2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Syd76]

I am buoyed to read the Swans have indicated Dawson is worth a top 5 pick. My instinctive reaction to news of him wanting a trade was that it must involve pick 4, and much of the speculation in the media and in here seemed in reference to a different player.

As I think I mentioned a few times, in addition to all of his skills, he showed a champion's poise and resilience on field this year. Particularly his ability to take tough contested marks all over the field. A big game player.

If Adelaide genuinely don't think he's worth pick 4, perhaps they don't know whet they're trading for.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Matt, where did the Swans indicate that he is worth a top 5 pick?

If so, then that’s great news. It highlights two things:
1. That we really want him; and
2. We are not going to be screwed over in any trade.
Time for Adelaide to cough up.

[barry]

It was a strong draft back in 2015. I wonder if Dawson being pick 56 devalues him. I know it shouldnt, but if he was drafted on (in-hindsight) ability at pick 10, I think Crows would probably be more likely to offer up a pick 10 equivalent trade.

Drafted position is an over-valued assessment of a player.

[Markwebbos]

Matt, where did the Swans indicate that he is worth a top 5 pick?

If so, then that’s great news. It highlights two things:
1. That we really want him; and
2. We are not going to be screwed over in any trade.
Time for Adelaide to cough up.

I found it in an Fairfax article yesterday, but posting the link buggered up the thread.

I think we are also trying to indicate to the player that we value him more highly than the Crows do.

[Markwebbos]

BTW we have apparently now cooled on Ladhams. It's on the Fairfax trade period day 2. I won't post the link for obvious reasons

"Sydney football manager Charlie Gardiner hasn’t ruled out recruiting Peter Ladhams, but he intimated the Port Adelaide big man probably isn’t high on the Swans’ priority list at this stage... 'His management has reached out... I don’t think it’s progressed much further, but that’s something we’ll consider... Peter Ladhams was one we inquired about last year, (but) we were able to secure Tom Hickey who had a fantastic year. Our circumstances have changed'"

[KSAS]

Totally agree MattW. I’ve said this all along- pick 4 is the minimum. Actually Jordan is worth a lot more, because he is a ready made elite player, potentially an AA, and no guarantee that a pick 4 can even become a regular in a year or two.

How can second rounders come close? I understand that there’s a points system that equates to various picks, but the problem with it is that it doesn’t relate to a player’s worth in reality. So you can say that a pick 4 is mathematically equivalent to picks x,y and z in so many different combinations and that’s fine. But when we’re talking about a top player I think we need to look at it in a different way. Sure, it’s very hard if not impossible to replace like with like, and unfortunately we’re not in a strong position when a player is out of contract.

The whole system needs revision as I don’t think a player should be allowed to leave a club because he wants to be closer to family after 2 years, which is the initial draft contract, unless he isn’t offered an extension or a new contract.
This will help clubs like the Suns who lose players early to Vic clubs- hence never

In the EPL, players’ contracts usually have a release clause $ amount and this acts to compensate the selling club. I’m not proposing this for our game. But if a player wants to join another club, then the “selling” club should be able to nominate either an exchange of players or the draft pick/s they would be happy with. In other words the selling club should be dictating the terms as it has put in all the effort in developing the player- as we have done with Jordan, who didn’t do much in his first few years with us.

So Jordan would be allowed to move closer to family after 6 years with us- as long as we receive either a suitable player in exchange or draft pick/s we are happy with. This would be made clear in the contract and would apply until 8 years service when Free Agency rules kick in.

Just a thought- maybe out of frustration and disappointment!

Good post. This has been my frustration for a long time where all players now seem to act like Free Agents when they come out of contract & get to their clubs of choice.

IMO pre agent players should not have the right to nominate a club. If they have genuine personal reasons needing to leave, they can nominate a state (go home) & allow club to extract best possible deal. This is in scenario where the player is required by his club who has rejected final contract offer. They can still nominate for the PSD where their nominated term of contract has to at least match that of his club & can't be front ended. Nor can't it be re-negotiated by his destination club for the term of the contract & remain in cap in full regardless (like Buddy).

I know this is not perfect which the PA would reject & gives bargaining advantage to returning Vic players, but at least it will seperate those with genuine personal reasons from the $$$$ chasers. It also gives clubs some control not forced to accept unders. A sweetner for PA to possibly accept proposal, is that players can become permanent FA once they qualify as full FA (not RFA) to continually be free to move around if their services are still in demand.

[bloodspirit]

I was a lot keener on Ladhams a year ago. The cons to Ladhams are:

1. I’ve heard discouraging reports about his quality as a player (as both ruck and forward).
2. We’ve just re-signed Sinkers. Why would we re-sign Sinkers if we were going to take Ladhams?
3. He’s a ruck-forward rather than a pure-ruck. We’ve already got McLean and Amartey as ruck-forwards. We need a pure ruck – as various of us have been saying for months, someone like Lynch. Or recently some suggested Bryan from EFC who I had never heard of before. What about Port’s other developing young ruck, Sam Hayes?
4. He’s got a back-ended contract with an expensive final year on it. Last thing we want. (If we do take him, hopefully this could be ‘smoothed’ over a multi-year deal.
5. He didn’t want to come to us when he had the chance last year.

About the only pro that comes to mind for Ladhams is that, thanks to his big whack of salary he is owed for next year, he would come cheaply in trade terms.

Apart from that, I just wanted to check in about the list of players that remain uncontracted. I haven’t been following as closely lately and may have missed some announcements. Are they:

Sam Reid
Ryan Clarke (?)
Ben Ronke
Barry O’Connor
Hayden McLean (I don’t think we have announced his re-signing yet?)
Sam Wicks (had a contract in front of him for a while – wonder if he is chasing $$ or if he is wondering whether his spot in the team is safe?)


Incidentally, it is seeming increasingly likely that we did in fact re-sign Sam Naismith as was reported on here earlier this year (just before he returned to ressies footy and re-injured himself). At the time I didn’t see any official announcements and I chose not to believe it. If we did do that, I just cannot fathom it. What were we thinking??!!

[bloodspirit]

As regards the proposals for changing the rules about players changing clubs (not being able to nominate etc), I'm not sure they are properly thought through.

First, there is no formal rule that a player can 'nominate' a club they want to be traded to. It's just that a player doesn't have to sign another contract with their existing club and, if they don't, and they're not traded, they can go to the PSD. A rule change would somehow have to relate to the way the pre-season draft or another part of that process works. I would like to see something concrete proposed before commenting further.

Second, it overlooks the power of the players. In AFL it seems the players have more power compared with, say, US sport (I don't really know because I don't follow US sport). There is a strong cultural dimension to this - we are a more egalitarian society with greater regard for the people at the bottom of the pile compared to the US - and I don't think that's a bad thing. More to the point, the players have bargaining power. On the one hand, the AFL can seek to lay down the rules; on the other the players can refuse to accept those rules and refuse to play. The stakes are high for both: without players the AFL doesn't have a product and can't continue to exist. Without playing the players won't get paid or get to play in front of big crowds in a high performance environment. That's why they have to negotiate and why the AFL doesn't get everything its own way. And that is the strength of the players having a body to negotiate for them collectively - otherwise the AFL could just pick off players individually.

A major change would be to create contracts where players could be traded between clubs without their consent. I can't see the players agreeing to this, even if it were to result in some increase in total $$ they got. If was a player, I wouldn't.

[neilfws]

Apart from that, I just wanted to check in about the list of players that remain uncontracted. I haven’t been following as closely lately and may have missed some announcements. Are they:

Sam Reid
Ryan Clarke (?)
Ben Ronke
Barry O’Connor
Hayden McLean (I don’t think we have announced his re-signing yet?)
Sam Wicks (had a contract in front of him for a while – wonder if he is chasing $$ or if he is wondering whether his spot in the team is safe?)

McLean was re-signed with Stephens, Fox and Gould:

Swans quartet commit

I haven't seen any news on the others, other than that Wicks is "close" to re-signing according to rumour.

[rickmat]

Just listened to Charlie Gardener talk on SEN this morning, what a joke!!! Compared to Harley's interview, Gardiner was all UMM and didn't add any value or insight. Please Swans, make Harley the voice, his answers are succinct and quality and right on the money.

[Roadrunner]

That was Barry's list, not mine.

Sorry- quite right! Thanks Barry for the list.

[MattW]

BTW we have apparently now cooled on Ladhams. It's on the Fairfax trade period day 2. I won't post the link for obvious reasons

"Sydney football manager Charlie Gardiner hasn’t ruled out recruiting Peter Ladhams, but he intimated the Port Adelaide big man probably isn’t high on the Swans’ priority list at this stage... 'His management has reached out... I don’t think it’s progressed much further, but that’s something we’ll consider... Peter Ladhams was one we inquired about last year, (but) we were able to secure Tom Hickey who had a fantastic year. Our circumstances have changed'"

I just listened to this interview (on spotify) with Gardiner while making the sandwich I'm now eating. He made it plain that Ladhams' mgt came to us and did not imply much interest from us in Ladhams. Mentioned Hickey's great year and re-signing Sinclair.

Most interesting: he said that Dawson is the best available player (implying better than Cerra), with which Kane Cornes agreed, and that he's at least worth a top 10 pick.

[liz]

A rule change would somehow have to relate to the way the pre-season draft or another part of that process works. I would like to see something concrete proposed before commenting further.

The rule change would be to abolish the pre-season draft. It was introduced due to player claims that there weren't enough ways for a player to change club but that was before free agency was introduced. Now with free agency, after a qualifying period, the argument is diminished.

Players who haven't yet reached free agency will still be able to move away from their existing club, either by requesting a trade or by nominating for the draft. But they will have less control over getting to the club of their choice, which seems an appropriate distinction for those who haven't yet qualified as free agents.

If it weren't for the PSD, clubs would be more realistic about having to trade fairly for young players out of contract.

[bloodspirit]

McLean was re-signed with Stephens, Fox and Gould:

Swans quartet commit

I haven't seen any news on the others, other than that Wicks is "close" to re-signing according to rumour.

Thank you, neilfws.

Can anyone post a link to the Gardiner interview?

Re: Dawson

I don't think the Swans are going to accept the pick 17 the media are talking about for Dawson. But I don't think we'll get pick 4 either. I think we'll have to settle for a top 10 pick or equivalent and I am hopeful (not confident) of getting something around that mark. The best case scenario is that JD accedes to staying with us after the Crows don't play reasonably at the trade table - but I think that's a pipe dream.

[Markwebbos]

Thank you, neilfws.

Can anyone post a link to the Gardiner interview?

Re: Dawson

I don't think the Swans are going to accept the pick 17 the media are talking about for Dawson. But I don't think we'll get pick 4 either. I think we'll have to settle for a top 10 pick or equivalent and I am hopeful (not confident) of getting something around that mark. The best case scenario is that JD accedes to staying with us after the Crows don't play reasonably at the trade table - but I think that's a pipe dream.

You can listen to CG here I think What Sydney is seeking for “the best player on the market” He's also on Trade Radio at 2.30pm AEST

Assuming the Crows are able to prise pick 17 out of the Doggies, I think we'd want something next year too, like their second rounder. I can't see how Crows do better than pick 17 this year unless they split pick 4. Which they are refusing to do.

Mind you, there may be a club, like the Suns, who'd be prepared to give up this years pick 19 for future picks e.g. Crows future 2nd and 3rd.

Picks 17 and 19 this year wouldn't be too bad for JD. We'd have 12, 17, 19, 31 and 39. Leaving us a pick to use on a Max Lynch type.

Unlikely to happen though, right?

[bloodspirit]

Agreed. 17 & 19 would be a decent result - but unlikely to happen.

Thanks for the link MW.