2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[liz]

Naismith also has had trouble staying fit for extended periods, and most ruckmen are susceptible to injuries. So even as the 4th choice ruckman, Nankervis has a reasonable chance of senior football next season.

The AFL site is suggesting that Lycett might miss a substantial part of next season (or even the whole season) if he needs a surgical reconstruction of his PCL. With NicNat already out for 2017, West Coast are in serious strife in the ruck next year. Maybe we can offer to send Sinclair back to them as cover. I'd even take Lewis back in return (if he'd come "home").

[liz]

I'd seen a bit of him as he's from my area, Murray Border. Considering he's the youngest on the list, never been in an Academy, never played TAC Cup, had one year of Ovens & Murray football and was injured during pre-season I'd think he's shown enough. He's always been a goal kicking midfielder and got away with that sort of stuff previously. On what I saw, maybe 6 or 7 games streamed, he's improved plenty as the year went on. When he tucks the ball under his arm and runs he can be pretty exciting. His skills aren't as silky as Dawson or Leonardis but I can see that improving.

I expect that there are a range of factors that determine whether rookies get a second year (including list balance and available spots) but many of these probably aren't that visible to us as supporters. Even rookies who seem to have had a fairly average first year get another chance. I imagine their training and preparation habits play a large part, together with their improvement trajectory (as opposed to their absolute performance levels). As a side note, I once heard Roos talk about KJ and the decision on whether to give him a second year on the rookie list. Apparently it was very touch and go, but he was so driven and determined to succeed that this tipped the decision in his favour. His improvement from the end of his first year to the very start of his second year was immense. He graduated from an innocuous back pocket with dodgy kicking skills to a player who quickly started dominating at that level in the midfield. His debut only a short way into his second year was definitely warranted, even though he only got two games and didn't immediately adjust to the pace of senior footy. Retaining him was one punt that the club clearly got right!

For the first few weeks of the season, Murray seemed to have some pretty bad habits in the sense of making "look at me" type decisions, rather than playing within the obvious team rules and structures. As Ugg has noted, he definitely improved in this aspect as the season went on.

[MattW]

Naismith also has had trouble staying fit for extended periods, and most ruckmen are susceptible to injuries. So even as the 4th choice ruckman, Nankervis has a reasonable chance of senior football next season.

The AFL site is suggesting that Lycett might miss a substantial part of next season (or even the whole season) if he needs a surgical reconstruction of his PCL. With NicNat already out for 2017, West Coast are in serious strife in the ruck next year. Maybe we can offer to send Sinclair back to them as cover. I'd even take Lewis back in return (if he'd come "home").

The same thought crossed my mind. I heard Jake Niall mention on the weekend that Eric Mackenzie may be suited to the Swans.

[Meg]

2016 trading and drafting

either way its ridiculous you cant just pick a player on your list without the need to elevate etc

Not sure I agree. If instead of a list of 44 made up of 38 to 40 seniors and 4 to 6 rookies a club is allowed a 44 player senior list, clubs such as Hawthorn (which has been successful in attracting top quality players from other clubs) and GWS (which has so many high round picks on their list but under current rules are gradually having their list size reduced) would have even more capacity to 'hoard' top players.

Swans might not be hurt by such a change but it could make it even more difficult for the lower teams such as Brisbane to recruit quality players.

I think it is a change that is coming however. Players want it (junior players would almost certainly be paid more) and some, but not all, clubs want it.

[Mug Punter]

The same thought crossed my mind. I heard Jake Niall mention on the weekend that Eric Mackenzie may be suited to the Swans.

McKenzie and Sinclair as a straight swap would be a good deal if we could get it but I suspect they'd want a sweetener.

We'd still then be down to three ruckmen, would you go for a draftee around the late 30s (you'd get a decent one) or would you get a journeyman as cover?

- - - Updated - - -

Naismith also has had trouble staying fit for extended periods, and most ruckmen are susceptible to injuries. So even as the 4th choice ruckman, Nankervis has a reasonable chance of senior football next season.

The AFL site is suggesting that Lycett might miss a substantial part of next season (or even the whole season) if he needs a surgical reconstruction of his PCL. With NicNat already out for 2017, West Coast are in serious strife in the ruck next year. Maybe we can offer to send Sinclair back to them as cover. I'd even take Lewis back in return (if he'd come "home").

Talk of Petrie going there as senior cover, I think they'll throw everything they can at getting Rory Lobb, given that he is still under contract I'd suggest they'll need to find two first round picks though when you think about it GWS could possibly do with McKenzie if they put Patful out to pasture

[dejavoodoo44]

Naismith also has had trouble staying fit for extended periods, and most ruckmen are susceptible to injuries. So even as the 4th choice ruckman, Nankervis has a reasonable chance of senior football next season.

The AFL site is suggesting that Lycett might miss a substantial part of next season (or even the whole season) if he needs a surgical reconstruction of his PCL. With NicNat already out for 2017, West Coast are in serious strife in the ruck next year. Maybe we can offer to send Sinclair back to them as cover. I'd even take Lewis back in return (if he'd come "home").

Hey, I'd even take a mid range draft pick and a few cases of good Margaret River cab sav and chardonnay.

[bloodsbigot]

I really really hate online hawthorn fans, especially the 20-35 year old male type. God i hate them with a passion and hope Jaeger goes to the hwaks and bombs with many injuries.

Even when a discussion is not about the swans these little parasites somehow make it about the swans and then proceed to rubbish us. 2012 and us signing Buddy has really really broken them.

If I ever wanted to start a brawl with anyone in real life it would be them.

The way they carry on about their clubs 'proud' history even though they most likely joined up in 2013 sickens me. Goddamn bandwagoner hypocrites.

[kilroyII]

If I ever wanted to start a brawl with anyone in real life it would be them.

The way they carry on about their clubs 'proud' history even though they most likely joined up in 2013 sickens me. Goddamn bandwagoner hypocrites.

Oh dont worry I have watched them act like ferals at the footy and many times i just wanted to jump over the seats and sock them repeatedly, but alas not worth it over a 45 year bogan hawk supporter. Its pathetic watching Dad and son, both adults, act like feral teenage boys at the footy, especially towards young swan fans. Real tough telling that 11 year old girl that the swans are a bunch of poofs.

[Mug Punter]

AFL changed the rules this year to stop NSW and Qld clubs getting the most out of their academies through cancelling your draft picks above your number of free roster spots. GWS will not be trading their number 7 and 17 for four lower GC picks for extra points because they won't be able to use them. GC's position is not as good as it looks as they actually have too many picks - more than they can use, and they won't be able to easily replace the lower picks with a smaller number of higher picks.

They need to swap multiple picks for players, as not many clubs will now want to take 3-4 lower picks for 1-2 of their higher picks unless they are wanting to draft at those actual positions, rather than use as points for academy and F/S selections.

Or, they need to swap some of their picks for future picks so they can use them all over two years, rather than be forced to lose some of their second round picks altogether or be forced to pay overs for players with those picks.

The rule changes you refer to only affected phantom picks and we all over-reacted about it.

Just to clarify all the AFL have done is limit the number of draft picks you can claim points on to the maximum number of live picks at the start of the draft based on your list size. It stops clubs claiming points on picks that they were simply unable to ever use and is totally reasonable.

GWS have a max list size of 44 next year and I expect they'll have a huge clear out to free up some cap space to about 34 or 35 - that will mean they can use up to nine or so picks for their points.

At the moment GWS have three first rounders and two second round picks and they may pick up another one or two decent picks from trades though I suspect they'll try and trade forward again. So, they have plenty of scope to pick up and use more draft picks for points.

And the obvious "seller" of these points is the Suns because, as you correctly say, they actually have an excess of picks. But I think they'll have no issue with trading these out to get earlier picks and GWS would be the obvious trading partner.

[barry]

If GWS are having a clean out, then we should be standing at the door having first dibs. Buntine cant seem to get a game, and looks pretty good.

I wonder if its worth shipping Mitchel up to Suns in exchange for a top 10 pick. They'd be desperate for a tough inside mid, and we could use some real quality coming through the draft.
A flag and 2 first round picks would be a nice way to finish off the year.

[Blood Tunnel]

I can tell you that Tom is gone to the Hawks!

[aguy]

I can tell you that Tom is gone to the Hawks!

Source ?

[0918330512]

Source ?

I think Blood Tunnel is simply telling us his unsubstantiated opinion. He is the "source" - not helpful at this time of year (by that I mean annoying)

[56-14]

I think he's simply telling us his unsubstantiated opinion

I thought it might be a friend of Mrs Derickx.

[bloodspirit]

I reckon Murray, Melican and Davis should all be going round again.

I think Galloway is the only rookie in danger of being cut. Even there I wouldn't assume it (as I was prepared to do for Sean McLaren last year). Based on exposed form I would say he's gone but it just feels much harder to judge a young, developing ruckman from without. We are not privy to what is happening on the background, his attitude, whether he's improving etc. To be fair, I distinctly recall him winning at least one hit-out on the weekend!

I would consider trading Sinclair but only if we first sign Nank and only for decent value. Sinclair is a very handy back-up ruckman and may yet overtake someone in front of him or be required when Naismith gets injured or allow Tip to play forward in the twilight of his career. I don't think either MacKenzie or a mid-range pick would be fair value. He is a decent ruckman in his prime. Mackenzie is a better player but won't be around as long (although, that said, I just checked and it seems Sinkers is turning 27 next week which surprised me - I thought he was more like 25).