Tweet
I'm still not convinced that the Bombers are after 5 and 9, and that's what they are after. It's a bit like haggling for a house. Buyer says I'll offer you 1 million (us 9 and future 1st rounder), sellers say we want 1.4million (Bombers 5,9 and player), buyer says 1.2 (us 5 and 9), seller says done deal.
-
-
My interpretation of Quayle's interpretation (and explanation) is that there isn't a rule preventing them doing this. The only hard rule Quayle identified was a limit on how much deficit a club can go into - but that is the aggregate value of the first to fourth round picks that the premiership team would be awarded (ie the value of picks 18, 36, 54, 72). Even if they don't pick up any more draft picks this year, GWS's deficit from matching a pick at 5 (assuming the trade with Melbourne had gone down) would be a lot less than this. If they held a first round pick in 2020 (including if they trade one in next year), the Green deficit would come off that pick. But if they don't hold one, my interpretation is that it just comes off their second round pick.
It's to address situations like this that I think there should be a rule around having a pick to match a bid within X spots of the bid (where my suggested value of X is around 10). It would enable the purposes and spirit of the academy system to remain, while addressing perceived distortion of the draft process (and fairness) whereby clubs can package up lots of lower picks in a way they could never do via a trade. It would also address the move that the Swans pulled off last year, something the AFL has said it intends to outlaw this year but hasn't explained how. My proposal represents a mechanism to address that, as well as the Giants potentially bypassing the deficit offset rules this year, one that is simple and transparent. I know the AFL doesn't like simple and transparent because it ties their hands and prevents them making up things as they go along, but I generally think that simple and transparent is a good thing, where it isn't overly simplistic.
My suggestion isn't an anti-Giants thing. They are operating within the rules as they currently are. It's more about addressing perceived (and probably real) unfairness within the current system so that (perceived or real) unfairness doesn't prove to be the undoing of the academy system (which I believe is crucial for the growth of the game in NSW and Queensland). Indeed, the Swans are the club who has probably benefitted the most from the rules as they stand, but I don't think they'd have been hamstrung if they had needed to match bids on Blakey or Mills with a higher pick than they did. Sure, they would be slightly worse off then they are, but it wouldn't have made it especially onerous to match the bids.Comment
-
*are notComment
-
I don’t think we swan supporters have put ourselves in the shoes of Essendon nearly enough
We all know that Joe wants to go which is very exciting for us potentially and he is a Free Agent next year which is significant also
The bombers see themselves in the window of a top4 and competing for a GF in 2020 and 2021
They have worked hard to get back to being competitive last 3 years and arguably with a fit and firing JD / 50 goals plus they would have won 2-3 more games then top4
12 wins in 2017,18,19
They have a seriously exciting group of players and a few that I would love at the Swans
Letting go of JD makes no sense for them but it is fascinating because of Joes free agency next year and the swans need with buddy 33yrs of age in jan and no real ruckman"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
-
Under 9 hours to go, we must have a time deadline to either up our offer or walk away. Pick 9 and next years first with nothing coming back our way may be our limit?
If that was accepted we'll probably need to do something creative to find some more 2020 picks just in case Campbell and Gulden do end up first rounders.
Looks like it's going to be a wasted day for me, time is ticking ........Comment
-
My gut feeling is that it IS going to happen today. No idea why I think that, but I do.Comment
-
The excitement is killing me.
Anyone else think the Daniher/Papley/Jones saga has cost us the opportunity to add players that we actually need (such as a decent midfielder)?Comment
-
Absolutely. A friend and I were discussing that just a day or two ago. Regardless of whether the Daniher thing comes off, I reckon the club has lost an opportunity to improve the list in the areas it most needs improvement. Some solid (not star, but solid) midfielders have changed clubs over the trade period and we've not had a sniff at any. Yet still seem certain to lose Jones and possible to lose Papley.Comment
-
I agree Liz. We were consistently beaten in the midfield. It was only by virtue of heroic defensive efforts and good conversion of opportunities that we managed to keep games close this year ( in fact that's most probably been the pattern for the last 3 seasons).
Collingwood would've been a potential good source as they are under cap pressure and have an abundance of midfield talent, likewise GWS. Such a shame we wasted all our time and energy with Daniher and the Bombers.Comment
-
Which players are you talking about?Comment
-
It’s captivating
Havent been so distracted in a long time lol"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
-
Goodo.
Real Footy (AFL) on Twitter: "As of this morning, Sydney have still not offered their first pick (no.5) to Essendon for Joe Daniher, according to @JakeNiallTHEAGE & @mickgleeson in our live trade blog: https://t.co/PFhqEiW5n6"
- - - Updated - - -
Yes. It's a little sad, but I feel I've lucked out with the trade period ending on the day I have off to look after my kids. Flower pressing and refreshing Twitter - therapeutic.Comment
-
To me, this has the feel of a request to the Swans from the Bombers made via the Age. It's clear we are very reluctant to part with pick 5, which implies we have a plan that would work with pick 5 not pick 9. It's also clear Bombers want to inflict some pain on us. I wonder if that would be enough, but if we could find a way to trade up to a higher pick than pick 9 = have our cake and eat it?
"As of this morning, Sydney have still not offered their first draft pick (no.5) to Essendon as part of negotiations over Joe Daniher. To date, the Swans have only put forward pick no.9 to Essendon - a selection the Swans don’t have yet as it is conditional upon Tom Papley being traded to Carlton. Sources acknowledge that it is possible that Swans are holding back their best offer for Daniher and that pick no.5 may be offered in the course of today."Comment
-
Because Sam McClure broke the Daniher-Harley meeting news, he's been pushing the story that it was at the invitation and instigation of the Swans that Daniher wants to leave Essendon. There may well have been a discussion about Joe moving to the Swans or there may have been many conversations directly or through managers about the move. There is no proof whatsoever about which party initiated contact about moving clubs. But the talk radio team, for the most part, have stuck to the line that Sydney initiated the move so the onus is on Sydney to get the deal done. It makes far more sense to me that it was Daniher's management that let it be known that Joe was interested in going to Sydney. And Joe must have been pretty unhappy where he felt he couldn't wait another year when he would have had the right to free agency. RFA or not, Essendon cannot force Joe to sign another contract. One way or another he would get to the Swans. And even if he doesn't, you just let it go and move on. We will save a couple of high draft picks, get a couple of good players and things will be fine. It's probably 50/50 which outcome would be better.
The main thing is to determine a fair value for Daniher and Papley and stick to what is best for the Swans. There's not obligation to do either trade. There's no embarrassment in not doing a deal. The embarrassment comes from doing a dumb deal.Comment
Comment