2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[707]

Going to very interesting to see how we handle this. Whilst no one here knows our cap situation, basic observation would indicate we must be well placed, you just can't shed that many players without having some significant spare cap space.

Tricky that we are already have a very young list profile but talk persists about Jones and Papley going. That leaves more cap space and an even younger profile UNLESS we have identified and are part way down the path with similar age/cost replacements.

We now hold six worthwhile picks 4, 23, 40, 50 (WCE), 57, 58. These will change if we trade players in or out. These are ND picks which means you hand out two year contracts so as the picks get further out in the draft the risk factor increases. Will we use six picks as far out as the late 50s? That would leave an even more inexperienced and younger list.

If Jones and Papley stay then I'm happy to add another batch of kids. If either or both of those are going, despite what Longmire said in public, I reckon we are definitely in the market for a couple of serious players on good coin.

Let the games begin, the rumour mill will be cranked up from tonight's media utterances onwards!

[707]

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.

We drafted him last year knowing he wasn't playing this year just to tie him to us. Was a very good 17yo underager. Fingers crossed for us and for Durak after his draft year ACL.

[bloodspirit]

It is interesting to speculate about our salary cap. First, there is a lot of salary leaving the cap: McVeigh, Jack, Grundy, Smith and whatever remained of Tippett to start with. Second, Andrew Ireland indicated as he departed the CEO role that there was space to recruit some players (he avoided the term big fish but we got the idea) and that was before knowing Grundy and Smith were definitely finishing up this year.

On the other hand:

* Buddy's contract kicks into overdrive over the next two seasons.

* While we have a young (and presumably relatively cheaper) list, they are all getting more experienced and better and will presumably expect salary increases each year as they move towards their prime.

* Most of the departures are expected and we may have already budgeted for and spent that money.

So, sounds like we may have a bit of room to play with but probably nowhere near as much as the Saints or Bulldogs.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

* Buddy's contract kicks into overdrive over the next two seasons.

I think you may be one year out. I believe it's 2019 and 2020 that are Buddy's earning apogee - $1,600,000 from the club.

Even so, please Swannies no more big fish. They may be great for marketing but historically they don't lead to premierships.

[wolftone57]

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.

If we followed the last point we would never have had Kizza, Kirkie, Reg, Dawson, Ronke, Leo Barry, Smooch and many other Rookie listed players. We got rid of players that just didn't cut it rather quickly I thought, given them 2 seasons to prove themselves, even first round draft picks. We have had to persist with some players in recent times because of the trading ban and list restrictions.

But the major problem I have with SF51 is that everything is about figures, stats. There are many things in footy like courage, knocking the ball on, out of a pack, spoils, shepherds, blocks that don't get stats. SF51 has some very good points but I think I trust the professionals to make List decisions. They have been pretty good at it at the Swans over many years. For instance to say get rid of players who are not developing into AFL players. How do you know if they are or aren't developing? I mean take Maibaum. I believe had he not done his knee he would have debuted this year. He is a KPP and they take longer to develop than mids and outside mids. Ruck men same as KPP. But KPB take longer than all to develop and we take a long time to mature them. We always have. They have to learn the script before getting a gig.

In SF51's estimation half our backs, including Rampe, would never have been retained. Ramps was pretty raw when he was a toppy but had enough grunt to get a gig the next year. If we had not persisted and he had not persisted we would be missing a key part of our team. Reg and Leo were failed forwards. If we had said bugger you, you're a dead loss as a forward we're delisting you, we may not have won 2005 or 2012.

List management is about $$$, needs and availability. Yes we have persisted with a few players too long. But you have to ask why? Well $$$ were certainly an issue in most cases. The Bud deal didn't exactly give us any room to move salary cap wise. Add Tippett to the mix and we were strangling the list. Players left to persue the $$$$. Some we realised afterward we didn't want but some we were sad to see go. We had to top the list up with middling players and some who should have been delisted sooner but we could not do that as we would have actually fallen faster, as they actually gave us one thing. Mature bodies.

List management is not about figures or turning over the list constantly, in fact that can be detrimental, if you don't have stability at a footy club there is no culture. No Bloods Culture anyway. List management is about assessing needs, looking at finances and then figuring out if trading a player in is feasible or going to the draft is the only option or a bit of both. We have salary cap this year. We have space due to retirements and possible delisting. We will probably do a bit of trading and drafting this year.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[Legs Akimbo]

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.

I noticed that. He actually looked huge.

[troyjones2525]

I noticed that. He actually looked huge.

You see him hug Reg (listed as 192 cm) in the aftermath of the song on the video on the Swans Facebook page and they are a similar height, he's maybe slightly shorter so his listing of 189 cm would be close. He may have grown a couple of centimeters possibly which would be handy!

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

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.

That's because he's been living on beer and pizza for the past 2 years. He'll shrink down if he ever starts training again.

[Markwebbos]

Where are these pictures of Tucker?

[Nico]

That's because he's been living on beer and pizza for the past 2 years. He'll shrink down if he ever starts training again.

Are you alluding to the fact that he is big on his Tucker?

[KSAS]

According to Mitch Clearly, Zak Jones is off to the Saints. Reckons it has been in the works for most of the season

REPORTS: Jones to head to St Kilda at season's end | Zero Hanger

Tom Morris OTC has also linked Jones to Saints who are also front runners for Brad Hill. How can they trade for both? Tom said the noise of Papely heading to Carlton is getting louder.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Saints Pick 5 this year to one trade and their first pick next year to the other trade ?

[Aprilbr]

I wonder what Jones really sees in the Saints when compared to us? It must be the $$$.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

I wonder what Jones really sees in the Saints when compared to us? It must be the $$$.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

They are based in Melbourne.

[707]

I wonder what Jones really sees in the Saints when compared to us? It must be the $$$.

He saw them close up Saturday, lots to like about them over us and that would be ....... $, and ........$, and ........$

Not going there for success or team spirit or club culture!

This would be the same Tom Morris OTC that had Rory Sloane off to Hawthorn the evening before Sloane announced he was staying at the Crows!

Not sure how Saints get any deals done, have stuff all currency.