athletic body do you think you could make it? I would give myself half a chance.

[Flying South]

Showing a preference for Towers over Membrey, and now the preselection nomination of the athletic Hiscox may be some indication of the where Horse thinks the game is headed. We are really showing a preference for speed and endurance. It seems that we will be looking to outdo Port in the area.

Cause we all know that game plan worked so well against the Hawks. Speed and endurance means jack @@@@e, if you can't win the ball, run hard or dispose of it accurately. A successful team requires balance and commitment to succeed. Hawthorn are not what you would call as fast team. Yet they have won 2 out of 3.

[mcs]

MCS. If you were 18 years old again and had Pat Mitchell's athletic body do you think you could make it? I would give myself half a chance.

Im not at all criticising him for giving it a go - just making the observation that I didnt see anything to suggest he would make it as an afl player. He deserves kudos for giving it a go, that is for sure.

[Jimitron5000]

Cause we all know that game plan worked so well against the Hawks. Speed and endurance means jack @@@@e, if you can't win the ball, run hard or dispose of it accurately. A successful team requires balance and commitment to succeed. Hawthorn are not what you would call as fast team. Yet they have won 2 out of 3.

In my mind there are two types of pace in football. Running pace and ball movement pace. Hawthorn's ball movement pace is very quick largely due to their precise kicking - meaning they don't have do run around chasing a bouncing ball. We arguably have a quicker team running pace wise but are often let down by skill errors meaning our ball movement can be quite slow.
Ball movement pace is always faster than running pace.

[Ludwig]

Cause we all know that game plan worked so well against the Hawks. Speed and endurance means jack @@@@e, if you can't win the ball, run hard or dispose of it accurately. A successful team requires balance and commitment to succeed. Hawthorn are not what you would call as fast team. Yet they have won 2 out of 3.

That was an odd thing, because as you say, I thought we were the team that had the speed. But in fact, they made us look slow. I suppose it's easier to find speed than skill. I'd like a dollar for every time Horse used the term genuine pace this year.

[Meg]

In my mind there are two types of pace in football. Running pace and ball movement pace. Hawthorn's ball movement pace is very quick largely due to their precise kicking - meaning they don't have do run around chasing a bouncing ball. We arguably have a quicker team running pace wise but are often let down by skill errors meaning our ball movement can be quite slow.

Astute observation in my view.

[stellation]

Im not at all criticising him for giving it a go - just making the observation that I didnt see anything to suggest he would make it as an afl player. He deserves kudos for giving it a go, that is for sure.

He also wasn't 18, he was 24 when he came over- if he was only 18 it would be different. I agree, you can't blame him nor the club for having a go- and I'd have no problem if the club tried again.

[707]

Obviously we're going to have to use our first pick for Heeney. I'm just hoping that Hiscox hasn't pushed him himself too far up the order with his outstanding Draft Camp that we are forced to use our 2nd (late 30s?) on him. Be nice if he fell to our third and then Abe Davis with our fourth.

Also hoping we don't get clubs putting in bids just to force us to use higher picks.

With a dozen players nominated for F-S and Academy places, I wonder how the bidding process is done. What about if we wanted to bid on say Steele from the GWS Academy but we don't know what picks we have after Heeney, Hiscox and Davis?

Previous years it's been very simple, just a couple of players for clubs to consider.

[Ludwig]

Obviously we're going to have to use our first pick for Heeney. I'm just hoping that Hiscox hasn't pushed him himself too far up the order with his outstanding Draft Camp that we are forced to use our 2nd (late 30s?) on him. Be nice if he fell to our third and then Abe Davis with our fourth.

Also hoping we don't get clubs putting in bids just to force us to use higher picks.

With a dozen players nominated for F-S and Academy places, I wonder how the bidding process is done. What about if we wanted to bid on say Steele from the GWS Academy but we don't know what picks we have after Heeney, Hiscox and Davis?

Previous years it's been very simple, just a couple of players for clubs to consider.

I think it is more likely that Davis will get a bid in the second round than will Hiscox. Our second pick is likely to drop to around 40 with compo picks. I'm not sure if Davis is worth a pick 40, but my guess is that if we have to use it to get him, then we will. I don't think Davis is rated a top 40 player, but there will likely be some club that will try to force our hand.

This nominated player bidding draft works similar to the regular draft. Each club takes its turn (1,2,3, etc.) and can use its pick at that turn to either bid on a nominated FS or academy player with that pick. A club that has had one or more of its nominations bid for prior to its turn can either 1) counterbid with its draft pick for the first of those players, 2) make a bid on some other club's nomination, or pass.

For example, let's say Freo use its pick 12 to bid on Heeney, and Carlton use its pick 43 on Davis and Adelaide use pick 47 to bid for Hiscox, the following can happen:

1. Sydney's turn comes up with pick 17: We counterbid the Freo bid to take Heeney from Freo.
2. Pick 36: We can either pass or use it on a player yet to be bid for. For example, if no club has bid on GWS academy nominee Jack Steele, we can use this pick to make a bid for him. He would become our player with that pick unless GWS counterbid with their pick #40.
3. Pick 55: Counterbid Carlton's pick 43 bid for Davis, bid for Hiscox and allow Davis to go to Carlton or pass and allow both players to go to the clubs that bid for them.
4. Pick 73: If we bid for Davis with pick 55, then we can use this pick to counterbid Adelaide's pick 47 for Hiscox.

[jono2707]

Wow pat mitchell is returning home... That didn't last long.

Until clubs pick Americans from big schools who are used to playing top flight college ball, this experiment is not going to work.....

[Simo]

George Hewitt will also be a gun, as hopefully will Perris, we have enough mids, we don't need petracca, and lose a gun like hanners or parks. We should look at someone like Tate pears, to learn for Ted and Heath, it's a shame to see membrey forced out because his kicking for goal is elite, he has 6 kicks he most likely kicks four. Goodsey should be the sub only and make way for the kid. Kinnear has proven history at finding freaks down low in the draft, maybe Mitchell the U.S. kind got the push because there some freak chinese volleyball guy we are bringing in. ????

[giant]

According to the brief notes on the AFL website, Mal's manager has been on trade radio and says Mal wants to stay at the Swans but the money is an issue. I wonder how far apart they are? Would love it if he can be accommodated at the Swans next year.

I listened to this interview and he seemed to suggest it was length of contract that was the bigger issue rather than $. Suggestion was that GC were offering 3 years.

[SimonH]

Also hoping we don't get clubs putting in bids just to force us to use higher picks.

While the system can validly be criticised in some ways, it's good in discouraging fake bids just to make your opponent bid higher. No sane list manager would ever place such a bid, because of the risk (however small it might be) that your bid finishes #1 and you're then required to follow through. If you don't really want the player and/or don't want to use that draft pick on them, that's your whole ND strategy ruined.

[liz]

While the system can validly be criticised in some ways, it's good in discouraging fake bids just to make your opponent bid higher. No sane list manager would ever place such a bid, because of the risk (however small it might be) that your bid finishes #1 and you're then required to follow through. If you don't really want the player and/or don't want to use that draft pick on them, that's your whole ND strategy ruined.

It is also a system that discourages clubs bidding picks in the later rounds of the draft. Clubs are going to bid high picks on players like Heeney because they are really just keeping the entitled club honest. But no club will particularly want to tie up a 3rd or 4th round draft selection ahead of the trade period unless they are really keen on the player. It reduces their ability to manoeuvre during trade week.

That said, I imagine that the Swans would certainly match 3rd or 4th round picks for either Hiscox or Davis. They will barely be going beyond that in the draft anyway, what with a number of rookie promotions (X and Lloyd at the very least) likely to fill a good proportion of the available senior list spaces. If Malceski does end up leaving you'd think we'll get either an end of first or (more probably) end of second round pick. That and our own second round pick are shaping as the only possible live picks in the draft. The main uncertainty would be around what might happen if a club bid a second round pick for either Davis or Hiscox. Does the club rate them highly enough to match that? No idea.

[Ludwig]

It is also a system that discourages clubs bidding picks in the later rounds of the draft. Clubs are going to bid high picks on players like Heeney because they are really just keeping the entitled club honest. But no club will particularly want to tie up a 3rd or 4th round draft selection ahead of the trade period unless they are really keen on the player. It reduces their ability to manoeuvre during trade week.

That said, I imagine that the Swans would certainly match 3rd or 4th round picks for either Hiscox or Davis. They will barely be going beyond that in the draft anyway, what with a number of rookie promotions (X and Lloyd at the very least) likely to fill a good proportion of the available senior list spaces. If Malceski does end up leaving you'd think we'll get either an end of first or (more probably) end of second round pick. That and our own second round pick are shaping as the only possible live picks in the draft. The main uncertainty would be around what might happen if a club bid a second round pick for either Davis or Hiscox. Does the club rate them highly enough to match that? No idea.

That's a very good point Liz. And I would extend that even more so to the 2nd round, as that is where most of the activity takes place to land those second tier players.

On another matter, I was thinking about how the continuation of the careers of both Shaw and Goodes would affect our National Draft and in particular rookie elevations. I was always under the belief that we could only retain one rookie for a 3rd year. I sort of remember this coming up in discussions, and cannot remember any time having more than one 3rd year rookie on the list. But looking at the AFL rules:

10.10 Retention of Rookie List Players
(a) A Club may retain a Player on its Rookie List for a second season provided it nominates such Player or Players using Form 32, prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1(a) and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a second season.
(b) A Club may retain a Player on its Rookie List for a third season provided it nominates such Player or Players using Form 32 prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1(a) and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a third season. If a Player is retained under this Rule 10.10, any amount he is paid in excess of the 1st year third round draft selection Player payment will be included in the Club?s Total Player Payments.
(c) A Club may retain a Player included on a Club?s Rookie List under Rule 10.5(a)(i) and (ii) for a third season, using Form 32, provided it nominates such Player prior to advising the AFL of its Primary List under Rule 6.1 and such Player consents to being nominated on the Rookie List for a third season.

I cannot find a provision addressing this matter. Interestingly the word players (plural) is specified in the provision concerning this matter.

I would imagine that in addition to Xavier, we would upgrade Lloyd. I would think we would want to keep Biggs, which would require an upgrade, as he will be heading into his 4th year. This would leave both Naismith and Robinson as potential 3rd year rookies.

Depending on how things go with the Membrey and Mal situations, there could be a squeeze on National draft spots given we are sort of committed to taking 3 academy players.

We do have some room to expand the primary list beyond the usual 38, but I would imagine we would like to keep it at that level due to the advantages of rookie listed players, vis a vis the salary cap. I would think that it is safe to delist AJ and rookie him if we need to meet the technicalities of the list rules. I believe there is an unwritten law that clubs don't draft players under such circumstances, so there is no chance that we would lose him. Harrison Marsh is another one that might yet get delisted. I doubt anyone would pick him up in the ND, and we could probably rookie him as well if we really wanted to retain him.

There are still too many variables to work out how we stand with the number of places available.

I don't believe that we will have any list cloggers left by the end of the trade period. Every one will be a genuine AFL quality player* although obviously some will still be in development stages of their careers.


*Denotes non-comment provision regarding Tom Derickx.