2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[wolftone57]

Delisted Swan Xavier Richards likely to find new home - AFL.com.au

Mullen is getting desperate to salvage some form of currency on X. Can't imagine there was a whole lot of interest to begin with though as no club made a play.

I love how they say 'he established himself in the best 22'. Yep with no Reid, a developing Dawson and an out of form Towers & Harry Cunningham.

[wolftone57]

The whole XR delisting matter is bizarre! I know Hannas used the term bizarre! in his twitter account the first time XR requested to be traded. My theory is that he held contract talks with the Swans and they were unimpressed with his altitude and rather than persist with him, they thought it would be better to let him go.

Was he high when they had contract talks? naughty boy.

[ernie koala]

That aside, I don't mind signing Towers. After seeing what happened to XR, he probably was happy to have a job. I think he makes a good depth player now that he's 26. He's the forward line equivalent to what Jeremy Laidler is to defence.

Really? On par with Laidler....I don't think so.

He's a dud of the highest order...Can't tackle, can't make a decision under pressure, turns the ball over, gets knocked off the ball with ease, is flakey in front of goal...

How does being 26 years old make him a good depth player?

To the contrary....

IMO, he was a lousy depth player last year and, given his age, is unlikely to suddenly find something we haven't already seen.

[wolftone57]

I wanted X to stay.......If Buddy and Reid are out injured we really need an emerging tall forward like X.......we don't play a high uncontested game plan like the Hawks which is less key player dependant

I wanted Towers to stay also as we need him in particular for certain games and match ups.......especially when we have a few injuries strike.........we are very reliant on only a few players in our squad who can play outside mid rotation

oh well

1 out of 2 aint bad

Come in Dawson when Reid is not around. I think Jordie will develop quite nicely.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Really? On par with Laidler....I don't think so.

He's a dud of the highest order...Can't tackle, can't make a decision under pressure, turns the ball over, gets knocked off the ball with ease, is flakey in front of goal...

How does being 26 years old make him a good depth player?

To the contrary....

IMO, he was a lousy depth player last year and, given his age, is unlikely to suddenly find something we haven't already seen.

+1. He's done very little in the senior games he's played, he has no strengths (that he uses on game day) and at his age he won't improve. He's a classic list clogger. Even BJ has more upside.

[Velour&Ruffles]

There is a bit of clarification about the status of 'hidden picks' in an AFL website article today, as below. It sounds as if Maltopia is correct in that the exemption to the new rule will only be applicable for this year (and only to a club that traded in future picks in 2015).

"The AFL this year changed rules relating to the 'hidden picks' used by clubs to bank draft points, but the Giants can have an additional three picks due to an allowance given to clubs who traded in future picks in 2015 because when those deals were made the clubs didn't know the rules were set to be altered."

These Phuquers absolutely drive me to distraction. When we made the Buddy deal, there was no plan to alter the rules around COLA and we didn't know there was a plan to alter those rules (because there wasn't one). But that didn't stop those bastards from changing the rules underneath us, after we'd sized our offer to Buddy and locked in his and other contracts (e.g. Mitchell) based on the then-prevailing rules about COLA - and they did it out of nothing but spite (because we managed to frustrate the AFL's desire for Buddy to go to their unwanted, deformed love child) and a craven compulsion to appease the Squawking Toorak Trillionaire. Of course we were going to lose other players as a result - that was precisely what was intended. But the AFL are not prepared to visit the same consequences on their deformed love child and its passionate army of 11 genuine supporters.

Nor did we know that there was a rule that could bar teams from the draft for breaking no rules. Yet that happened to us too.

These Phuquers are such hypocrites and liars, yet I'll bet you nobody in the football media will even think about the brazen double standard here, let alone think (or dare?) to ask a question about it.

They make this Tish up, based on whatever suits them in that particular five minutes and their clearly well-founded conviction that nobody will actually call them to account. I am so close to giving up following this game it isn't funny. It is quite simply corrupt.

[Ludwig]

Really? On par with Laidler....I don't think so.

He's a dud of the highest order...Can't tackle, can't make a decision under pressure, turns the ball over, gets knocked off the ball with ease, is flakey in front of goal...

How does being 26 years old make him a good depth player?

To the contrary....

IMO, he was a lousy depth player last year and, given his age, is unlikely to suddenly find something we haven't already seen.

What I call a depth player is:

1. Someone who is not in your best 22 or should not be in your best 22, because if they are, then your best 22 isn't good enough.
2. Not a developing player, i.e. usually a young player with less than 4 years at the club and is still improving enough to be good enough one day to make the best 22.
3. Too old and not good enough to find a place at another club, so they will stay for a low salary since the only other option is not playing AFL football.
4. A better option to come into the side than most of the developing players when injury strikes and are short of an experience player.

I've been very critical of Towers and don't think he does as good a job a Laidler, but both meet the above criteria. You can only have 2 or 3 of these types as every senior spot is valuable. Any others become list cloggers.

Given the current state of affairs, Towers is a better option on our senior list than to upgrade another rookie and draft one more rookie in his place. If XR and Davis had remained on our list I might have felt differently.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I see a list clogger as someone who:
?? Is a fringe player or a player who is highly unlikely to play seniors.
?? Is not significantly superior to the team mates that he is competing against. In other words, does he contribute significantly more to the team than a youngster.
?? Is highly unlikely to improve.
?? Is taking the position (currently or in the near future) of younger players with greater potential.
?? Offers no other benefits to the team/club, such as leadership, morale, increased membership, etc.
Towers ticks all of these boxes.

[CureTheSane]

I see upside in Towers.
I'm glad we re-signed him.
Time will tell.

[SeanM]

I like Towers. I think he will be useful across the season. He played some good this year and we don't have a lot of attacking options.

[Ludwig]

I see a list clogger as someone who:
?? Is a fringe player or a player who is highly unlikely to play seniors.
?? Is not significantly superior to the team mates that he is competing against. In other words, does he contribute significantly more to the team than a youngster.
?? Is highly unlikely to improve.
?? Is taking the position (currently or in the near future) of younger players with greater potential.
?? Offers no other benefits to the team/club, such as leadership, morale, increased membership, etc.
Towers ticks all of these boxes.

hmmm

A depth player is a list clogger with a contract.

[rojo]

I have no problem with Towers being kept on. I too thought he played some good footy at times this year. I would give him a game before Harry C. Neither of them stood out in the Reserves GF which was quite disappointing re their futures.

Richards was probably egged on by his buddy Tom Mitchell. Come and join me in Melbourne. Let's face it if X stayed on at the Swans the return of Reid means that he would not be in the best 22. Like with Nankervis, I suppose it was worth a punt - except that no Melbourne team wanted him. If he gets picked up he will probably be in the same position he would have been in with the Swans, in the VFL as a depth player. If he gets picked up!!

[Mug Punter]

I have no problem with Towers being kept on. I too thought he played some good footy at times this year. I would give him a game before Harry C. Neither of them stood out in the Reserves GF which was quite disappointing re their futures.

Richards was probably egged on by his buddy Tom Mitchell. Come and join me in Melbourne. Let's face it if X stayed on at the Swans the return of Reid means that he would not be in the best 22. Like with Nankervis, I suppose it was worth a punt - except that no Melbourne team wanted him. If he gets picked up he will probably be in the same position he would have been in with the Swans, in the VFL as a depth player. If he gets picked up!!

If Xav does not get a gig in Melbourne then he will have been extraordinarily badly advised by his manager. And I suspect that his manager is hard work and the club took a dim view to him knocking back an offer. I can understand why he is leaving as I think his offer would have been quite modest but if he ends up without a club he'll look very very silly.

I'm happy Towers has re-signed as I still think he is developing in football terms, yes I know he is 26 but he has was a late starter to senior football at all levels. He has the potential, as yet largely untapped, to be a much better player than Xav in my books. And had he left then I would have some concerns re our depth.

As well as getting some good picks I also think the trade period will have freed up some decent cap space so I look forward to seeing us use some of that to secure Heeney, JPK and Jones to new deals over the summer as soon at the muppets from AFL HQ can decide on what the salary cap for next season is.

[SeanM]

I don't have any resentment towards Richards. He has been at our club for a while and struggled to break through. Midway through the season he was looking at being delisted without much of a senior career to attract other clubs.

He played in the grand final and had a good run of games, so this was the moment to attract interest from a weaker Melbourne club where he could have a better chance to establish himself.

If Sam Reid stays fit, then there was a chance he could have spent most of the next two years in the reserves. I still think he could be a good fit for one of the lower table Melbourne clubs.

[Mug Punter]

I have a feeling we may go for a DFA, possibly some ready made ruck cover. At the right price I'd consider Fitzpatrick from the Hawks although that would mean we'd either go to a list of 39 if we want to take our four draft picks or we would only upgrade four. Given we haven't said anything about Foote being delisted and given that Melican is the only third year rookie allowed I reckon we can assume Foote will be upgraded. Leaving Marsh on the rookie list would be harsh but perhaps he still needs to earn a permanent list spot with another improved year, it's there for the taking I feel.