2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[waswan]

thought Lennon isn't wanted ?
Worth a shot with all the dumb @@@@@ Hawks are doing atm

Still cant understand why Port got involved in the Hanley Trade

[707]

thought Lennon isn't wanted ?
Worth a shot with all the dumb @@@@@ Hawks are doing atm

Still cant understand why Port got involved in the Hanley Trade

Port needed picks this year so they basically traded next years this years pick 19 & 20 something. In a strong draft they get two players now opposed to one player next year. It's to do with where they think there list is at.

As for the Hawks, this is either 2009 brilliance from them or trying to grab two guns when you've got little currency has unravelled for them. I'll laugh myself silly if they can't get the O'
Meara trade over the line!

[stevoswan]

As far as X is concerned, if he wants out and to become a fringe player somewhere else, he can @@@@ off, very disappointed in his attitude, but more disappointed to see Nanka leave. I thought he could be our next Mummy. Sinclair better lift his game. In regard to Towers and B.Jack, I'd like to see Dean stay, but if he doesn't elevate his game in the obvious areas, he can leave too at seasons end, with obviously no increase in trade value. BJ can do that now.....why did we tie him up until the end of 2017......nepotism?

[DA_Swan]

More clubs should look to the fringe players at strong clubs for value. Bear in mind that this is how we identified JPK and Mumford, offering them greater opportunities to pay senior footy.

Agree totally - hungry players from the top clubs with a winning attitude and culture are far better than recruiting from bottom placed sides - Nank and X have had a taste of it and if some club is offering an opportunity they have to go for it because the Swans have clearly shown where they are in the pecking order or they would have been contracted by now

[waswan]

Port needed picks this year so they basically traded next years this years pick 19 & 20 something. In a strong draft they get two players now opposed to one player next year. It's to do with where they think there list is at.

As for the Hawks, this is either 2009 brilliance from them or trying to grab two guns when you've got little currency has unravelled for them. I'll laugh myself silly if they can't get the O'
Meara trade over the line!

Trading a future 1st rounder for them is crazy, it will be top 12

[KTigers]

I think it's part of the nature of supporting a team that you rate "your" players higher than other people do. So while we
think Nankervis is a very good player (and just a bit unlucky he can't get a regular spot in the 22 because we have
so many other good players) we are always going to be a bit biased. I know it sounds harsh but ultimately he is worth
what the Swans can get for him. It's not called Trade Week for nothing.

[Mug Punter]

I'd take 46 for Nanka and it would be about right given his initial draft selection and development.

The points system really does provide a secondary market for trade picks like this with academy clubs. Pick 46 is worth 331 points and our existing picks are 39 (446 points) and Pick 52 (246 points).

Obvious options would be:
(1) Pick 46 and 52 (577 points) for GWS' Pick 37 and an upgrade of Picks from 17 to 15 (total of 570 points) - leaves us with Picks 14,15,37,39
(2) Pick 39 and 52 (692 points) for GWS' Pick 31 and an upgrade of Picks from 17 to 15 (total of 693 points) - leaves us with Picks 14,15,31,46
(3) Pick 39 and 52 (692 points) plus Dean Towers for Brisbane Pick 21 (878 points) - leaves us with Picks 14,15,22,46 and values Towers at 186 points (late third rounder)

If Xav went to, say Essendon for Pick 59 (158 points) we could then look at some further upgrades (say picks 59 and 46 to GWS for their pick 37)

Brisbane will probably want to trade one of their latest picks (21 or 22) backwards for points to allow for the academy selections of Jacob Alison and Eliot Himmelberg but that will still leave them with picks 3,16,21 and two first rounders next year.

Gold Coast I don't think will look at trading backwards assuming they will use Pick 44 to get Witts from the Pies. They'll be left with picks 4,6,8,10,24,26 of which two will probably be extinguished selecting Bowes and Scheer. Great opportunity for them to have a very quick rise up the ladder in my opinion.

Regardless of what permutations and combinations evolve, and it is impossible to predict, I think there is some real scope for us to have three picks in the top 25 which is a luxury we have not had for a long long time.

[dejavoodoo44]

It was too difficult to offload either Tippett or Sinclair because of their big contracts, so unfortunately it has to be Nankervis to depart.

I think Nankervis' value should increase from his pick 35 three years ago. An alternative suggestion for a trade would be to exchange our 2017 3rd round pick for Richmond's 2017 2nd rounder, plus exchange our current pick 52 for 46.

Richards could have some value and draw a pick in the early 30s. NM should need another forward with Petrie gone and Waite in his final year. They have picks 32 and 33.

Yes, I definitely think that Nank should be worth more than his original pick 35. While many players picked in the 30s make it, many don't. Nank has shown enough to strongly suggest that he will make it. He's a strong mark, he has a good football brain, is definitely hard at it and his ruck work has improved under the tutelage of the ruck whisperer, Steve Taubert. Since Richmond's midfield can be a bit soft, his hard at it nature should be particularly appealing for them, as he might be able to throw his weight around, in a similar manner to Mumford at GWS.
I think their pick 27 is fair. Especially since this is what they received for Vickery. I would rate Nank higher than Vickery. While Vickery can be a damaging forward on his day, those days are few and far between, and there has been a bit of query of his effort levels at times. Whereas Nank is always wholehearted. Nank is also four years younger. Also, Richmond's ruck stocks are really low right now, so definitely need to bring someone in.
And just a bit of curveball to finish with: are Richmond still muttering about the possibility of Deledio moving on? His pace and high skill level, make him definitely worth considering, if it's a possibility.

[Mug Punter]

Yes, I definitely think that Nank should be worth more than his original pick 35. While many players picked in the 30s make it, many don't. Nank has shown enough to strongly suggest that he will make it. He's a strong mark, he has a good football brain, is definitely hard at it and his ruck work has improved under the tutelage of the ruck whisperer, Steve Taubert. Since Richmond's midfield can be a bit soft, his hard at it nature should be particularly appealing for them, as he might be able to throw his weight around, in a similar manner to Mumford at GWS.
I think their pick 27 is fair. Especially since this is what they received for Vickery. I would rate Nank higher than Vickery. While Vickery can be a damaging forward on his day, those days are few and far between, and there has been a bit of query of his effort levels at times. Whereas Nank is always wholehearted. Nank is also four years younger. Also, Richmond's ruck stocks are really low right now, so definitely need to bring someone in.
And just a bit of curveball to finish with: are Richmond still muttering about the possibility of Deledio moving on? His pace and high skill level, make him definitely worth considering, if it's a possibility.

I don't think there is any chance of us getting Pick 27 outright for Nanka as it would value him higher than Hibberd but we may well end up with Pick 27 via an upgrade and I'd select that if we also get our second rounder upgraded to 46 where we should be able to draft a decent 4th developing ruckman. I'd also like to see us draft at least one if not two ruckmen in the rookie draft with Liam Maze being one of them, they take a while to develop the Ruckmen so the rookie list is the perfect breeding ground.

Delidio is apparently on $700,000 plus a year (hard to believe I know) so he'd be well our of our price range cap space wise

[CureTheSane]

As far as X is concerned, if he wants out and to become a fringe player somewhere else, he can @@@@ off, very disappointed in his attitude, but more disappointed to see Nanka leave. I thought he could be our next Mummy. Sinclair better lift his game. In regard to Towers and B.Jack, I'd like to see Dean stay, but if he doesn't elevate his game in the obvious areas, he can leave too at seasons end, with obviously no increase in trade value. BJ can do that now.....why did we tie him up until the end of 2017......nepotism?

Yeah, I'm on board with all of that

[Ludwig]

Joel Hamling went to Freo for what is ostensibly a late 2nd round pick. I would put Richards in the Hamling category and think he is worth a pick in the 30s as well.

I can't see us using more than 4 live picks this year. Next year is also supposed to be a pretty good draft, with more talls than this year. I wouldn't mind getting 2017 second round picks for Nanka and Xav and try to upgrade our later picks, 39 and 52 a bit. We already have 2 picks in the teens which we could use to get a couple of pacy outside players and the later 2 picks for a KPD and ruckman. Towers and Marsh should also be on the table iMO.

I can't see us taking players in trades. First, we don't need any; our best 22 is good enough and furthermore we are clearly trying to reduce our player payments until we can get Tippo off the payroll in 2 years.

[The Big Cat]

People are kidding themselves saying Nankervis is of more value than Tippett. Nankervis is slow and nowhere tall or athletic enough to be a number one ruckman. And he doesn't have the marking ability or cover the ground necessary to be a key forward. People are judging Tippett on his second half year when he was coming off a hamstring operation, then concussion and then a broken jaw. Before he was injured he was the AA ruckman and plenty of pundits saw his injury as the end of the Swans' flag hopes. And since he never had the chance to get back to where he was, those pundits may have been right.

[RogueSwan]

People are kidding themselves saying Nankervis is of more value than Tippett. Nankervis is slow and nowhere tall or athletic enough to be a number one ruckman. And he doesn't have the marking ability or cover the ground necessary to be a key forward. People are judging Tippett on his second half year when he was coming off a hamstring operation, then concussion and then a broken jaw. Before he was injured he was the AA ruckman and plenty of pundits saw his injury as the end of the Swans' flag hopes. And since he never had the chance to get back to where he was, those pundits may have been right.

I think, and I am probably wrong here, that many RWOer's see Tippett, Sinclair and Naismith as similar types of ruckmen. They are all tall and athletic but not solid like a Mummy. It would be nice to have a big bodied, thick ruckmen that can cause a little havoc around rucks and I can't see that in any of the first three.

[0918330512]

I think, and I am probably wrong here, that many RWOer's see Tippett, Sinclair and Naismith as similar types of ruckmen. They are all tall and athletic but not solid like a Mummy. It would be nice to have a big bodied, thick ruckmen that can cause a little havoc around rucks and I can't see that in any of the first three.

You mean like Nank?

[undy]

I think, and I am probably wrong here, that many RWOer's see Tippett, Sinclair and Naismith as similar types of ruckmen. They are all tall and athletic but not solid like a Mummy. It would be nice to have a big bodied, thick ruckmen that can cause a little havoc around rucks and I can't see that in any of the first three.

I see Tippett and Mumford outbody defenders to take contested marks, similarly athletic. Mumford's style makes him as injury prone as Tippett, although all our big guys and Mummy have had injuries over the last 2 years.

Mummy/Tippo > Nanko > Sinclair > Naismith

Athletically I see Tippett/Naismith > Sinclair > Mumford > Nanko

Ruckwork I see Nank/Naismith/Mummy > Tippo/Sinclair

Everyone will see that differently, but they all have different strengths/weaknesses.