2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[liz]

I hope Freo are not bluffing. Saints are proposing a deal to Port of 12 & 18 for 10, Howard and Ryder. Port would be bonkers to go for that one sided deal unless they are desperate to unload Howard and Ryder.

On another tack do Carlton still need both Papley and Martin now they have Betts. Hope we keep Papley.

I don't see that trade as particularly one-sided, or detrimental to Port. Port asked for a first round pick for Howard, which was probably slightly on the high side. This way they get pick 18 for him, with a two pick downgrade of their current first round pick. Ryder's really not worth a whole lot on the draft table.

I'm not sure how that materially changes the Saints' position in regard to the Hill trade, though. It just means they hold pick 10 instead of pick 12. It's a way of getting in Howard and Ryder but hardly a "circuit breaker" for the Hill trade. Maybe they offer that pick 10 (or existing pick 12) plus next year's first rounder (as they no longer need it for King!!) and get something back, say Freo's second rounder for next year. They could send that to us for Jones - that would be a pretty good outcome for us. Hard to see Freo bounding up the table, even if a new coach brings something of the unknown to their prospects. The loss of Hill and Langdon won't do anything for their outside run.

[stevoswan]

This is illogical, as it suggests the Swans would be obliged to accept any demands.

Did he say the same about Tim Kelly and West Coast last year?

Telstra AFL Trade Radio on Twitter: ""Joe Daniher publicly requested a trade to Sydney... The Swans owe it to him to get the deal done"

- Damian Barrett

#AFLTrade"

No.....IIRC, most of the 'vibe' coming out of Melbourne was 'how can the Cats stop Kelly going west." Effing hypocrites.....they seem to assume people outside of Victoria are either dumb or have no memory.

[Beerman]

Re: Daniher, I think the ball is definitely in our court and we have to come up with something if we want the deal to happen. Essendon didn't ask for a trade, and are clearly don't want to trade him, so we have to make the running.

I think the media overplays it in suggesting that we 100% have to come up with something though - they seem to discount too heavily that we might be willing to walk away if the deal is not favourable to us.

Trade radio this morning* was actually pretty good on Essendon's strategy. The argument was that asking for Heeney, Parker or Blakey are ambit claims and the Swans are obviously not going to accept them. But what they are doing is playing the ball back saying "If you want Daniher [which we do] and you won't give up one of your stars [which we won't], then YOU name a player. You know we want someone good, so don't offer us rubbish".

That's fair enough, and I'm pleased that we seem to be taking a similar strategy with Carlton in saying "If you want him, then give us pick 9. If you don't want to do that, then make us a better offer. Otherwise, we're happy to keep him".

There was some talk that there would be a multi-club trade where we would give up Papley and 25 for pick 15 and and a host of later picks, perhaps this year or next year. Although that seems crazy at first, if the later pick was say next year's pick 40, that might be very helpful for matching our academy prospects.

*Edit: Not the segment with Barret (obviously). There was some earlier talk with Dal Santo and someone else I can't recall.

[Beerman]

Also, interesting recap on the Swans site about the 2009 trade period.

Shane Mumford traded by Geelong for draft selection 28 (Mitch Duncan)

Hard to say who won that one - Mummy was a big part of our team leading up the 2012 flag, but Duncan I think is a better player overall. Probably a win-win.

[stevoswan]

We owe them nothing. Nil. Nada. Zilch.
I want to go to the Maldives for a month, but the Maldives don't owe me jack.
Overwhelming sense of entitlement this kid has... dare I say it... DICKHEAD.
He offers no loyalty whatsoever. What if he misses mummy and wants to go home one year into a four-year contract (Anthony Rocca)? Does he think that his next football club will just roll over like Essenscum?
They want to get rid of him because he's, obviously, injury prone.

Bit harsh and said with much prejudice. Not sure it's warranted.

"Entitlement"?.....he doesn't like Melbourne and wants to get out of the bubble. Where have we heard that before? For what it's worth, no one ever called Lockett, Hall and Franklin 'entitled' and 'dickheads' and unloyal. Add to that.....his Dad played with us.

"Misses Mummy"? That's a massive reach and comes from a place of anxiety and subsequent prejudice.

I understand that this potential trade is fraught with danger and it's potential ramifications are making Swans fans anxious and nervous but I think some should take a deep breath, count to ten, settle down and have a little more faith in our club.....

However, I do agree with you that we owe them nothing. We should wait a year so we can give them exactly that. Nothing.

[rb4x]

I don't see that trade as particularly one-sided, or detrimental to Port. Port asked for a first round pick for Howard, which was probably slightly on the high side. This way they get pick 18 for him, with a two pick downgrade of their current first round pick. Ryder's really not worth a whole lot on the draft table.

I'm not sure how that materially changes the Saints' position in regard to the Hill trade, though. It just means they hold pick 10 instead of pick 12. It's a way of getting in Howard and Ryder but hardly a "circuit breaker" for the Hill trade. Maybe they offer that pick 10 (or existing pick 12) plus next year's first rounder (as they no longer need it for King!!) and get something back, say Freo's second rounder for next year. They could send that to us for Jones - that would be a pretty good outcome for us. Hard to see Freo bounding up the table, even if a new coach brings something of the unknown to their prospects. The loss of Hill and Langdon won't do anything for their outside run.

I think Howard is worth about 18. Just my opinion but a two pick downgrade from 10 to 12 is fairly significant and that is to take Ryder off Port's hands!!! Ryder is probably a better ruckman than any we have on our list. Is getting a little long in the tooth. Might get a couple of years use out of him. Too good however to be paying the Saints a significant downgrade to take him.

[stevoswan]

If we are so desperate for a KPF who can ruck, why don't we come in with a late 20s / 30s pick for Patton and an undertaking not to bid on Green?

Patton is fit, could've played out the end of last season and potentially a devastating FF. Hawks only offering pick in the 60s and GWS need the salary dump.

Essentially everything Daniher is for so much less.

I agree this makes more sense.....potentially as good but much much cheaper....but can you imagine the noses out of joint in Melbourne. Stealing a player out from under Hawthorn's nose!

There would be a push for ramifications.....we'd probably get another trading ban!

[KSAS]

A SEN caller suggested if we don't make the Daniher trade happen, it may impact contracted players in future nominating us fearing we can't get these trades done. Of course no mention of damage to EFC reputation!

[stevoswan]

I note that Lewis Taylor is out of contract so could come to the Swans for nothing. He/we might be waiting to see what happens with Papley first?

There was an article yesterday saying we had offered Taylor a three year contract....but it has now gone missing. Excited (stupid) journo jumping the gun?

[stevoswan]

A SEN caller suggested if we don't make the Daniher trade happen, it may impact contracted players in future nominating us fearing we can't get these trades done. Of course no mention of damage to EFC reputation!

Ah yes, the strange twisted logic of the Melbourne football world. Pats on the back if your scum to deal with (and from Melbourne).....and not to be trusted if you're wise and sensible and don't act like you're desperate (and not from Melbourne). I feel the need to vomit.....

[bloodspirit]

I'm getting more optimistic the Daniher deal will fall over. In which case I really hope we use pick 5 to bid on Green. I think there's a chance GWS don't match the bid. If they haven't traded up to have a pick ahead of our pick 5 it would entirely defeat their strategy and he doesn't especially fit one of their needs. They are well stocked for mids already. I agree it's still more likely they will match the bid. It's also more likely that they will complete a pick trade after trade period and pre-draft to move up the order ahead of our pick. But if neither of those things happen, he's perfect for us and our needs and universally reported to be an excellent player! Failing that I am hoping we get Serong or Young. At pick 9 (if we get it) we will get another player that should beautifully complement a pick 5 option. But if we trade out pick 5, the players that will be available at pick 9 feel like a small but distinct step down from those at pick 5. I feel like there's the top 2, then there's a bunch of 4 (Serong, Young, Green and probably Flanders) and then another 10-12 (based only on secondary sources and not my own observations).

To maximise the chances of the JD deal not going through, I really hope EFC stick to their guns. They are well within their rights to make any unreasonable demands. Why should they trade him? How does it help them unless they get massive overs? They don't have to trade JD. And if it turns out they were unwise to reject our fair offer and it bites them in the bum next year.... well, I can live with that.

I suppose the suggestions are unrealistic but I like the proposals that we think about targetting alternative KPFs who would come much cheaper, like Patton or Bruce or even Peter Wright. I'm not saying we should get any of those players but I like the thinking. Patton's only got one more year to run at "only" $600K and we clearly have the cap space. Unlike AG, I don't think we need another KPF with any urgency. We can definitely use Daniher but we don't need him (or any other KPF), especially not next year. Buddy, Reid, McCartin, Sinclair, Blakey etc etc can do the job for us for 2020 and beyond.

Can't wait for trade period to finish. It always drags excruciatingly. More than usual this year because of the fear that we will pay overs for JD.

[barry]

We should immediately retract the offer of pick 5 and 25. It's way overs.

Essendons starting position is 1 first round pick (same as free agent compo).
Our starting position is zip. (same as our free agent price).
Middle ground is somewhere between there. I believed he is only worth a pick between 10 and 20. Nothing else can be justified.

[Aprilbr]

I like the way Lloyd etc dismiss our offer of pick 5 and 25 for Daniher as being an insult. Hopefully the Swans trading leaders are not swayed by the biased Melb media. Others, for example, Buckenera, suggest that we should be very careful what we sacrifice for him. There is also a suggestion that somehow Dodo is such a master manipulator for acting like a dick whereas we are too nice in negotiations. Laughable really.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[barry]

If Dodo gets pick 5 plus anything else, then his is a master manipulator.

If we do give away too much, I can just see Harley spinning ".. Daniher is a champion player, who we are very lucky to get and will thrive at the swans., etc, etc, blah, blah"

[Markwebbos]

We should immediately retract the offer of pick 5 and 25. It's way overs.

Essendons starting position is 1 first round pick (same as free agent compo).
Our starting position is zip. (same as our free agent price).
Middle ground is somewhere between there. I believed he is only worth a pick between 10 and 20. Nothing else can be justified.

We'd need to offer more than the compo pick to make it worth their while. So its somewhere about what they'd get next year, not somewhere between zilch and that pick.