2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

I agree Liz.
There are better bets out there, for less draft capital, for less money.

Like who?

[Foreign Legion]

Just my opinion but I don't think McLean has any chance of making it is a defender - not mobile enough to go with most forwards. When he is a forward he can dictate where the ball should go.

[Mark26]

Fair point - I'd suggest Amartey the more likely of the two if that was to be the case.

Others have been known to make the switch. McCartin and Grundy are two who immediately come to mind. All speculative at this point.

[longmile]

Not a fan of us getting Ladhams, especially with a late first round pick and his allegedly backended contract. We definitely don't need another ruck forward, we already have 4 of them. We need a serious pure ruck as an understudy to Hickey.

[liz]

Just my opinion but I don't think McLean has any chance of making it is a defender - not mobile enough to go with most forwards. When he is a forward he can dictate where the ball should go.

Agree with that. He's not quick or agile, but he does have good endurance and the willingness to run up and down the ground. He can use those traits as a forward, where he gets to dictate somewhat to his opponent but I think he'd struggle to respond to forwards' movements if played as a defender.

Amartey did play a bit as a defender at NEAFL level a few years ago - probably in his second season given I've got to see very little NEAFL (or equivalent) in the last two seasons. He did OK at times but didn't look overly comfortable. Maybe that would come with more experience.

But I don't see the point. Generally it's harder to play as an effective forward than an effective defender. We have found a couple - via our rookie list - who have shown signs that they might be capable of being part of an effective forward set-up going forward, not as "the main man" but in important supporting roles. Why trade in someone who is no better than them as a forward just to see if those two might cut it as defenders. We'd be better off trading in a (cheaper) mediocre-but-somewhat-proven backman.

[Ludwig]

I'll expand my thoughts:

- Hayes is pretty much untried. Other than him, Port - in a premiership window - have no back-up for Ladhams were Lycett to get injured. (Finlayson isn't a ruckman - he's a mediocre forward.) So if Port are have told the contracted Ladhams to look around, that suggests to me they don't think he's much chop.

- From Ladhams's perspective, if he comes to the Swans he won't walk into the number one ruck spot. He'll have to prove he's better than Hickey. Given what Hickey showed he can do in 2021, that's a significant challenge.

- Sure, Hickey is 31 but he's only 18 months older than Lycett. And they've played a similar amount of games, so if wear and tear is the biggest deal for a ruckman, rather than age, per se, it isn't apparent that Ladhams's route to the number one ruck spot will be opened up any sooner at Sydney than at Port. As points of reference, Mumford is 35 and thinks he can still go around again. Dean Cox was still playing good footy when he retired at 33. Paul Salmon played into his mid 30s. (He actually had one season aged 37, but it was just the one season.)

- From the Swans' perspective, as others have wondered out loud, what function does Sinclair have if we get another ready-to-go ruck like Ladhams? And what about McLean and Armatey? Are they going to be blocked from opportunities to play as a tall forward and relief ruckman? Both have goal-per-game career records just as good as Ladhams, albeit on a very small sample in Amartey's case. Amartey, I believe, is more than capable of playing as an effective relief ruckman so long as he can stave away injuries. McLean's ruck credentials are less evident but he showed improvement as the year went on.

- I realise the "no dickhead" policy is a bit of a furphy, but I take a pretty dim view of the intelligence and/or selflessness and/or discipline of those players who disregarded COVID restrictions over the past 18 months. Those restrictions were put in place to give the competition the best chance of continuing in challenging circumstances so, regardless of one's (or my) personal thoughts on society's response to COVID, disregarding those restrictions was a slap in the face to team mates, staff and everyone involved in the sport. There are dickheads and then there are dickheads.


I don't see the need to go for Ladhams this year just because he's available. Heaps of rucks change club every year. There will be another half-dozen or more available next trade period.

These are all good points and ones that have been on my negatives list for Ladhams as well. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the behaviours or all parties involved.

• If we didn't think much of Ladhams, why did we go after him last year?
• If Ladhams wasn't all that good, why didn't Port give Hayes a go for at least one game? The same argument had been made regarding Darcy Cameron when he played for us.
• Ladhams says he wants to play more in the ruck, yet he would be walking into a similar situation in Sydney that he had at Port. But he's well aware of the situation, yet he still prefers to come to Sydney.
• There are issues here that are not being made public.
• He's still only 23, so should have plenty of upside if he follows the usual age trajectory for a ruckman.
• The Swans always seem to have more ruckmen than needed. Why did we sign Sinkers so early? I suppose for the same reason we signed Naismith. We are a charitable team that likes having salary cap problems.
• I don't think we should consider Franklin in our long term planning. So we are looking a future dependent on 3 key forwards in McDonald, Amartey and McLean. Adding Ladhams is not unreasonable, given what we've seen from this group so far. There's plenty to play out in regard to the quality of the current group, long term.
• One big unknown at this point is our plans for Paddy McCartin. It's an important list spot in the larger perspective of our KPP stocks.

I'm not contradicting any of Liz's points, only offering some more arguments to the case. I'm generally in favour of recruiting Ladhams, but only at a reasonable price. I think he's worth a 2nd round pick, but not sure where in the round.

[Jimitron5000]

Like who?

Max Lynch and Nick Bryan have been mentioned on here in previous pages. Lloyd Meek from Fremantle, or a very left field idea of Brayden Crossley (ex-Suns ruckman who served a 12 month ban for having a cocaine metabolite in his system, which has since been removed from the banned list). All of them are rucks first and other positions second.

[The Big Cat]

Ladhams will be third in line once the Crayfish is back.

[Markwebbos]

Max Lynch and Nick Bryan have been mentioned on here in previous pages. Lloyd Meek from Fremantle, or a very left field idea of Brayden Crossley (ex-Suns ruckman who served a 12 month ban for having a cocaine metabolite in his system, which has since been removed from the banned list). All of them are rucks first and other positions second.

I think they've got potential whereas Ladhams has runs on the board, and he is according to Port's list manager (although you may think he would say that) "probably more a ruck who can go forward as opposed to a key forward who’s a second ruck." And Ladhams is still only 23. Same age as Meek and Lynch. Very similar height too (202cm)

[AB Swannie]

I don't have a problem with Sinclair being given a contract even if Ladhams comes in. With a primary list of 36 players, you have to have players who are essentially experienced VFL players. They know that they are little chance of playing AFL but can assist developing younger players in the reserves. They take up almost no salary cap space, are great to have around the club for cultural reasons, and can almost perform as an on-field mentor/coach. Cal fits this perfectly.

[Markwebbos]

I don't have a problem with Sinclair being given a contract even if Ladhams comes in. With a primary list of 36 players, you have to have players who are essentially experienced VFL players. They know that they are little chance of playing AFL but can assist developing younger players in the reserves. They take up almost no salary cap space, are great to have around the club for cultural reasons, and can almost perform as an on-field mentor/coach. Cal fits this perfectly.

We need him for his podcast too

[stevoswan]

Ladhams will be third in line once the Crayfish is back.

Love your optimism.

[liz]

These are all good points and ones that have been on my negatives list for Ladhams as well. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the behaviours or all parties involved.

• If we didn't think much of Ladhams, why did we go after him last year?
• If Ladhams wasn't all that good, why didn't Port give Hayes a go for at least one game? The same argument had been made regarding Darcy Cameron when he played for us.
• Ladhams says he wants to play more in the ruck, yet he would be walking into a similar situation in Sydney that he had at Port. But he's well aware of the situation, yet he still prefers to come to Sydney.
• There are issues here that are not being made public.
  
  
  

Maybe we went after him last year because we perceived he might be available (and were trying to do a trade with Port). But he declined so we got Hickey instead.

Maybe now Port have had an extra year to work out he's not much chop. Or maybe there are behavioural issues ("The issues not being made public") that mean they're keen to offload him now.

Who knows why Port didn't give Hayes a go. But he's still young and we know ruckmen usually take until their early 20s to develop the physicality required to play in the ruck. It's likely that Ladhams was a better option at the time (in a premiership challenging team) than Hayes, irrespective of what they think of the two in the longer term.

[Kafka's Ghost]

I'll expand my thoughts:

- Hayes is pretty much untried. Other than him, Port - in a premiership window - have no back-up for Ladhams were Lycett to get injured. (Finlayson isn't a ruckman - he's a mediocre forward.) So if Port are have told the contracted Ladhams to look around, that suggests to me they don't think he's much chop.

- From Ladhams's perspective, if he comes to the Swans he won't walk into the number one ruck spot. He'll have to prove he's better than Hickey. Given what Hickey showed he can do in 2021, that's a significant challenge.

- Sure, Hickey is 31 but he's only 18 months older than Lycett. And they've played a similar amount of games, so if wear and tear is the biggest deal for a ruckman, rather than age, per se, it isn't apparent that Ladhams's route to the number one ruck spot will be opened up any sooner at Sydney than at Port. As points of reference, Mumford is 35 and thinks he can still go around again. Dean Cox was still playing good footy when he retired at 33. Paul Salmon played into his mid 30s. (He actually had one season aged 37, but it was just the one season.)

- From the Swans' perspective, as others have wondered out loud, what function does Sinclair have if we get another ready-to-go ruck like Ladhams? And what about McLean and Armatey? Are they going to be blocked from opportunities to play as a tall forward and relief ruckman? Both have goal-per-game career records just as good as Ladhams, albeit on a very small sample in Amartey's case. Amartey, I believe, is more than capable of playing as an effective relief ruckman so long as he can stave away injuries. McLean's ruck credentials are less evident but he showed improvement as the year went on.

- I realise the "no dickhead" policy is a bit of a furphy, but I take a pretty dim view of the intelligence and/or selflessness and/or discipline of those players who disregarded COVID restrictions over the past 18 months. Those restrictions were put in place to give the competition the best chance of continuing in challenging circumstances so, regardless of one's (or my) personal thoughts on society's response to COVID, disregarding those restrictions was a slap in the face to team mates, staff and everyone involved in the sport. There are dickheads and then there are dickheads.


I don't see the need to go for Ladhams this year just because he's available. Heaps of rucks change club every year. There will be another half-dozen or more available next trade period.

+1

[Thunder Shaker]

Also why would we give Sinclair an extra year if interested in Ladhams.

I question why we are targeting Ladhams when we have Hickey other than wanting a backup if Hickey is injured.

Age: Sinclair is 32, Hickey is 30, Ladhams is 23. It's not just next season that is important, but the seasons after that. In five years, Sinclair will have retired, Hickey may have also done so, and Ladhams would be at the peak of his career.

The ruck is the most difficult position to recruit, as ruckmen tend to mature later. Rucks tend to follow recruiting rules of their own. Ruckmen who play over 200 games for one club are fairly rare. We have had none in 40 years. We have routinely traded for rucks with other clubs.

So hard is the recruitment off rucks that IMO the AFL should change the rookie list rules so one spot on each club's rookie list is reserved for a developing ruckman (under 23 years of age and over 200 cm in height), or left vacant, and clubs can loan these rookie rucks to other clubs to cover injury.

Cal Twomey wrote an article with a similar proposal last February: TWOMEY: How the AFL could reduce the glaring gulf in ruck stocks