2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ludwig]

We will have 5 rookies or commitments going into the draft: Gray, Bell, Wicks, O'Connor and McLean. I'm assuming Amartey is now on the senior list. It would be easy to move Naismith to the rookie list. In any case, he could be moved to the inactive list allowing us an additional Pre Season supplemental selection.

With 5 committed rookies, it only leaves one spot left. I think we will use that for Paddy McCartin, and if not him, then we are very likely to leave it open for in-season drafts or supplemental drafts. That would obviate the possibility of Fox being relisted as a rookie. It's possible using other assumptions, but looks highly unlikely. Maybe barracuda is right and we have some trick up our sleeve that hasn't been covered.

I can see the possibility of us cutting ET and signing Paddy McCartin to the main list on a 1 year contract. After taking 3 players in the national draft our main list size will be at the minimum of 36 and our rookie list at 5. So we would go into the post draft period with a total list size of 41. It leaves room for adding players to both rookie and main lists. This configuration seems the most efficient for minimizing the TPP and leaving open future drafting. It's the sort of thing the Swans would do.

[707]

As regards the 2021 mid-season draft: are you confident it will be based on this year's ladder position rather than the ladder position of clubs part way through next year?

Yes, it was done that way last year and you can't have draft order based on a handful of 2021 games as we know the draw can grossly distort a clubs eventual ladder position, three seasons ago NorfLOL 10-0, finished 12-10.

Picked up this tidbit "Hollands confirming this morning that he's had 2 rounds of interviews with 5 clubs. Adelaide, North, Carlton, Hawks and GWS" I asked the question, why would Carlton be interviewing him when they don't pick until the 30's? GWS doing it because they are trying to move up the board into top 5?

[Markwebbos]

Yes, it was done that way last year and you can't have draft order based on a handful of 2021 games as we know the draw can grossly distort a clubs eventual ladder position, three seasons ago NorfLOL 10-0, finished 12-10.

Picked up this tidbit "Hollands confirming this morning that he's had 2 rounds of interviews with 5 clubs. Adelaide, North, Carlton, Hawks and GWS" I asked the question, why would Carlton be interviewing him when they don't pick until the 30's? GWS doing it because they are trying to move up the board into top 5?

Can anyone confirm that Swans don't generally do second interviews? I seem to remember a number of draftees being surprised at being picked up by the Swans because we only spoke to them once.

[Auntie.Gerald]

i thought Clarke hasnt signed as yet ?

[Aaron]

i thought Clarke hasnt signed as yet ?

Possibly he has activated a trigger? Before Papley requested a trade, the public was never told that his contracted has been extended. That's the Swans way? Talk as little as possible about contracts? Similarly, the contracts of Hewett and Kennedy should have been extended without any public announcement.

[bloodspirit]

We will have 5 rookies or commitments going into the draft: Gray, Bell, Wicks, O'Connor and McLean. I'm assuming Amartey is now on the senior list. It would be easy to move Naismith to the rookie list. In any case, he could be moved to the inactive list allowing us an additional Pre Season supplemental selection.

With 5 committed rookies, it only leaves one spot left. I think we will use that for Paddy McCartin, and if not him, then we are very likely to leave it open for in-season drafts or supplemental drafts. That would obviate the possibility of Fox being relisted as a rookie. It's possible using other assumptions, but looks highly unlikely. Maybe barracuda is right and we have some trick up our sleeve that hasn't been covered.

I can see the possibility of us cutting ET and signing Paddy McCartin to the main list on a 1 year contract. After taking 3 players in the national draft our main list size will be at the minimum of 36 and our rookie list at 5. So we would go into the post draft period with a total list size of 41. It leaves room for adding players to both rookie and main lists. This configuration seems the most efficient for minimizing the TPP and leaving open future drafting. It's the sort of thing the Swans would do.

Excellent anaylsis. Thank you.

Yes, it was done that way last year and you can't have draft order based on a handful of 2021 games as we know the draw can grossly distort a clubs eventual ladder position, three seasons ago NorfLOL 10-0, finished 12-10.

Thanks to you too, 707. That's great news for us! Holding pick 3 in each of these drafts is a real boon.

[Syd76]

Charlie Gairdner on SEN (with Sam Edmund) in about 10 minutes for anyone that wants to listen

[Captain]

With 5 committed rookies, it only leaves one spot left. I think we will use that for Paddy McCartin, and if not him, then we are very likely to leave it open for in-season drafts or supplemental drafts. That would obviate the possibility of Fox being relisted as a rookie. It's possible using other assumptions, but looks highly unlikely. Maybe barracuda is right and we have some trick up our sleeve that hasn't been covered.

Wouldn't it be possible that this one spot left could be used on Fox (making what barracuda said correct)?

[707]

Whatever the minimum senior list number is - 37?, that's what we'll have, to save TPP

We'll have maximum rookies to compensate

[rb4x]

“The rookie list should be for players who haven’t played the game and that are a speculative pick and the reason why the rookie list was brought in was clubs didn’t want to take a punt on someone at $85,000 or $90,000 a year back in those days,”

“So they subsidised it, they made it a half-pay type of arrangement. So the rookies were asked to do less during the week. ‘Keep your job, keep your university or whatever it is and we’ll give you $45,000 to earn some opportunities at senior football’.

“It was an outrageous success. Players like Dean Cox and those sorts of guys who would take the risk.

“You can’t have it now as a facility to hide another spot for your list and that’s what it has become.

“If that’s what it is, then that’s what it is, but let’s not call it the rookie list.”

King believes teams should simply have to let the additional player go if the rookie list is the only alternative.

“If we didn’t have it, you’d have to delist someone to keep Eddie Betts on your list,” he said.

“There’s only a certain amount of spots. They’re basically using the rookie list spots for senior level experienced players and that’s not correct.

“And by the way it’s not the club’s fault here. Credit to Carlton and West Coast and GWS and Brisbane and all those teams, credit to them. Right now you’re able to do that and be subsidised to the tune of $80,000 per player as well, let’s not forget that.

“It doesn’t sit well with me that Birchall after winning four flags with the Hawks and is now seen as a rookie list player.”

“Why don’t we just not have it and force the clubs to manage their own lists.

“If you’ve run your list so tight that this one shift is going to cost someone a position, well so be it. Make your decision on that player.

“2020 has been a different year and maybe we just have to live with this one. Everyone’s losing players off every list this year, maybe this is the time to give some flexibility, but let’s put a line through this in 2021.”



David King posted this on SEN and for once I have to totally agree with King. It is a joke to consider the likes of Eddie Betts, Grant Birchall, Shane Mumford or Sam Gray as rookies. Bring back the veterans allowance or something but these guys are not rookies.

[Swanny79]

Charlie Gairdner on SEN (with Sam Edmund) in about 10 minutes for anyone that wants to listen

what did he say? anything on Mccartin or fox?

[Syd76]

Said Fox had a breakout year.. Sydney was keen for Fox was keen to be re-rookied, but Sydney was unaware of the late AFL rule change.. so in all likelihood Fox will be with Sydney. Had Sydney been aware of this latest rule change then Fox and Gray would have been demoted down to the rookie list. Highly likely that Fox will be rerookied (though he is not under contract and will have to come to terms with him)

- - - Updated - - -

Focus on the draft. Will look at picking up talent including Delisted FA in the rookie draft.

[Syd76]

Wanted to keep AA, but he came to Sydney after PA gave him a really good offer, Sydney needed a ruck so that is why Sydney acquiesced.

Paddy McCartin is certainly being considered but a long way from making a decision on him as a rookie prospect. He is one of a number. No commitment from the Swans at this stage, needs based focus as well as getting the best player

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently Nike is the new outfitter for the Swans

Sorry just writing all of this down as Gairdner speaks .. apologies for the number of comments

[Steve]

Can anyone confirm that Swans don't generally do second interviews? I seem to remember a number of draftees being surprised at being picked up by the Swans because we only spoke to them once.

Given it’s still 2 weeks away probably wouldn’t read too much into it - given we’re talking about pick 3, I would say we’d talk to him again if we were considered him.

No idea why Carlton would talk to him twice - first pick at 31 so no chance of moving up the order. Maybe thinking 2 years ahead if he goes to a non-Vic club?

[Ludwig]

I wonder who's on our rookie list now. It's a shame that a few players like McLean and O'Connor are not mentioned as to which list they are on. I thought the AFL reduced the CAT B list max to 2, but the AFL website only mentioned Bell and Wicks being CAT B rookies. What about O'Connor? What happened to him? Is there an exception for the Irish recruits? Has he been moved to a CAT A rookie or to the main list?

This late call by the AFL to allow 2 players to be directly moved from the main to the rookie list is a farce. They have to let clubs rescind up to 2 delistings that they would prefer to directly move to the rookie list. This would apparently include Fox.

Something has to be wrong with my rookie list calculation. I had Bell, Wicks, O'Connor and McLean. Then we committed to adding Gray, which gets us to 5. If Gardiner says we would like to add Fox to the rookie list plus a DFA, that would bring the number to 7. One over the limit.