2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[MattW]

I just heard on TV that one of our young gun Academy prospects, Braden Campbell, was Best on Ground in the U18s elites match played at the MCG this morning. A good sign although this means his trade value is rising.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Callum Twomey on Twitter: "Sydney has another Academy gun coming through. Braeden Campbell was exceptional today in the under-17s All Stars game. Three goals (including a couple of rippers) from the midfield. Next year's draft but looks very good."

[liz]

Good news for us Swans fans, in the Futures curtain raiser today. Playing for Team Brown, academy player Braeden Campbell was awarded the medal for BOG. While Errol Gulden was the leading possession getter for Team Dal Santo.

Campbell looked very classy. He scored three goals, moved smoothly through traffic and hit targets with long kicks. There was a touch of Lachie Whitfield about his performance. He may have even grown a centimetre or two, since the start of the season.

While Gulden was very busy with 19 disposals, a goal, and I think the commentator said, 9 tackles. With his sort of retro haircut, increasingly developing biceps, hard tackling and in-under attack on the ball, he's starting to remind me of Swans legend, Paul Kelly. Big wrap, I know; but I think there's some sort of chance that he'll live up to it.

I confess I was surprised to see Campbell anointed as BOG. Not that he wasn't good. He had some very classy touches. I just thought Hollands and Phillips were more dominant, while showing as much class as Campbell did.

Overall I was very impressed with the quality right across the board. Although the scoreboard suggested it was one-sided, it didn't feel it. Players from both teams combined a high level of pressure and tenacity with plenty of skill and x-factor. It was a highly entertaining game to watch.

I don't really see any Paul Kelly in Gulden, I confess. The thing that set Kelly apart was his explosiveness - his pace and his high, overhead marking. Gulden doesn't possess that, not at this stage. And his body shape is pretty different. Kelly was wiry. Gulden, though short (by AFL standards) is pretty solidly built. Doesn't mean I'm not impressed by him. I just don't think "Kelly" when I watch him.

[MattW]

Heh, the best for their respective teams.Future Swan stars in Grand Final curtain-raiser - AFL.com.au

[dejavoodoo44]

I confess I was surprised to see Campbell anointed as BOG. Not that he wasn't good. He had some very classy touches. I just thought Hollands and Phillips were more dominant, while showing as much class as Campbell did.

Overall I was very impressed with the quality right across the board. Although the scoreboard suggested it was one-sided, it didn't feel it. Players from both teams combined a high level of pressure and tenacity with plenty of skill and x-factor. It was a highly entertaining game to watch.

I don't really see any Paul Kelly in Gulden, I confess. The thing that set Kelly apart was his explosiveness - his pace and his high, overhead marking. Gulden doesn't possess that, not at this stage. And his body shape is pretty different. Kelly was wiry. Gulden, though short (by AFL standards) is pretty solidly built. Doesn't mean I'm not impressed by him. I just don't think "Kelly" when I watch him.

Interesting how different people remember different things. While highlights packages confirm that Kelly was fast and high marking, what I think of most, when I remember him, was his ability to go after groundballs, while being both outnumbered and outsized, and to invariably emerge with the ball. A trait that Gulden is already displaying. And while Kelly started out skinny, he did bulk up over the years; especially around the biceps. Which is a bit similar to present day Gulden. Another similarity is Gulden's current haircut, which is a bit like the style Kelly had during his Brownlow year.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting how they both develop. While a lot can happen in a year, I see them both as first rounders: with Gulden possibly going higher.

[Ralph Dawg]

Interesting how different people remember different things. While highlights packages confirm that Kelly was fast and high marking, what I think of most, when I remember him, was his ability to go after groundballs, while being both outnumbered and outsized, and to invariably emerge with the ball. A trait that Gulden is already displaying. And while Kelly started out skinny, he did bulk up over the years; especially around the biceps. Which is a bit similar to present day Gulden. Another similarity is Gulden's current haircut, which is a bit like the style Kelly had during his Brownlow year.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting how they both develop. While a lot can happen in a year, I see them both as first rounders: with Gulden possibly going higher.

We need to start banking future trades for these two. Jones for Saints future 1st / 2nd rounder.

[southsideswan]

I suppose everything that is happening now is talk and rumours. We have just had 5 senior players retire (presumably on top $... I included Tippett in this as we have just stopped paying him). We are rumoured to only be after 1 top line player. Not that means much, we do keep things close to our chest. Just makes me wonder what is happening behind closed doors.

[Mel_C]

Grand final is over so now onto the trade period!

[Ludwig]

Good pics on BF trade thread of Papley, Hayward-Florent, Mills, Harry, McCartin, Ronke holidaying in Spain. Another of a heap of NEAFL players plus Blakey in Bali I think (no pre marital sex fellas!)

Papley looking very happy as a Swan amongst other loyal Swans, or maybe it's Norf's $900k that has him so happy?

How romantic of Tom? Thankfully the season is over and Tom can get back home and spend some time with his forlorn girlfriend.

Oops! Or maybe I'll go off to Europe first and spend some more time with my mates who I spent every day with for past 8 months.

Poor Tom. That homesickness must really be hurtin' bad.

[0918330512]

I confess I was surprised to see Campbell anointed as BOG. Not that he wasn't good. He had some very classy touches. I just thought Hollands and Phillips were more dominant, while showing as much class as Campbell did.

Get out your tin foil hats, Gil made the call to the medal adjudicators at half time “Campbell gets the medal people, push his points value up. The Swans will have to trade out Papley and Jones to get the points to match a bid for Campbell. They can’t have everyone ... actually let’s make it they can’t have anyone!”

[707]

BOg for both U17 teams, Ediie would be lobbying the AFL except they have a highly rated NGA next year who belongs to them not because he wasn't already playing footy but because his mum was born outside of Australia. Gee those NGA rules are flimsy!

Assuming we finish in the 12-14 bracket we'll have plenty of points, be great to sneak in a top pick before the academy boys get bids.

[Ralph Dawg]

Any highlights / full match replay of this game?

[Thunder Shaker]

On Gulden and Campbell:

We need to start banking future trades for these two. Jones for Saints future 1st / 2nd rounder.

Which is what I've been saying for a few weeks regarding future picks.

Your trade for Jones is plausible, but I do not expect him to command a future first-round pick. Nor would we actually need it.

A question we should consider: how many 2020 draft points will we need?

The worst-case scenario is that they go at pick 1 and 2. Those picks are worth 3000 and 2517 points, or 4413.6 in total with the 20% discount. That is a pessimistic scenario but gives a base.

If they go at picks 4 and 5, the required value goes down to 3129.6. It is plausible that we would be seeking a total of about this many draft points. Two second-round and four third-round picks would have a value of around 2700 points (on average) so that is a likely path for securing future picks by trading in one future second-round and three future third-round picks. That's without touching our 2020 first-round pick which could be worth 1644 points if we finish 12th next year or 1329 points for finishing 8th. This would be retained as insurance against early bids.

I will assume that Gold Coast gets a priority pick. That would leave us with picks 5, 24, 41, 50, 58, 59, 77. Those picks have a value of 3676 points with pick 5 having about half of the draft value (1878). It is not unreasonable to suggest that we will be seeking to acquire future picks, perhaps as many as four. We may seek to turn the extra later picks into future picks.

One example of such a trade I floated earlier: Cameron and pick 58 to Collingwood in exchange for Collingwood's 2020 3rd-round pick. Pick 58 is 170 points, Collingwood's 2020 3rd-rounder could be around pick 50 (273 points). It gives us additional trade points next year in exchange for a pick that we can do without. I don't expect this trade to happen but it illustrates the principle of upgrading picks as a part of trading.

Revisiting the possible Jones trade, I think a plausible trade would be Jones and either pick 50 (late 3rd round) or 58 (early 4th round) for a future second-round pick and a future third-round pick. Again, it's the principle of trying to accumulate as many future picks as possible. Why go for only one future pick when one can get two?

[SeanM]

I don't think points next year will be that much of an issue.

I think the only problem would be if we were top four and both Gulden/Campbell looked like first round picks. Because top four sides can only match one first round bid.

If GWS had a pick before us, they could bid on Gulden, we would match and then not be allowed to match a first round bid for Campbell.

But that is a year away. And there is no guarantee that both will end up rated as first round picks.

[Markwebbos]

I think it’s unlikely we’ll finish top4 in 2020

[Thunder Shaker]

I don't think points next year will be that much of an issue.

I think the only problem would be if we were top four and both Gulden/Campbell looked like first round picks. Because top four sides can only match one first round bid.

If GWS had a pick before us, they could bid on Gulden, we would match and then not be allowed to match a first round bid for Campbell.

But that is a year away. And there is no guarantee that both will end up rated as first round picks.

Top-four sides can match multiple early bids if they've traded in enough additional picks ahead of time. One first-round pick, two second-round picks and four third-round picks would be enough to match first-round bids on both players much of the time. Early first-round bids and a top-four finish would require more, but by then it would be clear what would be required.

In the event it doesn't, a points deficit can be repaid out of the following year's draft. I doubt it would come to that because that's poor planning.