2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[mcs]

The reference to the subs was a real world example about how the Australia government changed their minds on the French deal despite reassuring them for years that the deal was good to go. Australia changed their minds because they believed that nuclear powered subs would give them better defence capability.

Like the Australian government, Dawson is changing his mind because he believes that The Crows offers him something better.

I think my example of fiancés not going through with marriages is probably a better example.

With risk of derailing, you do realise the french subs we were meant to buy were in fact originally nuclear powered, and it was Australia that asked for plans (at great cost) to be developed to make them e diesel powered.... That deal is much more to do with grand posturing by 'Mr Announceable' and war mongering by Dutton then it does to any sort of strategic decision.

Definitely stick to the marriage example lol.

[Mr Magoo]

No player should feel bound to a club in todays environment any more than any other employee feels towards their employer. In that sense, often that loyalty is tested by the situation you are personally in as well as the boss at the time.

If Dawson now has an ability to go home to Adelaide for more money , good luck to him, if I was from Adelaide and someone in my industry offerred me more money to come back home I would probably take it as well. Cheaper standard of living , family and friends in closer proximity - no brainer really.

We like to think football clubs are a "family" but to be honest from what Ive seen , thats a narrative created by the clubs to endear a sense of loyalty to them. Ive seen businesses in other industries do it and most of the time its quite frankly nonsense and used to create a feeling that your special and being looked after when the realty is that you probably are not.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Why do you naturally defer to the popular view that Dawson was a slow developer, the Swans were very patient with him and that he’s only given the Swans 18 months of good play out of 6 years?

There may be an alternate view. In my opinion, Dawson looked an excellent player from the 2016 preseason games. I thought that he could be in the round 1 2016 team. Instead he was banished in the reserves for most of the next two seasons. In 2016 Florent and Hayward were drafted and the Swans were falling over themselves to get them both in the 2017 senior team. Dawson, the better player, continued to miss out.

Seeing these inferior young players getting picked ahead of him probably hurt Dawson. He remembers the early reserve struggle and may himself believe that he derserved to be picked ahead of them.

I think like Mitchell and Aliir that Dawson was not a Longmire favourite and like Mitchell and Aliir spent unacceptable time in the reserves.

People talk about development in the reserves, but in my view you may have had a better Dawson and a Swan for life if the same opportunities given to Hayward were given to Dawson early in his career.

Because Jordan Dawson himself has said he came back to his third season at the club insufficiently fit, got injured as a result, and it wiped out the bulk of the year.

That has nothing to do with whether he was a coach favourite or otherwise. He always had potential. It took a few years to fulfil it, and it was partly his doing.

His last 18 months - or two seasons - were very good. This year was outstanding. And then he walked out on us. So, screw him, and stop lecturing people on how to think about things.

[mcs]

Why do you naturally defer to the popular view that Dawson was a slow developer, the Swans were very patient with him and that he’s only given the Swans 18 months of good play out of 6 years?

There may be an alternate view. In my opinion, Dawson looked an excellent player from the 2016 preseason games. I thought that he could be in the round 1 2016 team. Instead he was banished in the reserves for most of the next two seasons. In 2016 Florent and Hayward were drafted and the Swans were falling over themselves to get them both in the 2017 senior team. Dawson, the better player, continued to miss out.

Seeing these inferior young players getting picked ahead of him probably hurt Dawson. He remembers the early reserve struggle and may himself believe that he derserved to be picked ahead of them.

I think like Mitchell and Aliir that Dawson was not a Longmire favourite and like Mitchell and Aliir spent unacceptable time in the reserves.

People talk about development in the reserves, but in my view you may have had a better Dawson and a Swan for life if the same opportunities given to Hayward were given to Dawson early in his career.

I don't agree at all with this - our club has a long history of a lot of players serving more then a short 'apprenticeship' in the reserves as they develop. It really is only in more recent seasons that we've seen a greater focus on giving younger players a lot of first team opportunities in their early years. I do not think it is a populist view that Dawson was a slow developer - it is simply a broad statement of fact of what happened. No point in playing revisionist history now.

[Roadrunner]

Why do you naturally defer to the popular view that Dawson was a slow developer, the Swans were very patient with him and that he’s only given the Swans 18 months of good play out of 6 years?

There may be an alternate view. In my opinion, Dawson looked an excellent player from the 2016 preseason games. I thought that he could be in the round 1 2016 team. Instead he was banished in the reserves for most of the next two seasons. In 2016 Florent and Hayward were drafted and the Swans were falling over themselves to get them both in the 2017 senior team. Dawson, the better player, continued to miss out.

Seeing these inferior young players getting picked ahead of him probably hurt Dawson. He remembers the early reserve struggle and may himself believe that he derserved to be picked ahead of them.

I think like Mitchell and Aliir that Dawson was not a Longmire favourite and like Mitchell and Aliir spent unacceptable time in the reserves.

People talk about development in the reserves, but in my view you may have had a better Dawson and a Swan for life if the same opportunities given to Hayward were given to Dawson early in his career.

Bit of a long bow there Bangalore. Sure, Wilbur was a bit of a favourite but he and Ollie being higher picks were perceived to have more talent early. Of course this isn’t necessarily the case. Regarding Jordan, we need to seek opinions from those who watched the reserves consistently in those earlier years to ascertain the truth of your statement. Regarding Mitchell, his possessions were prolific but often wasteful during his reserves tenure but he was held back a bit too long. It didn’t seem to prevent him from winning a Brownlow later on.

Regarding Allir- his form was very up and down for a while and when he did come in fairly regularly he was shaky and fumbly and took a while to settle.

Bottom line- I don’t think Jordan’s reserves experience had much to do with his decision to leave- he showed promise but wasn’t breaking the door down.

[Markwebbos]

With risk of derailing, you do realise the french subs we were meant to buy were in fact originally nuclear powered, and it was Australia that asked for plans (at great cost) to be developed to make them e diesel powered.... That deal is much more to do with grand posturing by 'Mr Announceable' and war mongering by Dutton then it does to any sort of strategic decision.

Thanks for pointing that out

[barry]

The submarine analogy is more like this.

Trading out: Sam Reid. (ala French subs) Proven player, but many technical (injury) problems. Unlikely to win many wars with him.
Trading in: GWS future father-son pick for Toby Greens as-yet unborn son (ala US subs). Still 20 years away, could cause trouble but could be effective.
In the meantime GWS lend us their Sam Reid who they just delisted.

[Bangalore Swans]

The submarine analogy is more like this.

Trading out: Sam Reid. (ala French subs) Proven player, but many technical (injury) problems. Unlikely to win many wars with him.
Trading in: GWS future father-son pick for Toby Greens as-yet unborn son (ala US subs). Still 20 years away, could cause trouble but could be effective.
In the meantime GWS lend us their Sam Reid who they just delisted.

That’s great.

[TheBloods]

Why do you naturally defer to the popular view that Dawson was a slow developer, the Swans were very patient with him and that he’s only given the Swans 18 months of good play out of 6 years?

There may be an alternate view. In my opinion, Dawson looked an excellent player from the 2016 preseason games. I thought that he could be in the round 1 2016 team. Instead he was banished in the reserves for most of the next two seasons. In 2016 Florent and Hayward were drafted and the Swans were falling over themselves to get them both in the 2017 senior team. Dawson, the better player, continued to miss out.

Seeing these inferior young players getting picked ahead of him probably hurt Dawson. He remembers the early reserve struggle and may himself believe that he derserved to be picked ahead of them.

I think like Mitchell and Aliir that Dawson was not a Longmire favourite and like Mitchell and Aliir spent unacceptable time in the reserves.

People talk about development in the reserves, but in my view you may have had a better Dawson and a Swan for life if the same opportunities given to Hayward were given to Dawson early in his career.

Well too bad he should 've earned them , you dont gift games . Save that for carlton

[Aprilbr]

Also no word from the Club on Wicks' signature. I had read a week back that he had a contract offer in front of him but the lack of news suggests that he is not happy with its contents? Maybe he also is heading elsewhere? I would not be surprised if his Manager is testing potential interest on better money elsewhere.

[Markwebbos]

More from trade “expert” Tom Morris

The trade deal that could go right down to the wire

“My theory is the Swans will say no, no, no and no and (negotiations) will go very deep into the trade period and Adelaide will say no back… They’ll have to get creative and I think a third club will have to get involved.”

[0918330512]

More from trade “expert” Tom Morris

The trade deal that could go right down to the wire

“My theory is the Swans will say no, no, no and no and (negotiations) will go very deep into the trade period and Adelaide will say no back… They’ll have to get creative and I think a third club will have to get involved.”

Worked well with Papley & O’Keefe

[waswan]

Also no word from the Club on Wicks' signature. I had read a week back that he had a contract offer in front of him but the lack of news suggests that he is not happy with its contents? Maybe he also is heading elsewhere? I would not be surprised if his Manager is testing potential interest on better money elsewhere.

I wouldnt break the bank for Wicks,replaced with a developing midfielder.

Playing at the feet of a full fwd who takes 4 defenders is not as hard as it seems. He is good but basically a tackler, lets not get fooled liked we did with Ronke

[i'm-uninformed2]

More from trade “expert” Tom Morris

The trade deal that could go right down to the wire

“My theory is the Swans will say no, no, no and no and (negotiations) will go very deep into the trade period and Adelaide will say no back… They’ll have to get creative and I think a third club will have to get involved.”

It's Tom Morris, so you know . . . it's speculative nonsense.

It'll get done. Perhaps something involving the Dogs pick 17. Perhaps one of those long and winding deals that involves one of the Pies future picks to get them extra points this year to cover Daicos. Adelaide want him, we want something for him, they'll go work it out.

Now, *if* he stay in Sydney, a la ROK or Papley, I of course retract everything I've said. In that case, he's a fine fella of upstanding moral character, known for truth and integrity, and long may his exquisite skills reign.

[707]

Just had a thought, Cows won't trade next years first rounder in the Dawson deal, they need that to lure home Lukocious and/or Rankine from Gold Coast, both OOC next year.

Some hope to get next years second, as well as this years pick 23 which will be pick 25. Really don't want the trade to drag on as it disrupts other things you want to do in trade period.

Bulldogs pick 17/18 (19/20) is up for grabs to whichever club offers up the most points as Dogs have a deficit to pay for Darcy at the pointy end.