2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Merivale has ruined so many good Pubs in Sydney. Lucky the food and drink at the SCG is already rock bottom.
Speaking of SCG, I wonder what next year's "Game Day Experience" will consist of lol. Can't wait to get yelled at by corporates for 3hrs.

I gave up eating at the SCG almost two decades ago, if the execrable game day experience continues I will have to ive up going to the SCG at all - it's that bad,

[i'm-uninformed2]

I will start by saying that this is not my preference, but only posing the question as a hypothetical.

Let's assume the stories about our salary cap squeeze are true and we only have enough cap space to sign 2 of Dawson, Parker and Hewett, so one has to be let go.

There's general agreement that Dawson has to stay.

Would it be preferable to keep Hewett and let Parker go? There would be general agreement that Parker is an elite player, arguably our best player, or very close to it. He's consistent, durable and a leader of the club. But here are a few arguments in support of the proposition:

• Hewett is 3 years younger than Parker and has also been a durable player.
• Parker would likely return a 1st round draft pick as FA compensation, while Hewett would probably only fetch a 2nd round pick.
• We would probably save around 200kpa by retaining Hewett instead of Parker, which might be enough to secure both the Dawson and Stephens signings.
• Hewett has shown to be a versatile player who can step up when needed and perform at a high level, as has been shown with Mills and Kennedy out of the side.
• We have enough depth in our midfield where we can afford to let go of an elite midfielder if the compensation is suitable.

I am also posting this comment for our list management team to consider. They have tipped their hand already that they are willing to let Hewett go if we can't afford everyone. I want to present arguments for an alternative that I believe is at least worth serious consideration.

So, I get the spirit in which you present it, and it is 'an' argument.

The intangible here of course, is the effect on the playing group.

If you watch the captain of your club - and of the three, the one who has been most consistent over the last two-three years across form and injury - who is at the peak of his powers, who has gone 1,2, 3, 2, 1 (assuming he wins this year) in the past five B&Fs, who's unflinchingly hard, never injured, still only 27, saw the club through a couple of dark years, etc etc; get effectively waved out the door, you are going to wonder what you've attached yourself to.

[The Big Cat]

Can't see where anyone else has posted this. Apologies if someone has earlier.

David King says Parker is replaceable.

“I’m not concerned”: Is Swans star Luke Parker replaceable?

[mcs]

I reckon a fair number of players survival (or lack thereof) won't be related to the salary cap: Gray, Ronke, Brand, Ling etc I can see the first round getting announced this week, with more down the track.

That was what my reference to 'obvious' ones was related to.

I thought Gray was still contracted for another year, or is that Taylor? Too long since I've had a close look.

[Markwebbos]

Can't see where anyone else has posted this. Apologies if someone has earlier.

David King says Parker is replaceable.

“I’m not concerned”: Is Swans star Luke Parker replaceable?

Big call from David King:

“I’m not getting my salary cap in a twist for that player [Parker]. If that player is a centre half-forward or an intercepting back or a ruckman of note that can go forward, catch it and kick goals … but I’m not getting things out of whack (for Parker). I think this will be a really interesting off-season. I think the club will say, ‘This is what we can afford. If you want to leave for that extra $100,000, we’re not going to hold you up, but we’re going to get something back’."

He does then undermine himself somewhat by suggesting we might do a trade for Parker, when he's an unrestricted free agent.

Ludwig, in answer to your hypothetical, I think, if we can only have one, we should keep Parker and lose Hewett. I don't think Hewett has the ability to play at the same level as Parker.

I highlighted "intercepting back" for obvious reasons.

[barry]

David King is a moron.

[i'm-uninformed2]

David King is a moron.

Bingo, and it's arguably insulting to morons to say that.

[bennyfabulous]

Bingo, and it's arguably insulting to morons to say that.

Double Bingo! King & Cornes & their ilk are just rubbish commentators who always take the opposite side of common sense to illicit a response and give themselves an extra days worth of BS talk!

[AB Swannie]

I will start by saying that this is not my preference, but only posing the question as a hypothetical.

Let's assume the stories about our salary cap squeeze are true and we only have enough cap space to sign 2 of Dawson, Parker and Hewett, so one has to be let go.

There's general agreement that Dawson has to stay.

Would it be preferable to keep Hewett and let Parker go? There would be general agreement that Parker is an elite player, arguably our best player, or very close to it. He's consistent, durable and a leader of the club. But here are a few arguments in support of the proposition:

Some counter arguments in order that you have put them:

• Hewett is 3 years younger than Parker and has also been a durable player. It looks like our window for a premiership will be in the next 2-3 years. Parker is not old enough for him to be producing less than Hewett over these next few years. If we thought our window was closed for a while longer then this age difference makes more sense.
  
• Parker would likely return a 1st round draft pick as FA compensation, while Hewett would probably only fetch a 2nd round pick. We seem to be better at drafting 2nd rounders rather than 1sts anyway. Perhaps we can do a deal with the AFL to give us multiple 2nds instead of a 1st.
  
• We would probably save around 200kpa by retaining Hewett instead of Parker, which might be enough to secure both the Dawson and Stephens signings. If retaining Parker meant that we lost BOTH Hewett and Stephens, I'd still keep Parker. I trust Dawson when he says that we have nothing to worry about.
  
• Hewett has shown to be a versatile player who can step up when needed and perform at a high level, as has been shown with Mills and Kennedy out of the side. I'm a big fan of Hewett's as an honest, dependable 3rd or 4th versatile mid. No chance, I want him elevated to being the main or 2nd mid
  
• We have enough depth in our midfield where we can afford to let go of an elite midfielder if the compensation is suitable. We have talent in our midfield but all of our depth are really young blokes. Parker is crucial to helping shield these blokes and allowing them to flourish in their own time.

[111431]

David King is a moron.

I'm not so sure on that one. He was one of the few, if not the only one, experts who predicted a big rise for the Swans this year

[bandwagon]

In response to Ludwig - the head may say Hewett (and you make some compelling arguments), but the heart is definitely with Parker. Intangibles such as culture of the club would count too much for us to walk Parker out the door.

[waswan]

Bingo, and it's arguably insulting to morons to say that.

Maybe true but if he came out and said "Sydney need to keep Parker at all costs he is heart and soul blah blah blah"
he wouldnt be a favourite on RWO.

Prefer he talks like that
Reckon we will hold him and Dawson no problem

Stephen and Hewett i hope as well

Was poor and un-sydney like of Harley to make those comments about Hewitt, looks like a fool after the weekend George just busted a gut for us

[barry]

I'm not so sure on that one. He was one of the few, if not the only one, experts who predicted a big rise for the Swans this year

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

An example of kings moronitacy was on first crack the other day, where he proposed a trade between GWS and Collingwood, where GWS gave up pick 2 and colniglio for de goey.

There is just no level that it works, even if you think it's not lopsided.

If pies got pick 2, they end up using it for daiscos, so it's wasted. They specifically traded out their 1st round pick last year so they wouldn't use it.

Then, you sent a million dollar a year player like cogs to a club which is in serious cap trouble. How could they pay it?

Then, GWS get de goey, when they have an identical player in Toby. The forward line is not GWS's problem. And they have salary cap issues of their own.

Moron. To many hits to the head.

[AB Swannie]

In the spirit of this being entirely hypothetical and no one really knows what's going on.

What if we are in salary cap trouble because we've already committed dollars to a new signing?

Out: Hewett, Stephens, Reid
In: Jacob Hopper

[Ludwig]

Whether David King is a moron or not is beside the point. His argument that Parker is valuable, but not irreplaceable is a valid one.

I'm for keeping Parker. I think he's worth 700k x 4. If we have to let Hewett go to keep Parker, it's probably worth it. I too feel that he's one of those heart and soul players.

But let's not undersell Hewett either. He's been a loyal soldier for 8 years. Does everything he's asked to do. Play any role the coach wants and gives his all every week. He's not he leader that Parker is, but that's okay.

If it came down to a choice between keeping either Parker or both of Hewett and Stephens, I think I would take Hewett and Stephens. It's just the best call on value, and value decisions is what the salary cap forces us to make.