2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[moocher]

How about the AFL imposing a trade ban on the Hawks? I’d like that

[liz]

I am struggling to think of any examples of the Hawks picking up injury riddled players at a discount and then fixed them.

Certainly Burgoyne has been a wonderful player for the Hawks and certain has repaid the perceived risk the Hawks took when they recruited him with supposedly dodgy knees. But he cost them a pick 9 and a pick 16 in his mid-20s. Not sure I'd call that a discount (though when you look at the players drafted with the two picks they gave away, he certainly represents a huge win for them).

Similarly, they paid a pretty hefty price for O'Meara. Thus far he's spent one season barely playing, and another playing a solid season with a few very good games thrown in. He looks like he might be a good pick-up but he's yet to show he might achieve the potential he showed in his first couple of seasons. And he continued to have a few injury niggles last season. If he can play 150 games for the Hawks at a level similar to those he played last year he'll be a good recruit but not at a bargain price, and it remains to be seen whether his injury woes really have been fixed up.

Apart from that there's O'Rourke already mentioned, and a couple of Beaus that they drafted a decade ago with big injury clouds hanging over them - one at pick 6 and another late in the first round. Neither recovered from their injuries sufficiently to make it at AFL level.

Who have I missed?

There does seem something very odd about the Scully situation. I find it hard to fathom that the Giants' salary cap issues are so bad that they are willing to practically give away a player of Scully's abilities unless there is a serious injury question mark over him. Maybe there is, and the Hawks are backing themselves to fix whatever ails him. If they do, they'll have pulled off a trade coup. But we can't conclude they have until it actually happens (ie he does play good footy again).

[caj23]

There does seem something very odd about the Scully situation. I find it hard to fathom that the Giants' salary cap issues are so bad that they are willing to practically give away a player of Scully's abilities unless there is a serious injury question mark over him. Maybe there is, and the Hawks are backing themselves to fix whatever ails him. If they do, they'll have pulled off a trade coup. But we can't conclude they have until it actually happens (ie he does play good footy again).

The Scully one is a head scratcher. If pick 53 and $500k is all it's going to take we should be all over it

I find it hard to believe he's done at AFL level, how many players retire at 27 with bad ankles? Its not that common

[tlock]

It's like groundhog day for Hawthorn every trade period, they always end up winners.

[liz]

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).

[707]

Something not right about Scully to Hawks. The AFL have to approve every trade to ensure there's no shenanigans, Scully for a third rounder can't get a tick of approval. A heap of other clubs would pick up $500k for 4 years and give a much better pick than that for Scully, Saints have pick 28 :-)

Disgraceful comments by Cripps about luring back Lukocious and Rankine from Gold Coast to Port. Rather ironic that as Cripps is saying that publicly, Port have two SA boys in Wingard and Polec left or leaving for Victoria! If AFL doesn't give Port a warning it shows it's complicit in this trade scenario.

[liz]

Something not right about Scully to Hawks. The AFL have to approve every trade to ensure there's no shenanigans, Scully for a third rounder can't get a tick of approval. A heap of other clubs would pick up $500k for 4 years and give a much better pick than that for Scully, Saints have pick 28 :-)

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.

[RichardLong]

Morning all.

So why isn't Eddie screaming for Hawthorn to be banned after them going for both Scully and Wingard???
Pretty disappointing that we got (virtually) banned from trading after landing Buddy and Tippett but noone says a think about the Hawks.

Also, I'm interested to hear everyones thoughts about the fact that we can't land anyone at the Swannies when we've had our fingers in pretty much evey pie this trade period....
I'm wondering if there is a smell coming from our club that is based on perception or perhaps something the public isn't aware of....
Externally, everyone bashes Buddy and says its the Buddy factor and that he's cancer on clubs etc etc. But he got voted Players Player this year....So that's not the reason right?

We used to be a destination club. Doesn't look like we are any more...

[S.S. Bleeder]

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).

The system is broken. The AFL made a knee jerk reaction to the complaints of the Victorian clubs and removed COLA to appease them. If they were a professional organisation they would have reduced it to say 5% over a few years and then assessed it after a few years of evidence. The northern states need assistance. Now that all clubs have academies there is no advantage at all for them.

[Go Swannies]

Morning all.

So why isn't Eddie screaming for Hawthorn to be banned after them going for both Scully and Wingard???
Pretty disappointing that we got (virtually) banned from trading after landing Buddy and Tippett but noone says a think about the Hawks.

Also, I'm interested to hear everyones thoughts about the fact that we can't land anyone at the Swannies when we've had our fingers in pretty much evey pie this trade period....
I'm wondering if there is a smell coming from our club that is based on perception or perhaps something the public isn't aware of....
Externally, everyone bashes Buddy and says its the Buddy factor and that he's cancer on clubs etc etc. But he got voted Players Player this year....So that's not the reason right?

We used to be a destination club. Doesn't look like we are any more...

More a lifeline than a destination club - Teddy, Josh, etc.

And not at all sure about Buddy as a cancer - his friendships at the Hawks seem to run strong and, as you say, Swans players vote for him.

[royboy42]

Morning all.

So why isn't Eddie screaming for Hawthorn to be banned after them going for both Scully and Wingard???
Pretty disappointing that we got (virtually) banned from trading after landing Buddy and Tippett but noone says a think about the Hawks.

Also, I'm interested to hear everyones thoughts about the fact that we can't land anyone at the Swannies when we've had our fingers in pretty much evey pie this trade period....
I'm wondering if there is a smell coming from our club that is based on perception or perhaps something the public isn't aware of....
Externally, everyone bashes Buddy and says its the Buddy factor and that he's cancer on clubs etc etc. But he got voted Players Player this year....So that's not the reason right?

We used to be a destination club. Doesn't look like we are any more...

Drawing a pretty long bow when you jump from a couple of trades that didn't come off to a 'smell coming from our club'.

[Markwebbos]

I am struggling to think of any examples of the Hawks picking up injury riddled players at a discount and then fixed them.

Certainly Burgoyne has been a wonderful player for the Hawks and certain has repaid the perceived risk the Hawks took when they recruited him with supposedly dodgy knees. But he cost them a pick 9 and a pick 16 in his mid-20s. Not sure I'd call that a discount (though when you look at the players drafted with the two picks they gave away, he certainly represents a huge win for them).

Similarly, they paid a pretty hefty price for O'Meara. Thus far he's spent one season barely playing, and another playing a solid season with a few very good games thrown in. He looks like he might be a good pick-up but he's yet to show he might achieve the potential he showed in his first couple of seasons. And he continued to have a few injury niggles last season. If he can play 150 games for the Hawks at a level similar to those he played last year he'll be a good recruit but not at a bargain price, and it remains to be seen whether his injury woes really have been fixed up.

Apart from that there's O'Rourke already mentioned, and a couple of Beaus that they drafted a decade ago with big injury clouds hanging over them - one at pick 6 and another late in the first round. Neither recovered from their injuries sufficiently to make it at AFL level.

Who have I missed?

There does seem something very odd about the Scully situation. I find it hard to fathom that the Giants' salary cap issues are so bad that they are willing to practically give away a player of Scully's abilities unless there is a serious injury question mark over him. Maybe there is, and the Hawks are backing themselves to fix whatever ails him. If they do, they'll have pulled off a trade coup. But we can't conclude they have until it actually happens (ie he does play good footy again).

Think I could have phrased myself better. I was thinking of O’Meara who certainly would have cost more if fully fit. Burton who was cheap after a broken leg. And Scully.

[liz]

Morning all.

So why isn't Eddie screaming for Hawthorn to be banned after them going for both Scully and Wingard???
Pretty disappointing that we got (virtually) banned from trading after landing Buddy and Tippett but noone says a think about the Hawks.

Also, I'm interested to hear everyones thoughts about the fact that we can't land anyone at the Swannies when we've had our fingers in pretty much evey pie this trade period....
I'm wondering if there is a smell coming from our club that is based on perception or perhaps something the public isn't aware of....
Externally, everyone bashes Buddy and says its the Buddy factor and that he's cancer on clubs etc etc. But he got voted Players Player this year....So that's not the reason right?

We used to be a destination club. Doesn't look like we are any more...

I don't think the events of trade week indicate the Swans have a problem (or at least, no more of a problem than any club has out of the AFL heartland). Consider the following:

- all the players we know the Swans were courting - Vandenberg, Moore, Langdon - have chosen to stay with their existing clubs. Despite all the noise around trade week, that's what most players do. They get somewhere, get comfortable, and like it there. In these three cases, they are also at clubs that played good football this year, so there's no "chasing success" reason to move.
- most players who are wanted by their clubs (ie not fringe players just looking for opportunities) and who do choose to move, move to their home state. In almost every case, that's not NSW. The only player "coming home" to the Swans in the last couple of decades that I can think of was Nick Davis. Maybe Tony Armstrong at a stretch, though he's from way down near the South Australian border and in any case was a fringe player the Crows didn't particularly want.

If you look at who the Swans have managed to lure over the years they fall into two main groups:

- players who were on the fringes of their existing clubs and who wanted more opportunities to play senior football (Kennedy, Shaw, McGlynn, CBolton, Mumford, Jolly, Richards)
- high profile players who wanted the relative anonymity provided by Sydney (Hall, Franklin, Tippett) - in the cases of Hall and Tippett it may well also have been that the Swans offered the biggest contracts. With Buddy we don't know because most other clubs weren't given the chance to offer him a contract. He also had the "Jesinta" reason for preferring Sydney, though I have no doubt she could have made her career work living in any other city, had the two of them wanted to live elsewhere.


There are a few others who might not neatly fit into the above two categories and I don't know exactly why they joined the Swans - Williams, Maxfield, Schauble, Mattner. Maybe it was a money thing. Maybe they just wanted a change.

Some might put Lockett in the second category but he probably doesn't really fit. The reality is that he landed up at Sydney because almost no other club wanted him, bizarre as that seems. We were his third choice (at best) after Richmond and Collingwood. The anonymity factor really came into play after the event - but all the evidence suggests that Lockett was, in hindsight, more than happy how things worked out for him.

Those in the second category don't come around very often. The number of big money players moving each year is low. Kelly rejected a move last year. So did Martin. Gaff has this year. And our salary cap means that we may never have been in the running for those kinds of player so didn't get to test whether we could lure them to Sydney.


We have recruited one player this year who fits into the first category, and the reasons he has given for moving reflect the success other lower profile recruits have had. Whether he had any other suitors or not we don't know - he could just be saying the right things about joining another club. Nor do we yet know if he'll have the success of a Shaw, Mumford, Richards or McGlynn in terms of what he provides to the side. (Hoping for another Kennedy is too much.)

If there is one handicap the Swans might have in attracting players at the moment it could be the facilities, which have supposedly fallen way below the level of those most other clubs now have. But at least there is now a plan in place to upgrade these, even if it will take a few years before they are available.

I really don't see Buddy being a negative factor in any way. He seems universally respected and liked by older and younger players alike. Maybe his salary has some limitations on the ability to recruit others, but many clubs have (lesser) players earning similar or larger amounts so I don't think that's especially relevant. When you perform, week in, week out, at the level he does, no other player is going to look at him and think he's not earning what he's paid.

[R-1]

I suspect GWS are just facing several of the Mitchell situation. Not a cap squeeze in the sense of having literally no room, but players getting offers of a lot more money than the club thinks they're worth budgeting for.

Shiel would be Essendon's best midfielder, Lobb the Dockers' best marking target, they're worth more on the market to those clubs than to GWS, just as Mitchell was worth a lot more cash to Hawthorn with their thin midfield than he was to us with several mids ahead of him and with Heeney/Mills coming through. To a large extent that is just the salary cap working as intended - an upgraded role in a list means more money and promotes player mobility.

GWS have a big year next year in terms of retention, as their "originals" hit free agency where they haven't been locked up in a contract. So they've got an ongoing issue planning the forward years of their cap and if they can move on guys they know are getting offered overs, they probably keep themselves some other players. Scully, I suspect, they just don't want to give the sort of money and contract length someone else will.

[Markwebbos]

Why not if plays want to “go home”’ their incumbent club is free to strike the best deal with all clubs in the players hometown?

Tim Kelly said he’d rather stay at Geelong than play for Freo!