2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[barry]

GWS weren't working with us when they bid on Blakey (and nor should they). If we want Green then we should bid on him.

Blakey was still a steal with what they bid. I have no problems with teams bidding for players if they think they are best available. That's how the bidding system works, and insures the academies and father son's are at fair price (minus discount).

When you plan to bid just to spite another team (as some are suggesting), especially an important ally in the wider AFL battle, and a club that offers many great recruiting opportunities to us, then it's just a plain dumb tactic, sure to backfire.

[Markwebbos]

Barry I think there are some GW$ haters on here who see screwing with our Orange nemesis as the sole reason to bid on Green. I don't think that's why we should do it. As I've said he's our best option at pick 5.

I really don't think we should making "not pissing off GWS" central to our drafting strategy as you've suggested

[jono2707]

The problem, as we're seeing, with a high draft pick is the FOMO attached and the ongoing concern that there could've been someone better than who we ended up with.

I for one hope we don't get another pick this high for a long long time.

[AnnieH]

I really don't know why we (ok, Barry) are caring so much about what GW$ are doing.
Maybe you should go and talk about them on their page and just leave this page about the swans.

[Markwebbos]

I really don't know why we (ok, Barry) are caring so much about what GW$ are doing.
Maybe you should go and talk about them on their page and just leave this page about the swans.

Yes but that might upset them. We don’t want to do that Annie! It might shut off the flow of GWS players to the Swans.

[stevoswan]

Blakey was still a steal with what they bid. I have no problems with teams bidding for players if they think they are best available. That's how the bidding system works, and insures the academies and father son's are at fair price (minus discount).

When you plan to bid just to spite another team (as some are suggesting), especially an important ally in the wider AFL battle, and a club that offers many great recruiting opportunities to us, then it's just a plain dumb tactic, sure to backfire.

The Swans won't be bidding on Greene out of spite. They will be bidding for the exact reason you give in your second sentence.....and they have every right to.

Are you trying to suggest that the GWS bid on Blakey wasn't a vexatious bid? We owe them nothing....and your claim that they are a club "that offers many great recruiting opportunities to us" is a stretch in the extreme. Truth is, they offer many great recruiting opportunities to power clubs in Melbourne. None of them want to "go home" across town.

Seriously Barry, you need to decide exactly where your loyalties lie.....

[dimelb]

Blakey was still a steal with what they bid. I have no problems with teams bidding for players if they think they are best available. That's how the bidding system works, and insures the academies and father son's are at fair price (minus discount).

When you plan to bid just to spite another team (as some are suggesting), especially an important ally in the wider AFL battle, and a club that offers many great recruiting opportunities to us, then it's just a plain dumb tactic, sure to backfire.

I pretty much agree with barry here. What I DON'T want is the kind of relationship between WC and Freo, or even more to the point, Crows and Port. We can be civil to GWS without being buddies, and it's in the interest of both clubs to have at least a working relationship: we have a common enemy or two.

[Markwebbos]

Can someone please explain to me how bidding on Green with pick 5 could in any way be interpreted as vexatious.

If not why are we talking about it on this thread?

[Beerman]

I seriously doubt any club would bid on a player they have lower down just to disrupt what they imagine a rival club's plans to be. That would be a risky strategy, given the high chance of error. Not that I think that bids, or lack thereof, make one whisker of a difference to the relationship between the clubs. Clubs are professional organisations and understand that opposition clubs have not just the right but the duty to bid on players if it is in the interests of the club. It's not personal in the way relationships between fans are. (cf. Roos' comments on the Sydney-West Coast rivalry).

Interestingly, I read book on introductory on game theory that talked about these kinds of draft strategies in a theoretical sense. It was very interesting - you reach a Nash equilibrium where the total value of the draft is decreased, because nobody is getting what they want, but no team can improve their position by changing their strategy. The problem is that this assumes that everyone knows everyone else's strategy, which is rarely the case with certainty. (Nash equilibria also ignore the fact that teams might communicate and change their strategies, but I don't think that really happens in the AFL). Demonstrating that there is always such an equilibrium is why he won a Nobel prize.

[Markwebbos]

Simon Dalyrmple draft preview interview on the Swans website, worth a watch:

Draft Preview with Simon Dalrymple - sydneyswans.com.au

*Draft is strong on mids and rebounding defenders
*Its a deep draft, they are confident of getting good players at 25 and 32
*But its not as strong at the top end as other years
*Goal is to maximise the value of our picks and do it better than anyone else
*Mentioned Ash, Kemp, Young, Flanders as possibles for our pick 5

[Blood Fever]

Simon Dalyrmple draft preview interview on the Swans website, worth a watch:

Draft Preview with Simon Dalrymple - sydneyswans.com.au

*Draft is strong on mids and rebounding defenders
*Its a deep draft, they are confident of getting good players at 25 and 32
*But its not as strong at the top end as other years
*Goal is to maximise the value of our picks and do it better than anyone else
*Mentioned Ash, Kemp, Young, Flanders as possibles for our pick 5

Mentioned Jackson as well

[liz]

Which probably means they'll bid on Green, bid on Henry, and then draft Serong or Stephens.

[barry]

Barry I think there are some GW$ haters on here who see screwing with our Orange nemesis as the sole reason to bid on Green. I don't think that's why we should do it. As I've said he's our best option at pick 5.

I really don't think we should making "not pissing off GWS" central to our drafting strategy as you've suggested

Our draft strategy should not be to actively piss anyone off, just pick best available.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but that might upset them. We don’t want to do that Annie! It might shut off the flow of GWS players to the Swans.

We already have a non existent flow, so are missing out badly already. Maybe we already upset them.

[Markwebbos]

Mentioned Jackson as well

He did mention Jackson, but not when he was listing players who were in the discussion for our pick 5.
Liz could well be right, that we are keeping our cards close to our chest, and we'll draft someone he hasn't mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Which probably means they'll bid on Green, bid on Henry, and then draft Serong or Stephens.

He did say they'd be finalising our draft order this week, which makes me think that video was recorded sometime last week

[Ralph Dawg]

Which probably means they'll bid on Green, bid on Henry, and then draft Serong or Stephens.

One highlights package certainly does not make a player but I saw the package on Stephens and he looks a ripper. Pace through midfield and his attack on goal a particular highlight. Has been doing it against the big boys of SANFL too. Most have him listed outside top 5 (6) but he seems to have attributes we need.