2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[R-1]

Because we're ultimately talking about workers finding employers who offer the right conditions. The "go home" element is just one factor alongside actually advancing one's career and earning one's worth.

If nothing else, Ross Lyon doesn't sound like the sort of boss a lot of people would want to work for and as long as he's there and the club has been willing to cover for him, I can't blame anyone for steering clear of that organisation.

[RichardLong]

I think i'm just surrounded by too many butthurt Hawthorn supporters who will never wish Buddy well at the swans. And I guess they'll always be salty for 2012. Funny though, they did the same thing in 2008 to Geelong. That's just footy I guess.

I'm not really disappointed that we haven't brought anyone big into the side. However, there's a divide between younger players and veterans. I guess you could look at that in two ways.

Firstly, one could argue that it's worrying that we only don't have enough players who are at their peak and too much reliance is on the veterans in the club.

On the other hand, you can argue that it's exciting that in 3-5 years we will have a big core of players who will be coming into their peak together.

[Boddo]

This “go home” thing is crap. It’s plain n simple it’s the third party deals available in Melbourne that are not available to the northern clubs.

No northern club will win a premiership without concessions. Full stop!!! McGuire knew this n it’s why he n his cronies fought tooth n nail to destroy the retention allowance & COLA. They only want an even playing field in name only.

No northern club was ever a destination club they have only ever attract top end talent by over paying e.g. Lynch, Franklin, Ablett & Scully etc and hold the list together by paying overs to retain players. And this was only possible via having a higher cap, RA or COLA.

All this is gone now n the Victorian clubs will get to pick off talent regularly from northern clubs.

Lastly when I posted on here regularly I pointed out how much talent will come through the Next Gen academies and hardly anyone agreed. This year after the draft look at how many players will come through the NGA’s, it’ll easily be more than the northern academies. McGuire n his cronies won that one to.

I still have a soft spot for Sydney in my heart but refuse to buy into this lie that’s it’s a National competition.

[Ludwig]

Port warns Suns against drafting SA stars - AFL.com.au

This article shows exactly the landscape that the AFL is currently working within, and the issues facing the northern clubs, in particular, given how few AFL players are still produced in Queensland and NSW. I'm sure that what is said reflects the attitude that clubs have had for ages (especially those in SA and WA where they don't have to compete with many clubs for players returning to their home state) but for a list manager to come out and say these things explicitly is unusual.

I am not sure what the answer is, but maybe it's time the AFL introduced a tax within the salary cap for any player recruited away from the team to which they were drafted before they reach free agency status. Once they are a free agent, the players would resist imposing restrictions (like this tax) but now players act as free agents before they've earned the right, and before their drafting club has really had a chance to persuade them they want to stay full-time.

But if the clubs doing the luring had to pay a tax of, say, 25% of whatever they paid them, not in cash terms but in salary cap terms, it might stop the stem of clubs raiding the best youngsters and bringing them home (or just luring them to a big club in Melbourne) just a couple of years out from their draft year. An alternative way of looking at it is that it gives the original club the ability to pay these players a materially higher amount than any club recruiting them, without just giving clubs a larger overall salary cap allowance (which we know people will assume is being abused, even if it's not). And as the system could be applied across the whole competition, it wouldn't be specific to the northern clubs. It would just, in practice, assist them more as they tend to suffer more players wanting to leave before their time is up.

It could be tweaked in some ways - eg by allowing the releasing club to waive the imposition of the tax if they choose to. They might do this in return for actually getting a decent trade return on the player they are losing (eg Port offering up two top ten picks to Gold Coast in a couple of years time when it tries to lure Lukosis away). Or it could apply in a situation where the original club doesn't want to keep the player (eg Ryan Clarke to us; GWS and their apparent fire sale for salary cap purposes).

When I read this I was outraged. I'd call this draft tampering and should result in fines for boh Cripps and PA as well as a loss of draft picks for Port. That would go some way to help the situation. Your suggestions or similar actions would also be helpful. Something needs to be done, because the league as a fair competition is a joke right now. It's really gone downhill since Gill took over. He's not even qualified to be Prime Minister, let alone CEO of the AFL.

- - - Updated - - -

We have pick 26...

I'd be more than happy for the Swans to pass that over to the Giants for Scully unless his ankles really are busted beyond repair.

Why don't we just go public an offer pick 26 for Scully? Then if he goes to Hawthorn it will clearly be a sham transaction. Why should the Giants accept a lower offer? He's under contract.

[goswannies]

Why don't we just go public an offer pick 26 for Scully? Then if he goes to Hawthorn it will clearly be a sham transaction. Why should the Giants accept a lower offer? He's under contract.

Doesn’t the player have to want to go to the club? No one can force him to sign a contract with the Swans no matter what we offer GW$

[Ludwig]

Doesn’t the player have to want to go to the club? No one can force him to sign a contract with the Swans no matter what we offer GW$

Yes. But if we match the money offer and give GWS a better draft pick, then it exposes that any contracted player can simply walk to any club they choose at any time they wish. It just highlights the lack of a legal foundation for player movements, irrespective of agrreements which may appear to be in force. The league has become more a game of who you can steal from another club than winning premierships.

Footy is a post-season bloodsport.

[Blue Sun]

How could Scully go for pick 50? Surely he's worth more than that?

[KTigers]

I find it interesting just how highly rated the GWS list is. Sure, on paper, I get it. Their best 22 looks great. But the reality is
they haven't won anything. This year they came 6th. In 2016 & 2017 they came 3rd or 4th. This is a far cry from the situation
some people on here were claiming that it was an absolutely certainty that they would win five premierships in a row. Their results over
the last three years are (on average) are only slightly better than ours. There just seems to be a bit of a gap between potential &
achievement.

[barry]

I find it interesting just how highly rated the GWS list is. Sure, on paper, I get it. Their best 22 looks great. But the reality is
they haven't won anything. This year they came 6th. In 2016 & 2017 they came 3rd or 4th. This is a far cry from the situation
some people on here were claiming that it was an absolutely certainty that they would win five premierships in a row. Their results over
the last three years are (on average) are only slightly better than ours. There just seems to be a bit of a gap between potential &
achievement.

Media hype + vic club scare-mongering = overrated list.

The reality is that the one statistics that matter is ladder position. In fact, the sample size of 2 (Gold coast and GWS), you need to take an average of those two teams to assess where the start-up draft concessions got them.
On that basis the average finish is about 8th, and GWS have exceeded expectations.

For the AFL to cut cap and academy access based on this scare-mongering is criminal. I expect Gill to flee to argentina anytime now.

[KTigers]

Yes, I just think success as an AFL team comes down to a bit more than how many talented 18 year olds and 19 year olds you
had seven years ago. If GWS or the Suns had won five premierships in a row, then it could be argued that the draft concessions/
larger cap they initially received might have been a bit over the top, but between them they've won a total of three finals games
in the combined fifteen seasons (Suns 8, GWS 7) they've been around, and two of those finals games were GWS beating us.
GWS haven't even had the temerity to beat a Melbourne team in a final. Hell, we've been in Sydney for 37 seasons and when
you do the maths, with only two premierships we've probably underachieved as well in that regard (winning premierships).

[goswannies]

Hell, we've been in Sydney for 37 seasons and when you do the maths, with only two premierships we've probably underachieved as well in that regard (winning premierships).

2 Premierships in 37 seasons vs 3 Premierships in 84 years. Swans 2.0 are doing ok.

[stevoswan]

Media hype + vic club scare-mongering = overrated list.

For the AFL to cut cap and academy access based on this scare-mongering is criminal. I expect Gill to flee to argentina anytime now.

While that would be nice, you expect too much Barry. If Gil's was ever to go to Argentina, it would be on a holiday with his Vic club president mates and they'd all have a wonderfully mutually beneficial time!!

[stevoswan]

2 Premierships in 37 seasons vs 3 Premierships in 84 years. Swans 2.0 are doing ok.

Under the strange circumstances that this 'league' delivers, yes we have done well but if the A(V)FL was truly national and had integrity, we'd have won a lot more in that 37 years! Probably four......

[liz]

I find it interesting just how highly rated the GWS list is. Sure, on paper, I get it. Their best 22 looks great. But the reality is
they haven't won anything. This year they came 6th. In 2016 & 2017 they came 3rd or 4th. This is a far cry from the situation
some people on here were claiming that it was an absolutely certainty that they would win five premierships in a row. Their results over
the last three years are (on average) are only slightly better than ours. There just seems to be a bit of a gap between potential &
achievement.

They have suffered injuries over the last two seasons that would have completely crippled most clubs, so the fact they've managed to make the finals (and get as far as a PF last year) is a reasonable achievement. Whether this is just bad luck, or indicates there's something in their training or recovery they haven't got quite right, who knows? Probably a bit of both. But bear in mind that this year they were without Kelly for the middle part of the season, Greene for practically all the season, Scully for the whole season, Patton for large chunks, Williams for all but the last couple of weeks, Cameron for a little while with injury (and another chunk via suspension), and lost their last remaining decent ruck (Simpson?) a few weeks out from finals.

They certainly don't have the depth they used to but their best 22 is still very good (and will be even if they lose Shiel, Scully and Lobb) - so long as they are properly fit (as Kelly and Greene weren't even when they returned late in the season).

[liz]

Yes. But if we match the money offer and give GWS a better draft pick, then it exposes that any contracted player can simply walk to any club they choose at any time they wish. It just highlights the lack of a legal foundation for player movements, irrespective of agrreements which may appear to be in force. The league has become more a game of who you can steal from another club than winning premierships.

Footy is a post-season bloodsport.

I don't think that's quite what's happening here. It's not Scully holding the Giants to ransom and demanding that they trade him to the Hawks for a late pick. The Giants seem to be driving it. He's said he's happy to stay.

It's also the Giants' call about what they accept for him as a trade. Certainly something doesn't feel right about it, but there's no known reason to think the Giants are trying to do the Hawks a favour. The most likely explanation - if the trade goes through as mooted - is that Scully's ankle is a problem.