2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Looking like GWS will secure Green.

Sam Edmund on Twitter: "Fascinating to see what the Demons do with picks 3 & 8. Unlikely to trump the Blues for Papley & could instead send 3 to a GWS side eager to move up the draft so as not to use first pick matching a bid for academy wonderkid Tom Green. Dees could ask for GWS pick 6 & future first."

I'm even more intrigued about the Green situation now. According to SEN Demons and Giants planning enormous pick swap: Edmund

The Giants “... got pick six, but they need to get higher up the draft because they don’t want to use their first pick to match a bid for Green.

“If a bid comes at pick four, then the Giants would have to use pick six and they don’t have another pick until 40.

“Under this scenario they can use pick three on whoever they want and when a bid comes in for Green, they can use pick 40 to match it.

So they aren't interested in Green but in another player (I wonder who?), are they going to have enough points for Green if a bid comes in from the Swans at pick 5? Their next pick is 40, or will they simply trade future picks to make up the difference?

[liz]

So they aren't interested in Green but in another player (I wonder who?), are they going to have enough points for Green if a bid comes in from the Swans at pick 5? Their next pick is 40, or will they simply trade future picks to make up the difference?

They can go into deficit. At the moment they also hold a couple of later picks in the draft that have some points attached. By my calculations (based on the picks they currently hold), a bid at pick 5 would leave them in deficit to the tune of 769 points. Those points are then meant to be deducted from the equivalent pick in next year's draft - ie because they'll be matching a Green bid in the first round, the deficit should come off next year's first round pick. However, under the scenario proposed, they won't hold a first round pick next year because they will have already traded that out. So by my reading of the rules (based on a brilliant explanation written by Emma Quayle back in 2015), the deficit comes off their next pick. Unless they finish out of the finals, that will wipe out their second round pick next year, and eat into their third round pick. It is possible the rules have been tweaked since 2015 when Quayle wrote her piece (indeed, we know they've been tweaked - just not sure whether it affects this particular aspect of the bidding). Usually a club isn't permitted to trade out its future second round pick if it has traded out its future first, but that's effectively what GWS would be doing - not in actual fact, but certainly in practical effect.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/an-idiots-guide-to-the-new-afl-bidding-system-20151112-gkxg8b.html

It's still possible that the Giants will acquire additional picks this year, especially if a club bites on the Bonar carrot.

[Markwebbos]

That’s very promising. Implies they might not match a bid on Green. Although they may yet trade Bonar for a pick in the thirties.

[liz]

Back on the trading situation, I think the good news (for Swans fans) is that this situation can't play out right to the deadline because it's holding other things up.

The Swans will have to decide at some point whether they are trading Papley or not, and might need to do so quite soon. If they tell Carlton he's staying, that enables Carlton to trade its pick 9 out for two lower selections in the teens (with Geelong an obvious trading partner) and then send one of those to Gold Coast for Martin. Once the possibility of pick 9 is gone, that potentially scuppers their offer for Daniher. So they can't then change their mind at the last minute.

So I reckon they need to determine quite early today whether there's any chance of securing a trade for Daniher at a price they are willing to pay, and then just get it done. If it's not clear to them now that a trade is achievable, they just need to walk away pretty much now, and see if they can salvage something of value from trade week.

[Foreign Legion]

Sam McClure is certain that St.Kilda will get Zak Jones even though they currently have no picks in his range. They must be giving away a few players.

[sprite]

Latest update on JD - Swans offer 9 and next year first rounder, return JD and Essendon's next year 2nd rounder

[liz]

Latest update on JD - Swans offer 9 and next year first rounder, return JD and Essendon's next year 2nd rounder

I must admit that, if I were Essendon, I'd reject that. I have some sympathy with their stance that they really don't want to trade Daniher. It's not unlike the Swans really not wanting to trade Papley. If the Swans were to get Daniher and he remain fit, and we had a good run with injury, our first round pick next year could be into the teens. Yes, a lot of "ifs" but within the realms of possibility.

Even if the Bombers have any inclination to trade Daniher, I reckon that pick 9 has to move up to pick 5 and/or you take out the return of the Bombers' second round pick next year. Do I think the club should be trading more for a player with Daniher's recent injury history (and who doesn't fill an urgent list need)? No. But if the Swans are actually serious about acquiring him, that offer isn't going to cut it.

[bloodspirit]

It's so great to wake to the news that the Swans have never yet offered pick 5, let alone picks 5 & 9, as part of the Daniher deal. Love the way we kept cool, quiet and our powder dry. Has fortified my faith in the list managers, which was strained during the crazy reporting, although I was never prepared to believe they were going to meet EFC's demands without hearing it from the club. It turns out they were on the same page as us all along.

Next year JD will be a brilliant target if he has recovered form and fitness and still wants to come. It will be interesting to see how we go about getting him and how much we have to pay. We'll have a choice between a high trade price and a huge salary. In his case, with his suspect body, I'd rather pay big at the trade table at a time when we'll have secured some good Academy talent and our list will be maturing and we can afford to have some lean draft years rather than risk having a Buddyesque contract which would cramp our cap for ages.

I'll be scrutinising to see whether double standards are applied by the Melbourne media to the Daniher and Papley deals failing. I'm not not yet confident that we won't trade Papley, only hopeful.

It will be annoying if the punditry pontificate about our "embarrassing failure" to land Daniher, but I'll live. ????????

[liz]

That’s very promising. Implies they might not match a bid on Green. Although they may yet trade Bonar for a pick in the thirties.

I don't think it implies that at all. It just means they want two top 5 players this year.

It makes sense for them (assuming there's someone available they really fancy). They are effectively turning next year's first and second round picks, plus the two late picks they hold this year, into a top 3 pick this year. No club would actually do that trade with them, taking into account expectations of where they are likely to finish on the ladder.

Presumably they don't have any highly rated academy players for next season (though they might acquire more picks if they lose another good player next year), and it also suggests they aren't interested in bidding on their second 2019 academy prospect (Delahunty). Or they expect him to fall to very late in the draft. Nick Murray (Sean's brother) is another of their 2019 academy crop who looks very draftable to me, but maybe he will fall through to the rookie draft.

[Markwebbos]

Hi Liz

I took what you posted before about them going into deficit for 2020.

"So by my reading of the rules ... the deficit comes off their next pick. Unless they finish out of the finals, that will wipe out their second round pick next year, and eat into their third round pick ... Usually a club isn't permitted to trade out its future second round pick if it has traded out its future first, but that's effectively what GWS would be doing - not in actual fact, but certainly in practical effect."

To imply they might not be allowed to match a bid for Green, or they might not want to have no 1st, 2nd and leave themselves with only a lowly 3rd round draft pick next year.

Although they may also be expecting to offload players next year to generate draft picks.

[mcs]

Hi Liz

I took what you posted before about them going into deficit for 2020.

"So by my reading of the rules ... the deficit comes off their next pick. Unless they finish out of the finals, that will wipe out their second round pick next year, and eat into their third round pick ... Usually a club isn't permitted to trade out its future second round pick if it has traded out its future first, but that's effectively what GWS would be doing - not in actual fact, but certainly in practical effect."

To imply they might not be allowed to match a bid for Green, or they might not want to have no 1st, 2nd and leave themselves with only a lowly 3rd round draft pick next year.

Although they may also be expecting to offload players next year to generate draft picks.

I would expect that is likely to be their thinking. A year doesn't pass where they don't dispose of some top quality talent, then invariably replace it in the draft. Both Cameron and Whitfield are out of contract at the end of 2020 are they not?

[Markwebbos]

It's so great to wake to the news that the Swans have never yet offered pick 5, let alone picks 5 & 9, as part of the Daniher deal. Love the way we kept cool, quiet and our powder dry. Has fortified my faith in the list managers, which was strained during the crazy reporting, although I was never prepared to believe they were going to meet EFC's demands without hearing it from the club. It turns out they were on the same page as us all along.

Next year JD will be a brilliant target if he has recovered form and fitness and still wants to come. It will be interesting to see how we go about getting him and how much we have to pay. We'll have a choice between a high trade price and a huge salary. In his case, with his suspect body, I'd rather pay big at the trade table at a time when we'll have secured some good Academy talent and our list will be maturing and we can afford to have some lean draft years rather than risk having a Buddyesque contract which would cramp our cap for ages.

I'll be scrutinising to see whether double standards are applied by the Melbourne media to the Daniher and Papley deals failing. I'm not not yet confident that we won't trade Papley, only hopeful.

It will be annoying if the punditry pontificate about our "embarrassing failure" to land Daniher, but I'll live. ????????

If we want to get JD next year as a RFA, we are going to have to offer him a Buddyesque contract to make sure that the Bombers don't match. Or potentially trade but we'd have to offer even more than they are asking for this year, if he's played most games and shown AA-type form. Having 12 months would give us time to think about which player(s) we might offer up.

Daniher could walk out of the club and take his chances next year. Would work if we finish below the Bombers, but its very high risk.

[Markwebbos]

Bonar wants to get to the Bombers. Why don't the Swans send pick 25 to the Giants, pick 9 and next years first rounder to the Bombers, we get Daniher and a future second rounder from them?

That way they get the player they've been demanding?

[MattW]

The most likely outcome seems to be that we won't get Daniher.

If you believe the reporting, we won't trade Papley in those circumstances. I'd expect that we would require Carlton to drop their demand for pick 25 back from us, if they want Papley in those circumstances.

If that happened, and we did end up with 5 and 9, would we be happy to take both to the draft? Is there anything interesting we could get for 9? I'm persuaded that trading up to 3 won't help us get Green.

[Thunder Shaker]

Latest update on JD - Swans offer 9 and next year first rounder, return JD and Essendon's next year 2nd rounder

Essendon don't want to trade Daniher. They won't accept that.

I think the trade may be engineered to give the appearance of doing something, but if Essendon don't acquiesce then it will be Essendon that wears the blame. Leaving JD to stew at Essendon will make a more favourable trade offer next year.