2021 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

I can't see us taking a genuine ruck in Conway now that we have two genuine rucks on our list (and Ladhams only 23) plus a third recovering from an ACL, plus a fourth project ruckman in McAndrew. That would make 5 plus the forward/rucks e.g. Amartey. I can see us being more tempted by more forwards who can ruck or rucks who can play as forwards.

[Ludwig]

still think we should look at picking Conway. Still not sure on Naismith with knee. Conway is touted as best pure ruck in draft.

You can be sure that Naismith will never play again.

We have enough ruckmen. No need to plan 5 years down the road. We're okay for the next few years. That's almost forever in ruck years.

[liz]

I can see us being more tempted by more forwards who can ruck or rucks who can play as forwards.

But we have one youngish (maybe two, as I think McLean will need to become more of a viable ruck-relief option if he is to sustain an AFL career beyond the next year or two) already (Amartey). Plus Ladhams, who isn't proven yet as a genuine first ruck and might prove to be more of a forward/ruck. And a promising academy prospect in the 2022 draft who sounds like a forward/ruck.

I'm not advocating particularly for drafting Conway, but I don't think the recruitment of Ladhams will, or should, have any influence on the club's decision. Hickey and Sinclair (and Naismith) will be long gone by the time Conway is ready to front up as an AFL ruck. So if he were on our list, he'd slot into a role of primary support to Ladhams.

I have no meaningful opinion on McAndrew as he's too raw and gangly, and I've seen him play barely one game of footy. He's a long shot (as most gangly teenage rucks are, especially late converts from other sports).

[liz]

I still think we would have put 31, 39 & 70 on the table - hoping Geelong doesn’t go ahead with offering 32 & 50. Only reason they’d not offer that would be if they looked at 50 and thought with that dropping back to more like 40 after the Bulldogs/Collingwood picks being wiped out with bids, they value a couple of players they want at 32 & 40 ahead of who they’d get earlier access to at 23.

I'm confused. If the Swans were willing to offer 31, 39 and 70 for pick 23, why would they be concerned about Geelong offering 32 and 50?

[Markwebbos]

I'm confused. If the Swans were willing to offer 31, 39 and 70 for pick 23, why would they be concerned about Geelong offering 32 and 50?

+1
Why would we need to offer 70? Isn't 31+39 way better than 32+50?

UPDATE

Geelong has 30, 32 and 34 so can outbid us using the last two of those picks

31+39+70=1091
32+34=1126

I don't know if the value of those picks will change (in our favour) if a bid comes in for Daicos before Darcy? Otherwise I can't see us offering more points than Geelong.

[Ralph Dawg]

But we have one youngish (maybe two, as I think McLean will need to become more of a viable ruck-relief option if he is to sustain an AFL career beyond the next year or two) already (Amartey). Plus Ladhams, who isn't proven yet as a genuine first ruck and might prove to be more of a forward/ruck. And a promising academy prospect in the 2022 draft who sounds like a forward/ruck.

I'm not advocating particularly for drafting Conway, but I don't think the recruitment of Ladhams will, or should, have any influence on the club's decision. Hickey and Sinclair (and Naismith) will be long gone by the time Conway is ready to front up as an AFL ruck. So if he were on our list, he'd slot into a role of primary support to Ladhams.

I have no meaningful opinion on McAndrew as he's too raw and gangly, and I've seen him play barely one game of footy. He's a long shot (as most gangly teenage rucks are, especially late converts from other sports).

He's actually 21 going on 22 with no meaningful history of excelling in his previous sport. After I saw him play, I was blown away that we offered him a spot on our list.

[The Big Cat]

He's actually 21 going on 22 with no meaningful history of excelling in his previous sport. After I saw him play, I was blown away that we offered him a spot on our list.

You can't teach height.

[TheBloods]

He's actually 21 going on 22 with no meaningful history of excelling in his previous sport. After I saw him play, I was blown away that we offered him a spot on our list.

Give him a go before writing him off

[wolftone57]

No they wouldnt notice our later picks /rookies because we wouldnt have any success at all without them. No way we win the flag in 2012 without Jack , Grundy , Smith, Pyke, O'keefe, Malceski

The team we have now wouldnt come close either , without Lloyd , Papley, Rampe , Dawson this yr, Cunningham , Jmac

They get noticed because the majority of players who have made us successful have been from that range of late draft / rookies . & also bargain trades like Joey , Richards, Shaw, McGlynn , Mattner etc

We have got hardly any bang for our buck from picks inside the top 30 , nearly all have been busts or been traded out . Current list who do we have to show outside of the academy players ? Stephens , Florent & Hayward ? Wow .. thats impressive !

I'll add i am probably too hard on Gould who was a pick 26 , hasnt played a game yet so bit harsh to say hes a bust , cant make a judgment on him either way , we'll see this yr

You forgot Parker, 40

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[The Big Cat]

Geelong has 30, 32 and 34 so can outbid us using the last two of those picks

31+39+70=1091
32+34=1126

I don't know if the value of those picks will change (in our favour) if a bid comes in for Daicos before Darcy? Otherwise I can't see us offering more points than Geelong.

With half their list in a geriatric home, why would Geelong swap two mid-range picks for one only a few picks better?

[wolftone57]

I think some people forget that picking has been affected by the introduction of GWS and Sun's as well as Carlton and several other clubs getting bonus picks for just being crap. This did make things difficult but we were not that bad since 2011 with our first 3 picks. Sure some of them never came good. Others have since left the club, some due to our fault like Membrey & Nanka. Some for buck's like Mitchell. But recruiters do not have the benefit of hindsight. They do not make the contracts and pay the players. The have to work within those constructs and limitations.

No matter how good you believe Buddy has been for our footy club his contract did hurt us in regards to cap space and since the cap shrinkage it has been monumental.

Here are a list of all our top 3 picks since 2011:

2011

21 Mitchell
61 Brown
85 Gordon

We did not really have good picks in 2011 with 65 & 85 being 2 & 3. Mitchell was a great pick up. But the recruiters at the time would not have known he would bail. Gordon was a grafter and went on to play 2 seasons at Richmond after we delisted. Brown was a bust

2012

22 Towers
44 Marsh
46 Membrey

Not any low picks and I thought Marsh and Towers were serviceable if not world beaters. Not many players from this draft still playing. Membrey was the most disappointing after we did not offer him a contract. That was @@@@ by our footy dept. He was obviously the best of the bunch. But again, the recruiters do not have hindsight.

2013

15 Jones
32 Hewett
35 Nankervis

I think these were three good picks. Again hindsight would be a good thing

2014

18 Heeney
37 Rose
38 Hiscox

Even I was baffled by Hiscox. Rose was a risk that did not pay off. Hiscox was a disaster. He was a Rookie spot at best but I would not even have drafted Jack. I think our worst mistake in 10 years, possibly ever.

2015

3 Mills
51 Leonarsis
56 Dawson

Two out of three ain't bad. But Tyrone was terrible. He just did not understand two way footy and seemed as thick as a short plank.

2016

11 Florent
21 Hayward
45 Maibaum

Again two out of three. The first two are best 22

2017

14 Ling
33 McCartin
53 Stoddart

Poor Ling could not stay on the park long enough for us to see how good he could have been. The toe injury stuffed everything. When he played a few games he was quite good. But again hindsight is a good thing. Tom is a best 22 player. Stoddart was a bust

2018

10 Blakey
25 Rowbottom
44 McInerney

We blitzed this one. All three are best 22

2019

5 Stephens
26 Gould
36 E Taylor
39 Warner

How could anyone have predicted Taylor would be such a dropkick? He is a predigious talent and was looking good in his early matches.

Gould may yet come good. I put Warner in there because we had to sack Taylor. What a gem Chad is

2020

4 McDonald
5 Campbell
35 Gulden

All gold here





Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Maltopia]

Re Conway and too many rucks, it is a shame if we don’t get him, as here we have a decent player who had us as his dream destination (to play with his cousin/s).

I don’t see a problem with a potential
Ladhams and Conway duo in 3-4 years, with Almartey as a forward/ruck.

McLean is only 199 cm and is he that much better as a relief ruck in the forward line than Parker who we sometimes use?

[Foreign Legion]

Can't see Mclean or Amartey ever being a serious ruck option - too short for modern rucks. Hickey and Sinclair are not young and I don't think Naismith will ever play again (he was a good tap ruckman for sure).

If we skip a ruckman this year we may be desperate next year.

[Mark26]

Paddy McCartin hasn't nominated for the draft, but can be added during the pre-season supplementary period. Does anyone know when that is?

[Maltopia]

I think some people forget that picking has been affected by the introduction of GWS and Sun's as well as Carlton and several other clubs getting bonus picks for just being crap. This did make things difficult but we were not that bad since 2011 with our first 3 picks. Sure some of them never came good. Others have since left the club, some due to our fault like Membrey & Nanka. Some for buck's like Mitchell. But recruiters do not have the benefit of hindsight. They do not make the contracts and pay the players. The have to work within those constructs and limitations.

No matter how good you believe Buddy has been for our footy club his contract did hurt us in regards to cap space and since the cap shrinkage it has been monumental.

Here are a list of all our top 3 picks since 2011:

2011

21 Mitchell
61 Brown
85 Gordon

We did not really have good picks in 2011 with 65 & 85 being 2 & 3. Mitchell was a great pick up. But the recruiters at the time would not have known he would bail. Gordon was a grafter and went on to play 2 seasons at Richmond after we delisted. Brown was a bust

2012

22 Towers
44 Marsh
46 Membrey

Not any low picks and I thought Marsh and Towers were serviceable if not world beaters. Not many players from this draft still playing. Membrey was the most disappointing after we did not offer him a contract. That was @@@@ by our footy dept. He was obviously the best of the bunch. But again, the recruiters do not have hindsight.

2013

15 Jones
32 Hewett
35 Nankervis

I think these were three good picks. Again hindsight would be a good thing

2014

18 Heeney
37 Rose
38 Hiscox

Even I was baffled by Hiscox. Rose was a risk that did not pay off. Hiscox was a disaster. He was a Rookie spot at best but I would not even have drafted Jack. I think our worst mistake in 10 years, possibly ever.

2015

3 Mills
51 Leonarsis
56 Dawson

Two out of three ain't bad. But Tyrone was terrible. He just did not understand two way footy and seemed as thick as a short plank.

2016

11 Florent
21 Hayward
45 Maibaum

Again two out of three. The first two are best 22

2017

14 Ling
33 McCartin
53 Stoddart

Poor Ling could not stay on the park long enough for us to see how good he could have been. The toe injury stuffed everything. When he played a few games he was quite good. But again hindsight is a good thing. Tom is a best 22 player. Stoddart was a bust

2018

10 Blakey
25 Rowbottom
44 McInerney

We blitzed this one. All three are best 22

2019

5 Stephens
26 Gould
36 E Taylor
39 Warner

How could anyone have predicted Taylor would be such a dropkick? He is a predigious talent and was looking good in his early matches.

Gould may yet come good. I put Warner in there because we had to sack Taylor. What a gem Chad is

2020

4 McDonald
5 Campbell
35 Gulden

All gold here





Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

Your analysis is mostly good, but you should not include where we have matched bid to get an Academy player (eg Henry, Mills and Blakey and Hiscox, anyone else)?

We are talking about the recruiting team’s ability to make a good selection with eg a pick 12 or 20 from the open national talent pool, and select - player who does comparably well to similar picks by other clubs.

The academy picks we have had the benefit of watching these kids directly for several years and even train them in the Swans’ play style and tactics. You can’t compare us taking Mills with the equivalent points to pick 3, with say Melbourne taking Petracca at 2, or others taken at 4-6 and say “we did well/bad” as we couldn’t have taken any of those players as we used lower picks and a discount to get the
players.

Eg without Blakey in the system, we would have instead used our first draft pick in the late teens to select on the open draft someone like a Jones, Ling, Florent, Taylor or Towers of that year. Those are the picks some of us thinks have been poor (open picks in the middle to late first round that are not Academy matching bids).

Instead we can look at players like Florent and Hayward and see how they compare to players taken +/- 10 picks either side.

The Towers analysis (whoever did that) was excellent - they pointed out that almost no one got it right in 2012 in the pick 22-35 range or so.