2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • rb4x
    Regular in the Side
    • Dec 2007
    • 968

    I think most of us have been looking at the Hannebury trade the wrong way. If we say the Hanners went for pick 39 which is still not good but OK if compared with Rohan who went for pick 61. The Swans were left with picks 26, 28, 33, 38, 39, 40, and 70 with points attached. Seven picks and you can only take as many picks into the draft as players you are prepared to take. At present we have five players off our senior list and two players on which equates to taking three players in the draft or via trading. We have too many picks as a result of trading our pick 13 for three picks. Obviously we were planning to use one or two picks to get Vandenburg which fell through and one or two in getting Langdon which also might not happen.

    It was then very desirable to turn pick 28 in the middle of the second round into a 2019 second round pick which St Kilda helped us out with though of course we packaged this with Hanners for pick 39. It obviously would have been better if we could have prised St Kilda out of their pick 4 but they were not coming to the party on that and we had blown our chances by trading our pick 13 by this stage so pick 39 was the best St Kilda could offer.

    Still a bad trade as we should have hung out for 2019 second round for Hanners and kept 28 but I guess we were just a bit too keen to move Hanners on. I will get over our poor trading eventually.

    Comment

    • Ludwig
      Veterans List
      • Apr 2007
      • 9359

      Originally posted by rb4x
      If we say the Hanners went for pick 39 which is still not good but OK if compared with Rohan who went for pick 61.
      If the Rohan trade looks bad, how about North trading Clarke for that same pick 61? In the end, we just swapped Rohan for Clarke, which seems a win for us.

      Suspect that Brad Scott was on vacation and Chris was surreptitiously filling in at North. He just wanted to get Rohan to Geelong for a cheep price and sacrificed Ryan Clarke in the process. Well, why not? It's not his club anyway.

      Comment

      • barry
        Veterans List
        • Jan 2003
        • 8499

        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        Cool, so if you think he will get back to AA form, post it here so we can all recognise where you stand.

        I don't think he is capable of getting to AA form at all. I'm not sure he would be in our best 22 next year.
        I think he will be injured early next year and miss a massive chunk and offloading him will be seen in hindsight as a masterstroke.
        Right now I think we got unders for him based on current facts and potential and ignoring my personal thoughts
        But I'm hoping that at the end of the trade period, the big picture indicates a win for the Swans overall.

        Feel free to bookmark this and repost if Hanners stars at the Saints and say "I told you so"
        Cure, it's not a pissing contest between posters of 'i told you so'.

        If the club trades away a brownlow medalist and a player who goes on to be AA again, then that is incompetent list management. Pure and simple. No buts or maybe's.
        Last edited by liz; 13 October 2018, 03:23 PM. Reason: Please don't try to evade the swear filter. Just type the word and let the filter make its decision

        Comment

        • stevoswan
          Veterans List
          • Sep 2014
          • 8555

          Originally posted by CureTheSane
          I meant (sarcastically) that they would all be very sad about the forum posters being unhappy
          Got ya! .....and I agree!

          Comment

          • stevoswan
            Veterans List
            • Sep 2014
            • 8555

            Originally posted by barry
            If hanners gets back to his AA form, it will be worse than the Mitchell trade.
            Massive 'if' Barry but one thing IS certain......we can always rely on you to come up with a massive negative.

            Comment

            • Markwebbos
              Veterans List
              • Jul 2016
              • 7186

              Originally posted by rb4x
              I think most of us have been looking at the Hannebury trade the wrong way. If we say the Hanners went for pick 39 which is still not good but OK if compared with Rohan who went for pick 61. The Swans were left with picks 26, 28, 33, 38, 39, 40, and 70 with points attached. Seven picks and you can only take as many picks into the draft as players you are prepared to take. At present we have five players off our senior list and two players on which equates to taking three players in the draft or via trading. We have too many picks as a result of trading our pick 13 for three picks. Obviously we were planning to use one or two picks to get Vandenburg which fell through and one or two in getting Langdon which also might not happen.

              It was then very desirable to turn pick 28 in the middle of the second round into a 2019 second round pick which St Kilda helped us out with though of course we packaged this with Hanners for pick 39. It obviously would have been better if we could have prised St Kilda out of their pick 4 but they were not coming to the party on that and we had blown our chances by trading our pick 13 by this stage so pick 39 was the best St Kilda could offer.

              Still a bad trade as we should have hung out for 2019 second round for Hanners and kept 28 but I guess we were just a bit too keen to move Hanners on. I will get over our poor trading eventually.
              That’s a very astute observation

              Comment

              • dejavoodoo44
                Veterans List
                • Apr 2015
                • 8598

                Originally posted by Ludwig
                If the Rohan trade looks bad, how about North trading Clarke for that same pick 61? In the end, we just swapped Rohan for Clarke, which seems a win for us.

                Suspect that Brad Scott was on vacation and Chris was surreptitiously filling in at North. He just wanted to get Rohan to Geelong for a cheep price and sacrificed Ryan Clarke in the process. Well, why not? It's not his club anyway.
                So, are you saying that Brad is actually the evil twin?
                Personally, I could make a case for either one.

                Comment

                • Ludwig
                  Veterans List
                  • Apr 2007
                  • 9359

                  Originally posted by dejavoodoo44
                  So, are you saying that Brad is actually the evil twin?
                  Personally, I could make a case for either one.
                  I think they're a tag team. I think Chris told Brad he would make it up to him later if he just gave us Clarke for nothing so he could get the Rohan deal done. The both have other deals to work on and just wanted to get this one out of the way. I'll be watching closely after the player trade period closes and the pick swap phase kicks in, just to see if Geelong send some draft pick value to North.

                  Comment

                  • Auntie.Gerald
                    Veterans List
                    • Oct 2009
                    • 6477

                    Ryan clarke is solid but he is a bit behind the players below at his club but r Clarke had difficult roles generally running with the dangerous HFF or wingers so excellent training and initiation into the AFL

                    Plus Clarke was at HBF or Wing or sometimes middle so tough start

                    North’s midfield and HBF line was pretty good last two years and we’re strong in possession and Cunnington, Higgins, Anderson were more the go to guys with the others in support in the middle

                    Zeibel
                    Cunnington
                    Higgins
                    Anderson
                    Dumont
                    Atley

                    Then the exciting emerging midfielders
                    Ahern
                    Simpkin

                    Plus the newbies
                    Polec
                    Pittard
                    Hall?
                    ?

                    I think clarke looks very keen though and macca will no doubt be a great help

                    I wonder if Ryan arke may initially get the in and underrunwith role that Hewett had

                    that may free Hewett a little more to play his Toby Greene HFF role he played a year or so ago

                    Ie posting up, taking that short lead mark outside 50 and then distributing on the HFF

                    I thought Hewett was very good at this role 2016/17 and would help our entries in to our forward line even better

                    Either way Hewett is a gem and played his runwith role brilliantly in the mids this season
                    Last edited by Auntie.Gerald; 13 October 2018, 02:51 PM.
                    "be tough, only when it gets tough"

                    Comment

                    • CureTheSane
                      Carpe Noctem
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 5032

                      Originally posted by barry
                      Cure, it's not a pissing contest between posters of 'i told you so'.

                      If the club trades away a brownlow medalist and a player who goes on to be AA again, then that is incompetent list management. Pure and simple. No buts or maybe's.
                      It's not a pissing contest and you obviously didn't see the smilie face at the end of that line.
                      Maybe I should have use the tongue smilie. Semantics.

                      Anyway, your statement above only holds water if your contention right now is that you personally expect Hanners to get back to AA form.
                      You'd be the only one here, and kudos to you if that is actually what you think and it happens.

                      In the other hand, if that is just a random statement based on some remote possibility that he can get AA form back, then it's irrelevant as you could say that about Rohan, and any other player we traded.

                      I could say right now "if Rohan develops AA form or wins the Saints B&F then it was incompetent list management.

                      Or "if Towers is drafted by some team and plays 15+ games next season and is an instant mark down for their best 22 week in week out than that was incompetent list management by the Swans.

                      So your statement is true, and so are my statements.
                      But mine are irrelevant because it's just me purely speculating.
                      So what I'm getting at, is whether you are happy to lose Hanners and what you think would have been a fairer deal (single pick trade)
                      Last edited by liz; 13 October 2018, 03:21 PM. Reason: Please don't try to evade the swear filter. Just type the word and let the filter make its decision
                      The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                      Comment

                      • goswannies
                        Senior Player
                        • Sep 2007
                        • 3049

                        Originally posted by CureTheSane
                        It's not a pissing contest and you obviously didn't see the smilie face at the end of that line.
                        Maybe I should have use the tongue smilie. Semantics.

                        Anyway, your statement above only holds water if your contention right now is that you personally expect Hanners to get back to AA form.
                        You'd be the only one here, and kudos to you if that is actually what you think and it happens.

                        In the other hand, if that is just a random statement based on some remote possibility that he can get AA form back, then it's irrelevant as you could say that about Rohan, and any other player we traded.

                        I could say right now "if Rohan develops AA form or wins the Saints B&F then it was incompetent list management.
                        If Rohan does that, I’d be astounded!!

                        Originally posted by CureTheSane
                        Or "if Towers is drafted by some team and plays 15+ games next season and is an instant mark down for their best 22 week in week out than that was incompetent list management by the Swans.

                        So your statement is true, and so are my statements.
                        But mine are irrelevant because it's just me purely speculating.
                        So what I'm getting at, is whether you are happy to lose Hanners and what you think would have been a fairer deal (single pick trade)
                        If Towers is drafted by the Blues or Suns, fair chance he will play all 23 games, win their B&F & top their goal kicking!!

                        But overall I do agree with you
                        Last edited by goswannies; 13 October 2018, 03:29 PM.

                        Comment

                        • ernie koala
                          Senior Player
                          • May 2007
                          • 3251

                          It's a shame none of the talented Giants looking to move on, or be moved on, don't want to stay in Sydney...

                          Scully for a 3rd rounder would do for starters.

                          Where are the love interests, when we need them?

                          Or are the Giants still refusing to deal with us?...That would seem a little petulant if it's so.
                          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

                          Comment

                          • AB Swannie
                            Senior Player
                            • Mar 2017
                            • 1579

                            Originally posted by ernie koala
                            It's a shame none of the talented Giants looking to move on, or be moved on, don't want to stay in Sydney...

                            Scully for a 3rd rounder would do for starters.

                            Where are the love interests, when we need them?

                            Or are the Giants still refusing to deal with us?...That would seem a little petulant if it's so.
                            I'd say, possibly to a lesser extent, that we have a similar cap problem.

                            Comment

                            • Melbourne_Blood
                              Senior Player
                              • May 2010
                              • 3312

                              @@@@ing hawthorn. If GWS trade Scully there for a third round pick their members ( all 8 of them - and Barry) should burn their memberships. That’s a disgraceful decision. He’s worth a late first round pick or early second round pick. Easily. Just because he wants to go there doesn’t mean you pull your pants down in the trade. Parallels with us and hanners but 5 times worse


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment

                              • Markwebbos
                                Veterans List
                                • Jul 2016
                                • 7186

                                I read with Scully, GWS are prepared to trade him to the Hawks for peanuts (pick 50 odd) because the Hawks would take on his entire salary.

                                This seems to be the basis of the Hanners deal. Saints have effectively taken on the rest of his $800k a year deal and got a triple AA for a future pick in the 30s.

                                They will probably be paying $800k a year for a dud. But allegedly they can afford to do this.

                                Comment

                                Working...