2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Why did Jake Niall completely overlook the vindictive trading ban

Perhaps MattW is correct, or maybe it's just because while it demonstrated how far the AFL would go to keep the powerful Victorian clubs happy - I don't think it had any actual effect on the Swans recruiting.
Ban or no, there was no room in the cap after Kurt/Buddy arrived for new players - hell there wasn't any room in the cap for existing players.

[MattW]

Perhaps MattW is correct, or maybe it's just because while it demonstrated how far the AFL would go to keep the powerful Victorian clubs happy - I don't think it had any actual effect on the Swans recruiting.
Ban or no, there was no room in the cap after Kurt/Buddy arrived for new players - hell there wasn't any room in the cap for existing players.

I asked Niall on Twitter. He replied:

"It was significant to 2016 when they were so close & unlucky, might have helped 2017. Don't think it's as relevant in 2020 though - and it was a consequence of COLA going, the real issue, which I addressed."

[barry]

I asked Niall on Twitter. He replied:

"It was significant to 2016 when they were so close & unlucky, might have helped 2017. Don't think it's as relevant in 2020 though - and it was a consequence of COLA going, the real issue, which I addressed."

In other words... "Oops, I forgot about that".

[Bloods05]

In other words... "Oops, I forgot about that".

And how exactly was the trading ban specifically a consequence of the removal of the CoLA? It was simply another layer of vindictiveness. They could easily have found a way to do the latter without the former.

[giant]

Perhaps MattW is correct, or maybe it's just because while it demonstrated how far the AFL would go to keep the powerful Victorian clubs happy - I don't think it had any actual effect on the Swans recruiting.
Ban or no, there was no room in the cap after Kurt/Buddy arrived for new players - hell there wasn't any room in the cap for existing players.

Not sure that's correct - Zac Tuohey was an example of exactly the type of player we would normally have gone after who traded from the Blues to the Cats at that time and not for huge $. Would fit very nicely into our best 22 right now.

[MattW]

Not sure that's correct - Zac Tuohey was an example of exactly the type of player we would normally have gone after who traded from the Blues to the Cats at that time and not for huge $. Would fit very nicely into our best 22 right now.

Exactly. We burned two picks in the 30s in the 2014 draft on Rose and Hiscox (oh god). We also had 57.

[Markwebbos]

Wasn't Joel Patful going to come to the Swans, even announced his intention to be traded, but couldn't because of the ban and ended up going to GW$? And isn't the only reason we got Sinkers because he was a straight swap for Jetta, rather than a trade?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Perhaps MattW is correct, or maybe it's just because while it demonstrated how far the AFL would go to keep the powerful Victorian clubs happy - I don't think it had any actual effect on the Swans recruiting.
Ban or no, there was no room in the cap after Kurt/Buddy arrived for new players - hell there wasn't any room in the cap for existing players.

Not sure that's correct - Zac Tuohey was an example of exactly the type of player we would normally have gone after who traded from the Blues to the Cats at that time and not for huge $. Would fit very nicely into our best 22 right now.

Yep in days gone by we may have collected Tuohoy, ban or no, it's hard to comprehend how that would have been possible when salary cap saw us shedding both Nanny and Mitchell at that time.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked Niall on Twitter. He replied:

"It was significant to 2016 when they were so close & unlucky, might have helped 2017. Don't think it's as relevant in 2020 though - and it was a consequence of COLA going, the real issue, which I addressed."

I don't twit - what did you actually ask Niall, his answer doesn't make it clear.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Wasn't Joel Patful going to come to the Swans, even announced his intention to be traded, but couldn't because of the ban and ended up going to GW$? And isn't the only reason we got Sinkers because he was a straight swap for Jetta, rather than a trade?

Same again, that's the year we had to shed Mal and Membrey just to say within the cap, so how the f.... could we add Patfull to the team?
The whole suggestion that the trade ban trashed the Swans talent acquisition plans is a disingenuous and threadbare fig leaf used to obfuscate the collateral trading damage bought about by the Buddy/Kurt gamble.

[Markwebbos]

Same again, that's the year we had to shed Mal and Membrey just to say within the cap, so how the f.... could we add Patfull to the team?
The whole suggestion that the trade ban trashed the Swans talent acquisition plans is a disingenuous and threadbare fig leaf used to obfuscate the collateral trading damage bought about by the Buddy/Kurt gamble.

That’s not how I remember it. Membrey was allowed to leave for more opportunity at the Saints and was hardly chewing up much of our cap. Mal was coming to the end of his career and was made a multi year offer the Swans opted not to match. I don’t think either was a salary cap related issue?

Anyone else thoughts?

[MattW]

I don't twit - what did you actually ask Niall, his answer doesn't make it clear.

"Jake, the trading ban after the Buddy recruitment must be relevant to the piece. It forced the Swans to change strategy; worth reflecting on, but may be more influential than any of the factors you mentioned."

[barry]

Wasn't Joel Patful going to come to the Swans, even announced his intention to be traded, but couldn't because of the ban and ended up going to GW$? And isn't the only reason we got Sinkers because he was a straight swap for Jetta, rather than a trade?

I dont know how close the Patful trade was. Could well have been Eddie McGuire stiring up trouble. Simple fact is, when you're a successful side, people want to come play with you, even for unders in the salary department. The only way to stop it is a trade ban.

Initially the AFL werent going to let us get Sinkers for Jetta, but relented after some intense lobbying by the swans. Just shows that there intention was to unfairly penalise us by having to shed players with no immediate compensation.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

"Jake, the trading ban after the Buddy recruitment must be relevant to the piece. It forced the Swans to change strategy; worth reflecting on, but may be more influential than any of the factors you mentioned."

I asked Niall on Twitter. He replied:
"It was significant to 2016 when they were so close & unlucky, might have helped 2017. Don't think it's as relevant in 2020 though - and it was a consequence of COLA going, the real issue, which I addressed."

Thanks MattW

[Ruck'n'Roll]

That’s not how I remember it. Membrey was allowed to leave for more opportunity at the Saints and was hardly chewing up much of our cap. Mal was coming to the end of his career and was made a multi year offer the Swans opted not to match. I don’t think either was a salary cap related issue?
Anyone else thoughts?

Yes you're right Markwebbos, Membrey's primary motivation could absolutely be about more opportunity, my phraseology wasn't good enough. I just meant his departure helped.

As for Mal, unless the Swans actually wanted rid of him, I think declining to match a multi year offer is pretty much the definition of a salary cap related issue

[mcs]

Yes you're right Markwebbos, Membrey's primary motivation could absolutely be about more opportunity, my phraseology wasn't good enough. I just meant his departure helped.

As for Mal, unless the Swans actually wanted rid of him, I think declining to match a multi year offer is pretty much the definition of a salary cap related issue

Membrey was pretty keen to get back to Melbourne I understand.

As for Mal - you have to remember his knee troubles too when thinking about that. We may not have been willing to gamble he would last as long as the contract he wanted was, given his history of serious knee injuries. It was injuries indeed that forced him to retire a little earlier then expected was it not?