2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[stevoswan]

How is it that teams like the Dogs, Dees and Cats etc. manage to continue adding high price recruits on a seemingly annual basis, while we have to cull best 22 players year after year?

Buddy's deal significantly reduces next year so why would our cap still be a problem? Is it mismanagement by the club? Who are we overpaying to get us in to this mess?

We will never be contenders if we can't retain players we need to keep, GWS and Gold Coast are prime examples of clubs that churn through players and replace them with draftees. It's not sutainable and is a recipie for failure.

If these reports are true then we can probably kiss goodbye most of the progress made this year, lets hope Sam Edmund is off the mark

I think your last point is the most relevant. It seems some sports journo's like to write negative clickbait stuff about our club.....I think Vic-centric jealousy has something to do with it. I just don't think it is accurate....

[i'm-uninformed2]

Where is this expectation loitering?

Whether it applies to Dylan or not, don’t know.

But there was a story today on AFL.com re the push to extend contracts for high draft picks, particularly non-Vic clubs.

Longer deals? Draftee contracts on radar ahead of CBA talks

I personally doubt he’d be asking for, or getting it anywhere. But it puts in context the challenge for the northern markets and I don’t know . . . Why we had bloody COLA.

[liz]

Why we had bloody COLA.

We had bloody COLA because the cost of living is significantly higher in Sydney than in other cities - to varying degrees. But much higher than in Adelaide. Or Perth (at the moment). Or Brisbane. Or bloody Geelong.

The question of a retention allowance is a separate matter. There are probably good arguments for it, but they aren't going to get off the ground. And we at least have our academies, which do provide tangible advantages, and in the long term will help to alleviate.

Agree with you that it's unlikely that Stephens will be expecting that kind of money. Though some of the ludicrous contracts that the Suns (and maybe Giants) have felt compelled to offer their new draftees show how hard it is to build a club when you have other clubs whispering in the ears of draftees from their states.

[Ludwig]

Will Hayward and Ollie Florent are both listed as RFAs when their contracts end in 2024, as we know George Hewett is this year. So these 3 are technically in the top 11 paid players at the Swans.

Franklin, Kennedy, Parker, Reid, Lloyd, Heeney, Mills, Rampe and Papley would make 12 that must be over the 500k mark, with a few well over that mark. They probably suck up around 8 million in TPP, if I count Franklin at only his 2022 salary of 900k.

I bet Blakey is also in that range. He would be at least at 500k for 2024, the last year of his contract.

It's hard to see how we can afford the rest of our list, or where we get the money to pay players like Dawson, who is a must sign, Cunningham, and a slew of up and comers that all think they're stars, and some might well be. So how do we keep this group together to be premiership contenders in the coming years?

We probably can't afford to extend Franklin beyond next year, even if he's still playing great football, unless he's willing to play for a pittance. I don't know what Kennedy would be getting next year, i.e. that he would be willing to take a nice pay cut for the good of the list.

I think a number of players will have to be let go:, traded or not offered a new contract. It seems like Adelaide are doing that with Talia and Lynch, so they can have a big war chest to go after uncontracted players.

How can we also be in the market for Lapinski when we can't afford to pay our current list of players?

As well as Hewett is playing, I think he is one of those on the 'let go' list, simply because we have to make room for players like Rowbottom, Warner, McInerney, Dawson, Gulden and Campbell, both in midfield spots and TPP.

The success of these players makes a player like Stephens superfluous and a list clogger in a strange sort of way, in that the better he is, the more he will want to be paid, and the less we can afford to keep him.

Why can Geelong get players to take reduced salaries to keep the group together so they can stay near the top year after year?

Didn't someone on here suggest that we had ratbags at the club?

[liz]

Will Hayward and Ollie Florent are both listed as RFAs when their contracts end in 2024, as we know George Hewett is this year. So these 3 are technically in the top 11 paid players at the Swans.

They might be, but not necessarily. For determining whether a player is a restricted or unrestricted FA (with less than 8 years' service), they only look at the last year of the contract. Doesn't mean that the mean, over the entire length of a contract, puts a player in the top 10% on the list. I suspect most clubs, where possible, load up the final year of contracts just to give them the option to match when a player hits FA for the first time.

[liz]

Gun Swan holding fire, has Billings played his last game for the Saints?

A couple of the AFL.com.au geeks mention the Parker and Dawson situations in this video. They come to the conclusion that both are likely to stay, but do raise a metaphorical eyebrow about Parker still being unsigned. They suggest the sticking point is contract length. I've heard something along those lines before - but probably from the same source. That Parker is eyeing four years, rather than the three the Swans have offered. I'd give him those four years if I were in charge. Of course there's a risk, but he's proven to be pretty durable, and will still be just 33 or so when four years expires. That's not especially old in current football terms. And a risk worth it for a player as good (not to mention durable and consistent) as Parker. He must be odds on to win his third Bobby Skilton in a few weeks.

[gloveski]

Heeney and then Mills were pretty heavily chased by North . I reckon both of these guys are on some pretty decent coin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

We had bloody COLA because the cost of living is significantly higher in Sydney than in other cities - to varying degrees. But much higher than in Adelaide. Or Perth (at the moment). Or Brisbane. Or bloody Geelong.

The question of a retention allowance is a separate matter. There are probably good arguments for it, but they aren't going to get off the ground. And we at least have our academies, which do provide tangible advantages, and in the long term will help to alleviate.

Agree with you that it's unlikely that Stephens will be expecting that kind of money. Though some of the ludicrous contracts that the Suns (and maybe Giants) have felt compelled to offer their new draftees show how hard it is to build a club when you have other clubs whispering in the ears of draftees from their states.

You’re technically correct on the reason for COLA. And the stated public reason. And a legitimate, substantial part of the reason.

An unofficial reason for it, in part, was the ability of the northern markets to keep players when a) they had the pull of home and b) they couldn’t earn additional marketing income. The latter bit is probably not an issue for marquee players like Buddy or Heeney.

But Geelong or West Cost players from top to bottom, for example, are advertising everything from the local chemist to type repair shop.

The Swans do a remarkable job either way in creating a terrific culture and climate for their players, particularly those who like being out of the spotlight. But they’re still up against gravity.

[Ludwig]

They might be, but not necessarily. For determining whether a player is a restricted or unrestricted FA (with less than 8 years' service), they only look at the last year of the contract. Doesn't mean that the mean, over the entire length of a contract, puts a player in the top 10% on the list. I suspect most clubs, where possible, load up the final year of contracts just to give them the option to match when a player hits FA for the first time.

Without knowing contract details, it becomes an inexact science with a lot of guesswork. Just reviewing the list myself, it seemed that we had a lot of players who deserved to be in that 500k pa category, if not the next contract, but certainly by year 6, like Blakey, for example. We've probably committed to a lot of those kind of deals, locking in players for several more years. We will have to do that with Dawson this year, and we have so many 1 to 4 year players that will fall into the same category next contract. I wish I had a solution, but I don't. At least not an easy one.

[AB Swannie]

It is all guesswork but it is very difficult to comprehend.

What I fail to understand is how we could be in such trouble relative to other clubs. Sure, we have players on good money but so would every other team. For example, apparently Carlton have room in their cap but have paid overs for Zac Williams, Jack Martin, Adam Saad, and Mitch McGovern in recent years. They've also re-signed Cripps and McKay this year on big money. In the same timeframe we have lost players who should've been on significant money - Hannebery, Rohan, Zak Jones, and Aliir yet have only brought in players who were not best 22 at their previous clubs (Hickey included).

It just doesn't add up to me.

[stevoswan]

It is all guesswork but it is very difficult to comprehend.

What I fail to understand is how we could be in such trouble relative to other clubs. Sure, we have players on good money but so would every other team. For example, apparently Carlton have room in their cap but have paid overs for Zac Williams, Jack Martin, Adam Saad, and Mitch McGovern in recent years. They've also re-signed Cripps and McKay this year on big money. In the same timeframe we have lost players who should've been on significant money - Hannebery, Rohan, Zak Jones, and Aliir yet have only brought in players who were not best 22 at their previous clubs (Hickey included).

It just doesn't add up to me.

Reading all these posts, I was having the exact same thoughts. Doesn't every club have the same issues? I understand that clubs in traditional footy states have other 'ways and means' to bump up salaries off the books, which stinks but does it make that much of a difference? If so, it basically means clubs from northern states will end up with less talent on their lists for the 'same' money....and I guess the AFL are comfortable with this? They must know what's going on.

[Aprilbr]

It is coming into that time of the season for rumour and inuendo whan it comes to trades. It sounds like the Swans will get the Dawson and Parker deals done (I thought that Dawson had already agreed based on previous posts?), but others are more problematic.

I tuned into last night's Members webinar which featured Tom Harley amongst others. Tom was asked about player contracts and while resisting being drawn into discussions about specific players he said that he was comfortable with where things are at.

Its sounding like Stephens and Hewitt could well be elsewhere next season. What annoys me most about the Stephens case is he may end up elsewhere for nothing in return. Losing a number 5 pick after two seasons for nothing really is a disaster given these early picks are like gold!

George going would probably result in a second round pick, assuming he goes on decent coin and length. Given our Cap issues, I really doubt that Reid will be with us next year unless he is prepared to accept a big pay cut to stay in Sydney.

[mcs]

Gun Swan holding fire, has Billings played his last game for the Saints?

A couple of the AFL.com.au geeks mention the Parker and Dawson situations in this video. They come to the conclusion that both are likely to stay, but do raise a metaphorical eyebrow about Parker still being unsigned. They suggest the sticking point is contract length. I've heard something along those lines before - but probably from the same source. That Parker is eyeing four years, rather than the three the Swans have offered. I'd give him those four years if I were in charge. Of course there's a risk, but he's proven to be pretty durable, and will still be just 33 or so when four years expires. That's not especially old in current football terms. And a risk worth it for a player as good (not to mention durable and consistent) as Parker. He must be odds on to win his third Bobby Skilton in a few weeks.

I've heard similar Liz (though I'm sure my connections aren't nearly as good as yours) re: Parker. I can sort of understand both sides of it - but I certainly think there is every sign that he is highly durable, and most importantly can clearly play an evolving role (like Jude Bolton did) in the forward line, as his ability to be so influential in midfield begans to wane.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Isn’t the reason for our cap issue easy.

Here’s what we need to accommodate:

- in 2021: Parker, Dawson, Reid, Hewett, Stephens.

- in 2022: McInerney, Campbell, Rampe, Gulden, Cunningham, Lloyd, Heeney, McDonald.

- in 2023: Mills, Warner, Hickey, McCartin, Papley, Amarty.

That’s the bulk of current or thereabouts best 22 up for renewal. That’s without Bell, or McLean, or other fringe players being up for renewal. It’s a lot to juggle.

[mcs]

Isn’t the reason for our cap issue easy.

Here’s what we need to accommodate:

- in 2021: Parker, Dawson, Reid, Hewett, Stephens.

- in 2022: McInerney, Campbell, Rampe, Gulden, Cunningham, Lloyd, Heeney, McDonald.

- in 2023: Mills, Warner, Hickey, McCartin, Papley, Amarty.

That’s the bulk of current or thereabouts best 22 up for renewal. That’s without Bell, or McLean, or other fringe players being up for renewal. It’s a lot to juggle.

I'm far from convinced there is a genuine 'cap issue', beyond the normal balancing act every club has to play with its list (beyond those that seem to have a sombrero rather than a cap ). I would suspect most clubs, bar those that throw around huge long contracts it seems for every good player they have (such as the Plastics - but then they pay for that by losing a lot of fringe players along the way too) run into the same issues year by year too.