2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[bungwahl]

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.

I think we played the Mitchell trade as well as we could. The risk was trying to play hard ball with them and ending up in the same position as Gold Coast did. We knew we'd get slight unders, but we got it done and took their first rounder early on.

Hard to see what else we could have done considering the cap squeeze. No point bringing in players for the sake of it. If they're not genuine best 22, then we have enough youngsters coming through.

[AnnieH]

I looked them up in my Funk & Wagnall's

I have a full set of encyclopedia brittanica (circa 1973) if you want to double check.
The population of Australia is 13,000,000.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Once a player puts their hand up, they have pretty much mentally left the club.
If X doesn't end up on the scrap heap, he'll spend the rest of his career in the ressies.

[chuckie]

I thought I read some where that the academy bidding on draft day changed this year.
For every draft pick you use to make up the points required to get the players you want, you must have that amount of space on your list.
Example if you use 3 picks to get one player you must have 3 spots available.
Does anyone know if this is correct if so GWS may need to delist some more players.

[crackedactor]

I have a full set of encyclopedia brittanica (circa 1973) if you want to double check.
The population of Australia is 13,000,000.

- - - Updated - - -




Once a player puts their hand up, they have pretty much mentally left the club.
If X doesn't end up on the scrap heap, he'll spend the rest of his career in the ressies.

Not necessarily so!!! I remember ROK putting his hand up to go to Hawthorn, deal fell through and the following few years, he played some handy football for the Swans. It maybe the kick up the pants XR needs? I am not as good as I thought!

[magic.merkin]

I think we played the Mitchell trade as well as we could. The risk was trying to play hard ball with them and ending up in the same position as Gold Coast did. We knew we'd get slight unders, but we got it done and took their first rounder early on.

Hard to see what else we could have done considering the cap squeeze. No point bringing in players for the sake of it. If they're not genuine best 22, then we have enough youngsters coming through.

Exactly, also if he enters the draft very few clubs would dare pick him as they know:
he doesn't want to be there.
will sign for minimum length and try hawks again, messing with their list and cap management
they can't afford his contract to begin with

He'd be fairly certain of getting there anyway one way or another. Any other club getting involved just makes it more ugly.

We treated Mitchell fairly and did the right thing by him and our remaining contracted players. No one wants a playing group unsettled by seeing how poorly they can get treated when their contracts up and if they want to leave.

[Dan]

Not necessarily so!!! I remember ROK putting his hand up to go to Hawthorn, deal fell through and the following few years, he played some handy football for the Swans. It maybe the kick up the pants XR needs? I am not as good as I thought!

Soooo... X to win a Norm Smith????

[KTigers]

X is obviously not happy how it's panning out for him right now. He made the 22 for a GF in a seriously good team. That says
he can play IMO. Maybe his bro not being there anymore has effected his mindset a bit. Hard to say.

[Dosser]

X is obviously not happy how it's panning out for him right now. He made the 22 for a GF in a seriously good team. That says
he can play IMO. Maybe his bro not being there anymore has effected his mindset a bit. Hard to say.

X spent years on our list as a rookie with bugger-all money. He got elevated and earned a bit more, then he plays in a GF, so his manager probably thought that it isnt going to get any better than this - they need to strike while the iron is hot. Unfortunately, the other clubs dont see value in X, as they already have a few of his type of player. I guess he is now destined to play the understudy to other players unless he improves another 20% again.

- - - Updated - - -

I just realised I have posted in this forum more than 1700 times. What have I done with my life?!?

[Ludwig]

I was wrong about not being able to trade future 1st rounders 2 years running. It is in fact 2 out of 4 years. I must be getting paranoid about he AFL doing us in.

[Dan]

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.

Well if no trade occurred he could of nominated for the pre season draft and set a contract that only Hawthorn would want to take. Exactly as Tippett did when we signed him.

[Maltopia]

I thought I read some where that the academy bidding on draft day changed this year.
For every draft pick you use to make up the points required to get the players you want, you must have that amount of space on your list.
Example if you use 3 picks to get one player you must have 3 spots available.
Does anyone know if this is correct if so GWS may need to delist some more players.

This rule was announced several weeks ago. I have also seen somewhere that this was being delayed by a year because clubs had made trading decisions last year re future draft picks based on the existing rules.

One of those clubs being the AFL's monstrosity love-child.

If the rule is brought in after this coming draft, there will be a lot less trading of more lower picks worth more points for fewer higher picks worth less points. This is because teams will lose the extra picks (and points) if they don't have the same number of (or more) spots on their senior list at the start of the draft.

[dimelb]

X spent years on our list as a rookie with bugger-all money. He got elevated and earned a bit more, then he plays in a GF, so his manager probably thought that it isnt going to get any better than this - they need to strike while the iron is hot. Unfortunately, the other clubs dont see value in X, as they already have a few of his type of player. I guess he is now destined to play the understudy to other players unless he improves another 20% again.

- - - Updated - - -

I just realised I have posted in this forum more than 1700 times. What have I done with my life?!?

I think you're probably right about Xav - he needs to do more, and I think he can.

And on the other matter, the combination of footy enthusiasm and a slightly wicked sense of humour is always welcome.

[Meg]

I thought I read some where that the academy bidding on draft day changed this year.
For every draft pick you use to make up the points required to get the players you want, you must have that amount of space on your list.
Example if you use 3 picks to get one player you must have 3 spots available.
Does anyone know if this is correct if so GWS may need to delist some more players.

A sports writer on 'The Roar' said some weeks ago that this would not apply for academy clubs this year (because clubs took decisions last year based on the previous rules). I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere else but the way GWS has gone about accumulating picks suggests this is correct.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Six changes to Swans list - sydneyswans.com.au

Could Galloway be re drafted ?

[longmile]

Chris Dawes anyone? lol