2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[Crusty]

Define "OLD"

By the way, what's "google"?
Edit:
You got in before me, Auntie

[dejavoodoo44]

whats google ?


I still use Netscape Navigator

What's Netscape Navigator?

[Auntie.Gerald]

deja you will have to google it

[sprite]

I looked them up in my Funk & Wagnall's

[Crusty]

Interesting thoughts. I guess it also isnt beyond possibility for a club to trade for worse picks if the club that benefits also agrees to paying a % of a particular player's salary from the club providing the better picks. This would trade picks for salary cap relief.

As I understand you, the trade will be along the lines of:
Club A gives Club B a second round pick.
Club B "lends" Club A $200k of their salary cap, for, say, 2 years.
I haven't looked at the rules, so I don't know.
Clubs can trade picks, and players, and sometimes part of a traded player's wages are still met by the original club. Whether the AFL will allow it without a player being traded is another story.

It also means that the max $ a Club can trade is 5% of the cap.
Bottom tier clubs spending 95% of their cap can then "sell" 5% for early draft picks, and thus accelerate their rise up the ladder. Top tier clubs can get another 5% to pay their stars.
The question is whether this would have the effect of entrenching top clubs at the top.

[Foreign Legion]

I looked them up in my Funk & Wagnall's

I prefer AltaVista myself

[Ludwig]

I've learned a lot from this trade period. The rules of engagement are changing so fast, it's hard to keep up. Here are a few of my observations:

1. Salary cap is king. It's not the only restriction on list management, but it's becoming far and away the key factor.
2. Getting as many of the best players possible doesn't work, because you can't retain them all, and will lose some for a pittance. Look at GWS for example.
3. We've got 4 key players (JPK, Reid, Heeney and Jones) coming out of contract next year and that had to play a part in what we did this year.
4. We had to let Tom Mitchell go, because we have too many top end players who will demand significant salaries.
5. We managed to get through the 2017 salary cap squeeze without too much damage. With only 2018 left on Tippett's big contract, we should be okay. Usually you can manage new contracts around a single year bottleneck. There should be at least 2 mil more in the cap by 2017 than 2016.
6. A club has to be a destination club to do well and sustain a high level of competitiveness. We have a top reputation as a place players want to be. Even those that leave tend to praise the club. This should hold us in good stead over a very long time.
7. You want to keep your best 22 and have a good crop of upcoming players on relatively low salaries. Players in the 22-24 year age bracket who are not getting games are bound to leave. It's better to let them go before they come out of contract when the club still has some good bargaining power.
8. Hewett, Lloyd, Smith, Robbo, Cunningham (contracted to 2019), Tippett and Sinclair are all possible trades next year if not re-signed to longer contracts. The few I've left out, like Mills and Aliir must be kept. The first 2 are among my favourites, but that's the the way AFL business operates these days.
9. List management is a very tough job these days. Team balance as well as projected team balance several years into the future must be taken into consideration, along with what future sides are likely to cost, which players can be retained and which ones will go.
10. The academy intake is a big advantage for the academy clubs as they help planning a few years out, e.g. we should be able to project Nick Blakey into the 2018 intake, and I think there may be a few other top prospects for that year. Shame that we don't have the academy number of players that GWS have, or even the QLD clubs, but can't complain after getting Heeney and Mills.

There's a lot that goes into list management and some of the moves we make are not easy to comprehend as we don't have the kind of info available to our list management guys. I think we've done a pretty good job in recent years. Tippett followed by Buddy, then losing the COLA, put a lot of pressure on the club to kept the team together and get us through until Tippo's contract ends. We got to 2 Grand Finals. We are almost there and I think we are looking okay.

[Ludwig]

I don't know if it is widely known, but the AFL made a rule waiver relating to restricting clubs from trading their 1st round pick in 2 successive years when Geelong were allowed to do so in acquiring Zach Tuohy from Carlton.

But the AFL did not see fit to waive the trading ban for us, even though the whole world knew it was both vindictive, unwarranted and ridiculous.

[magic.merkin]

I don't know if it is widely known, but the AFL made a rule waiver relating to restricting clubs from trading their 1st round pick in 2 successive years when Geelong were allowed to do so in acquiring Zach Tuohy from Carlton.

But the AFL did not see fit to waive the trading ban for us, even though the whole world knew it was both vindictive, unwarranted and ridiculous.

I thought on SEN Geelongs list manager said, it was with regards to having to take the selections over a 4 year period. They still have next year to use the selection and not break the rules.

[barry]

The are rules for some and rules for others.

[magic.merkin]

I don't know if it is widely known, but the AFL made a rule waiver relating to restricting clubs from trading their 1st round pick in 2 successive years when Geelong were allowed to do so in acquiring Zach Tuohy from Carlton.

But the AFL did not see fit to waive the trading ban for us, even though the whole world knew it was both vindictive, unwarranted and ridiculous.

I thought on SEN Geelongs list manager said, it was with regards to having to take the selections over a 4 year period. They still have next year to use the selection and not break the rules.

As per:
The future-pick puzzle: Trading rules explained - AFL.com.au

"Geelong and Collingwood did not have a first-round draft pick in 2016 and will not have one in their hands when they enter the 2016 trade period either, having used a future first-round draft pick last year to secure Lachie Henderson from Carlton and Adam Treloar from Greater Western Sydney.

The two clubs will have to make two first-round draft picks before the end of 2018, potentially limiting their immediate options at the trade table this season unless they can trade their way back into the first round.

Under the rules the four-year period is rolling, meaning clubs will find it difficult to go more than two consecutive years without first-round draft picks."

[Auntie.Gerald]

Ludwig I think the lesson I learnt this draft was that because of the successful application at the back end of 2015 and then 2016 by the young players performing in their debut year it has allowed the swans to dive back in for an early pick draft strategy.

Conversely if the below players didn't live up to our hopes then the coaching panel would have no doubt had to trade in a player or two

Longmire in one of his recent chats praised kinnear for such successful recent recruiting and players coming on so quickly This year especially!!

Robbo
Mills
Paps
Hewett
AA
Naismith
X
Swampy
Foote
Nannygate

No doubt the swans feel that the depth of rose, Towers , Brandon, Robbo, foote, swampy, Newman, hiscox, hairdoo, talia etc can easily cover any future med to long term injuries of the best 22

Our depth is strong for 2017

[ernie koala]

I have to say listening to Tom Harley, you'd think we did really well at the trade table...

"We went into the trade period wanting to improve our draft position, and we certainly did!"

I realise it's just blabber but...Let's be honest, how could we not improve our draft position?

We've given up an A grade mid who has his career in front of him.

And a promising young ruckman, also 22, who is physical and skilled around the ground.

We got the bare minimum, pick 14 and pick 46, for those two. And other than a bit of shuffling of picks, that was it.

It's a C from me.

[magic.merkin]

Seems fine to me in a trade week outcome sense (salary cap-management aside) which is what he's commenting on.

Both exiting players wanted more than we could offer. One money and one playing time. So we got what we could with little leverage (not contracted). We then improved those picks especially to get inside the top 10. We must have players we expect to be between 7 and 10 that we desire highly.

We didn't win trade week thats for sure. It was solid enough given what they had to work with. I'd be happy for another Mills/Papley first year scenario as opposed to a traded player Sinclair scenario (you can quite easily argue Sinclairs contract killed our hopes with Nankervis)... The proof will be in the pudding, it can go either way.

[ernie koala]

So we got what we could with little leverage (not contracted).

This is the bit I don't agree with. Didn't matter whether Mitchell was contracted or not.

He wanted to go to Hawthorn and Hawthorn wanted him...

That wasn't going to happen without the Swans agreeing to a trade...

We had plenty of leverage, but for whatever reason, we didn't drive a hard enough bargain.....IMO.