2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ludwig]

Agree with pretty much all of that, but one thing (or person) that I would add, is Callum Sinclair. It seems to me, that everybody has forgotten about how good a season he was having, before he got injured. And if Daniher arrives, he and Sinclair may be battling for one spot? That is, if Naismith is the number one ruckman, then those two will be going for the second ruck/big forward role. While Daniher has got more athleticism, Sinclair has probably got more heart. Which means that I would rather Sinclair in the team.

Interesting thoughts about Sinclair. He was quite good in 2018, but fell away a bit this year. He was still okay. The problem with Sinclair is we just lose too much in the ruck which isn't sufficiently offset by his work around the ground, as good as it is for a ruckman. When Franklin played, we managed well enough using Reid or Aliir as backups. If Naismith is fit, Sinclair looks out of a job, even without Daniher. He would be our backup ruckman, if Naismith is injured, or could fill a forward/ruck role if we are down on tall forwards.

I'm sympathetic to your views about choosing heart over talent. I would have preferred the whole Daniher thing never happened and we just continued on rebuilding the way we were going. I was enjoying seeing our drafted players develop, the change in game style to suit the new talent coming through, and was looking forward to a rebound next year. But now with a 'savior' being helicoptered in, it's a whole different vision. So far, I don't like, but I'll try to stay open minded.

[Melbourne_Blood]

If Carlton downgrades it's offer to 14 plus for Papley then let's walk away from that deal, hold him to his contract etc. I also am coming to the view that giving up too much for Daniher is not a good idea. This may well mean we never get him but that's less a risk than paying well over for him. Sometimes the best deal is a no deal. It's starting to look like that here. We should get two good players with the first two picks that we currently have.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Or we could see if there is interest elsewhere , the kangas have pick 8 and have expressed an interest . They aren’t swimming in quality small forwards and there is the Shaw connection. Papleys manager has already said he will go to any Melbourne club , he’s just prefer Carlton. Heck, let’s get the Dees involved ! Pick 3 for paps and pick 25 ! Too optimistic ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aprilbr]

I like the Norf idea.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[707]

Not sure how St Kilda has suddenly become a 'destination club', either?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[ugg]

We should have tried to do the Pick Swap Adelaide are going to do with GWS
Pick 4 for 12 18 and 2020 1st

Unfortunately for us in this case the difference of one pick is significant. What GWS are trying to do is get pick 4 from the Crows so that Adelaide can’t use it, as expected, to bid on Tom Green.

If the Giants get their hands on pick 4 they can use it to pick someone else besides Green and still be able to match when the bid comes for Green. If they don’t trade and have to match Green they’ll have to use 12 and part of 18 to match. Looking at it this way they are basically getting pick 4 this year for their 2020 first rounder and losing whatever pick 18 would have been downgraded to when using to match Green.

All of this is dependent on Melbourne not bidding on Green at pick 3 though, something they can’t guarantee so it is a risk for GWS.

[Thunder Shaker]

Unfortunately for us in this case the difference of one pick is significant. What GWS are trying to do is get pick 4 from the Crows so that Adelaide can’t use it, as expected, to bid on Tom Green.

If the Giants get their hands on pick 4 they can use it to pick someone else besides Green and still be able to match when the bid comes for Green. If they don’t trade and have to match Green they’ll have to use 12 and part of 18 to match. Looking at it this way they are basically getting pick 4 this year for their 2020 first rounder and losing whatever pick 18 would have been downgraded to when using to match Green.

All of this is dependent on Melbourne not bidding on Green at pick 3 though, something they can’t guarantee so it is a risk for GWS.

If GWS make the floated trade (Adelaide's Pick 4 for their 12 18 and 2020 1st), it would decimate their draft picks so hard that they would not be able to draft Green except with pick 4. Their picks are currently 12, 18, 40, 60, 80, 94. 80 and 94 have no draft value. If that trade was made, they would have 4, 40, 60 to match bids on Green, but then would be constrained in drafting Green at pick 4.

The key here is matching bids by Melbourne at pick 3 (2234 points). With 12 and 18 (2253 points), they can match pick 3 without difficulty (12 and 18 would become pick 38 worth 465 points). They would have pick 3 (matched), 38, 40, 65 etc. If they traded out and matched pick 3 with pick 4 (2034 points), pick 4 would become pick 54 (220 points). They would have pick 3 (matched), 39, 54, 65 etc. It's significantly worse, even before considering they are without their 2020 first-round pick as well.

In short, I do not see that trade happening.

Pick 4 is worth 219 fewer points than 12 and 18 combined. The trade would be fairer if it did not include the Giants' 2020 first-round pick and Adelaide would need to send a late pick with their pick 4, equivalent to pick 54 (220 points). A possible trade: Adelaide 4 and 40 to GWS. GWS 12, 18 and GWS's 2020 4th-round pick to Adelaide. However, I do not see such a trade happening. 12 and 18 is sufficient for matching bids on Green.

[bloodspirit]

Reddit (the web-site) is built of many sub-reddits. Each one is a little like RWO, a collection of discussions about a specific topic.
So there is the afl sub-reddit , a Sydney Swans sub-reddit, a Sydney sub-reddit etc etc etc

Users typically subscribe to multiple sub-reddits and their Reddit front page has (by default) the more popular posts from those sub-reddits.

My take:
The Swans sub-reddit isn't quite as knowledgeable (no Liz) or popular as RWO, but you don't get the (dreaded by me) mega-threads like this one or the reserves one which are a PITA to read.
The AFL sub-reddit is much less toxic than Big Footy, often quite funny
Other sub-reddits have their own characters - the Sydney and Australia ones tend to be quite progressive, but I understand that (say) the uk one is quite right-wing

Hope that helps. Caution: You may find yourself watching a lot of videos of "animals being bros", or arguing with idiots.

Thanks for that helpful, lucid explanation, undy! Love the LRT avatar too.

Appreciate the explanations from about the Coodabeen Champions.

[AnnieH]

This is the most boring trade week EVAH!!!
Do we still have a team?

[Auntie.Gerald]

Yep kirky is coming out of retirement !!!

Lol

[liz]

Unfortunately for us in this case the difference of one pick is significant. What GWS are trying to do is get pick 4 from the Crows so that Adelaide can’t use it, as expected, to bid on Tom Green.

If the Giants get their hands on pick 4 they can use it to pick someone else besides Green and still be able to match when the bid comes for Green. If they don’t trade and have to match Green they’ll have to use 12 and part of 18 to match. Looking at it this way they are basically getting pick 4 this year for their 2020 first rounder and losing whatever pick 18 would have been downgraded to when using to match Green.

All of this is dependent on Melbourne not bidding on Green at pick 3 though, something they can’t guarantee so it is a risk for GWS.

Agree with you that pick 4 is materially more valuable to the Giants than pick 5. That said, I find their strategy of trying to get ahead of a potential Green bid odd in a few ways.

Firstly, it seems a bit greedy. They already have access to a likely top 5 player at a discounted rate. And as a 2019 GF. We can't complain about that. It's similar to our access to Mills. However, wanting a second top 5 player as well does seem greedy.

Then add to that the fact their midfield is already stacked. They'll probably lose Bonar this year (which maybe because he isn't worthy of the pick 10 (or 11?) pick they originally used him, but its also in part because he's not getting opportunities. Then they have Hateley and Caldwell already on their list. They are going to add Green. And now another top rated mid (given most of the players in that range seem to be mid types, or HBFers, where they are already decently served by the likes of Williams and Whitfield).

And then where do they get the points to match a bid of Green. Unless I'm not reading the draft order correctly, their first pick after 18 is pick 40, the compensation pick they received for Tomlinson. Then they have pick 60. Sounds like Bonar will leave but can't see him getting them more than a 2nd round pick. He's barely played any senior football in two years. Say they get pick 25 for him. Together with pick 40, that gives them 1285 points. A bid at 5 for Green will require around 1500 points to match (after the discount). Even adding in pick 60 (their current next pick), they are still a little short. Sure, they can go into deficit, but are they (or should they be allowed to) go into deficit when they then don't have a first round pick in 2021 to match that deficit off against?

I guess they might get some other later picks back from the Crows, or might trade out another fringe player or two. But it smacks of trying to be clever for the sake of it. And it means they have given up the chance to match a bid on someone like Delahunty, or Murray. For the record, I thought our manoeuvre in last year's draft was a bit the same - gaming the system that already provides a reasonably generous concession.

A lot of the angst around using low value picks to match high value bids could be addressed by requiring clubs to match a bid using a pick within, say, 10 picks of where the player is bid upon. It still provides a concession to encourage clubs to invest in their academies but removes the incentives (and mechanisms) to game the system, whether for value or just to be clever for the sake of being clever.

It also means that if a club goes deep into the finals, they will have to work a bit harder to secure access to a player rated in the top handful of draftees (if they have access to one) because they'll have to actively trade up the draft to acquire a high enough pick, and that will cost them a bit. That idea seems in keeping with the concept of the draft as an equalisation tool.

[bloodspirit]

The thing I am feeling most strongly and most want to talk about is: why aren't we chasing premium mids? Or are we doing it and keeping quiet about it? This is what we need. Especially with Jones and, probably, Papley departing. I get that JD has come to us and we feel like he is too good a player to ignore and so we are investing some time and resources into that but are we letting it distract us from what we really need? Or is more at play behind the scenes?

Would anyone be interested in a player like Wines or Crouch? Or Bonar (apparently gettable for a top 30 pick)? I still want us to go after Angus Brayshaw or Jye Caldwell (as suggested by AG) or someone like that. Although I don't see much hope of prising Caldwell out of GWS because the would only be looking to unload expensive players to give themselves some cap relief and as a 2nd year player next season Caldwell is relatively cheap for them to keep. Melbourne have half a dozen primo mids any of which I would be happy with but some of which I recognise are practically ungettable: Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Harmes. OK only five - Jones is getting a bit long in the tooth to be any use to us. And Fritsch, Neal-Bullen, Hannan, vandenBerg are next tier but they show you how deeply stocked Melbourne are in this type of player.

Perhaps the problem is that it really is hard to lure a player to come to Sydney and that's why we have to take it so seriously when a good player does want to come? Lucky for us that we do have a point of difference and good players do, from time to time, want to come to us. Remember, last year we couldn't tempt vandenBerg or Langdon and this year vandenBerg didn't get a senior game and Langdon's superior Freo brother is going to be traded for pick 30 odd. I'd pay that for him!

Anyway, I really want us to come away from this trade period stronger, not weaker, in the middle of the ground. Drafting kids who may one day be good mids is not going to cut it. I suppose if we draft a mature ager like Partington that will help but he is not the second coming of the messiah else he wouldn't have been delisted and ignored by all clubs.

****

Don't see why picks 12 & 18 wouldn't be enough for pick 4 except that clubs tend to place a premium (even more than the points suggest) on high picks.

The risk to the Giants of the Demons taking Green is low because he is the kind of player they are already overstocked with. Serong, or possibly Young, seems much more likely targets for Melbourne.

[liz]

The thing I am feeling most strongly and most want to talk about is: why aren't we chasing premium mids? Or are we doing it and keeping quiet about it? This is what we need. Especially with Jones and, probably, Papley departing. I get that JD has come to us and we feel like he is too good a player to ignore and so we are investing some time and resources into that but are we letting it distract us from what we really need? Or is more at play behind the scenes?

Would anyone be interested in a player like Wines or Crouch? Or Bonar (apparently gettable for a top 30 pick)? I still want us to go after Angus Brayshaw or Jye Caldwell (as suggested by AG) or someone like that. Although I don't see much hope of prising Caldwell out of GWS because the would only be looking to unload expensive players to give themselves some cap relief and as a 2nd year player next season Caldwell is relatively cheap for them to keep. Melbourne have half a dozen primo mids any of which I would be happy with but some of which I recognise are practically ungettable: Oliver, Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca, Harmes. OK only five - Jones is getting a bit long in the tooth to be any use to us. And Fritsch, Neal-Bullen, Hannan, vandenBerg are next tier but they show you how deeply stocked Melbourne are in this type of player.
.

Not sure about Wines or Crouch. They'd cost a bit and both have had injury issues (though Wines' are probably not indicative of long term injury risk).

But trying to see if they could shake someone like Venables out of West Coast would be interesting. He was borderline in their best 22 last year, and that was before the arrival of Kelly. WC probably see him as a long term replacement for Shuey but they must be tight on their salary cap and have traded away almost all their draft capital. Maybe the promise of almost guaranteed senior footy would be attractive to him, and his loss could be covered by WC. He'd be a pretty handy Jones replacement - similar attributes, if less far along in his development.

[Jimitron5000]

Apparently Uncle Terry is disappointed that Joe wants to move to the Swans.

An alternative take on the possible trade: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...09-p52z6b.html

[AB Swannie]

The thing I am feeling most strongly and most want to talk about is: why aren't we chasing premium mids? Or are we doing it and keeping quiet about it? This is what we need.

Maybe we have but haven't been able to attract anyone. It doesn't actually seem like there are too many premium mids looking to move. Brad Crouch is the only decent guy even likely to move and I think he is a stretch being called "premium". Even so, if he is to move, he is likely to take up a much bigger offer at the Suns than here.

Sorry to be patronising but this is not fantasy football. Players have to want to uproot their lives to move to Sydney. Whether we offer picks 5, 9, next year's first et etc doesn't matter if the premium mids are not willing and available.

The fact is that when a player of the ilk of Joe Daniher does say that he wants to move, whether he be a mid, forward, or back, we have to take that opportunity. In the draft, you should always use your first pick on "best available". Well, best available at pick 5 is Joe Daniher.

[Markwebbos]

I agree we should be going after experienced mids, particularly given we are losing Jones and probably Papley too.

Bonar could be a pretty good value pick up, for something in the low 20s if he's actually a good player? I listen to the GWS recruiting manager on Road to the Draft podcast yesterday who said that they didn't actually need Caldwell when they drafted him, but he was too good to pass up, so I wonder if he'd be gettable. Caruso did say that they had a lot of depth in the midfield, which is an understatement.

I'm crossing my fingers that (1) we get decent picks for Jones and Papley (2) we play hardball and don't give up the farm for Daniher (3) We draft some quality experienced players that won't cost us too much cap wise.

*The view is that the Saints can't do all their deals without giving up players (although I don't know if there's anyone we'd want on their list).
*I wonder whether, with Fantasia going, the Bombers would entertain Papley for Daniher and this would be a better look that getting picks?
*Hope we take a punt on Bennell
*Ditto Taylor
*And someone like a Bonar
*And possibly a genuine ruckman (rather than a ruck/fwd) as "backup" to Naismith

One of the best recruits of the 2018 trade period was Roughhead to the Pies, which got done at the last minute. I hope there could be some moves like that from the Swans next week.

On the other hand, I'm sure there's a desire to develop the players on our list as quickly as possible. I can see Blakey and Rowbottom playing a lot more midfield minutes in 2020.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact is that when a player of the ilk of Joe Daniher does say that he wants to move, whether he be a mid, forward, or back, we have to take that opportunity. In the draft, you should always use your first pick on "best available". Well, best available at pick 5 is Joe Daniher.

I like your line of reasoning ABS