2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Steve]

Given we were never going to land a big fish, I guess the glass half full view would be that we threw our hat in for a few half-chances as they became available in Moore, Langdon and Vanbenberg - but were probably expecting to finish up roughly where we did.

Rohan going probably pays for Clarke and Thurlow from a salary cap perspective, and I expect that late in the year we knew we couldn't keep Hanners' with his salary without possibly losing Lloyd and not being able to even try and pursue any of the others we did.

The clubs the media assess as winning or gaining in the trade period are generally those who are risking or given up a lot as well - we've only given up those past their best and a couple of fringe players, so whilst we haven't gained a hell of a lot, it's about as much as we could reasonably expect.

[Mountain Man]

3 ex Swans received premiership medallions in the last 3 years. And a Brownlow.
Not sure that will happen again from this years trading - so a win for me from this year

[longmile]

3 ex Swans received premiership medallions in the last 3 years. And a Brownlow.
Not sure that will happen again from this years trading - so a win for me from this year

Newman will have a premiership medallion around his neck come this time next year. Mark my words.

[Ludwig]

Beatson made a speech that conformed with what we actually did as if it was all pre-planned. We know that's not true, but the outcome is still fine.

I can't see us trading picks before the draft as everything sits precariously right on target so that if Blakey gets bid at #7, which I think will be the earliest, then we give up 26 and 33 and have those 3 late 30s picks. On trade night, if Blakey is still there at pick 12, a matching bid will leave over enough points to be worth a pick 48, which will move even higher as Collingwood and North will have to use their picks in the 40s to match bidsof their own, so we then have some real value to play with, which could involve trading up a bit or trading out a pick in this year's draft for a future pick.

On the matter of Rose, he showed that he has a lot of upside and can play several positions. His positives are really strong, but he's a lot like Aliir and Jones, also players with strong positives, where it's more a matter of trying to keep the negatives to a minimum.

[waswan]

Prefer that we have kept Lloyd Alir etc as opposed to bringing any in that we were chasing
Darcy aside but he wouldnt have been cheap and would have been a big risk

We have a good enough squad just time to put the right players in the midfield full time

Jed Lamb delisted i wonder if he regrets leaving for greener pastures, had a free run at Sydney
Still built like a 12 yr old girl

[rb4x]

To me it looks like we will be delisting one more senior player and one of Fox or Pink from the rookies. I thought Maibaum was tracking well but his stats show that he had a poor NEAFL Grand Final and he may have had his head on the block if we had got either Moore or Langdon. Those misses may have saved him which basically means that it will come down to either Marsh or Robinson. Pink is an interesting case as this year he was basically injured all year and could have been expected to be delisted. The club showed similar faith a couple of years ago with Melican who did nothing in 2016 but showed his potential in 2017 to again have 2018 as basically a wipe out. Possibly they have the same confidence in Pink in which case Fox will be chopped else it will be Pink as we can not retain two third year rookies. Promoting Fox would mean both Marsh and Robinson would need to be cut.

[CureTheSane]

This kind of sums up a lot of what went on during the trade period.
*contains profanity*
OPINION: Hawthorn is a drug front and Sydney Swans made their list managers redundant

[barry]

How does pick swapping happen?. Is it after academy players are bid for?
If so, and say Blakey goes for around pick 12, and we only need picks 38 and 39 ( I haven't done the points math, but let's assume),. Then we should trade out pick 26 for next year's pick, as it would be wasted this year.eg.
Keep 26:. Use 26 and 38 for Blakey. Next pick 39.
Sell 26: use 38 and 39 for blakey,. Next pick 40.

Is this correct?

[Ludwig]

This kind of sums up a lot of what went on during the trade period.
*contains profanity*
OPINION: Hawthorn is a drug front and Sydney Swans made their list managers redundant

I'm highly offended and find that article in poor taste.

And the language they use! Oh dear me!

[Ludwig]

How does pick swapping happen?. Is it after academy players are bid for?
If so, and say Blakey goes for around pick 12, and we only need picks 38 and 39 ( I haven't done the points math, but let's assume),. Then we should trade out pick 26 for next year's pick, as it would be wasted this year.eg.
Keep 26:. Use 26 and 38 for Blakey. Next pick 39.
Sell 26: use 38 and 39 for blakey,. Next pick 40.

Is this correct?

You have to use to best picks first, and in order, so pick 26 goes first, then 33 and so on until the points for the bid are achieved.

[stevoswan]

I'm highly offended and find that article in poor taste.

And the language they use! Oh dear me!

Me too! If they had added a breast feeding pic as well, I would have angrily logged off!!

[liz]

How does pick swapping happen?. Is it after academy players are bid for?
If so, and say Blakey goes for around pick 12, and we only need picks 38 and 39 ( I haven't done the points math, but let's assume),. Then we should trade out pick 26 for next year's pick, as it would be wasted this year.eg.
Keep 26:. Use 26 and 38 for Blakey. Next pick 39.
Sell 26: use 38 and 39 for blakey,. Next pick 40.

Is this correct?

That point of view only makes sense if the sole aim of the upcoming draft is to obtain Blakey with the lowest possible nominal draft pick. That seems to have become an obsession for some posters on here.

I (and I am pretty sure Beatson and his team) see the aim of the upcoming draft as improving the list by adding a number of quality players to the club, the best that the draft picks we have will deliver. We're close to guaranteed Blakey but we will draft more than just him. Indeed, we have to draft at least one other player, and Beatson has said he's looking to add three in addition to Blakey. Sure, we can do whatever we want to get rid of picks 26 and 33 just for the fun of securing Blakey with pick 38 (and 39, and 40, and possibly with some left to come off next year's first round pick too), but what would be the point if it means that the next three players we pick are at picks 88, 89 and 90?

[bloodspirit]

Overall I thought our trade period was unexciting, even ordinary, but ok. I was a bit reassured by the graph from R-1 too. (Thanks R-1!) I was disappointed that we only barely achieved what we said we were setting out to achieve. Also, unlike last year when we sat on our hands and it made sense, this year there was a sense we might emerge from the swamp and make a bit of a splash in the trade world but it didn't happen. In some ways the lack of trades can be seen as a sign of good list management because we have decided that we don't actually need anyone else. Plus even if you bring in a good player you mostly have to give something up to get them so you're not usually winning just because you're trading.

Thurlow and especially Clarke seem like good gets at bargain prices. They're not stars but show promise that they can be worthy best 22 in future. If they do fulfil that promise and become best 22 players then that's enough to make them wins. Big wins given how little we paid for them.

Basically I see it that we continue to show faith in our ability to develop talent - generally talent we've drafted or traded in on the cheap. We have a proven track record of doing this very well. I think our many rookie success stories are at least as much due to our skill in developing them as the inspiration in choosing them. So we hung on to our draft picks and will see what improvement can come from the substantial amount of youth on our list.

Hanners leadership, especially off-field, is a loss. However, hopefully his leadership can be replaced by younger players who have been around a couple of years stepping up to the plate. Heeney is one. Cunningham is another. Mills is younger but has leader written all over him. Florent is also young but seems super sensible and a potential future leader. This is why it's great that we still have a number of senior, experienced players to lead the youth. While next season will probably be Macca's and Kizza's last and maybe Reg's too, I wouldn't want to lose Smooch at the same time.

I don't like the criticisms of Hanners and Rohan - calling them cry babies or suggesting they were not committed to the Swans. They both bled for the Swans and I don't think either of them wanted to leave. They have been pushed out the door after years of gutsy, loyal service and they deserve nothing but praise and thanks despite their recent form. They have been two of our most courageous players and have never shirked contests and the like. How many times has Hanners put his body on the line for us and got smashed and then gotten up again? How many times have we talked about Rohan being possibly too kamikaze in his approach. Sometimes his bravery has been match winning, like this year when kept his eyes on the ball and ran to take that awesome mark before kicking the ball to Ronke who goaled and sealed our win over the Hawks at the MCG. This courage is of great value to the club and sets a great example for other players and builds a great culture. And it's not nothing. The players risk injury and their future health when they put their bodies on the line. They are not cry babies and they have been wonderful servants of the Swans. They go with my blessing and gratitude. Even Newman, who has not been a leader or famously courageous, has been committed to the Swans. In this day and age when players can be ruthlessly pushed out the door whenever it suits a club, I don't begrudge him in the least seeking greater opportunities than he understands he's likely to receive if he stays and gets gradually passed by for Stoddart/Ling/O'Riordan etc. We took him in the rookie draft and we have got good value out of him.

I can't get the interviews with Tom Harley and KB on the club website to play so haven't seen what they said.

Just recapping our outs: AJ, Hanners, Gaz, Newman, Styles, Brown, Foote, Towers and Tippett are gone. Have I missed anyone? Could be another 1-2 to go. That's a fair few. Just Clarke and Thurlow coming the other way. That's at least 5 senior spots freed up.

If we draft 4 and upgrade Ronke that's 5 and we're back at 38 on our senior list. We'll have 3 rookie spots available.

I did think that at least one more player would be de-listed and probably more than one, maybe more than two. But hearing reports that we'll draft 4 and thinking through the numbers, I'm no longer so sure:

* My feeling is that we are more likely to delist Marsh than Robbo. I think the recruitment of Thurlow might be a death knell for Marsh. While Marsh has been reliable depth we must feel that Thurlow can do the same but has a whole lot more upside.

* While I know Ludwig has always favoured Foote over Robinson, I have always had the opposite view and think Robbo has more to offer. He's very versatile. Still I would agree that it is looking doubtful that he will add substantially to his AFL games before being delisted. He really needs to knuckle down and have a great pre-season and set himself for 2019 - make or break.

* Earlier in the year I thought that the writing was on the wall for Rose but his form in the NEAFL this year was better and he may have earned himself a reprieve.

* The facts that (a) we still have not re-signed Maibaum; and (b) were hunting other key defenders; strongly suggests that we are not that rapt in what he's had to offer so far. As against that, he is still young (particularly relevant for a tall KPP) and plays a role we lack depth in so I think we will give him another year.

* I have no idea about Pink. I liked his first year but won't lose any sleep if we delist him. My best guess is we de-list and re-rookie him because we can't have two 3rd year rookies.

* I'm not that sold on Fox. He has shown more than Pink but is also a fair bit older and has much less upside. Maybe another year to provide depth and show his worth.

* Looks like we'll give Bell another rookie contract.

Might post more after I see what Tom and Kin had to say.

[liz]

Just recapping our outs: AJ, Hanners, Gaz, Newman, Styles, Brown, Foote, Towers and Tippett are gone. Have I missed anyone? Could be another 1-2 to go. That's a fair few. Just Clarke and Thurlow coming the other way. That's at least 5 senior spots freed up.

If we draft 4 and upgrade Ronke that's 5 and we're back at 38 on our senior list. We'll have 3 rookie spots available.

I count differently. Players off the senior list are Hannebery, Rohan, Towers, Tippett (probably), Newman and Foote. Players on are Clarke and Thurlow, giving a net loss of four players. So if the club intends to draft four new players and promote Ronke, they either need to cut one more or they need to increase the senior list to 39 (which they can do).

I think one or both of Marsh and Robinson will be cut. I am indifferent as to which. I think they are both solid depth players who can contribute at senior level but are never going to be best 22. I think Marsh's best at senior level has been better than Robinson's but he's also been less consistent and the coaches seem to not have that much faith in him. I think we have more depth overall in his position, so he's probably next in line to get the chop.

I'd keep Fox, and certainly keep him over Pink. If they keep him on the rookie list for a third year, great. If they want to keep him and that means having to promote him, so be it. Like Robinson and Marsh, I don't think he'll become a genuine best 22 player but he can fill a role, and is probably more versatile than either Robinson or Marsh.

I don't understand why the club would keep Pink. He looks a mile off playing senior footy, even allowing for 2018 being close to a write-off for him. But I guess they might still see him as untapped potential. If they want to keep both Pink and Fox on the rookie list, that's achievable by delisting and redrafting one of them. If probabilities could be lower than zero, I'd hazard that the chance of Pink being rookie listed by another club would be whatever that probability is. But as they can't, I'll stick with zero. And if I'm wrong, and another club snuck in and nabbed him ahead of the Swans in the rookie list, I doubt it's a decision the club will be left rueing in a few years time.

Edit: I think you might have been editing your post, including the bit I quoted, while I was typing my post. We probably now count the same, at least for senior players.


As for rookies, we have two who I think the club has announced already will be retained - certainly Amartey is confirmed and Bell's retention has been implied. Silence thus far on Fox and Pink.


If we stick with a senior list of 38, we can have a total of nine rookies - up to six Cat A and up to three Cat B. It's a long time since the club has run with a rookie list that long, but they are permitted to. I think Bell can remain as a Cat B rookie for another year (though I'm not 100% sure on that). So we have between two and five Cat A rookie spots available, and up to three Cat B rookie spots available (though with a total range of up to seven spots as Bell is kind of double counted).

[TheGong]

Liz, we had 8 rookies this season:

2
Alex Johnson 194 92 02.03.92
Ben Ronke 182 77 18.12.97
James Bell 183 79 10.02.99
Jake Brown 185 77 19.03.98
Robbie Fox 185 85 16.04.93
Angus Styles 185 71 03.05.99
Joel Amartey 196 88
Toby Pink 194 92 11.08.98