2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Why would the club seek to trade (as opposed to respond to a request from Papley to be traded) a current young but experienced gun midfielder/forward (for he is far more than a small forward) for a pick that might (but might not) become a gun midfielder in a few years time? Our list profile desperately needs to retain players in Papley's age range. We already have a crop of promising players who will enter their prime in a few years time.

Thanks Liz. My thoughts exactly.

[barry]

Picks are way overrated. If you trade established players for picks you'll end up like gold coast.

[liz]

What would then stop us trading Pick 8 (and maybe Pick 4) for an absolute star?

The fact that absolute stars who want to move clubs, and whose current club is willing to give up (if they are in contract) do not grow on trees. And even if one does exist, the club then has to persuade them to move to Sydney.

The majority of players who move go home, or are attracted to the "bright lights" of Melbourne. We are up against it trying to attract these kinds of players to Sydney unless they are "troubled" key forwards keen to move away from the spotlight. These don't grow on trees.

There are also at least three clubs - St Kilda, Carlton and North - who have far more room in their salary cap than other clubs (including us), if an absolute star were to become gettable (even putting aside the obstacles of luring players away from the traditional football states and/or their home towns).

It's far easier to hang onto what you already have.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I'm glad to hear the club effectively saying Papely is off the trade table.

The club hasn't said that.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I think the Papley fiasco is dead in the water now

He is signed on till 2021 minimum

I’ve moved on

The main player that is still in the media with offers on the table reported as above is Zac Jones

[Steve]

The whole Papley trigger clause thing just sounds odd the way it's been reported.

For the extension to 2023 to be set on an automatic 'trigger', without it being an option for Papley to take up, I can only think that he was actually given a 5-year extension in 2018, with a clause saying he would only not get 2022 and 2023 if he had a major injury etc during 2018/2019.

Given the media seem to have only just picked up on it just now, it wouldn't be a huge surprise that they've got part of the story and painted their own picture of the 'trigger' component.

Otherwise it seems very odd that both parties would agree to a more typical trigger clause (ie. when they're cautious about over-committing) for what would be a 4th and 5th year, but set the trigger to enact at the end of the first year.

Still doesn't preclude him from asking for a trade citing 'personal reasons' and it leaving us with the choice of holding someone to 4 more years not wanting to be there vs just letting him go.

I'm also quite ambivalent about Zac Jones leaving if he does. I think it's pretty clear he is doing a Jake Lloyd - wants to stay but leveraging other offers to get the most money he can. But we have to set a limit and he's not worth paying overs for, causing problems retaining or attracting other players.

He's an outside player who likes to look tough with the jumper punches and scuffles etc, but rarely puts his head over the ball and provides the hardness we actually need from him. Hence why we'd be offering him a good deal but not an amazing one.

[Ludwig]

Why would the club seek to trade (as opposed to respond to a request from Papley to be traded) a current young but experienced gun midfielder/forward (for he is far more than a small forward) for a pick that might (but might not) become a gun midfielder in a few years time? Our list profile desperately needs to retain players in Papley's age range. We already have a crop of promising players who will enter their prime in a few years time.

Agree 100%.

Papley may well be valued at a pick 8, the way trades are done these days, but if we got a pick 8, we would be happy to get a player of Papley's ability. So what's the point of trading him for the hope of investing 4 years to get a player that we already have? That's the Gold Coast method to success. A lot can go wrong between draft day and 4 years hence.

[Auntie.Gerald]

The reason we offered long term with triggers is because for two seasons Papley suffered from carpal tunnel

Paps had a couple surgeries and missed two pre seasons

Yet we knew we wanted him long term ala his performances in 2019

[Captain]

Agree 100%.

Papley may well be valued at a pick 8, the way trades are done these days, but if we got a pick 8, we would be happy to get a player of Papley's ability. So what's the point of trading him for the hope of investing 4 years to get a player that we already have? That's the Gold Coast method to success. A lot can go wrong between draft day and 4 years hence.

Not one person has suggested trading him to get pick 8.

The point is that if he wants to go and asks for a trade, getting pick 8 in return is a pretty good deal.

[Blood Fever]

The whole Papley trigger clause thing just sounds odd the way it's been reported.

For the extension to 2023 to be set on an automatic 'trigger', without it being an option for Papley to take up, I can only think that he was actually given a 5-year extension in 2018, with a clause saying he would only not get 2022 and 2023 if he had a major injury etc during 2018/2019.

Given the media seem to have only just picked up on it just now, it wouldn't be a huge surprise that they've got part of the story and painted their own picture of the 'trigger' component.

Otherwise it seems very odd that both parties would agree to a more typical trigger clause (ie. when they're cautious about over-committing) for what would be a 4th and 5th year, but set the trigger to enact at the end of the first year.

Still doesn't preclude him from asking for a trade citing 'personal reasons' and it leaving us with the choice of holding someone to 4 more years not wanting to be there vs just letting him go.

I'm also quite ambivalent about Zac Jones leaving if he does. I think it's pretty clear he is doing a Jake Lloyd - wants to stay but leveraging other offers to get the most money he can. But we have to set a limit and he's not worth paying overs for, causing problems retaining or attracting other players.

He's an outside player who likes to look tough with the jumper punches and scuffles etc, but rarely puts his head over the ball and provides the hardness we actually need from him. Hence why we'd be offering him a good deal but not an amazing one.

Agree with just about all your post except describing Jones as soft and not really important to the team. Agree we shouldn't pay too much for him if it strains our cap too much.

[KSAS]

I'm glad to hear the club effectively saying Papely is off the trade table.

The club hasn't said that.

Quote from the article: "The Swans are steadfast that he will be at the club next season."
I've read that as the club effectively taking Papley off the trade table, particularly when you take into consideration his standing in the team and coming to light of his contract extension.

[mcs]

Quote from the article: "The Swans are steadfast that he will be at the club next season."
I've read that as the club effectively taking Papley off the trade table, particularly when you take into consideration his standing in the team and coming to light of his contract extension.

I would guess the club is comfortable enough that his exit interview has suggested he won't agitate for a move, and as a result they can rebuff any trade offers for him - and in the medium to longer term, are comfortable that time will help him the issues that have unsettled him settle down.

[707]

707 what were your recollections of what Ryan said about that period when he talked to the supporter group? He was pretty forthright IIRC

Ryan had asked for a trade to Hawthorn for go home reasons, Hawks couldn't get the deal done as they were low balling us with a late second, Ryan understood the club weren't taking unders and he agreed to stay with the coaches agreeing to give him more midfield time as part of that understanding that he would stay.

Probably a bit like Papley, happy here but if a deal could be worked out to move home kind of thing but not going to burn the club. Worked out really well for Ryan.

[KSAS]

I would guess the club is comfortable enough that his exit interview has suggested he won't agitate for a move, and as a result they can rebuff any trade offers for him - and in the medium to longer term, are comfortable that time will help him the issues that have unsettled him settle down.

I'm hoping our expected on field improvement will also influence Papley to stay put.

[Ralph Dawg]

Wonder what Saints will offer us for Jones, especially if he actually wants out? Player plus 2nd rounder?