2017 trading, drafting, list management

[mattybloods]

This is an interesting development:

Category: | Herald Sun

?Sydney holds No.14 and would deal that selection to the Dogs if it was able to secure an extra 2018 first-round selection in addition to either 25 or 30.?

Having 2 first round picks next year in a better draft sounds good to me!

[Billericay]

Having 2 first round picks next year in a better draft sounds good to me!

I would think swapping a 2017 pick for a 2018 pick would work in our favour. It does imply we aren't that excited about going to the draft this year. There has been talk of other clubs - Saints in particular, wanting to swap their #8 pick for 2 picks. Think West Coast are looking to offload their 13 pick too. If we can get something for Murray / Robbo / Tippo then that might work for us. Could be a lot of pick swapping Thursday morning.

[waswan]

Doubt many want Robbo, he would possible give a 3rd pick a 5-8spot selection upgrade, funny if his manager is as dumb as X's and not actually feeling the market first
Im not sure what we are thinking we would get for Murray, 0 games never even looked like getting an opportunity in 2017 so I don't know why we think we could play hard ball ?
That deal is south of the 3rd round for me.

[Go Swannies]

Give up on the Tippo trade talk. As Harley was quoted in the article earlier he never was - and still is not- in play this trade period.

[707]

Maybe a pick swap with Gold Coast who need to break a deal with Freo. Freo want their pick 2 for Weller but never going to happen.

We give GC pick 14 for their pick 24 or 26 plus GC next years second rounder which would be low 20s as you'd reckon they will finish bottom 3/4. Might even be able to upgrade/swap our pick 51 to pick 39 as well?

GC could then give Freo pick 14 (what they picked Weller at in 2014) plus pick 21 or whatever they extract from Geelong for Ablett.

[Billericay]

Maybe a pick swap with Gold Coast who need to break a deal with Freo. Freo want their pick 2 for Weller but never going to happen.

We give GC pick 14 for their pick 24 or 26 plus GC next years second rounder which would be low 20s as you'd reckon they will finish bottom 3/4. Might even be able to upgrade/swap our pick 51 to pick 39 as well?

GC could then give Freo pick 14 (what they picked Weller at in 2014) plus pick 21 or whatever they extract from Geelong for Ablett.

Why would we turn a first round pick into two second round picks. We want to go up the draft not down. Better would be us trading 14 and something else for pick 2, but they'd be mad to let that go.

[The Big Cat]

Having 2 first round picks next year in a better draft sounds good to me!

It's in the club's interest to know NOW whether Nick Blakey will nominate the Swans in next year's draft. This will help dictate whether we should be accumulating points for next year so as we can get Blakey plus have some room to look at others in that superior draft. I think if we do a deal in the next couple of days to get picks for next year we can assume that Blakey is a good chance to come to us.

[waswan]

With his Dad in a Snr Role at the club I dare say the Club know........probably only took a 50-100K pay rise to Dad to confirm he will be in Sydney

[Meg]

It's in the club's interest to know NOW whether Nick Blakey will nominate the Swans in next year's draft.

As per previous discussion (to which no one seems to have a definitive answer) will Blakey get a choice if the Swans nominate him as an academy player? We know (via the rules) that he gets a choice via the F/S route - but there is nothing in the rules that says he gets a choice about the academy route.

Just because some in the media have talked about Blakey having three clubs he might choose amongst doesn?t make it necessarily correct. Few footy reporters bother to do original research.

Put it another way - could Heeney or Mills have declined to be nominated as a Swans academy player for the draft - and instead entered the general draft?

[The Big Cat]

Put it another way - could Heeney or Mills have declined to be nominated as a Swans academy player for the draft - and instead entered the general draft?

My understanding is yes they could go into the ND, they weren't bound to accept a Swans nomination. Wasn't this an issue when Richard Colless seemed to upset Paul Roos when there was a suggestion that Melbourne wanted to draft one of the academy lads (his name escapes me) who ultimately was put on our rookie list, did a knee and was delisted?

[waswan]

The can decline but Sydney still have the right to grab them.

But back to the original point, this is why the decision is better known in advance

[mattybloods]

It's in the club's interest to know NOW whether Nick Blakey will nominate the Swans in next year's draft. This will help dictate whether we should be accumulating points for next year so as we can get Blakey plus have some room to look at others in that superior draft.

Would be good to know but either way I think we're better off having 2 first round draft pics next year. Unless we're targeting a specific player with our first rounder this year I'd be happy to trade it

[liz]

My understanding is yes they could go into the ND, they weren't bound to accept a Swans nomination. Wasn't this an issue when Richard Colless seemed to upset Paul Roos when there was a suggestion that Melbourne wanted to draft one of the academy lads (his name escapes me) who ultimately was put on our rookie list, did a knee and was delisted?

You're thinking of Lloyd Perris. He was a scholarship player, not an academy player, so was operating under a slightly different set of rules. Nonetheless, Perris did NOT have the right to refuse a place on the Swans' senior list, had they offered that to him. They didn't. They offered him a spot on the rookie list only, and he was within his rights to decline that and nominate for the draft instead.

I think, if a player did do that but wasn't selected in the national draft, the host club then had the right to automatically put them on the rookie list. It never came to that with Perris, though, because he accepted the rookie list spot.

My reading of the academy rules (with a bit of common sense overlaid) is the same as Meg's. Participation in the academies isn't compulsory, but once a player signs up, he has some obligations to his host club. That should translate into him not having an option as to whether he is nominated by that host club as a potential academy selection (unlike FS players who've taken nothing from their father's club).

[Nico]

I think we should always keep a first round pick in any draft.

[The Big Cat]

Reading the rules, it seems nothing is said about academy players who are also F/S. The F/S rules talk about choices, but don't even mention players who are also in academies. The academy rules don't mention F/S players at all. I think the media just find it easier to say he has a three-way choice rather than researching if the academy nomination can be refused.

I think it is all academic anyway. I can't see the club standing over its own Director of Coaching's son if he wants to go the North or Brisbane. Unless of course Blakey Snr wants him to stay against his will!

Reading an article on some obscure website (with probably little real intel) the author suggested that he had taken virtually no part in North's F/S program and that Brisbane may surprise everyone as his preferred club!