2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

The Sydney Swans currently hold selection 5, 25, 32, 44, 76 and 81

So pick 32 = 584 pts and pick 44 = 362 pts
Total = 946 pts

Pick 19 = 948 pts

Remote chance........ but I wonder if there is a club that has any specific need to split their individual higher draft pick into two picks ?

I want us to find a way to get pick 3 off Melbourne for 3 reasons: (1) it would give us the first "real" pick after Rowell and Anderson to go for anyone we wanted (2) if we do make a bid on Green, GWS would find it much harder to match point wise (3) plus they would then have to choose between Green and the other player they have their eye on, we'd mess up their double-dipping strategy.

Seeing as we won't be using our 1st rounder next year I wonder if we could find some way of offering it up and getting future second and thirds back in return?

In terms of list management, something weird is going on with the salary cap. We offloaded Hanners and Gaz in a hurry last year. In Hanners case it was largely a salary dump. Yet, if we were building a war chest, then why we haven't brought in any expensive players in the 2018 or 2019 trade periods?

I can think of 3 reasons. I'm hoping its number three. (1) We had mismanaged our cap (unlikely I hope) (2) We had our eye on a big fish that we failed to land. There was talk that the big fish was Daniher and we offloaded Hanners last year in preparation (that would contradict Harley and Gardiner's public statements). I think our failure to get anywhere near Essendon's trade demands implies that we were happy not to bring JD in this year, which means TH and CG were telling the truth.

Option (3) is that we are going through an accelerated but classic rebuild via the draft, with the aim of recruiting predominantly fast players. On that basis, now is not quite the time to trade in mature players. So we've taken advantage of a young, cheap playing list, to front-load the remainder of Buddy's contract, so that next year and beyond it will almost be gone ... and we are going to go ballistic with the money in 2020/2021. And JD will be one of our targets.

It's all a bit grassy knoll, I know.

[Auntie.Gerald]

We were after Moore, Langdon and Van Den Berg last year

How much would that have spend been ?

$750k pa
$600k pa
$400k pa

$1.75m ?

Thurlow, Menzel and Clarke would have cost max $1mill pa

Daniher this year $950k pa ?

[bloodspirit]

Mostly agree with you Syd76 but not as harsh about the non-recruitment of midfielders. While I absolutely share your disappointment on this, I think it is easy (1) to overrate the trading in of established players cheaply, although can be excellent value; (2) more pertinently, just because a player wants to move doesn't mean they are willing to come to Sydney. It seems to be harder to attract players to Sydney and if they are good enough they probably have rival suitors elsewhere.

Mw - disagree with trading up to pick 3 for Green. GWS would easily be able to match the points with their pick 6 albeit they would miss out on their other player. But it would cost us a lot to move up for not nearly the gain that GWS stand to get (and extra top 5 pick). As regards your ideas about the salary cap, I think of the three the third is most likely.

Afl.com.au has published a list of delisted players and players who are yet to be extended or delisted at their clubs. Apart from Harley Bennell, would we be interested in any of: Rupert Wills (sounds like a good get but will probably be re-signed at Collingwood), Sam Murray (we have been interested before - probably not now I'd say), Jack Newnes (we were interested a year ago) or Hamish Brayshaw (West Coast rookie, brother of Angus and Andrew)?

Lastly, there's an article about Papley not making it back to Melbourne - Swan faces 'challenges' slotting back in after trade request fails - AFL.com.au - where his manager, Winston Rous, says, among other things: "I couldn't fault Carlton, they were transparent when the process started on the lengths they would go to in order to get a trade done for Tom and understood the challenges given the high value that Sydney placed on him," he said. " I think this is interesting because it backs up my belief that we probably gave Daniher an indication of the lengths we would be prepared to go to get him before he announced his desire to come to us so he wouldn't feel let down if it didn't happen. It at least shows that this does happen sometimes.

[Scottee]

Hi all,

it looks like Gulden and Campbell will be just what the soctor ordered for next year given the mids situation. Has anybody got any thoughts on the strategy that will need to be employed to get both of them in terms of points and compliance with the AFL rules? It seems that their likely selection may have influenced the Daniher trade given our need for appropriate draft picks?

[Ludwig]

I had similar thoughts during trade week, but now I wonder if it might not have all been deliberate.

The Swans went into trade week resigned to losing Jones and Cameron but really not wanting to lose Papley. From the way things panned out, I don't think they had many targets they wanted to bring into the club (leaving Daniher aside for a moment).

We don't know the extent to which the Swans actively chased Daniher, or whether the request to move was largely his doing. I am guessing here, but he must be a little concerned about his future, given his injury woes and the lack of long term security at the Bombers. And while he gets a few more rights next year, he is still somewhat restricted, and knows he either needs to re-sign early or face the same kind of media circus that has surrounded the likes of Lynch, Kelly (x2), Martin, Coniglio et al in recent seasons. If the Swans tentatively offered him a three or four year deal, I can see the attraction of accepting that (even if it didn't maximise his dollar potential) just to escape that circus. But whether the Swans ever really thought they could prise him out of Essendon now, at least a cost they were prepared to bear, we can't really know.

But maybe it was convenient for the club to go through the charade, even if they knew it was likely to be fruitless. I don't suppose they are the least concerned about any perceptions of "egg on face" that the Melbourne media might connect. Fans and media like to make this stuff up, ignoring that all the recruitment managers have long standing relationships with each other, and with player managers, built over many years. I imagine there's a genuine respect amongst them because they all appreciate the challenges of doing their jobs under the glare of public and media scrutiny.

For all we know, Kinnear and Dodoro sat in a room together and played Scrabble for a week, both knowing that Daniher wasn't going to be traded, but not having much else to do for the week. (The Bombers didn't have much else on of consequence either.) For the Swans, this enabled them to largely ignore the Papley issue, or frame it as something tied up with the Daniher trade, even though it didn't really need to be. Fact is, they didn't want to trade Papley but without the Daniher charades, it would have been harder to avoid.

I agree with this assessment. I've been skeptical about the 'desperation' of Papley go home situation all along, although surely there is something to it. And I can't see how doing the Daniher trade this year makes any sense from our position. I can see Essendon's position too, in that losing Daniher, after recruiting all those top line players like Shiel, Saad, Stringer and Devon Smith, puts a deep hole in any flag run they might be wishing for.

I didn't know it before this year, but it was reported that Beatson and Dodoro have been long time close mates. As you say Liz, they may have just been going through the motions as part of an act that had to be performed, for the players, the managers, the media and the fans.

I've commented numerous times that I concur with the rebuilding plan that's been going on for quite a few years, and I think it's going quite well. I like our current list and can see continuing on field improvement for many years to come. It's hard to know when we will pass the point when the decline of Franklin and Kennedy will be surpassed by the organic growth from our younger players, but it will come.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Freo have rights to Liam Henry from the NGA who's predicated to fall around Pick 12? They have selections 10, 22, 58, 69, 79, 83.

(They also have pick 7).

But if he goes at pick 12, I reckon they come up about 50 points short even with the discount.

Hence, they might be willing to give up 22 (845 points) for the extra 100 points that come with 32 and 44.

We're effectively saying we only want three picks in the draft by doing that though - albeit good ones at 5, 22 and 25.

I guess it all depends on what we see in that range, and what they see as Henry's likely range.

But worth the discussion

[bloodspirit]

Freo have rights to Liam Henry from the NGA who's predicated to fall around Pick 12? They have selections 10, 22, 58, 69, 79, 83.

This is a good suggestion. You have missed that Freo also have pick 7. They might well be happy to trade pick 22 for picks 32 & 44 which would give us 5, 22, 25 and then 76. For us and for them, it depends on whether we want to draft 3 or 4 players. If we want to draft three and they want to draft 4, it could work.

[stevoswan]

Barratt goes beserk ... again:

Sliding Doors: IF the Blues botched the Trade Period ... THEN - AFL.com.au

If, some people feel I'm carrying on too much about the failed Daniher bid ...

then, I don't care. It was amateurish from the outset, plain embarrassing at the finish, and I'm including his management in this assessment. You actually urged Joe to go public with his desire to become a Swan, and then let him down, and hurt him. If I was Joe, I'd be changing management, and still be looking to head to Sydney at the end of next year … but not the Swans.

I just read that and was going to post something like "I just wish this guy would shut the F up." He is such an effing tool.....

We actually "urged Joe to go public" did we? He knows this for a fact does he? So he wants Joe to go to the other Sydney team does he? Well, he can eff himself.....

[The Big Cat]

I just read that and was going to post something like "I just wish this guy would shut the F up." He is such an effing tool.....

We actually "urged Joe to go public" did we? He knows this for a fact does he? So he wants Joe to go to the other Sydney team does he? Well, he can eff himself.....

And who is the player he believed we should have given up, plus draft choices to get Joe? Heeney, Blakey, Mills, Parker, Florent? As Jake Niall said in his article in The Age, these players are all more valuable at the moment than Daniher.

[Melbourne_Blood]

So what are everybody’s thoughts on who we should draft with our pick 5? It’s no question for me that it should be a midfielder . Even with the academy boys we will pick up in next years draft, what the last couple of years has shown me is you can never have enough good ball winners. Or perhaps that we have severely lacked enough good ball winners, with the decline of Jack and Hanners and the loss of Mitchell ( plus Joeys drop off ). I know there are some good half back types likely to be available around our pick , but for me if Serong is gone which seems fairly likely then we have to take Flanders ( assuming he is still there also ).

If he’s available at our pick 25, I like the sound of Miles Bergman also as a midfield / forward with speed and a good leap on him.

I’ve admittedly watched zero of these players so this is all based on phantom drafts and articles. Very keen to hear the thoughts of some who are more informed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

Firstly, just read that Nick Robertson of Brisbane has been delisted. I think he's worth delisting someone to make room for him. I'd delist Hirst. He's probably a depth player, but a good one. He's a better tagger than Clarke. Or we can trade out our pick 44 and take Robertson if we need to find a slot.

As for the draft, I think Melbourne will take Serong at pick 3 as he can play both forward and through the midfield. It makes the most sense. They will still have a good selection of players at pick 8. But there's always a chance the Giants will try to trade up.

If not for the ACL injury, I would take Brodie Kemp at pick 5. I still think he should be seriously considered.

As a South Australian and very quick outside runner who can go through the middle, there's a fair chance that Dylan Stephens will be taken by Adelaide. I only say this as it could increase our selection choice at pick 5.

Sam Flanders seems a perfect fit for the Swans. Good inside midfielder who wins plenty of the ball, has quick hands and tested well for both agility and vertical leap and strong overhead. Seems a bit of a quicker Luke Parker type. Hayden Young has played mostly HB, but has the tools to go into the midfield as well. You can never have enough runners who can kick well.

It's hard to rank these 4, but we know if we stay with pick 5 we will probably bid on Green, if not already taken by GWS, and we will have a choice of 2 from the 4 mentioned.

I'll try to rank them as who fits best for us:

1. Flanders (the safest choice)
2. Serong
3. Kemp
4. Young

[Blood Fever]

So what are everybody’s thoughts on who we should draft with our pick 5? It’s no question for me that it should be a midfielder . Even with the academy boys we will pick up in next years draft, what the last couple of years has shown me is you can never have enough good ball winners. Or perhaps that we have severely lacked enough good ball winners, with the decline of Jack and Hanners and the loss of Mitchell ( plus Joeys drop off ). I know there are some good half back types likely to be available around our pick , but for me if Serong is gone which seems fairly likely then we have to take Flanders ( assuming he is still there also ).

If he’s available at our pick 25, I like the sound of Miles Bergman also as a midfield / forward with speed and a good leap on him.

I’ve admittedly watched zero of these players so this is all based on phantom drafts and articles. Very keen to hear the thoughts of some who are more informed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One quick mid, one inside mid in that order. When the ball is knocked into space at clearances, we get pantsed by the quicker teams. Also need to replace Kennedy in 1-3 years.

[Mel_C]

The outrage from the media about the Daniher non trade and the blatant lies in their reporting is laughable. I heard yesterday "The swans promised Daniher the world but they failed to deliver." What a load of bull.

And the less I say about Barrett the better. How can he call himself a journalist?

I'm so glad the trade period is over. It was a very long 10 days!

[Melbourne_Blood]

One quick mid, one inside mid in that order. When the ball is knocked into space at clearances, we get pantsed by the quicker teams. Also need to replace Kennedy in 1-3 years.

Interesting, I’d have it the other way around. We just don’t win enough ball, I think if we did win more clearances and contested ball our more outside players would be brought into the game more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kafka's Ghost]

The outrage from the media about the Daniher non trade and the blatant lies in their reporting is laughable. I heard yesterday "The swans promised Daniher the world but they failed to deliver." What a load of bull.

And the less I say about Barrett the better. How can he call himself a journalist?

I'm so glad the trade period is over. It was a very long 10 days!

After today’s rant and self-justification he actually sounds a little unhinged. In what was meant to be a comment about Sydney, he made it all about himself. Impossible to take such “journalism” seriously.