2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[bloodspirit]

Just found this phantom draft posted on theroar.com.au: 2016 AFL Draft: Phantom draft final edition ? ticking off the top 25 | The Roar. This would be a really underwhelming outcome from my point of view for the Swans, particularly when you think that Port would get Berry and Marshall with picks 14 and 17 and still have pick 31. However, it would be an excellent draft for the Suns, Lions and Giants.

I would be much happier with this draft outcome, also posted on the Roar: AFL 2016 Phantom Draft 2: The top 55 | The Roar. Interestingly both phantom drafts have Brodie slipping to Adelaide at 15 - would be an excellent outcome for them.

Still, ultimately I will trust our recruiters with their call for now. But if their picks don't pan out down the track and we could have had others who turn out much better..... !!!

[Ludwig]

Just found this phantom draft posted on theroar.com.au: 2016 AFL Draft: Phantom draft final edition ? ticking off the top 25 | The Roar.

I read that draft as well. Every time I see Luke Ryan's name next to our second pick it makes me laugh. It shows how one rumour, which I believe was that we along with the Roos were 2 clubs that interviewed Ryan, can turn into a 1st round pick. Maybe we would consider him for our 3rd pick. I like Will Hayward, and he could turn out to be a real gem. I still think if Simpkin and Berry are available at pick 9 we would take one of them ahead of Hayward.

Players like Logue, Simpkin, Berry, Florent, Gallucci and Witherden have all shown a high work ethic, competitiveness and leadership that the Swans usually value highly and would expect we would like to have 2 on this list to join the Swans. There are probably others as well, but these stand out for me.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Many people seem to be mentioning Hayward but from most reports his kicking isn't very good. Surely, our priority, even if we are picking the best player available for the first pick, must be to pick someone with good kicking. This is our clear weakness and we need to show a bias toward players with this skill in order to off-set our weakness. In a draft that is choc full of players with good to excellent kicking skills we have to show a preference towards this ability even if it means that player might be a little weaker in some other areas. As long as we aren't ignoring someone that is too good to refuse we need to pick some with kicking skills and preferably some running/acceleration by foot.

BTW. reports that GWS will not be stripped of an draft picks.

[Steve]

Just found this phantom draft posted on theroar.com.au:

I think that is a pretty good guess as to how it might play out.

Gold Coast obviously hold most of the cards, and I'd say there would be somewhat of an internal struggle there - their biggest needs are actually strong-bodied midfielders and another ruckman, but Scott Clayton loves flashy outside players. So they actually should take Brodie to fill one of their needs, but you could easily see them go with a Scrimshaw type instead.

Also, Carlton probably shape the rest of the top 10 with pick 5. If they pick Taranto, Gold Coast would have to consider letting Petrevski-Seton go to Fremantle at pick 7, which would mean they can take a midfielder at pick 6 and English would most likely still be available at pick 10. That would also assume they'll take another midfielder at pick 8, on the assumption we won't go for English. That would be our worst scenario, and might mean we choose between Simpkin and Hayward.

However if Carlton take Petrevski-Seton, Gold Coast could conceivably take English at pick 6 to keep him away from Fremantle, and then one of Taranto, Brodie or Scrimshaw at pick 8 - leaving two of those three for us to choose from.

[707]

No GWS picks stripped THIS year due to Commission not being in a position to adjudicate before ND. Big test for the AFL, if they don't ping GWS picks next year it is a mockery given that two senior officials at the club were architects of a drug related scandal. Clubs must be responsible to their officials actions, particularly senior officials.

Twomey's Phantom Draft is up with an update before the draft tomorrow. Has us taking Simpkin with first pick and CHB Cox with second pick. Logue to GC before us, Marshall to Port pick 17, English to Dogs pick 18, some very good players well into the 20s.

[Ludwig]

Cal Twomey's Phantom Draft just came out. He's usually pretty close, but he has admitted that the order this year will be difficult.

He has us taking Simpkin and Bennan Cox. It's not a bad combo. It's becoming more likely that Logue and Scrimshaw will be taken and Simpkin seems the next best available. It would make sense to take a KPP with our second pick if Simpkin goes with our first, just for balance. Brennan plays well at FB, but can play up forward as well. He reads the play well and is a good mark and kick. So does the basics well. May be as good as Logue and a speedy forward with our 2nd pick.

I've also read that Hayward wasn't such a good kick somewhere, but it seems to be one of his strong points. His goal kicking is magnificent. He can slot them in from 60 out. He reminds me of Rohan. I don't know if that's good or bad.

[Steve]

I can't see the logic of Gold Coast even considering Logue.

They have May, Day and Thompson as key defenders already, and will draft back Schade on their RL.

They traded away two gun young midfielders and Ablett is near the end. So with so many quality midfield types and 4 of the top 10 picks, why would they take another key defender?

[bloodspirit]

I suspect Cal Twomey will be less than usually accurate this time around, it does seem a tough draft to pick. I am not encouraged by the way he's tipped it - leaves me thinking that there was not much value in trading up to pick 9. However, maybe we'll get a shot at Brodie. I would also like to see us put a bid on Perryman. Overall leaves me feeling that I have been over optimistic about the players we might get.

Can't wait for it to be over with already! It has been a loonnnnngggg month. Might try to check out the new recruits at training some time next week.

[Mug Punter]

I regret that this furphy is so frequently and casually trotted out. It is unlikely that the AFL draft would be found to be an illegal restraint of trade. I have referenced articles and quotes to this effect in an earlier post to this thread (post #1416 on 25 October 2016).

Also, it is worth noting that not only would the clubs not necessarily have standing to make the challenge (it is the players' rights that are being interfered with after all, if anyone's are) but the whole reason the draft exists is to benefit the clubs and the AFL so of course it's not going to be them that challenge the legality of the draft. If anyone did it would surely be the players.

I was perhaps guilty of this furphy at times....

I referenced some legal articles as well. The general consensus seems to be that the AFL draft would probably survive a challenge but that the AFL would nonetheless be quite nervous if one was launched. I seem to remember that the introduction of free agency was seen as a pretty strong part of any AFL defence.

All the same I can't see the AFL tightening any restrictions on players for this reason. I think the AFL model is a balancing act and that on the whole it is about right and I believe the academy system is a huge part of the model

[Ludwig]

I can't see the logic of Gold Coast even considering Logue.

They have May, Day and Thompson as key defenders already, and will draft back Schade on their RL.

They traded away two gun young midfielders and Ablett is near the end. So with so many quality midfield types and 4 of the top 10 picks, why would they take another key defender?

I agree. They also have Jack Leslie, who looks a promising prospect who they took in the early 20s a few years back.

Perhaps the logic is that will 3 mids in Bowes, Scheer and another, perhaps Taranto or SPS. Scrimshaw makes sense because of his versatility. So you take a tall with your other pick, which leaves English or Logue.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

No GWS picks stripped THIS year due to Commission not being in a position to adjudicate before ND. Big test for the AFL, if they don't ping GWS picks next year it is a mockery given that two senior officials at the club were architects of a drug related scandal. Clubs must be responsible to their officials actions, particularly senior officials.

Twomey's Phantom Draft is up with an update before the draft tomorrow. Has us taking Simpkin with first pick and CHB Cox with second pick. Logue to GC before us, Marshall to Port pick 17, English to Dogs pick 18, some very good players well into the 20s.

Another corruption outcome. GWS want a gun and the best Academy kids this year.

20 months of investigation and sorry all we will think about it for a year before the next draft.

The AFL will tell GWS what the penalty is, GWS will accept the penalty (to appear to be hard) will then sell/trade some players for early picks and the train will keep on rolling along.

No real penalty as they have 30 first round picks.

Smoke and mirrors again. Wow, called it early, no foul, play on AFLGWS conglomerate.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

20 months of investigation and sorry all we will think about it for a year before the next draft.

GWS did something wrong, so you have to investigate that. It takes time. You've got to come up with penalties. You've got to get the approval of ASADA. The penalties could be challenged. All this is very complicated for the amateurs at AFLHQ.

If they only had done nothing wrong, then the AFL could have slapped on a hefty penalty right away. There would be no investigation. No evidence. No basis for appeal. That's the way the AFL like to do things.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

GWS did something wrong, so you have to investigate that. It takes time. You've got to come up with penalties. You've got to get the approval of ASADA. The penalties could be challenged. All this is very complicated for the amateurs at AFLHQ.

If they only had done nothing wrong, then the AFL could have slapped on a hefty penalty right away. There would be no investigation. No evidence. No basis for appeal. That's the way the AFL like to do things.

30 years of practising my craft tells that the AFL must pay the dumbest investigators or they manipulate the outcome.

I would have been sacked after 3 months.

Just from the original complaint, 3-6 months and finished, unless you start to spin the right outcome for themselves not the proper result.

I thought better of you Ludwig giving them excuses/reasons. The AFL controls every timeline.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[liz]

30 years of practising my craft tells that the AFL must pay the dumbest investigators or they manipulate the outcome.

I would have been sacked after 3 months.

Just from the original complaint, 3-6 months and finished, unless you start to spin the right outcome for themselves not the proper result.

I thought better of you Ludwig giving them excuses/reasons. The AFL controls every timeline.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

I think you've missed the irony with which Ludwig laced his observation.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

I think you've missed the irony with which Ludwig laced his observation.

Sorry about that. Should focus whilst reading it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk