2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[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.

[Ludwig]

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.

[barry]

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.

[stevoswan]

I meant (sarcastically) that they would all be very sad about the forum posters being unhappy

Got ya! .....and I agree!

[stevoswan]

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.

[Markwebbos]

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

[dejavoodoo44]

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.

[Ludwig]

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.

[Auntie.Gerald]

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

[CureTheSane]

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)

[goswannies]

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!!

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

[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.

[AB Swannie]

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.

[Melbourne_Blood]

@@@@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

[Markwebbos]

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.