2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Thunder Shaker]

I don't see anything wrong with what Carlton did. They bid on 2 players they valued at that point in the draft, then having not been able to secure them, went on to trade out of that portion of the draft. Sounds logical to me.

The impression I got at the time was they were after a particular player who was recruited shortly before their pick (perhaps Serong) and they were bidding on Academy players to stall for time. When they still couldn't work out who to draft they traded down. I don't know how accurate this is but it is plausible.

I have suggested a rule change to stop this from happening. That rule change could be as simple as being allowed to ask for a five-minute break once during the draft, if such a break is not already allowed.

[AB Swannie]

I agree. How would we know when a bid is going to come?

From regularly listening to the "Road to the Draft" podcast, I get the impression that there are good relationships built between most recruitment teams with conversations happening regularly. In non-Covid years, they share the sidelines of many underage games and have their own little family of scouts and analysts. Information is shared because it can help both parties having more certainty. From what I understand, this is especially true at the top of the draft and less so as the draft progresses due to live trading with picks in the latter parts of the first round onwards changing hands. Therefore, I do believe that clubs can take calculated risks estimating with some confidence what players each club is considering. It is why many phantom drafts are relatively accurate when looking at the first 10 picks.

Obviously, nothing is certain and so risks need to be considered. However, in the long run, it doesn't do Hawthorn any favours by creating bad relationships with Sydney. Last year, we publicly said that we weren't interested in Tom Green and that is what happened. If Hawthorn make similar conversations publicly or privately then I think the Swans would be inclined to believe them.

Again, however, I will reiterate that I'd prefer to keep pick 3.

[Molly dooker]

Trade radio saying AA plus our 2nd pick for Ladhams?

Not sure if they're hypothesising or there's something to it.

[Ralph Dawg]

Trade radio saying AA plus our 2nd pick for Ladhams?

Not sure if they're hypothesising or there's something to it.

No thanks. Means we either:
1) use pick 3 in matching bids on Campbell and Gulden, miss out on top end talent
2) go into massive deficit so that we are irrelevant in draft 2021
3) miss out on Gulden
4) Have to trade out another player to make up for loss of this year's 2nd rounder.

I'd be happy with a straight swap.

[Molly dooker]

No thanks. Means we either:
1) use pick 3 in matching bids on Campbell and Gulden, miss out on top end talent
2) go into massive deficit so that we are irrelevant in draft 2021
3) miss out on Gulden
4) Have to trade out another player to make up for loss of this year's 2nd rounder.

I'd be happy with a straight swap.

I certainly don't like the suggestion either.

I think trade radio are just throwing the idea out there, taking a poll and hoping we're desperate enough to say yes.

Swap, yes, throw in pick 2, it's a NO from me.

[Scottee]

I don't think much of this year's draft for the Swans apart from the fact that Campbell and Gulden are in it. Very few players of any note that don't have a significant GHF about them. Even Hollands, who may not be in that category, has the suspect knee. I wouldn't mind us trading for some high picks next year and opting for one other smokey apart from BC and EG this year.

[dejavoodoo44]

Good pickup re Gaden. Definitely him. Puzzling that he was not included in the featured photos.

Possibly says something about his chances of being drafted. Of the academy key position types, Van Huisstede looked pretty good in the games against GWS. So I suppose he's some sort of chance to get on the rookie list.
Hopefully, we'll have an academy train on squad, to play as top ups in our VFL side next year. Although if we're half of merged side, that may make that problematic?

[gloveski]

Trade radio saying AA plus our 2nd pick for Ladhams?

Not sure if they're hypothesising or there's something to it.

No way that’s massive overs , could not see our recruiting team doing that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[barry]

No way that’s massive overs , could not see our recruiting team doing that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AA and Ladhams have about the same value in my opinion. So 2nd pick is a bit much. But some sort of swap of picks is more likely.

[SwanSand]

Trade radio saying AA plus our 2nd pick for Ladhams?

Not sure if they're hypothesising or there's something to it.

Surely not....
Aliir is contracted with Swans. Port want him. They have to pay Overs to get him across. Give him to Port only if we get overs.... ! Ideally not at all.
I thought we would get Sam Hayes + 2nd rounder for Aliir and future 3rd rounder. Sam is not best 22 and Aliir is best 22. I doubt they will give Peter Ladhams. If Peter comes across it would be a straight swap I guess.

[Ludwig]

Trade radio saying AA plus our 2nd pick for Ladhams?

Not sure if they're hypothesising or there's something to it.

I would consider a straight player swap. Our high 2nd rounder is about what either player is probably worth; a pick in the high to mid 20s sounds about right. Nankervis went for a 3rd rounder. So I would say that it should be either AA or our 2nd rounder for Ladhams, but both would be paying double fair value.

I rate Aliir the better player, but given that Ladhams is younger and plays a position we need, it evens things out a bit. Then again, Port seem to need a player like Aliir.

I tried listening to Trade Radio, but it seems to be 90% ads and 10% fantasy.

[111431]

I tried listening to Trade Radio, but it seems to be 90% ads and 10% fantasy

there is a lot of silence to fill!

[wolftone57]

I agree. How would we know when a bid is going to come?

I doubt Campbell would get a bid before 10 and Errol before 20. So that means 2280 points at those two positions. We have 1259 up our sleeves that leaves us 1,000 short. But we get 3 gun players and don't lose too much next year unless we take another player in the draft.

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[707]

A lot of pure speculation in the media and especially Trade Radio, about 10% of trades they suggested before trade week came to fruition last year so almost not worth discussing whatever they throw/spew up to fill time on the airwaves.

When it comes to players being involved in trades, you can ask all you like but the player himself has to agree to come to you, Port top 4, us bottom 4, unless the player (Hayes) see limited senior opportunities.

[Ludwig]

I doubt Campbell would get a bid before 10 and Errol before 20. So that means 2280 points at those two positions. We have 1259 up our sleeves that leaves us 1,000 short. But we get 3 gun players and don't lose too much next year unless we take another player in the draft.

I think you forgot the 20% discount in your calculations. It's more like a 600 point deficit.