2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[S.S. Bleeder]

I'd keep him another year. If he has an injury free pre season his upside is massive. On top of that he provides great leadership for our younger players so it's still a win if he spends the year in the NEAFL and he costs us very little.

[Cosmic Wizard]

Our draft picks as they stand now.

Indicative draft order Draft Pick #

SYD 4 Sydney Swans
SYD 23 Sydney Swans
SYD 40 Sydney Swans
SYD 50 Sydney Swans
SYD 57 Sydney Swans
SYD 58 Sydney Swans
SYD 76 Sydney Swans

[Ralph Dawg]

I'd keep him another year. If he has an injury free pre season his upside is massive. On top of that he provides great leadership for our younger players so it's still a win if he spends the year in the NEAFL and he costs us very little.

100% agree. Popular player and very helpful to the younger guys with his advice. Having him stay on is like having a player / coach for our young forwards, especially at NEAFL level.

[707]

Menzel is a real 50/50 call.

Will be one of the last re-signed and depending on other trades probably. Only playing for small $ you'd think and we have just seen off 1000+ games of experience.

[Jimitron5000]

I think another year for Menzel. He has shown patches in his games this year to suggest a top quality player is there once fully fit.

[Go Swannies]

Our priority for the off season has to be getting the Western Bulldogs' free kick coach. That person is a genius.

[stevoswan]

Our priority for the off season has to be getting the Western Bulldogs' free kick coach. That person is a genius.

He certainly is.....and you watch his talents kick right into action now they've made the finals.....in 7th.

[mattybloods]

I think another year for Menzel. He has shown patches in his games this year to suggest a top quality player is there once fully fit.

Agreed. Give him a full pre season and see what he can do. Won't cost much.

The only reason to get rid of Menzel is if we need more list spots or we trade in another forward

[707]

IMO a must read are a series of posts by swansfan51 on the Swans BF trade/draft thread. The first was done a couple of years ago but that, and all subsequent analysis posts by this guy, are excellent.

Unlike most shoot from the hip with brain tuned out posts we read about trading & drafting, these articles contain well thought through analysis. I always think when reading his posts that this is probably how clubs actually look at list management, not the scatter gun approach the vast majority of posters take :-)

So do yourself a favour, slip over and read those posts.

[Auntie.Gerald]

the interview with horse yesterday post game he said that “we would like to get in some more experience - depending on what we can afford”

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for the tip, 707. It took a little while to find the posts but they appear in this thread and the first relevant post is at the beginning: Strategy - List Management 101 | BigFooty.

I have to agree that swansfan51's thoughts are well considered and worth reading. Some of the key points that I took away include:

* players/trades have to be evaluated from a combination of salary cap involved, picks the trades cost and the space taken up on your list

* certain positions are worth much more than others (most especially KPFs) - while this is manifestly true I think he may overstate the value of player according to position played

* the best 28 players are the key (given that it is normal for at least 3-4 of your best 22 to be unavailable due to injury etc.) and the bottom 9 or so players are more or less irrelevant and can be used to trial a rotating cast of draftees.

* you should turn over your list and not persist with borderline players - this was the bit I thought was most interesting. I'm not sure swansfan51 has really made his case and I'm not sure that the Swans follow this closely but I wonder if he (I am assuming swansfan51 is a he) isn't right and we shouldn't follow this more closely and be a bit more ruthless with our delistings? SF51 reckons only keep players if they look like they have th potential to be a very good AFL player, not just mediocre. Otherwise return to the draft where even a rookie pick has a 10-20% chance of turning out to be a really good player. His emphasis is on aggression and quickly identifying whether or not a player might make it, whereas the Swans have persisted with numerous players perhaps longer than swansfan51 would advocate and with mixed results e.g. maybe stuck with players like Foote, Robinson, Marsh, Rohan, B.Jack too long and conversely given others plenty of time to develop which has ultimately allowed them to show their worth like Aliir, Dawson, O'Riordan, Melican. I guess the tricky part of the equation is deciding whether a player has what it takes to be come a "really good AFL player". For instance how do we apply this to: Rose, Thurlow, Bell, Stoddart, Fox, Maibaum, Wicks, Amartey, Pink etc? If we don't think they have at least that potential, should we cut them all next chance we get? What do people think about their potential?

In conclusion, swansfan51 makes reasoned criticisms of our club's list management. Certainly this is interesting. And while I don't discount the fact that he could be right and the our list managers wrong, I tend more to think that there are various factors he overlooks and our list managers don't and that is why they are full-time professionals (and ones who are recognised as among the best in the business) and he is a passionate and impressive amateur crunching numbers in his spare time. The value of his opinions for me is that our list managers don't generally reveal too much publicly, and so someone delving into the data really thoughtfully and publishing their thoughts throws up a bunch of interesting stuff to ponder which is of better quality than we mostly get. Reminds me a bit of neilfws' posts but perhaps swansfan51 has been more ambitious and comprehensive.

[Bloods05]

Thanks for the tip, 707. It took a little while to find the posts but they appear in this thread and the first relevant post is at the beginning: Strategy - List Management 101 | BigFooty.

I have to agree that swansfan51's thoughts are well considered and worth reading. Some of the key points that I took away include:

* players/trades have to be evaluated from a combination of salary cap involved, picks the trades cost and the space taken up on your list

* certain positions are worth much more than others (most especially KPFs) - while this is manifestly true I think he may overstate the value of player according to position played

* the best 28 players are the key (given that it is normal for at least 3-4 of your best 22 to be unavailable due to injury etc.) and the bottom 9 or so players are more or less irrelevant and can be used to trial a rotating cast of draftees.

* you should turn over your list and not persist with borderline players - this was the bit I thought was most interesting. I'm not sure swansfan51 has really made his case and I'm not sure that the Swans follow this closely but I wonder if he (I am assuming swansfan51 is a he) isn't right and we shouldn't follow this more closely and be a bit more ruthless with our delistings? SF51 reckons only keep players if they look like they have th potential to be a very good AFL player, not just mediocre. Otherwise return to the draft where even a rookie pick has a 10-20% chance of turning out to be a really good player. His emphasis is on aggression and quickly identifying whether or not a player might make it, whereas the Swans have persisted with numerous players perhaps longer than swansfan51 would advocate and with mixed results e.g. maybe stuck with players like Foote, Robinson, Marsh, Rohan, B.Jack too long and conversely given others plenty of time to develop which has ultimately allowed them to show their worth like Aliir, Dawson, O'Riordan, Melican. I guess the tricky part of the equation is deciding whether a player has what it takes to be come a "really good AFL player". For instance how do we apply this to: Rose, Thurlow, Bell, Stoddart, Fox, Maibaum, Wicks, Amartey, Pink etc? If we don't think they have at least that potential, should we cut them all next chance we get? What do people think about their potential?

In conclusion, swansfan51 makes reasoned criticisms of our club's list management. Certainly this is interesting. And while I don't discount the fact that he could be right and the our list managers wrong, I tend more to think that there are various factors he overlooks and our list managers don't and that is why they are full-time professionals (and ones who are recognised as among the best in the business) and he is a passionate and impressive amateur crunching numbers in his spare time. The value of his opinions for me is that our list managers don't generally reveal too much publicly, and so someone delving into the data really thoughtfully and publishing their thoughts throws up a bunch of interesting stuff to ponder which is of better quality than we mostly get. Reminds me a bit of neilfws' posts but perhaps swansfan51 has been more ambitious and comprehensive.

Well said.

[barracuda]

I enjoyed reading swansfan51's thoughts. he is very clinical which is great, however I do agree with Bloodspirit that based on the results over the last couple of decades, and the swans ability to rebuild on the run I think they know their job. I imagine much of their trading strategy probably matches swansfan51s.

One thing I think they should increase the level of focus on is how physically robust players are and their medical team. It is very obvious that having a fit and healthy squad is a huge factor in winning premierships. I think the balance is a bit out at the swans with too many players with long term injuries. The retirements will help this going forward but even then we seem to recruit players with long standing injuries (Menzel, Reynolds, Ling, Tucker etc) and then pay them to sit on the sidelines for most of the year. I guess this is the product of not having high draft picks. Now the picks look better we should try to get the balance between a healthy body and ability a bit better.

[Scottee]

I don't particularly agree with Swansfan51 regarding the turnover of players, at lease not this year, because we are reaching the culmination of a process of recruiting very young talented players that we have obtained relatively cheaply, with a view to their development potential.McCartin is an exeception to the rule in that he is already senior material, but Pink and Amartey Reynolds and Tucker are all in this category. For this reason, and the fact that so much of the list is on the cusp of senior potential, I can't see us having a really big year of drafting, rather, trying to obtain a small but quality group of draftees and undertaking a couple of necessary upgrades, such as Pink. Aside from this, if trades are made necessary by some of our players wanting to move, I can't see us taking draft picks in exchange, but seasoned players to address the imbalance of experience in the side.

[Scottee]

BTW,

if you saw the aftermatch for the last game you might have noticed that Durack Tucker has grown into something resembling a KPD defender (he stands next to Sam Naismith for comparison), seems much taller and heavier than his stated stats.