2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Interesting that even Stephen Silvagni is saying that he thinks that Jordan Dawson and Adam Cerra are on par... his exact words were .. "maybe a couple of spots away from each other".

He did reiterate what Charlie Gairdner emphasised in his earlier interview.

Looks like the Crows may have to look at their future first rounder, if they want to hold on to their pick 4 this draft.

After the first 4 picks, the next 15-20 picks are all similar according to my friend in a Melbourne recruiting department, so it may be advantageous in getting another pick next year.

Matt Rendell thinks Brisbane will be open to trading next years first rounder as they have a highly rated F/S in the pipeline.

[MattW]

Just listening to the interview with Charlie Gardiner, I don't think he's so bad. He isn't as polished as Harley and says "ahhm" a lot; also he didn't give much away so it wasn't that interesting to listen to - but I don't think any of that means he's not good at his job. I thought the questions from Kane Cornes were good - it's just a pity they didn't lead to more revealing answers. But I can understand that Charlie didn't want to give away what players or types of players we are interested in. It seems obvious to me that we must have an interest in KPPs and rucks but there's no point announcing that to the competition at the beginning of trade period. Really he's just being like Horse and most of the personnel at our club a lot of the time in not giving a lot away.

I thought it was more substantive than usual. The 'best available player' (i.e. better than Cerra) got some traction.

Latest from Twitter:

- Ralph, from the Adelaide perspective: Jon Ralph on Twitter: "Adelaide’s deal for Jordan Dawson was pick 17 and a few later picks to improve the deal. It’s been on the table for 24 hours. They don’t have a way to trade up further than pick 17. Sydney wants more. Adelaide says they ain’t getting more. And will stand its ground… https://t.co/IJZ5DMhVXr"

- Morris, just now with the Swans' response: Tom Morris on Twitter: "As expected, Sydney has rejected the pick 17 for Dawson offer. Back to square one for the Crows & Swans. @FOXFOOTY… ".

[bloodspirit]

If that's true, then it would mean the Swans are demanding the Crows give up pick 4; either directly or by splitting it to give us a better first rounder than pick 17. The Richmond deal would give them 7 and 15 for it. They could then hang onto pick 7 and give us 15 and 23 (which is equivalent to around pick 4 and a half).

Adelaide move 3 places down in the draft but get JD for just pick 23

If Richmond would do that I think that is a brilliant suggestion. It's the most we are likely to get and seems fair to the Crows if you ask me.

[Markwebbos]

If Richmond would do that I think that is a brilliant suggestion. It's the most we are likely to get and seems fair to the Crows if you ask me.

Richmond offered and were knocked back. I don’t know if we’d accept 15 and 23 or whether we’d demand 7 be part of the deal?

[mcs]

Richmond offered and were knocked back. I don’t know if we’d accept 15 and 23 or whether we’d demand 7 be part of the deal?

15 and 23 would be okay overall deal - a little below value yes, but if we really want to get further up the draft this year, we could put our two first rounders together and trade those for a higher pick. But if we had 12 + 15 + 25 + 31 + Hewett pick (~40) that would be a very solid hand, which we may look to convert some of into 2022 draft picks as well.

[gloveski]

15 and 23 would be okay overall deal - a little below value yes, but if we really want to get further up the draft this year, we could put our two first rounders together and trade those for a higher pick. But if we had 12 + 15 + 25 + 31 + Hewett pick (~40) that would be a very solid hand, which we may look to convert some of into 2022 draft picks as well.

Yep wouldn’t mind us having a crack at Brisbane’s first rounder next year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattW]

An interesting comment by Gardiner which I don't think has been mentioned on here was that we're open to dealing pick 12.

AFL Trade Radio on Twitter: ""We're not committed either way, if the right thing pops up we'd certainly consider it, but there's certainly no issues with taking it to the draft and adding to our talented young group."

- Swans GM Charlie Gardiner on pick 12

#AFLTrade"

Hmmmmmm. I still think we may have an established player in mind.

[Markwebbos]

We’ve got the Dawson Dollars available.

[Ludwig]

Dawson leaving is a terrible loss for us and it's impossible to get compensated fairly. We're going to lose a unique talent in exchange for a couple of shots at some kids and hope we get lucky.

That said, I would take pick 17 + their future 2nd rounder. It's a reasonable deal under the circumstances. We have to take a hit for not extending Dawson's contract last year or earlier this year, thereby allowing this situation to unfold the way it has.

The early part of the draft is mostly focused on midfielders and we really don't need another young midfielder to develop at this time. We can wait till next year. With picks 12 and 17 we can get a couple of the best KPPs in this draft, like Van Rooyen and Bazzo. We still have a couple of decent picks left in the 2nd round for other prospects. We would also go into next year's trade period with some extra ammo with Adelaide's 2nd rounder.

It's not worth the fight or the trouble to 'insist' on a top 10 pick when we would be better served with pick 17 + a future 2nd.

I don't think Adelaide will give up their 2022 2nd rounder that easily if they get us pick 17 this year, so we might well have to give back a bit. I would certainly give up our 4th rounders from this year and next, and wouldn't break the deal if we had to part with our future 3rd. So a swap of future picks, our 3rd for their 2nd, would be my bottom line.

[rickmat]

I like Bazzo too, Ludwig. He went onto Van Roy after he had kicked 3 and shut him down. KPP for the future

[i'm-uninformed2]

Instinctively I don’t disagree with Ludwigs view.

And it’s true the Swans are to some degree playing a bit of a game of chicken here. How long will the Dogs pick 17 be in play before someone else claims it? Can we access Richmond’s 7 and 15? Will North walk CCJ to the PSD and close that option of for us?

It also depends on how the Swans view this draft, and whether they think the KPPs in the 15-30 range are worth a pinch of salt, as opposed to focusing their attention on the couple available in the top 10.

I do wonder however if there is a bigger issue at play, which Liz partly touched on. I know for a fact the Swans have long thought once they lost COLA the situation we are now seeing with Dawson would come into play. That is, we could offer a player a decent contract but the pull of cheaper lifestyle would drag players home. And we need to send a message that not every player can pull that stunt and get where they want.

[waswan]

An interesting comment by Gardiner which I don't think has been mentioned on here was that we're open to dealing pick 12.

AFL Trade Radio on Twitter: ""We're not committed either way, if the right thing pops up we'd certainly consider it, but there's certainly no issues with taking it to the draft and adding to our talented young group."

- Swans GM Charlie Gardiner on pick 12

#AFLTrade"

Hmmmmmm. I still think we may have an established player in mind.

De Goey
Buy low

[liz]

It's funny they've chosen this year to make a stand (not so funny for the Crows I guess).

I think it's the player, rather than just a "this year" thing.

My reading of the tea leaves was that the Swans didn't especially want to keep Mitchell. They figured they needed to "rebalance" the midfield in much the same way as they have this year with the jettisoning of Hewett. The offer they made him was relatively modest. Of course, this was all before Hannebery's career was ruined in the final match of that year, and before Jack fell off a cliff a year or two before he was probably expected to start slowing down.

Jones I think they expected to leave when his contract was up. Certainly they would have known from midway through that season that he was talking to clubs in Melbourne. And while I suspect they would have liked him to recommit to the Swans, they had already started planning that he would leave. Furthermore, while he was (and still is) a pretty decent player, he wasn't (and isn't) without his flaws (most notably his propensity to soft tissue injuries at what is still quite a young age in football terms).

I don't think they wanted particularly to part with Aliir but they had identified that getting a decent ruck man in was a priority. For that they needed some cap space and some draft picks capital. We know they shopped Hewett around but no-one bit, and then Port came with an offer for Aliir that was somewhat larger than they had penciled into salary cap plans going forward. So while they accepted a modest trade deal (by the standards of his status with us, not what he became this year), it was enough to get Hickey both in terms of draft picks and cap space.

Dawson is different because they desperately don't want to lose him, and because they didn't expect they would be losing him until the day he asked for a trade. The preferred outcome would still be that he does a ROK and decides to stay. He probably won't. But I think they're happy to string things for as long as it takes just in case that happens, while in the meantime making it very public (and clear to Dawson) just how highly they rate him.

It's irritating how much of a role the media seems to play in determining a "fair" trade value for a player, particularly given those calls are made by largely ignorant ex-players and a group of AFL.com.au nerds who don't seem to know much of lists outside the Vic teams. As soon as Cerra announced he wanted a trade, this collective media clan determined that Carlton's first pick was just the starting point. Soon afterwards, they started with the idea that a second round pick was about right for Dawson. I quite like the fact that this pack of clowns is slowly changing their tune and deciding that maybe the two players have a pretty similar trade value (which doesn't necessarily mean the trades will match due to the different capital of the clubs and the presence of the PSD). It shouldn't actually make much difference to how the trades go down, but it's still somewhat interesting to watch.

[Ludwig]

I do wonder however if there is a bigger issue at play, which Liz partly touched on. I know for a fact the Swans have long thought once they lost COLA the situation we are now seeing with Dawson would come into play. That is, we could offer a player a decent contract but the pull of cheaper lifestyle would drag players home. And we need to send a message that not every player can pull that stunt and get where they want.

Dawson will get to Adelaide because of the PSD, and probably would end up there even without a PSD. It's hard to keep a player who wants to go home. But that's a topic for another day. I don't know what message we could send, and I doubt any message would stop the footy-state clubs from picking off players from the northern clubs.

[KSAS]

Yeah Liz, The clowns on Fox Footy's Trade Table tonight John Ralph described Dawson as a handy Winger but is no Craig Bradley! Tom Morris reckons Dawson has only had 1 good year & pick 17 is right. Montagna thinks Dawson is worth around Picks 12-13 and we should accept 17 even thougb it's slightly unders otherwise we'll lose him in PSD. King made point Dawson is worth top 10 pick basex on his durability & Saints getting Brad Hill for pick 10. King then pointed it's not a sellers market with reduced caps & Clubs holding into their top picks.