2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[Mug Punter]

Back to drafting, what is the feeling on here about selecting Ben Davis at 49?

Adelaide has been linked with him and have picks 43 and 53, I'd doubt he'd go at 43 but they may take him at 53.

[Ludwig]

Back to drafting, what is the feeling on here about selecting Ben Davis at 49?

Adelaide has been linked with him and have picks 43 and 53, I'd doubt he'd go at 43 but they may take him at 53.

I'd let him go. Serious come home factor. It expands our list while letting another club pick up the tab.

I can hear him now:

I can't live in Adelaide. It's just too cheap. My brother keeps hitting me up for money even though he's making more than Buddy Franklin. The only way to spend money in this town is to take up binge drinking.

[Mug Punter]

Looking closer at the Carlton deal with GWS, it does appear that the initial deal was incorrectly reported, as Gill the Dill has pointed out.

Carlton on-traded the second round pick they got from GWS as part of the Caleb Marchbank trade, not their second rounder. Big difference there as that will be 2017 Pick 35 or 36 they have given up for 2016 picks 48, 66 and 70 is not that crazy, about a line ball deal by points and I guess the Blues needed the picks this year.

Still think that Hawthorn should not have been able to trade their second rounder (i.e. they should have been forced to keep their second rounder per the rules) but it's done now.

The whole thing was handled very poorly. I guess it shows why we got the Mitchell deal done early as it was only because of the nature of the late Marchbank deal that this got done.

[dimelb]

Emma Quayle explains the Hawthorn trade and others:

AFL Trade Period: Making sense of crazy-paced trade week

[bloodspirit]

Emma Quayle explains the Hawthorn trade and others:

AFL Trade Period: Making sense of crazy-paced trade week

Thanks for posting this dimelb. This goes some way to answering the questions and allaying the concerns that have arisen and absolutely needed to be written. It's still not entirely satisfactory but at least I feel a bit more informed now. Thanks to Emma Quayle!

[Ludwig]

It's interesting that Geelong will have to trade in 2 first round picks next year. Maybe they will have to trade Dangerfield and Selwood to Gold Coast.

Clubs with high picks will be reluctant to trade them to Geelong, so it will probably rest with the higher finishing teams to do it. Hawthorn are already out of the equation.

I see this as an opportunity for the Swans to get some additional picks in the 2018 draft. Everyone will know Geelong are over a barrel with this one. For example, we could trade our first rounder for the 2017 second rounder they got from Carlton and their 2018 2nd rounder, depending on how the positions end up. We will probably need points in 2018 for Nick Blakey and a few other likely academy prospects.

[Doctor]

On KB's programme on SEN this morning he was talking about Andrew Bogut's idea for the AFL. He suggests that if a player wants to be traded from a club then that is fine, but the club should have the right to trade them to the club that gives them the best deal. I think it is a great idea - the player gets to move somewhere so they can get game time, etc and the club gets fair compensation.

That's how trading is supposed to work. This "club of choice" mullarkey is ridiculous.

[AnnieH]

Gary Ablett wanted to go back to Geelong and CGS wouldn't let him.
Good on them!!
It seems a contract isn't worth the paper it's signed on these days.

[ScottH]

Emma Quayle explains the Hawthorn trade and others:

AFL Trade Period: Making sense of crazy-paced trade week

"The rules are complicated and can be hard to make easy sense of, especially as clubs keep finding new ways to work them, but any inquiry since future trading was introduced ahead of last year's trade period would have been met with the same response.

First, clubs must make at least two future first-round picks in a four-year period. Those that don't will then face restrictions."

Maybe she can explain how the trade restrictions were imposed on the swans one day??

[Mug Punter]

It's interesting that Geelong will have to trade in 2 first round picks next year. Maybe they will have to trade Dangerfield and Selwood to Gold Coast.

Clubs with high picks will be reluctant to trade them to Geelong, so it will probably rest with the higher finishing teams to do it. Hawthorn are already out of the equation.

I see this as an opportunity for the Swans to get some additional picks in the 2018 draft. Everyone will know Geelong are over a barrel with this one. For example, we could trade our first rounder for the 2017 second rounder they got from Carlton and their 2018 2nd rounder, depending on how the positions end up. We will probably need points in 2018 for Nick Blakey and a few other likely academy prospects.

So, basically re the future first round requirement they have until the end of 2018 to get their two first rounders in. Those clubs that have not taken at least two first rounders in the years 2015-18 will face sanctions, probably the restriction on any future pick trading until they have brought themselves up-to-date and made good any deficit.

All rather complicated and you wonder if they restrictions are of any real benefit.

The notion of the value of a first round pick is also quite variable, clearly pick 1 is worth a lot more than pick 18. Geelong will look to trade in and use a late first rounder next trade period so they are not over a barrel in 2018, so we could help facilitate a trade like the one you mention there.

It will be interesting to see how Nick Blakey develops over the next couple of seasons, I'd expect to see him playing a bit of senior footy for East Sydney next year if his body continues to fill out.

[barracuda]

So, basically re the future first round requirement they have until the end of 2018 to get their two first rounders in. Those clubs that have not taken at least two first rounders in the years 2015-18 will face sanctions, probably the restriction on any future pick trading until they have brought themselves up-to-date and made good any deficit.

All rather complicated and you wonder if they restrictions are of any real benefit.

The notion of the value of a first round pick is also quite variable, clearly pick 1 is worth a lot more than pick 18. Geelong will look to trade in and use a late first rounder next trade period so they are not over a barrel in 2018, so we could help facilitate a trade like the one you mention there.

It will be interesting to see how Nick Blakey develops over the next couple of seasons, I'd expect to see him playing a bit of senior footy for East Sydney next year if his body continues to fill out.

I would have thought he would get a run. It's not a bad comp for the young guys and provides a good contrast to the highly structured academy stuff. The prems comp is often played on pretty small suburban grounds where it is hard to get much space. There are also some typical suburban snipers amongst the teams. Accordingly it is a pretty good transition for the young guys to become comfortable at that level. They need to be quick, and have good peripheral vision to avoid getting thumped. Whilst the standard might not be amazing, there is plenty of loose ball. Prems is a pretty good stepping stone between juniors and NEAFL for the elite players in my view.

Having said that I have often wondered what is better for the young ones; a TAC cup type comp which is highly skilled and structured but a bit bruise free, or the physicality of prems. I'd be interested in what others think.

[bloodspirit]

I like your thinking, Ludwig. But I'm not sure Geelong have to trade in two first rounders next year. If they trade one extra first rounder in for either 2017 or 2018 they will still have taken two first round picks in a 4 year period. It depends just how loose the AFL is getting with its interpretations (or, perhaps, on what the rules actually say. Why aren't these rules published? So much of this stuff isn't as transparent as it should be for no clear reason).

[bloodspirit]

Gary Ablett wanted to go back to Geelong and CGS wouldn't let him.
Good on them!!
It seems a contract isn't worth the paper it's signed on these days.

Sorry to say it but I think you've contradicted yourself or at least overreached. Contracts' value do seem to be diminishing but, in this case, the contract proved its worth when it enabled GCS to point blank refuse Ablett his request. Like Carlton with Gibbs.

[Dosser]

Gary Ablett wanted to go back to Geelong and CGS wouldn't let him.
Good on them!!
It seems a contract isn't worth the paper it's signed on these days.

Media beat up. There is no news at the moment so if someone sneezes then the hacks write that there is a flu epidemic. Let's not forget that there is no way Geelong could fit him in their cap unless they got rid of Dangerfield.

[Dooloo]

List changes - sydneyswans.com.au

Swans cut 3 more