2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Auntie.Gerald]

Fox is in an interesting position in his career. He is quick and he was our leading runner in the 3km time trials in last pre season

- He is a very good tackler
- Good leap
- he is fairly quick
- Can play on med talls and also smalls which Kenelly glowingly summarised in the video above saying fox is a very important third tall defender for our team.

It’s still a little challenging to see him in the best 18 or even best 22 but he could jump ahead in his role down back this pre season and place pressure on our back 6

[rickmat]

I personally see Fox the same as Robinson, a squad player, not quite good enough for the 22 if all fit. I had him as one to be delisted along with Rose to free up space for better talent in the draft or delisted talent. He just not going to get better in talent like Foote

[Ludwig]

Aside from all the Paps , Jones and JD talk , any word on us getting a ruckman ? One that actually plays ruck as first position and can actually get on the park I mean .

Heard plenty of names getting thrown around in the ruck merry go round , haven’t heard us mentioned in connection with any. Other than Cameron’s, as looking to leave the swans . Is it just me or does that leave our ruck cupboard pretty bare ?

It seems crazy to me that we would look for a backup ruckman when we already have a near perfect candidate on our list already. I don't know why we would let Cameron go to Collingwood. I suppose we could just keep Knoll on the list and go with Naismith and Sinclair, but that's not the Longmire way. He prefers to waste draft picks on ruckmen that don't get a chance a play senior footy until they are traded away.

While Richmond are in such good form, why not give Cameron a shot at starting the season at ruck or forward/ruck. And forget all this nonsense about Joe Daniher.

Now here's a far fetched idea (especially coming from me). We trade Papley for pick 9 and instead of using it for Joe Daniher, take the pick to the draft and use it for Luke Jackson. Maybe in a few years, with a bit of luck, and luck is always involved in these things, we will have a first class ruckman.

[707]

Going cold turkey--no way!

- - - Updated - - -



If he goes back into the Essendon fold, he may not be available again.

He might never play again! Think his brother retired due to OP?

[Auntie.Gerald]

Dont worry about JD

We are secretly going after orazio fantasia with a superior games vs goal avge vs Papley

????

[MattW]

Jake Niall reports that he doesn't know anything about the Daniher trade: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/por...03-p52xh0.html

[Beerman]

It's pretty clear to me that Papley must stay. The connection between he and Hayward makes them indispensable to the entertainment of Twitter followers.

7AFL on Twitter: "Will Hayward: Why don't crabs donate?
Tom Papley: Dunno.
Will Hayward: Because they're shellfish.

????… "

Second, if the reason for him wanting to go really is the girlfriend, then questions must be asked about how the Swans allowed this situation to come about. He lives and works in Sydney - how did he meet this girl? Was he not sufficiently supervised during the Swan's away games? Does RWO need to start sending a chaperone to all away games? (Annie - are you up for it?)

Seriously though, if Carlton think they're going to get pick 9 and a second rounder for Papley they are absolutely kidding themselves. They can have Papley and pick 42 and we'll take pick 9 and 46. That's about right I would think.

[707]

Being reported the Swans board have vetoed letting Papley out of his contract, that's good governance!

[Beerman]

Being reported the Swans board have vetoed letting Papley out of his contract, that's good governance!

Where are you getting this from?

[Thunder Shaker]

It's pretty clear to me that Papley must stay. The connection between he and Hayward makes them indispensable to the entertainment of Twitter followers.

7AFL on Twitter: "Will Hayward: Why don't crabs donate?
Tom Papley: Dunno.
Will Hayward: Because they're shellfish.

????… "

That does it, Papley must stay. How can we break up the best comedy act in the AFL?

[Legs Akimbo]

Just read this in The Age

"The Swans can give up pick No.5 in exchange for Daniher as part of any trade. Tom Papley has indicated he wants to be traded to Carlton, which would potentially give up their first pick, No.9.

Essendon have not specified what they would seek for Daniher, but if the Swans gained that pick for Papley, Essendon would be in a position to request picks five and nine – a hefty price, but Daniher's contract for next year means they can hold him."

That is so stupid I struggle to understand how it ended up in print. Yes we can give pick 5. Forensic journalism at its best there. The last sentence implies we might just give Essendon 5 and 9 to avoid getting him for free in 2021 possibly driven by fear of missing out on being the club that pays for his next year of rehab in 2020.

I refuse to even contemplate the possibility our club would so stupid.

So called Journalists on the other hand...

[Ludwig]

All this time speculating about Joe Daniher. Have we heard of any club, even Essendon, even mention making an offer for him? No one is interested. Any list manager with half a brain wouldn't offer Joe more than a 1 year contract with performance based options.

He's on big money now. He mustn't have much confidence in his body if he doesn't just play out 2020 with Essendon, after which he could command a million a year if he returns to his 2017 form.

Joe Daniher is a very fishy big fish.

[rickmat]

Glad tomorrow, the silly speculation stuff can fade away. All this trade crap and innuendo we have heard this past week will be just that. The real stories will start to take shape and I'm sure our representatives will deal appropriately to get the best deals done for the good of the Swans. I'm fairly sure the Papley story will die a death and Jones will realise he is better off staying here in Sydney. I hope we pick up a recruit that will make us better and more competitive. I'm very positive because I have faith in the intelligence of Swans management and the forward planning and due diligence I'm sure they have done.

[Ludwig]

I'm very positive because I have faith in the intelligence of Swans management and the forward planning and due diligence I'm sure they have done.

Thankfully, the principle part of their due diligence is reading this RWO thread. And it's not even included in the club's soft cap. If the trade period is bust, I might write a book on how smart people turn dumb, and how to prevent this happening to you. I'm sure it will be just as successful as all my other books.

[Doctor]

Just read this in The Age

"The Swans can give up pick No.5 in exchange for Daniher as part of any trade. Tom Papley has indicated he wants to be traded to Carlton, which would potentially give up their first pick, No.9.

Essendon have not specified what they would seek for Daniher, but if the Swans gained that pick for Papley, Essendon would be in a position to request picks five and nine – a hefty price, but Daniher's contract for next year means they can hold him."

That is so stupid I struggle to understand how it ended up in print. Yes we can give pick 5. Forensic journalism at its best there. The last sentence implies we might just give Essendon 5 and 9 to avoid getting him for free in 2021 possibly driven by fear of missing out on being the club that pays for his next year of rehab in 2020.

I refuse to even contemplate the possibility our club would so stupid.

So called Journalists on the other hand...

It's all being seen through a Vic-centric lens. On one hand, Papley is worth pick 9. A contracted player with 4 years to run on his deal. On the other hand, a guy who has barely played for 2 years, and is a RFA next year, is worth picks 5 & 9 just because we might have them? Given his contract status and injury record, and the likelihood that they will get nothing for him next year, he's worth the kind of pick that GWS got for Scully or will get for Patton. It's all rubbish.