2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[Mug Punter]

Just so I get this right

If mills went to Carlton
At the end of two years mills was offered $650k pa
Sydney could only offer $450k pa

What would happen ?

My understanding is that he'd either get a trade to us or he'd throw himself at the mercy of the PSD

The draft system is a blatant restraint of trade and I don't actually think it helps equalisation - look at the NRL and it's spread of titles that I generated by the salary cap alone.

[Scottee]

If I were the Swans I would not make any promises or show my hand to anyone. The fact is that the go home factor works in our favour this time as far as Mills is concerned. Not so Dunkley.
Perversely, that means that you could call the bluff on Mills and let another team develop him for a couple of years until he comes home.
The same tactic would not apply to Dunkley as a father son and paying overs for him would not have any upside.
There is so much talent in the Swans side that has come from lower picks and rookies.We can't afford to throw away those options.

[Mug Punter]

I agree that taking Mills is critical but if we have to forgo Dunkley ( due to him costing too much) then so be it. I just dont think we can compromise this years draft and potentially next years to take both.

Just don't know where to jump on this one - we trade a Bird for pick 32 and we get a Pick 1, Pick 12 plus two late ones this year and only give up our first rounder in 2016 and keep Jetta. Why not bring it forward if we really rate Dunks. If a player emerges as a bolter in 2016 we might have to trade a first rounder

- - - Updated - - -

If I were the Swans I would not make any promises or show my hand to anyone. The fact is that the go home factor works in our favour this time as far as Mills is concerned. Not so Dunkley.
Perversely, that means that you could call the bluff on Mills and let another team develop him for a couple of years until he comes home.
The same tactic would not apply to Dunkley as a father son and paying overs for him would not have any upside.
There is so much talent in the Swans side that has come from lower picks and rookies.We can't afford to throw away those options.

I agree it also depends on what other talent there is later in the draft - there's a young bloke from Warner's Bay Jayden Rymer, anyone know of he is any good?

[ernie koala]

If Mills is bid pick 1 we have to be prepared to let him go. It's the only way to make a point about vexatious bidding and will bode well for the future of the system. It might seem like a loss, but chances are that we will pick him up in 2 years with a single first round pick. Let Carlton put 2 years of training into him and assume the risk of injury.

The way the system works, it would cost the equivalent of a Zak Jones, George Hewett, Jack Hiscox and James Rose. It's simply too much even if we can't get Mills down the track.

We should let it be known that we won't take Mills if he is bid in the first 3 picks and that he has a desire to eventually play in Sydney. Then let's see who is willing to take the risk. I can't imagine that Carlton, with all their recent drafting blunders, would jump on another risky prospect.

I agree with you generally.

I would add, that if the club were to go down this path, then they need to make sure that Mills, and his family, are totally involved in the planning and are comfortable with it.

Firstly, to maintain trust between the club and the Mills which would be essential to the club's ability to lure him back, 2 or 3 years later.

Secondly, by having this discussion with them, you can bet your bottom dollar word would get out amongst the AFL recruiting fraternity,

that the possibility of the Swans passing on him are real.

This would obviously reduce, significantly, the likelihood of a vexatious/disingenuous bid.

[Ludwig]

If we want Mills and he goes at #1 then if we don't take Dunks too then we either have our first rounder in 2016 slip back about 20 places (depending on where we finish) or trade a player for a late second round pick (e.g a Bird).

Don't you think it's a bit too much to lose all our draft picks this year plus our 1st pick next year for one player. I am not doubting that Mills is one of the very best prospects in the draft, but remember that we got Hanners at pick 30 and Parker at 40.

I think it will be quite clear and obvious that Mills wants to play for us and like the situation with Wingard will get to his club of choice. It is only conjecture at this point how the bidding will transpire. Hopefully it doesn't encourage vexatious bidding, because the only way to counter that is to call the bidder's bluff. I think it's strategically important to show that we are willing to let a player go if we feel the bid is excessive. If we pay up for overbidding then we effectively lose all the benefits of the academy, including even the 20% discount off a contrived base meant to make us pay heavily for quality academy players.

If has to be made clear to potential bidders that they risk using their highest pick on someone that is likely to request a trade from the club in 2 years and will never really be happy at that club. It that doesn't come across then Eddie McGuire will have won his biggest victory against the Swans.


To A.G.: I am not sure I understand your question, but I don't think what Mills does after 2 years is a matter of money. Under the scenario: He could re-sign with Carlton. He could get traded to another club, negotiating a contract with that club. Or if he cannot manage a trade he could delist himself and enter the PSD and probably get drafted by the a bottom club who wants to take the risk having an unhappy player at their club. He might even sneak through ala Tippett. Under this alternative Carlton would get nothing. That's the risk in signing a player that doesn't want to play for you. You could find yourself 2 years down the road losing the player for nothing, thus wasting your top draft pick that could have been used on a top KPP like Jacob Weitering.

[Mug Punter]

I agree with you generally.

I would add, that if the club were to go down this path, then they need to make sure that Mills, and his family, are totally involved in the planning and are comfortable with it.

Firstly, to maintain trust between the club and the Mills which would be essential to the club's ability to lure him back, 2 or 3 years later.

Secondly, by having this discussion with them, you can bet your bottom dollar word would get out amongst the AFL recruiting fraternity,

that the possibility of the Swans passing on him are real.

This would obviously reduce, significantly, the likelihood of a vexatious/disingenuous bid.

So after all the effort we have put into the draft and all the talk of how important it is we then say to Mills we don't want you because whilst Carlton think you are worth a #1 Pick we do not.

I get the fact that we will need to pass on kids to punish clubs for making vexatious bids but have we considered that Number 1 may not be a vexatious bid?

At worst it would appear that he is a top 4 pick in anyones book.

We'll take him!

[Steve]

IMO Mills will slip down a few spots - maybe to around pick 5.

It helps that he won't be seen much this year, but I just can't see the club with the No.1 pick choosing Mills when the outcome will be we match the bid, and they take another player who'll be remembered as the No.2 pick who that club didn't want as much as Mills. They will instead name that player as No.1 pick and say how much they wanted him, he is the best player in the draft etc etc - a much better marketing move for whichever club finishes last. I could see that happen with the first few picks also - really all we need is for him to slide a few picks and the points needed reduces significantly.

I wouldn't read much into the Dunkley situation - from what I gather he moved to Melbourne at least in part for better treatment on his back, so to train with a VFL-aligned club and play a couple of games is fairly straight-forward. I'm sure Richmond feel they have an iron in the fire, but still pretty unlikely.

Re: Dunkley - I wonder how the new system works from a logistical perspective with the live bidding. Does the player and club have to have an in-principle, but non-binding agreement prior to the draft re: offering a FS spot (ie. if we match a bid for you, will you agree to sign with us)? Given we can't commit 100% prior to knowing what it will cost us on draft night, what happens when a player is chosen by another club - we can match the bid, but under the previous provisions of the FS rule the player doesn't have to accept (or do they in this new system?).

You could conceivably have a situation where the player might be content to be chosen by another club in certain circumstances (eg. from their home state), but prefer to sign FS if things fall a different way on draft night (eg. picked by an interstate club).

Logically it would have to be that if we matched a bid for Dunkley, he would be obligated to play for us - otherwise all parties would have to make a decision prior to the draft without knowing how things would unfold, or you have the farcical situation where we match a bid but they player doesn't accept and you either forfeit that pick, or somehow the draft is held up whilst the player in question has to make a decision on the spot?

[Mug Punter]

Don't you think it's a bit too much to lose all our draft picks this year plus our 1st pick next year for one player. I am not doubting that Mills is one of the very best prospects in the draft, but remember that we got Hanners at pick 30 and Parker at 40.

I think it will be quite clear and obvious that Mills wants to play for us and like the situation with Wingard will get to his club of choice. It is only conjecture at this point how the bidding will transpire. Hopefully it doesn't encourage vexatious bidding, because the only way to counter that is to call the bidder's bluff. I think it's strategically important to show that we are willing to let a player go if we feel the bid is excessive. If we pay up for overbidding then we effectively lose all the benefits of the academy, including even the 20% discount off a contrived base meant to make us pay heavily for quality academy players.

If has to be made clear to potential bidders that they risk using their highest pick on someone that is likely to request a trade from the club in 2 years and will never really be happy at that club. It that doesn't come across then Eddie McGuire will have won his biggest victory against the Swans.


To A.G.: I am not sure I understand your question, but I don't think what Mills does after 2 years is a matter of money. Under the scenario: He could re-sign with Carlton. He could get traded to another club, negotiating a contract with that club. Or if he cannot manage a trade he could delist himself and enter the PSD and probably get drafted by the a bottom club who wants to take the risk having an unhappy player at their club. He might even sneak through ala Tippett. Under this alternative Carlton would get nothing. That's the risk in signing a player that doesn't want to play for you. You could find yourself 2 years down the road losing the player for nothing, thus wasting your top draft pick that could have been used on a top KPP like Jacob Weitering.

I think that getting upgraded from Pick 18 to 1 or 2 may be worth that if you can afford it yes! What would we have needed to give St Kilda last year for their # 1 Pick? IF he is that good then I think we are in a position to pay it. These are the quality of players that can win you flags

Your points re Hanners etc are well known of course and to be fair I think that this is where we'll get the real value out of the academy. These situations with the likes of Mills we be the exception rather than the rule

All in my opinion of course.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that getting upgraded from Pick 18 to 1 or 2 may be worth that if you can afford it yes! What would we have needed to give St Kilda last year for their # 1 Pick? IF he is that good then I think we are in a position to pay it. These are the quality of players that can win you flags

Your points re Hanners etc are well known of course and to be fair I think that this is where we'll get the real value out of the academy. These situations with the likes of Mills we be the exception rather than the rule

All in my opinion of course.

And remember, Melbourne clubs will be having these discussions re their F/S picks too...

[Mug Punter]

IMO Mills will slip down a few spots - maybe to around pick 5.

It helps that he won't be seen much this year, but I just can't see the club with the No.1 pick choosing Mills when the outcome will be we match the bid, and they take another player who'll be remembered as the No.2 pick who that club didn't want as much as Mills. They will instead name that player as No.1 pick and say how much they wanted him, he is the best player in the draft etc etc - a much better marketing move for whichever club finishes last. I could see that happen with the first few picks also - really all we need is for him to slide a few picks and the points needed reduces significantly.

I wouldn't read much into the Dunkley situation - from what I gather he moved to Melbourne at least in part for better treatment on his back, so to train with a VFL-aligned club and play a couple of games is fairly straight-forward. I'm sure Richmond feel they have an iron in the fire, but still pretty unlikely.

Re: Dunkley - I wonder how the new system works from a logistical perspective with the live bidding. Does the player and club have to have an in-principle, but non-binding agreement prior to the draft re: offering a FS spot (ie. if we match a bid for you, will you agree to sign with us)? Given we can't commit 100% prior to knowing what it will cost us on draft night, what happens when a player is chosen by another club - we can match the bid, but under the previous provisions of the FS rule the player doesn't have to accept (or do they in this new system?).

You could conceivably have a situation where the player might be content to be chosen by another club in certain circumstances (eg. from their home state), but prefer to sign FS if things fall a different way on draft night (eg. picked by an interstate club).

Logically it would have to be that if we matched a bid for Dunkley, he would be obligated to play for us - otherwise all parties would have to make a decision prior to the draft without knowing how things would unfold, or you have the farcical situation where we match a bid but they player doesn't accept and you either forfeit that pick, or somehow the draft is held up whilst the player in question has to make a decision on the spot?

Under F/S the player has the right to reject the offer of his Father's club - do they have to state their allegiance before the draft? (vaguely remembering Murphy spurning Brisbane a few years ago)

I can see Carlton, Gold Coast and Brisbane as the bottom three. It would be a massive call for Carlton in their current state of disarray to potentially draft a player at number one who publicly and privately will say he didn't want to be there.

At number 4 I can truly see him being value - as I said before clubs do need to actually bid for players like Mills for this system to work, they can't just not bid because they think we'll trump them.

It's really just still a matter of assessing draft value, it is just a bit more symbolic and personal this year because of that fat @@@@@ down in Melbourne's antics

[Ludwig]

So after all the effort we have put into the draft and all the talk of how important it is we then say to Mills we don't want you because whilst Carlton think you are worth a #1 Pick we do not.

I get the fact that we will need to pass on kids to punish clubs for making vexatious bids but have we considered that Number 1 may not be a vexatious bid?

At worst it would appear that he is a top 4 pick in anyones book.

We'll take him!

It's not to punish clubs for making vexatious bids, but rather to stop clubs punishing us with vexatious bids.

It will be very interesting this year with the whole uncertainly on how it will all play out and the mixture of strategic bidding with our desire to get 2 very highly rated players.

I'm hoping that Carlton will go for the safe option and not risk bidding for a player that doesn't want to be at their club, and if the 2 Queensland clubs finish in the bottom 3 and don't bid on academy players, then Mill might go no higher than 4, which I would not see as a vexatious bid and would be pleased to match.

The difference between a pick 1 and pick 4 is a pick 25 in value, which is quite significant, and certainly more than we could get for Craig Bird, for instance.

[ernie koala]

So after all the effort we have put into the draft and all the talk of how important it is we then say to Mills we don't want you because whilst Carlton think you are worth a #1 Pick we do not.

No one is suggesting we don't want him. We've put 5 years into him already, clearly we want him.

And it's not a rejection of paying pick 1(if that's what's offered), as you suggest, it's a rejection of paying multiple high end picks for one player...

ie Putting all our eggs in one basket.

One recent example of the risk : Scully..A good player, but you wouldn't want to be giving up too much for him,

yet it was universally agreed that he was the No.1 pick in his draft.

[The Big Cat]

Why would he be a dud for us, yet be a gun if he went to another club? It doesn't make sense.

The point I was making is that I would rather pick him whatever the cost and risk he may turn out to be an overpriced dud, than let him go because he seems too expensive and risk him being a star somewhere else.

[Mug Punter]

It's not to punish clubs for making vexatious bids, but rather to stop clubs punishing us with vexatious bids.

It will be very interesting this year with the whole uncertainly on how it will all play out and the mixture of strategic bidding with our desire to get 2 very highly rated players.

I'm hoping that Carlton will go for the safe option and not risk bidding for a player that doesn't want to be at their club, and if the 2 Queensland clubs finish in the bottom 3 and don't bid on academy players, then Mill might go no higher than 4, which I would not see as a vexatious bid and would be pleased to match.

The difference between a pick 1 and pick 4 is a pick 25 in value, which is quite significant, and certainly more than we could get for Craig Bird, for instance.

What is we believe he is as good as anyone else in the draft?

What I am getting at is it all depends on what we value him at. If we really don't think his top 4 then I expect us to pass at Pick 1 but I genuinely think they think he is. So we'll take him!!!

PS - I can see this thread becoming very tiresome and repetitive so apologies

[troyjones2525]

Mills hasn't even played a game this year has he? Is their any chance of him playing any games in the carnival for NSW/ACT and showing his stuff this year? I for one hope he does to see if he's improved on his excellent form last year plus I want to see him play without the focus of Heeney being in the side with him and how he handles being 'the man' so to speak.

[CureTheSane]

I wanted to make the point that it's important to establish our position on vexatious bidding. The only way to make sure we don't get screwed is to take a stand and not back off...

Because the Swans have become well known for making a stand in recent times

I agree with you, but it ain't gonna happen.