2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

It’s official Hannebery and Rohan open to trade - sydneyswans.com.au

Hanners using the language of finality, but still no explanation why:

“It has been the hardest decision I’ve had to make to date, especially with so many close friends, and as disappointing as it is to leave such a close group of people, I think the time is right to head back home if an opportunity arises during the trade period.”

[AnnieH]

We held our position on Ryan O'Keefe many years ago when he wanted out - that worked out well for us

Yes, but he was also the highest-paid ressie in the competition.
When you put your hand up, we KNOW you are after money.
If your heart is not at this club, quite frankly, we don't want you.

[barry]

If we get 2nd or 3rd round picks for both, they could go a long way to getting enough points for Blakley without using our first round pick.

[Melbourne_Blood]

It’s official Hannebery and Rohan open to trade - sydneyswans.com.au

Hanners using the language of finality, but still no explanation why:

“It has been the hardest decision I’ve had to make to date, especially with so many close friends, and as disappointing as it is to leave such a close group of people, I think the time is right to head back home if an opportunity arises during the trade period.”

You scared the bejesus out of me ! Before I opened the thread I was expecting it to say Parker had asked to leave too!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CureTheSane]

I'm all for keeping Lloyd. I see him as a very important part of our team.
Sam Reid can go to and join his brother in the Collingwood medical room in exchange for Tom Phillips

Agree with that, but would happily replace "Tom Phillips" with "player spot on the list and salary cap relief"
I sooooo still don't rate Reid.
Haven't since before the White trade.
Sadly my position feels very justified.
More than happy to be wrong in the long run, but don't think I will be.

- - - Updated - - -

Completely agree with this. Why does AJ get the love and support but Sam is happy to be “sold for a bag of beans.” Injuries are @@@@ for us as supporters. Imagine how bad it is for the player.

Yeah, he can deal.
AJ is a very different story. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

[CureTheSane]

You guys need to take your red and white coloured glasses off. If Hanners is going we are getting massive cap relief and as a result we are not getting a top 5 draft pick.

Yeah I tend to agree with this.
And so do most other here, based on all the comments and how happy most are for him to move on, and how few there are standing up desperate to keep him.
Likely a 2nd round pick that the Saints will pick up in a trade.
And I think we'd be lucky to get that.

[stevoswan]

Even if it was true, the Swans must refuse. At some point, you need to tell a player that they are going to live up to the terms of the contract, like it or not. It's not just about keeping the player...it's also about preventing another club you are competing with from getting better in the process. It's also about drawing a line in the sand to all the other players in the club. I am reminded of when Barry Sanders tried to pull this on the Detroit Lions after he signed a five year deal. The Lions held firm, Sanders was forced to retire. It sucked (as he is still my favorite of all time), but nobody ever pulled that on the Lions again and it cost Barry his place in the record books. When Parker's contact expires, he will be a much older 28...and the Swans simply can't lose another top midfielder.

BTW, if anyone noticed, a former Swans prospect, Michael Dickson, made a stunning debut as the Seattle Seahawks punter and booted one 70 yards!

Yes the club should be tough on anymore 'wannaways'. In regard to Dickson, I've been keeping my eye on him.....70 yards? Brilliant.....he'll have everyone over there talking.....

[Matty10]

A bit of an aside, but can someone explain to me the apparently wide-acceptance of AFLers, professional athletes, "requesting" trades (to Victoria, mainly) because they want to "go home" or are "homesick"? This, to me, is lunacy. The moment you become a professional athlete, I would think you should play (and play hard) for whomever you are contacted to play for. You are an adult and I don't care if you are homesick. Now I understand (and support) someone like Hanneberry moving on because it benefits both sides and sometimes a player needs fresh start. But it seems every year, more and more young guys, with years left in their contracts, are demanding trades to "go home". Am I missing something here? It seems to me that teams need to learn to say "no" and demand the professionals be professionals. I understand they may leave when their contracts expire, but it frequently appears like the lunatics are running the asylum.

Surely you jest.

Our system looks so much better than the lunacy of NFL contracts. Take Khalil Mack’s antics in recent weeks. A contracted player refusing to attend training unless he receives more money than currently contracted to receive. And his situation is not isolated.

The life of the contracts in the AFL tend to run to term, as a rule. This rarely happens with big contracts in the NFL (apart from the recent push by elite stars looking for guaranteed deals).

Players in the AFL are only requesting to be traded, they haven’t quit the club. Even the quotes from Hanners say “if” an appropriate deal can be reached.

[goswannies]

I dislike Damien Barrett. He’s a journalistic hack and parasite on society!

After foxfooty.com.au revealed Hannebery told coach John Longmire in his exit interview that he wants to be traded, clubs have been enquiring about the possibility of securing Parker.

As part of its Wednesday trade guide, the Herald Sun reported that “Essendon keeps coming up in conversations” around Parker.

Crocmedia journalist Damien Barrett said “watch this space” on the 25-year-old, who’s contracted until the end of 2021.

“One of many players who are contracted — and that’s going to be the default position for this player — is Luke Parker. Again questions are being asked by people in Melbourne about the possibilities around him,” Barrett told the AFL Trade Radio Podcast.

“Watch this space on him and other contracted players at the Swans, because there is going to be change afoot on them.”

[Markwebbos]

SYDNEY says Luke Parker isn’t going anywhere despite agreeing to broker trades for Victorians Dan Hannebery and Gary Rohan.

Category: | Herald Sun

The Swans have agreed to work a deal for three-time All Australian Hannebery, who is bound for St Kilda on a four-year deal worth $800,000 plus a trigger for a fifth season. Rohan had his exit meeting on Tuesday with Sydney happy to accept the contracted flanker’s desire to get closer to home in a trade.

But despite Victorian clubs asking questions about the contracted Parker, Sydney is adamant he is happy at the club. Sydney football boss Tom Harley told the Herald Sun he was staying put.

[S.S. Bleeder]

If we get 2nd or 3rd round picks for both, they could go a long way to getting enough points for Blakley without using our first round pick.

Not really. You have to use the next pick/s available to pay for academy a father/son selections. Blakey should be selected somewhere in the 5-10 range so it's highly probable that our pick 12 will be used in that if we retain it. We should be trying to upgrade or trade this pick.

[Ludwig]

There's a bit of naivete on here about how things work in the real world. I can't believe we are still revisiting the Tippett recruitment and the Mitchell trade. I'm rarely surprised by most of what we do on list management. We've made very few mistakes in the past 6 years. A lot of people are still upset about the Mitchell trade, especially since he's a likely Brownlow winner, but even with the benefit of hindsight, I still believe it was the right move.

Now we are hearing from all the footy gurus about how the Swans need to change the way they play and have to become a quicker and more offensive team. It's as if no one's been paying attention for the past 2 years. That's exactly what we've been doing and part of the reason why Mitchell had to go.

The formalities from Hannebery and Rohan, as well as the quickly prepared responses from the club, are clear indications that these trades have been in the works and were agreed, in principle, some time ago. We are not likely to ever know how and for what reasons this came to pass. Everyone will try to stick to the official story, if they can.

Enquiries are made about players through their managers throughout the year. Things are thrown out and they see what sticks. We know more about the Hannebery situation, so using that as an example, St Kilda may have approached Dan's manager about a possible move; Dan says he's listening; a deal is presented to Dan; he likes it; they go to the club and ask if they would consider trading Dan; the Swans are interested; terms are negotiated; an agreement is reached, in principle.

What I mean as to an agreement in principle is:

• How many value points are to be exchanged for Dan?
• Let's say they agree that Dan is worth about 900 pts. or a pick 20 in draft position terms.
• Will the trade involve other players, and if so, who are the acceptable players?
• In terms of draft picks, how could St Kilda reach the agreed value for Dan?
• Will the Swans absorb any of Dan's present contract, and what would that be worth in value points if they did?

I would think that enough would have been understood about what each party is willing to give in a trade for the announcements to have been made today. If they didn't think a deal could be reached, they wouldn't go out on a limb this early and be forced to walk things back.

Once the deals are done it will become clear as to what the overall strategy was entering this trade and draft period.

I think the club was interested in trading out both Hanners and Rohan, if a fair deal could be reached. I think we would prefer to find a midfielder, like Dylan Shiels, who can break from a stoppage with pace. We've acquired several pacy outside runners, so Dan would be asked to play more on the inside if he stayed with us, and we have more than enough inside players without breakaway speed. I don't know if it will come through trade or the draft, but it will become evident, in due course, why we are doing this trade.

Everyone loves Gary, but he has managed to work himself out of a spot on our senior team. He has so much talent, but it just doesn't seem to come together in our system. Maybe we should have tried him more at halfback. The fact is, that there really isn't an obvious position for Gary next year. McCartin has taken his spot, for all intents an purposes. Hayward also does most of what Gary can do, and looks to surpass him next season. So better for Gary to get a new start.

[Meg]

Really like that post Ludwig, excellent points made. Longmire (in his very low key, oblique way) indicated the club had changes in progress in his post-match press conference. There is a plan behind these possible moves I think.

[Ludwig]

Longmire (in his very low key, oblique way) indicated the club had changes in progress in his post-match press conference. There is a plan behind these possible moves I think.

Reposting my list of midfielders from my earlier State of Play comment

1. Kennedy 30
2. Parker 26
3. Cunningham 25
4. Jones 24
5. Hewett 23
6. Heeney 22
7. Mills 22
8. Dawson 22
9. Florent 20
10. Ling 20
11. Stoddart 19

there's this gaping hole in between Parker and Kennedy. Hanners fits smack in the middle of that hole. When a team is truly in the premiership window (Richmond), as opposed to just getting it right with a bit of luck for one season (WB), that Parker the Kennedy demographic is usually filled with stars and other players at the top of their game. Rohan is also in that demographic.

My feeling is that we will be looking to fill the gap with a quality midfielder around 25-27 yo. Gaff or Shiels would fit the bill, but there's no way of knowing who is on our radar, and not likely to know until after the GF.

We might also be targeting the Saints pick 4 in order to draft either Smith or Rankine and keep the quality youth movement going strong. Maybe we will do both.

[liz]

I agree with much of Ludwig's post, but I think the evolution has been going on for far longer than two years. The club has been focussing on speed with its earlier picks for most of this decade. Any club has to churn through a lot of picks to identify players capable of long-term quality AFL football. Successful clubs differ (in at least one way) from less successful ones in the way they find (or create) decent senior players from low draft picks (including rookies). But they still have to churn through a lot to find the diamonds.

This decade, three of our first draft picks have effectively been decided for us - ie we had access to players rated so much higher than where our first pick fell that it would have been lunacy not to pick them - Mitchell, Heeney and Mills. None have footspeed as their greatest asset but all picks are justified by the football they have produced.

Apart from those, our first round picks have been Towers, Jones, Florent, Hayward and Ling. We've not seen Ling in action thus far but all the rest are well above average footspeed for senior AFL players. You can go back further to 2009 when Jetta and Rohan were probably the quickest two players in the draft. (I am unsure about 2010, when Lamb was our first pick - he never played quickly but maybe shaped up as a quick player as a junior).

We've also tried to pick some quicker players with later picks - Hiscox, Leonardis, BJack and, more recently, Papley, Ronke, Stoddart - mixed in with some other types (because all clubs need other kinds of player too). None of the first three proved to have the necessary skills and/or application to sustain an AFL career, but this just illustrates how many you need to churn through. Fingers crossed that the last three go on to long term senior careers.

I think this illustrates that the need for speed has been recognised for a long time. It's just that very quick players who are also decently skilled, have good endurance and can win their own ball (or run to the right spots to receive it) are fairly rare. Those who show all these traits as juniors almost all get snapped up early in the draft. (And many who apparently have these qualities and get snapped up early turn out to be duds.)