2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[caj23]

Reported that the Pies rearranged a number of contracts to ease the squeeze, Eddy won't let anyone good get to us!

GWS have a couple of very big signings on significant money this year in Kelly and Coniglio but they did jettison a heap of players last trade period in preparation.

Shame that we've never been able to manage our salary cap in a similar manner over the last few years to keep the list together. Instead we do the opposite and throw huge money at academy locals who would probably never had any intention of departing Sydney

[stevoswan]

Shame that we've never been able to manage our salary cap in a similar manner over the last few years to keep the list together. Instead we do the opposite and throw huge money at academy locals who would probably never had any intention of departing Sydney

Huge money? Heens and Mills are worth it and probably Blakey on potential alone.....pray tell what other academy locals have had 'huge money' thrown at them? Don't count the one's that have proven themselves already (and probably deserve an income increase).

[caj23]

Huge money? Heens and Mills are worth it and probably Blakey on potential alone.....pray tell what other academy locals have had 'huge money' thrown at them? Don't count the one's that have proven themselves already (and probably deserve an income increase).

Heeney definitely worth it, Mills maybe, still too early to tell, Blakey don't think he's on significant $$'s yet

The point is that some of the well ran Melbourne clubs have managed to convince their players to take unders (i.e. Hawks, Pies) to keep their lists together, whereas we've paid overs to retain (or recruit) Father Sons (Mitchell), Sydney born and bred locals (Heeney, Mills - which kind of defeats the purpose of academies), and good players heading into the back end of their careers (Jack, Hanners, Tippett).

I guess its the ongoing cost of being in a non-football state. Hopefully the last offseason of culling (along with a couple of retirements at the end of this season) has eased that salary cap pressure going forward

[stevoswan]

Heeney definitely worth it, Mills maybe, still too early to tell, Blakey don't think he's on significant $$'s yet

The point is that some of the well ran Melbourne clubs have managed to convince their players to take unders (i.e. Hawks, Pies) to keep their lists together, whereas we've paid overs to retain (or recruit) Father Sons (Mitchell), Sydney born and bred locals (Heeney, Mills - which kind of defeats the purpose of academies), and good players heading into the back end of their careers (Jack, Hanners, Tippett).

I guess its the ongoing cost of being in a non-football state. Hopefully the last offseason of culling (along with a couple of retirements at the end of this season) has eased that salary cap pressure going forward

Over the long term, I see your point....

[707]

The list changes last year gave us salary cap space so we can now set a clear course for the future without the restrictions of immediately previous seasons - tick

The recruiting has been of specific type players to make our squad suit the modern and constantly evolving game - tick

We've gone from one of the oldest to one of the youngest lists and remained competitive - tick

We've had some stunning success recently with players recruited out in the twilight zone of the drafts, Papley, Ronke, Aliir, McCartin - tick

The list no longer contains players who you knew never had ceilings higher than fringe 22 - tick

Players likely to retire this year are mainly now lesser contributors and can be replaced internally. Their retirement frees up more cap - tick

The list has all positions covered IMO, future changes will only strengthen the list - tick

We are in a position to attract a significant FA if we desire, unlike previously - tick

Can't remember when I was this bullish about the future, we have some stars in the making and even the rookies look highly likely types but obviously development players. So like someone else said, there's likely to be less discussion amongst ourselves this year on list management because the hard yards were put in previous couple of years.

[Mr Magoo]

Heeney definitely worth it, Mills maybe, still too early to tell, Blakey don't think he's on significant $$'s yet

The point is that some of the well ran Melbourne clubs have managed to convince their players to take unders (i.e. Hawks, Pies) to keep their lists together, whereas we've paid overs to retain (or recruit) Father Sons (Mitchell), Sydney born and bred locals (Heeney, Mills - which kind of defeats the purpose of academies), and good players heading into the back end of their careers (Jack, Hanners, Tippett).

I guess its the ongoing cost of being in a non-football state. Hopefully the last offseason of culling (along with a couple of retirements at the end of this season) has eased that salary cap pressure going forward

I cant agree with this point , you dont look after the mercenary , in any well run organisation you look after those who are loyal to you and who perform. Academy players shouldn't be disadvantaged in their earning capacity because they want to play for the swans, they should be paid as well as anyone else of their ability. That further inspires loyalty and sets the precedent for your culture. If you set this culture in place, it further inspires better players through the academy program as they know they will be looked after.

The taking unders thing is a myth to me. For higher profile players , Melbourne clubs provide much more opportunity for external earning capacity both during and after their time in the club so its much easier in my view to convince a player to take unders to stay at a club where such opportunities are more likely to arise.

[Meg]

... The taking unders thing is a myth to me. For higher profile players , Melbourne clubs provide much more opportunity for external earning capacity both during and after their time in the club. .....

I totally agree with this. I suspect only a very few of our players get these sort of external opportunities both while playing and after.

[Aprilbr]

Yes I agree with the external earnings loophole. I don't think these players are earning "unders" at all to go to the Hawks/Pies/Tigers/Bombers. They are just earning less of it inside the legitimate salary cap. I really don't like how this aspect of the system works. It disadvantages the interstate clubs. I want an even playing field, Eddie!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[caj23]

The list changes last year gave us salary cap space so we can now set a clear course for the future without the restrictions of immediately previous seasons - tick

The recruiting has been of specific type players to make our squad suit the modern and constantly evolving game - tick

We've gone from one of the oldest to one of the youngest lists and remained competitive - tick

We've had some stunning success recently with players recruited out in the twilight zone of the drafts, Papley, Ronke, Aliir, McCartin - tick

The list no longer contains players who you knew never had ceilings higher than fringe 22 - tick

Players likely to retire this year are mainly now lesser contributors and can be replaced internally. Their retirement frees up more cap - tick

The list has all positions covered IMO, future changes will only strengthen the list - tick

We are in a position to attract a significant FA if we desire, unlike previously - tick

Can't remember when I was this bullish about the future, we have some stars in the making and even the rookies look highly likely types but obviously development players. So like someone else said, there's likely to be less discussion amongst ourselves this year on list management because the hard yards were put in previous couple of years.

Great post, agree with all of this

I'm with you, pretty confident about what we have on our list going into this season

[Markwebbos]

I’m yet to be convinced about our midfield. They don’t have the runs on the board yet, hoping they will by the end of 2019.

[AnsweredPrayers]

This can change quickly and, like you, I hope it improves. Sporting News rated the mid-fields heading in to 2018: Geelong, Sydney, Crows, Tigers, and GWS were the top 5. Collingwood were 7th and West Coast didn't make the top 8.

[Aprilbr]

I’m yet to be convinced about our midfield. They don’t have the runs on the board yet, hoping they will by the end of 2019.

Agree. We need further improvement from Hewitt, Florent and Jones. Heeney will be one to really watch. If he plays more midfield minutes he has the potential to rapidly become one of the elite midfielders in the game. Same with Mills if he does go to the midfield. Kennedy and Parker will be reliable as usual.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[caj23]

I cant agree with this point , you dont look after the mercenary , in any well run organisation you look after those who are loyal to you and who perform. Academy players shouldn't be disadvantaged in their earning capacity because they want to play for the swans, they should be paid as well as anyone else of their ability. That further inspires loyalty and sets the precedent for your culture. If you set this culture in place, it further inspires better players through the academy program as they know they will be looked after.

The taking unders thing is a myth to me. For higher profile players , Melbourne clubs provide much more opportunity for external earning capacity both during and after their time in the club so its much easier in my view to convince a player to take unders to stay at a club where such opportunities are more likely to arise.

I wasn't suggesting that we pay the academy kids unders, moreso that we don't pay them overs. Paying overs before they've earnt it poses its own problems as we've seen with Tom Mitchell, as the next time they negotiate a contract they'll expect an increase in $$$ regardless of whether they're worth it.

As for looking after mercenaries, that's exactly what we have done, sometimes it pays off (Buddy), some times it doesn't (Tippett).

I agree that Melbourne based clubs have additional advantages for opportunities in the media that the Swans don't, but there's still plenty of other ways to earn outside of the cap, there's been plenty of jobs for boys in the corporate sector for our lads

[Mr Magoo]

Fair enough but you also shouldn't confuse paying overs for potential v paying overs because they are academy.

All clubs often pay overs on the potential someone offers. Lets face it many high draft picks over the journey would have been paid overs on the promise they provide (even after they have been relatively ordinary at the club that initially took them) rather than a pure analysis of their form at the time. Its not a problem that the swans face alone, its just the way any market works .

[Melbourne_Blood]

Fair enough but you also shouldn't confuse paying overs for potential v paying overs because they are academy.

All clubs often pay overs on the potential someone offers. Lets face it many high draft picks over the journey would have been paid overs on the promise they provide (even after they have been relatively ordinary at the club that initially took them) rather than a pure analysis of their form at the time. Its not a problem that the swans face alone, its just the way any market works .

Tom Boyd come on down !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk