2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ludwig]

$900,000 for Daniher is lunacy. That's Buddy territory and he 'aint no Buddy.

Ludwig old mate; Parker will be awful slow in 7 years.

Parker will be 32 in his sixth year from now. That's okay. Not counting on him playing in 2026, but not worried about that now.

If you think 900 k is lunacy. Just wait when we offer him a million.

[Nico]

Parker will be 32 in his sixth year from now. That's okay. Not counting on him playing in 2026, but not worried about that now.

If you think 900 k is lunacy. Just wait when we offer him a million.

All we need to do is invoke quantitative easy.

[Ralph Dawg]

We are right now sitting with 5 maximum open slots on the roster.

Let's assume that Papley, Jones and Cameron are traded out, bringing that up to 8.

• I agree with Ernie, that we should offer pick 9 for Daniher that we get from the Papley trade and just hold out if they baulk. In the end we 'cave in' and give them pick 5, which is worth about the same as pick 9 and our early 3rd rounder. Essendon won't do much better than pick 9 in compo for Daniher next year anyway, so there's no bluffing here from Essendon. We can wait. And then Essendon would have to play all next year with losing Daniher at year end, including the constant annoyance from journos writing about it and talking about it on AFL 360 and SEN. It can't help their 2020 campaign. I think we hold the cards here.
• Try to trade Jones and Cameron for 2020 picks. Or try to add around 1000 points for 2020 in some fashion.
• We use pick 43 and to acquire Tom Cutler. I think he's the best fit for us out of the available midfielders who have been floated around.
• We recruit Riley Knight for later picks
• We sign Harley Bennell as a DFA
• We are back to 5 picks max.
• We use pick 9 to draft emerging ruckman Luke Jackson and try to put to rest all this churning of ruckmen and get some long term ruck stability once he develops enough to take on the job full time.
• We use 2 more picks in the ND and maybe another in the RD.
• We go into 2020 draft with extra points for Campbell and Gulden, as well as flexibility to position ourselves best to get the most out of our 2020 picks.

Despite reports that we need to replace our aging midfield, this is complete rubbish. There's only JPK going out in the next 5 years, so after our midfield group could stay intact for a long time. Parker will just turn 27, so should have another 6 or 7 years left. In fact, the only key players we will lose to retirement in the next 3 years are Buddy and Kennedy, so we are looking at net gains in depth over this period through the draft. We usually add around 3 quality AFL players per draft, so we should go up a net 7 quality players during this time, albeit the loss of Buddy and Kennedy would be losing elite players. But some of the players drafted will become elite players, so it breaks even over the long run.

Losing Papley and Jones will hurt for a team trying to become quicker, but we are prepared with our astute drafting of players like Stoddart, Ling, McInerney, Bell and Foot. I'm not sold on Hirst, but he's very quick as well. I'm also more confident than others that Ronke can fill Papley's shoes, especially if he becomes the number one small forward and not living in Papley's shadow.

Ludwig, I like your analysis as always.

However I do respectfully disagree on your analysis of our midfield. Over the course of the last 2-3 years, we have been beaten consistently at the contest. Since the loss of form by Hanners and Jack, coupled with the departure of Mitchell, the opposition has worked out that it's pretty easy to starve us of ball by shutting down JPK and Parker.
Adding to our woes has been the inconsistency in JPK's form and fitness.

None of our youngsters have shown that they are ready to step up and become elite ball winners like JPK and Parks. Hewett is still tagging, Ollie still playing alot on the outside, Heeney and Mills still stuck forward and back, Rowbottom raw and Jones and Papley are out the door. It still looks like our on ball brigade will be carried by JPK and Parks. Coupled with our lack of fit and / or dominant ruckmen, I fear we will struggle at the contest.

Given the option (which is most probably not available), a ball winning mid would be much more useful to us then a KPF. One just has to look at what a difference Neale (and Lyons) made to the Lions as compared with Hogan and Lobb did to Freo.

[Ralph Dawg]

Just read McGuane's analysis and he stated we were 18th in contested and 17th in cleatances

[MattW]

Matthew Lloyd reckons pick 5 isn't enough, Essendon should demand Heeney or Blakey, and that (given that) it's unlikely a deal will be struck. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...06-p52y2m.html

I think he's trying to put pressure on Essendon to trade high and not settle.

Obviously, the key to this is Daniher's fitness (which is not mentioned in Lloyd's piece). If Essendon thinks Daniher will struggle to play much next year then they might have to fold earlier than Lloyd demands. Of course, that wouldn't be great for us (to trade in an injured player), unless they are wrong or we can work Scully-like medical miracles.

[Markwebbos]

Matthew Lloyd reckons pick 5 isn't enough, Essendon should demand Heeney or Blakey, and that (given that) it's unlikely a deal will be struck. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...06-p52y2m.html

I think he's trying to put pressure on Essendon to trade high and not settle.

Obviously, the key to this is Daniher's fitness (which is not mentioned in Lloyd's piece). If Essendon thinks Daniher will struggle to play much next year then they might have to fold earlier than Lloyd demands. Of course, that wouldn't be great for us (to trade in an injured player), unless they are wrong or we can work Scully-like medical miracles.

He’s arguing entirely from the POV that the Bombers can’t afford to lose him, but omits to mention that JD will be a RFA next year. In other words he could walk out the door in 12 months time and at best they’ll get a first round compensation pick (mid first round at best).

Plus he’s got a massive injury cloud over him.

[Aprilbr]

The more I read of Essendon's extreme attitudes towards the Daniher trade, the more I think that a deal will not go through. The Swans will not sell the farm for him as seemingly the Bombers expect. Obviously, Matthew Lloyd is not the Bombers leadership but it does reflect a general attitude. I'm happy to take our chances in 12 months time, keep Papley this year, and draft in midfield talent with our early pick. There is a risk that Daniher will no longer be available in 12 months time but it won't be the end of our world if that's the case.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

The more I read of Essendon's extreme attitudes towards the Daniher trade, the more I think that a deal will not go through. The Swans will not sell the farm for him as seemingly the Bombers expect. Obviously, Matthew Lloyd is not the Bombers leadership but it does reflect a general attitude. I'm happy to take our chances in 12 months time, keep Papley this year, and draft in midfield talent with our early pick. There is a risk that Daniher will no longer be available in 12 months time but it won't be the end of our world if that's the case.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

He’s a RFA next year so Swans can argue they’d get him for free then. I don’t understand why the rush to get him now given he’s under an enormous injury cloud.

Bombers can argue he’s worth more than the compo pick they’ll get for him. Swans that he’s free next year and has played 11 games in 2 years.

But I wonder whether we’ve given a commitment to JD that we’ll get it done? Hopefully not.

In an ideal world JD comes out and says he’s happy to wait 12 months to make the move and won’t sign a new deal with the Bombers!

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, I like your analysis as always.

However I do respectfully disagree on your analysis of our midfield. Over the course of the last 2-3 years, we have been beaten consistently at the contest. Since the loss of form by Hanners and Jack, coupled with the departure of Mitchell, the opposition has worked out that it's pretty easy to starve us of ball by shutting down JPK and Parker.
Adding to our woes has been the inconsistency in JPK's form and fitness.

None of our youngsters have shown that they are ready to step up and become elite ball winners like JPK and Parks. Hewett is still tagging, Ollie still playing alot on the outside, Heeney and Mills still stuck forward and back, Rowbottom raw and Jones and Papley are out the door. It still looks like our on ball brigade will be carried by JPK and Parks. Coupled with our lack of fit and / or dominant ruckmen, I fear we will struggle at the contest.

Given the option (which is most probably not available), a ball winning mid would be much more useful to us then a KPF. One just has to look at what a difference Neale (and Lyons) made to the Lions as compared with Hogan and Lobb did to Freo.

These things with contested possessions can change quickly. We have a lot of young midfielders and expect that we will improve in this area. In any case, we don't have many options available. We're are not going to recruit a Lachie Neale, are we? We have plenty of coverage in defence and forward. We can push our best ball winners into the midfield without losing much elsewhere.

I don't disagree that we need to win more hard ball gets, but we simply will need to do it with the players we have. There's nothing coming in from the outside that will change that. Ollie will play more on the inside as time goes on and Hewett is a lot more than a tagger. He was 3rd in both CPs and Clearances, behind JPK and Parker.

Just read McGuane's analysis and he stated we were 18th in contested and 17th in cleatances

That's probably the totals, not the average, as Richmond played 3 more games than Sydney. The Tigers were last in average per game clearances and 17th in contested possessions (WCE were last). We were 16th in both.

Matthew Lloyd reckons pick 5 isn't enough, Essendon should demand Heeney or Blakey, and that (given that) it's unlikely a deal will be struck. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...06-p52y2m.html

I think he's trying to put pressure on Essendon to trade high and not settle.

Obviously, the key to this is Daniher's fitness (which is not mentioned in Lloyd's piece). If Essendon thinks Daniher will struggle to play much next year then they might have to fold earlier than Lloyd demands. Of course, that wouldn't be great for us (to trade in an injured player), unless they are wrong or we can work Scully-like medical miracles.

I have to agree with Lloyd that Essendon are in big trouble without Daniher and need to do everything they can to keep him. But our position has to be based on the facts as they stand and not what Essendon require. Essendon's option is offer Daniher a big long term contract and see what happens. If he doesn't accept it, then they know he's leaving next year as a FA. That's even more of a problem for Essendon than him leaving this year.

Essendon are in big trouble. They have problems all over the ground. Losing both Daniher and Fantasia will be a killer. They don't have a lot of young talent coming up through the ranks as the spend draft picks on Shiel, Smith and Saad. They look to be a mid table team and falling.

Personally, I hope Daniher stays at Essendon this year. We can wait another year. We needn't be desperate.

[Markwebbos]

I’m pretty bullish about NOBT aka Rowbottom’s prospects as an inside mid. And we have a couple more young mids coming in 2020.

But I do hope we’ve got our eye on someone as a trade. If we lose Jones and Paps 2020 could be a very long year with an even younger side.

Random thought: Blakey is such a competitor, could he play on ball next year?

[Meg]

Personally, I hope Daniher stays at Essendon this year. We can wait another year. We needn't be desperate.

+1

[goswannies]

Personally, I hope Daniher stays at Essendon this year. We can wait another year. We needn't be desperate.

Didn’t we do that with Spider from Hawthorn?

[707]

Didn’t we do that with Spider from Hawthorn?

Yes but Spider was at the end not 26 in the year he arrived. I'm happy to wait and test RFA next year.

[chalbilto]

+1

+2

[Ludwig]

We can't take a chance and finish top 4 next year or we might lose access to either Campbell or Gulden, as I interpret the rules as they stand. This is grossly unfair, as it's just happenstance that 2 top picks fall in a single draft. The rule should take into account that we never had more than 1 top 20 academy pick in a draft and will not have one this year. The rule should cover, at a minimum, what happened in the previous year. I think we should appeal the AFL for a rule modification.

That's another reason why we shouldn't get Daniher this year, as we don't want to improve our chances of a top 4 finish. No Daniher and losing Papley and Jones should be enough to keep us out of top 4 contention.

The AFL is encouraging tanking by this rule.