2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[bloodspirit]

I can't believe our media team is trying to spin our trade period as having added to our midfield depth! Trade Wrap: Midfield depth added - sydneyswans.com.au We traded out a midfield and a ruck and got back a small forward who can hopefully pinch-hit in the midfield. In nobody's language is that "adding to midfield depth". You just lose credibility with that kind of crap. Nothing in the article really backs up the headline which is why I'm pointing the finger at the media team.

[bloodspirit]

I don't have much affection for Barrett but he is entitled to his opinion that the bid for Daniher was amateurish. In fact, I half agree. So much was evident in the distance between the parties' negotiating positions - there was a chasm between our respective valuations of JD. Should we not have foreseen this and perhaps then not urged Daniher to go public with his desire to get out and instead told him to cool his jets and be patient and wait one more year? I am not certain, which is why I say "half agree". For this I hold Tom Harley accountable. While Kin and Charlie may (or may not) have been complicit (we don't know), and certainly they should have been advising Harley, ultimately it was Harley's call to make, especially given Harley's personal connection to Daniher.

[liz]

I completely agree with this and wanted to make the same point. List managers wouldn't value our opinions about which players are worth keeping or trading or anything like that the slightest bit. However, they (actually, not so much the list managers as the CEO and club) might want to keep an eye on fans' sentiments to know how it could impact on memberships, attendances, viewing numbers and how they get their messages out.

Maybe, but we're fickle and also (I suspect) naturally conservative as a bunch. We don't like losing players who've we've become emotionally attached to, and we don't like the club taking risks (injury related, salary cap related) on new players coming in - ones we haven't (yet) formed any emotional attachment to.

I remember being underwhelmed by the recruitment of Kennedy - my only recollections of seeing him play included running into an open goal and "doing an airy" and another occasion (or maybe just a different distortion of my recollection of the same passage of play) of him running into open goal and instead deciding to pass the ball off to Franklin.

I thought McGlynn would just be a list clogger.

I was even less impressed by Shaw's recruitment.

And (as many of my friends will bear witness to) I was livid when the news of the Franklin coup was announced. It seemed to be we were mortgaging our future for a mercenary.

Needless to say, my opinions of these recruitment decisions changed pretty rapidly. (In the case of Franklin, I started to come around by the very same evening, after watching Ireland explain the rationale behind the deal on a hurriedly convened AFL360 "special".)

We've also seen players come, go and retire over long periods. I remember thinking how I could ever love watching the team as much (or how it could ever function) when Lockett retired. And then Kelly. And later Goodes. And a few other players (to lesser extents) in between. But new players arrive and we fall in love with them too. As fans (and assisted by social media) we think it is our right to be emotionally, and maybe rationally, invested in player decisions, but I doubt it has much effect on our actual relationship with the club, except for fleeting moments. We all get over everything eventually. Right?

(With the possible exception of the 2014 and 2016 grand finals, though for very different reasons.)

[liz]

I don't have much affection for Barrett but he is entitled to his opinion that the bid for Daniher was amateurish. In fact, I half agree. So much was evident in the distance between the parties' negotiating positions - there was a chasm between our respective valuations of JD. Should we not have foreseen this and perhaps then not urged Daniher to go public with his desire to get out and instead told him to cool his jets and be patient and wait one more year? I am not certain, which is why I say "half agree". For this I hold Tom Harley accountable. While Kin and Charlie may (or may not) have been complicit (we don't know), and certainly they should have been advising Harley, ultimately it was Harley's call to make, especially given Harley's personal connection to Daniher.

I had similar thoughts during trade week, but now I wonder if it might not have all been deliberate.

The Swans went into trade week resigned to losing Jones and Cameron but really not wanting to lose Papley. From the way things panned out, I don't think they had many targets they wanted to bring into the club (leaving Daniher aside for a moment).

We don't know the extent to which the Swans actively chased Daniher, or whether the request to move was largely his doing. I am guessing here, but he must be a little concerned about his future, given his injury woes and the lack of long term security at the Bombers. And while he gets a few more rights next year, he is still somewhat restricted, and knows he either needs to re-sign early or face the same kind of media circus that has surrounded the likes of Lynch, Kelly (x2), Martin, Coniglio et al in recent seasons. If the Swans tentatively offered him a three or four year deal, I can see the attraction of accepting that (even if it didn't maximise his dollar potential) just to escape that circus. But whether the Swans ever really thought they could prise him out of Essendon now, at least a cost they were prepared to bear, we can't really know.

But maybe it was convenient for the club to go through the charade, even if they knew it was likely to be fruitless. I don't suppose they are the least concerned about any perceptions of "egg on face" that the Melbourne media might connect. Fans and media like to make this stuff up, ignoring that all the recruitment managers have long standing relationships with each other, and with player managers, built over many years. I imagine there's a genuine respect amongst them because they all appreciate the challenges of doing their jobs under the glare of public and media scrutiny.

For all we know, Kinnear and Dodoro sat in a room together and played Scrabble for a week, both knowing that Daniher wasn't going to be traded, but not having much else to do for the week. (The Bombers didn't have much else on of consequence either.) For the Swans, this enabled them to largely ignore the Papley issue, or frame it as something tied up with the Daniher trade, even though it didn't really need to be. Fact is, they didn't want to trade Papley but without the Daniher charades, it would have been harder to avoid.

[Mark26]

This is WHY I love Kinnear. Absolutely no BS.
I've said it a gazillion time, and even to his face, if another team wants the success that the swans have, they would recruit Kinnear.
I know he's still got a year or two left on his contract, but I told him just after he signed the last one, that he's NEVER to leave us. Ever.
He really loved being told that he was appreciated. He's a tops bloke.

I've got lots of love for Kinnear too. If I could pick only one person to have coffee with from the Swans' non-playing personnel, it would be KB.

[Blood Fever]

I don't have much affection for Barrett but he is entitled to his opinion that the bid for Daniher was amateurish. In fact, I half agree. So much was evident in the distance between the parties' negotiating positions - there was a chasm between our respective valuations of JD. Should we not have foreseen this and perhaps then not urged Daniher to go public with his desire to get out and instead told him to cool his jets and be patient and wait one more year? I am not certain, which is why I say "half agree". For this I hold Tom Harley accountable. While Kin and Charlie may (or may not) have been complicit (we don't know), and certainly they should have been advising Harley, ultimately it was Harley's call to make, especially given Harley's personal connection to Daniher.

If we believe Harley's account of how it all unfolded and that Daniher approached us quite late in the piece for a trade, how should we have approached it ? I have no reason to disbelieve this version of events. Two first round draft picks was about right. Giving away one player from the list provided by Essendon would have been poison. We now can have another crack at.him next year if it's appropriate. I have no complaints and we kept Papley. Move on.

[bloodspirit]

Maybe, but we're fickle and also (I suspect) naturally conservative as a bunch. We don't like losing players who've we've become emotionally attached to, and we don't like the club taking risks (injury related, salary cap related) on new players coming in - ones we haven't (yet) formed any emotional attachment to.

I remember being underwhelmed by the recruitment of Kennedy - my only recollections of seeing him play included running into an open goal and "doing an airy" and another occasion (or maybe just a different distortion of my recollection of the same passage of play) of him running into open goal and instead deciding to pass the ball off to Franklin.

I thought McGlynn would just be a list clogger.

I was even less impressed by Shaw's recruitment.

And (as many of my friends will bear witness to) I was livid when the news of the Franklin coup was announced. It seemed to be we were mortgaging our future for a mercenary.

Needless to say, my opinions of these recruitment decisions changed pretty rapidly. (In the case of Franklin, I started to come around by the very same evening, after watching Ireland explain the rationale behind the deal on a hurriedly convened AFL360 "special".)

We've also seen players come, go and retire over long periods. I remember thinking how I could ever love watching the team as much (or how it could ever function) when Lockett retired. And then Kelly. And later Goodes. And a few other players (to lesser extents) in between. But new players arrive and we fall in love with them too. As fans (and assisted by social media) we think it is our right to be emotionally, and maybe rationally, invested in player decisions, but I doubt it has much effect on our actual relationship with the club, except for fleeting moments. We all get over everything eventually. Right?

(With the possible exception of the 2014 and 2016 grand finals, though for very different reasons.)

In other words they don't have to pay much regard to our opinion even in relation to memberships, attendance, viewers etc? They can have confidence that we'll 'come around' once we've had time to form the emotional attachment? You're probably right.

[bloodspirit]

I've got lots of love for Kinnear too. If I could pick only one person to have coffee with from the Swans' non-playing personnel, it would be KB.

I'd go for a coach. Not sure which one, probably not Horse. Maybe Kirk ahead of Stevie J or Cox because of his long connection with the club. Possibly Tadhg for the same reason plus I think maybe he'd be more forthcoming with stories and humour. I have never met KB but I have the impression that he would not be very good value for a chat over a coffee because even then I don't think he'd give much away, it just doesn't seem to be his personality. If I could be assured he'd tell every anecdote he knew and opinion he holds then I might well change my mind.

[bloodspirit]

If we believe Harley's account of how it all unfolded and that Daniher approached us quite late in the piece for a trade, how should we have approached it ? I have no reason to disbelieve this version of events. Two first round draft picks was about right. Giving away one player from the list provided by Essendon would have been poison. We now can have another crack at.him next year if it's appropriate. I have no complaints and we kept Papley. Move on.

I, too, accept Harley's account (as truthful if not complete). How should we have approached it? Good question. Maybe a bit more discreetly? Once we established that EFC and we were not in the same ballpark about what Daniher was worth or what might effect a trade then we could have told Daniher we probably couldn't get the deal done this time around but we'd be in a better position in a year's time. Two first round draft picks was a fair offer but not one that EFC was at all open to. And I have previously observed that EFC need Daniher more than us, especially in 2020. He IS worth more to them than us, at least at the moment, which makes it very difficult to get a deal done.

We couldn't know for sure that it would pan out the way it has but it was certainly foreseeable and hence might have merited more discretion/circumspection.

[Syd76]

Hi to all RWO posters

It has certainly been very interesting reading and listening over the past few months. This is my second post so welcome other's posts on my ramblings below.

In my humble opinion, I think that the Swans receive a C grade for their efforts over the trade period.

I eat humble pie in that Tom Harley and the team did not sell the farm to get JD into the club, and bend over to Carlton for Tom Papley. I think that this is a seminal moment in terms of our new football administration going forward in the post Andrew Ireland era. I am absolutely chuffed that they stood their ground when in fact I didn't think that they had that in them (although two first rounders for Joe would have been too much). And this is not to say that I do not want Daniher at our football club, rather as many of the posters here have suggested, I think what we would be giving up would be too much). At this current state of play, giving up Papley for Daniher would have been a fair outcome (one that Papley is in career best form and only going to get better (albeit he is a small forward), and two that JD is banged up and really hasn't warranted what Essendon have asked for (not to say that will obviously change should he get past his injury demons)). I am glad that the club stood firm on Papley, and hope that it may turn him round over the next year. So an A on that part.

So why a C grade? The club owes it to its players to be as competitive as it can be. The way to do this is through the draft, player development (though this has nothing to do with the trading period) and through trading. Clearly, we have done well out of the draft and I consider KB as a phenomenal recruiter (but as he himself puts on record, the recruitment team don't get everything right and cannot be expected to). Player development has been reasonably good (a little bit hit with the departure of Shaw the previous year), but the development of Hewett, Dawson et al shows that we certainly have the capacity to develop players. The issue that we have, and why the club receives an F on this part is the identification of and recruitment of talent from other clubs. Similar to other readers, I do not think that we have done well in the past 10 years (aside from the Kennedy/McGlynn trade period and of course Franklin). I feel we should have been identifying talent (at the Tigers/Lions/Eagles/Geelong) which isn't getting a game, but should be. I am disappointed that the club has not done this - getting Lewis Taylor will not help Parker and JPK in the midfield so lets call BS on what the club has put out in that regard. If one looks at the successful clubs, they have all identified latent/idle talent from other clubs and got them in (we did this in 2009 with a flag 3 years later, the Hawks did this throughout their past 10 years with Burgoyne, McEvoy, Frawley and Mitchell, the Dogs with Tom Boyd, Richmond with Nankervis/Caddy and Prestia etc). Yes I know we have been unfairly hamstrung by trading restrictions but I wonder whether subconsciously that has made us gun shy? So a big F on that front.

Which all in all gets us to a mid range C. I hope that the continual development of our youngsters will give us the significant uplift to come close to the top 8, and potentially have a free hit at Bennell if his body is ok.

Thoughts?

[Auntie.Gerald]

The Sydney Swans currently hold selection 5, 25, 32, 44, 76 and 81

So pick 32 = 584 pts and pick 44 = 362 pts
Total = 946 pts

Pick 19 = 948 pts

Remote chance........ but I wonder if there is a club that has any specific need to split their individual higher draft pick into two picks ?

[mcs]

(With the possible exception of the 2014 and 2016 grand finals, though for very different reasons.)

Definite exceptions. I will never get over 2014 unless we flog someone on the big day (unlikely given our penchant for only winning close grand finals), and we either get gifted a grand final like the fairypuppies were with amazingly generous umpiring, or we get recognition of just how much we got bent over that day - which will only ever happen if a similar occurrence was to happen to a Melbourne based team in a grand final.

[mcs]

For all we know, Kinnear and Dodoro sat in a room together and played Scrabble for a week, both knowing that Daniher wasn't going to be traded, but not having much else to do for the week. (The Bombers didn't have much else on of consequence either.) For the Swans, this enabled them to largely ignore the Papley issue, or frame it as something tied up with the Daniher trade, even though it didn't really need to be. Fact is, they didn't want to trade Papley but without the Daniher charades, it would have been harder to avoid.

It certainly was convenient to tie the Papley situation into the Daniher trade - perhaps as a way for the club to put its foot down, at least temporarily to say to Papley 'we will hold you to your contract'. I get a distinct feeling we think his 'homesickness' issues are either a bit of a front (unlikely), or that the issues can be overcome with time and patience.

- - - Updated - - -

The Sydney Swans currently hold selection 5, 25, 32, 44, 76 and 81

So pick 32 = 584 pts and pick 44 = 362 pts
Total = 946 pts

Pick 19 = 948 pts

Remote chance........ but I wonder if there is a club that has any specific need to split their individual higher draft pick into two picks ?

Interesting thinking - but without too many academy players around, there probably isn't too many specific needs at this stage, especially given a predicted relatively shallow draft.

Could always see if we could package up 25 and 32 and get something a bit higher up. Though I reckon we will be pretty comfortable with what we have - a high first round + 3 2nd/early 3rd round picks. Time for Dalrymple to pull some magic out of the fire - i.e. surely the very reason we picked him up in the first place.

[Jeynez]

The Sydney Swans currently hold selection 5, 25, 32, 44, 76 and 81

So pick 32 = 584 pts and pick 44 = 362 pts
Total = 946 pts

Pick 19 = 948 pts

Remote chance........ but I wonder if there is a club that has any specific need to split their individual higher draft pick into two picks ?

Freo have rights to Liam Henry from the NGA who's predicated to fall around Pick 12? They have selections 10, 22, 58, 69, 79, 83.

[Aprilbr]

I felt that our trading team ultimately won the Daniher battle in not paying significantly overs for him. Howver, we certainly did not address our most immediate and glaring need in the midfield. I also feel that we significantly lost the media war by allowing a view that we did not offer much for Daniher (9 and 25) to become the accepted truth. Reality is we were told that 5 and 9 would not get it done so why offer that? I also felt that our relatively new Football Manager, Gardiner, conducted a "deer in the headlights" press conference post the last day. This undermined confidence in us from the outside. It was cringe worthy to watch. I hope that he can lift in this regard or he will be unemployed relatively quickly.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk