2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[bloodspirit]

Why would Melbourne FC take 5 & 25 if they can get 6 & another first rounder in 2020? I'm convinced GWS would outbid us. The other thing is, I'd be prepared to do that deal if it meant we'd get Green and he's as good as we've been hearing. But GWS could still match the bid, which they will if they really want him, even though it will make a disaster of their trade period and then we're left with our next best option and perhaps whoever that is, isn't worth paying so much for. Rather 5 & 25 if it's not going to be Green at 3.

I reckon we'll draft 4.

I have been puzzling over Bell only getting a one year deal. I was convinced he would be elevated to the senior list but now I'm wondering if they want to make use of the Cat B rookie spot and are deferring elevating him while they can use him on that list. It looks like they're also still deciding whether Wicks remains the best candidate for the third Cat B spot or whether there's another Academy (or other player) they'd prefer. If we delist Wicks and replace him with a different kind of player that still leaves us with Papley, Taylor, Ronke and Foot who are classic small, crumbing forwards plus types like Hayward who I would call more of a medium, which seems adequate so we can afford to delist Wicks if we don't want to keep him. Plus good small forwards are relatively easy to come by.

[Mr Magoo]

Interesting article: Why a Swan's axing is about to become a major talking point - AFL.com.au. But it is unfortunate that we are, seemingly once again, we are kind of portrayed as the bad guys in a story which is slanted as bad news for potential draft hopefuls. Why didn't they focus on Deluca instead of Hirst? He was the #1 pick in the mid-season draft and was surely just as likely to be picked up in the ND.

It is interesting that there is no certainty for a mid year draftee but dont forget they all (including Hirst) just missed out on being drafted either on list or as a rookie just six months prior so to say that they would most certainly been drafted playing as an overage player in an under 18s comp is speculation in my opinion.

If they had been taken as a rookie in the previous draft they would have had no more certainty and there is still nothing to prevent someone else having a go at him in the upcoming drafts. If it is just a matter of two many small forwards (which I doubt as he was a midfielder with his tac cup team) then he will surely be scooped up by someone but the reality may be that some get found out pretty quickly at the next level.

[liz]

It is interesting that there is no certainty for a mid year draftee but dont forget they all (including Hirst) just missed out on being drafted either on list or as a rookie just six months prior so to say that they would most certainly been drafted playing as an overage player in an under 18s comp is speculation in my opinion.

If they had been taken as a rookie in the previous draft they would have had no more certainty and there is still nothing to prevent someone else having a go at him in the upcoming drafts. If it is just a matter of two many small forwards (which I doubt as he was a midfielder with his tac cup team) then he will surely be scooped up by someone but the reality may be that some get found out pretty quickly at the next level.

Exactly, it seems to be a twisted spin. If he'd been taken as a rookie last year he would be just as likely to be discarded as he has been now. It's tough, especially for the younger players, but that's the system.

What he does have (that he wouldn't had he stayed in the U18 competition throughout the year, as an overager) is six months on his resume playing against (mostly) men in the NEAFL. That surely has to be stronger on his football resume than six months in an underage competition. He didn't disgrace himself in that time so I don't think it's weakened his overall credentials. I don't think his ability to play football is really the issue but his size is. Not just height, but build. He did appear to bulk up a little during his time with us, but he's still a way away from having the size needed to compete at senior level. He may never get there - his frame seems very small - but if he does, I suspect it will take him another year or two. I suspect he's a guy who needs to spend a couple of seasons in the VFL or SANFL and hope he gets a further opportunity when he's a bit older (and maybe bigger).

Whether he was a wise choice for the Swans in the mid-season draft is a different question.

[liz]

I think that the GWS drafting strategy may work out very well for them but badly for Sydney.
Consider

Picks 1&2 Rowell and Anderson to Gold Coast
Pick 3 GWS offer Melbourne Pick 6 and 2020 1st round but Melbourne do not accept. Take Hayden Young who would not last to pick 6.
Pick 4 GWS offer Adelaide Pick 6 and 2020 1st round which Adelaide accept. GWS now take Caleb Serong, Sydney second choice.
Pick 5 Sydney bid on Tom Green but GWS match burning a heap of points but much better than matching 3 or 4.
Pick 6 Sydney are left looking at Lachie Ash who they do not need, Sam Flanders who they do not rate or Brodie Kemp who fits their need but will likely not play till late in 2020 and has two other risks, poor recovery from his ACL and a go home factor in 2022. The injury and missing year heavily discount his value. Upshot is Sydney is not going to get an opportunity to take any of the five players they rated top five.
Pick 7 Adelaide take Dylan Stephens a local boy who was always their target.

GWS happy they get two potential stars
Adelaide happy as they get their target with a nice bonus of GWS 2020 1st rounder
Melbourne happy as they got Young who was their target.
Sydney unhappy as they miss out on both Green and Serong as well as Young.

That possible outcome has nothing to do with the Giants' trading strategy unless you have specific inside information about the preferred players of Adelaide and GWS.

It's a result of us having pick 5 and another club (ie the Giants) having first dibs on an academy prospect ranked in the top 5.

If GWS had not traded up (or seemed keen on trading up further), they would still have access to Green. So there are five choices ahead of the Swans' pick. And Adelaide are just as able to draft the 5th of Sydney's preferred 5 players as GWS.

[707]

Interesting article: about-to-become-a-major-talking-point"[/B]]Why a Swan's axing is about to become a major talking point - AFL.com.au. But it is unfortunate that we are, seemingly once again, we are kind of portrayed as the bad guys in a story which is slanted as bad news for potential draft hopefuls. Why didn't they focus on Deluca instead of Hirst? He was the #1 pick in the mid-season draft and was surely just as likely to be picked up in the ND.

What a BS article, VFL media can't help themselves. How's the headline, what if it doesn't become a talking point? derrrrr! What is the point of this article? Players get rookied and delisted in droves every season, Hirst's only difference was he came to us via the MSD rather than the RD.

If we'd only used one pick in the MSD, Hirst would still be running around in the U18s against kids 12 months younger than him and probably still not get drafted this year. It's not like we've sent him packing having mis treated him, we've given him a few months training at the elite level.

We had a free hit and we used it, only cost us a few dollars to try him out, was always a long shot.

On the GWS drafting strategy, who knows? The move to pick 6 can only be explained if they now move to obtain pick 3 or if they want a unique player at pick 6 and aren't matching Green. If they moved to pick 6 as a way of getting to pick 3 but don't achieve that, then they've burnt valuable points. Time will tell which of these scenarios is true.

[Markwebbos]

GWS strategy makes no sense if Green is their #1 priority. And they haven’t got high enough to get a player before a bid comes in.

I’m secretly hoping they won’t match a bid on Green.

[Ralph Dawg]

Why would Melbourne FC take 5 & 25 if they can get 6 & another first rounder in 2020? I'm convinced GWS would outbid us. The other thing is, I'd be prepared to do that deal if it meant we'd get Green and he's as good as we've been hearing. But GWS could still match the bid, which they will if they really want him, even though it will make a disaster of their trade period and then we're left with our next best option and perhaps whoever that is, isn't worth paying so much for. Rather 5 & 25 if it's not going to be Green at 3.

I reckon we'll draft 4.

I have been puzzling over Bell only getting a one year deal. I was convinced he would be elevated to the senior list but now I'm wondering if they want to make use of the Cat B rookie spot and are deferring elevating him while they can use him on that list. It looks like they're also still deciding whether Wicks remains the best candidate for the third Cat B spot or whether there's another Academy (or other player) they'd prefer. If we delist Wicks and replace him with a different kind of player that still leaves us with Papley, Taylor, Ronke and Foot who are classic small, crumbing forwards plus types like Hayward who I would call more of a medium, which seems adequate so we can afford to delist Wicks if we don't want to keep him. Plus good small forwards are relatively easy to come by.

My thought process was on whether they wanted to get a 2nd rounder for this year as opposed to waiting for next year's 1st rounder, if they had a few targets this year in mind.

But you're most probably correct in that first rounder this year and first rounder next year would be more appealing.

[stevoswan]

Interesting article: Why a Swan's axing is about to become a major talking point - AFL.com.au. But it is unfortunate that we are, seemingly once again, we are kind of portrayed as the bad guys in a story which is slanted as bad news for potential draft hopefuls. Why didn't they focus on Deluca instead of Hirst? He was the #1 pick in the mid-season draft and was surely just as likely to be picked up in the ND.

Deluca had already established an AFL career, albeit not too successful or abundant.....but at least he had had a few chances and as such, was very unlikely to be picked up in the ND. Hirst is a young player just starting out and now appears to have lost his AFL career before it even started due to punting on the mid season draft.

I feel for the kid and he is a perfect example of all that is wrong with only offering these mid season draftees a minimum six month contract, especially considering that ND draftees get a minimum 2 years.

It could be argued that Hirst was not good enough and that this would have been the eventual outcome anyway but I agree with the articles assertion that these draftees should be offered a minimum 18 month contract to prove themselves. As a reject, his chances of getting picked up now are severely dented.....

BTW, I don't think the articles intention is to have a go at the Swans, although it does hint that our "controversial" play for Daniher and the failure to move on Papley had a direct impact on the non retaining of Hirst. That did piss me off a bit.....but it just happens we are the club whose actions (which, let's face it, were right for our club at this point in time) have lead to a young players career potentially ending before it had a real chance of succeeding.

If anything, it will have young players questioning if it is worth entering the mid season draft.....unless their minimum contract is extended to 18 months, to make the mid season draft gamble one more worth taking.

[Mr Magoo]

Deluca had already established an AFL career, albeit not too successful or abundant.....but at least he had a few chances. Hirst is a young player just starting out and now appears to have lost his AFL career before it even started due to punting on the mid season draft.

I feel for the kid and he is a perfect example of all that is wrong with only offering these mid season draftees a minimum six month contract, especially considering that ND draftees get a minimum 2 years.

It could be argued that Hirst was not good enough and that this would have been the eventual outcome anyway but I agree with the articles assertion that these draftees should be offered a minimum 18 month contract to prove themselves. As a reject, his chances of getting picked up now are severely dented.....

BTW, I don't think the articles intention is to have a go at the Swans, although it does hint that our "controversial" play for Daniher and the failure to move on Papley had a direct impact on the non retaining of Hirst. That did piss me off a bit.....but it just happens we are the club whose actions (which, let's face it, were right for our club at this point in time) have lead to a young players career potentially ending before it had a real chance of succeeding.

If anything, it will have young players questioning if it is worth entering the mid season draft.....unless their minimum contract is extended to 18 months, to make the mid season draft gamble one more worth taking.

But if he had only been taken as a rookie then he wouldnt have gotten more than a year so really this presupposes that he would actually been drafted and on a list which is BS when you consider he wasnt taken as a list draftee or rookie six months earlier. If you impose 18 months on the mid season draftee , it will make clubs think twice about using it and your now saying that those drafted at that point are higher up the list than the rookies taken six months earlier

[barry]

I think the only possibility of GWS not getting green is if we bid for him, so why don't we trade pick 5 for pick six with the giants and giants first round next year. Sure, we miss out on green, but we end up with a similar pick in his draft and another third rounder in next draft.
It seems win, win.
GWS get two first round picks this year
We get two first round picks next year.

- - - Updated - - -

Third=first

[TheMase]

I have been puzzling over Bell only getting a one year deal. I was convinced he would be elevated to the senior list but now I'm wondering if they want to make use of the Cat B rookie spot and are deferring elevating him while they can use him on that list.

His management group seem to suggest he got two years.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3V1bnWhDy-/?hl=en

[Markwebbos]

I think the only possibility of GWS not getting green is if we bid for him, so why don't we trade pick 5 for pick six with the giants and giants first round next year. Sure, we miss out on green, but we end up with a similar pick in his draft and another third rounder in next draft.
It seems win, win.
GWS get two first round picks this year
We get two first round picks next year.

- - - Updated - - -

Third=first

They aren’t going to do that if they can get pick 3 from Melbourne for the same price. I think it’s going to be a very interesting draft night!

[stevoswan]

What a BS article, VFL media can't help themselves. How's the headline, what if it doesn't become a talking point? derrrrr! What is the point of this article? Players get rookied and delisted in droves every season, Hirst's only difference was he came to us via the MSD rather than the RD.

The obvious point of the article is to point out that six months in the system is not long enough for a young prospect to prove himself. At least RD's get 12 months to prove themselves and ND's get 24 months.....and I agree that 6 months is not long enough. MSD's should get at least 12 months and be able to be dropped before the next MSD.....to at least bring them into line with RD's.

The fact that it was the Swans is largely moot bit it did give Beveridge a chance to put an 'evil' spin on it, which he did by calling our trade period "controversial", hinting that our "failures" lead to a young bloke getting shafted....that was unnecessary but not surprising.

[barry]

They aren’t going to do that if they can get pick 3 from Melbourne for the same price. I think it’s going to be a very interesting draft night!

A Lesser price with us.
And Melbourne aren't going to bid on green at 3. If they did, giants won't match it. Guaranteed.

[stevoswan]

But if he had only been taken as a rookie then he wouldnt have gotten more than a year so really this presupposes that he would actually been drafted and on a list which is BS when you consider he wasnt taken as a list draftee or rookie six months earlier. If you impose 18 months on the mid season draftee , it will make clubs think twice about using it and your now saying that those drafted at that point are higher up the list than the rookies taken six months earlier

I actually believe the better outcome is for MSD's to be given a 12 month contract and be able to be delisted in the lead up to the next MSD. This would bring them into line with RD's and also enable them to experience a full top level pre-season (which would further aid their development and future chances).