2022 List management, trading, drafting

[707]

Maybe Ed Allan (son of ben ex haek aand docker )mght be in the mix for us, At 194cm looks ok.

Did well at the Combine, not currently in the concensus Top 30

[gloveski]

Maybe Ed Allan (son of ben ex haek aand docker )mght be in the mix for us, At 194cm looks ok.

I mentioned him earlier great pedigree , worth a punt and we do like the left field picks . Cal twomey rates him highly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

I mentioned him earlier great pedigree , worth a punt and we do like the left field picks . Cal twomey rates him highly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I imagine we'll probably trade up to a pick in the top ten and use that pick on him.

[Aprilbr]

I imagine we'll probably trade up to a pick in the top ten and use that pick on him.

That's assuming someone is willing to allow us to trade up! Most clubs are reluctant to trade out top 10 picks for later picks.

[Ludwig]

That's assuming someone is willing to allow us to trade up! Most clubs are reluctant to trade out top 10 picks for later picks.

Ed Allen is rated around pick 30, but moving up, so may go earlier in the 2nd round. We could almost certainly get him with our 2nd first rounder and might even be able to trade down for him.

Josh Weddle, a key defender, but not that tall for the position, did well at the trials and should come into play with our 2nd pick. The late 1st and early 2nd round looks a good place to be this year.

[rickmat]

Wonder if the Francis trade with Bombers gets done by Wed?

[bloodspirit]

Ed Allen is rated around pick 30, but moving up, so may go earlier in the 2nd round. We could almost certainly get him with our 2nd first rounder and might even be able to trade down for him.

Josh Weddle, a key defender, but not that tall for the position, did well at the trials and should come into play with our 2nd pick. The late 1st and early 2nd round looks a good place to be this year.

I thought about those guys too. Weddle would be very bad news for Gould. Plus Weddle is Vic Metro, not our favourite hunting ground.

- - - Updated - - -

Once Geelong get pick 7 from the Suns, what about we offer picks 14, 17 & 37 (total 2703 DVI points) for Geelong's picks 7, 25 and 58 (2570 DVI points)?

Ordinarily I don't think Geelong would do this deal (especially because pick 7 is about the right point for them to snap up Jhye Clark) but if Geelong did the deal then they could trade pick 17 to Collingwood for Henry (and I think the Pies would take that) and still have pick 14 to take a good kid in the first round. Considering that means they will bring in three young, worthy first rounders (Bruhn, Henry and pick 14) in a year they won the comp, they could well be satisfied with that.

The good thing about this is that 25 is still a very decent second selection. We could use pick 7 to take someone like Phillipou or Humphrey and then grab a tall like Keeler or Gruzewski at 25. Gruzewski is noted for his marking ability, which might be a nice complement to McDonald's running and leading ability in the front half.

Thoughts?

Is there any other pick we would have a hope of trading up for? I don't see Hawthorn wanting to trade back - or would they? Port will have to use pick 8 if they want to trade in JHF (and clearly they do want to) and then, assuming it went to North, I don't think they would want to trade down. Similarly, if it went to the Eagles it would mean they had already traded back and would they want to trade back again, even if it means turning one first rounder into three? What about Saints - 9 & 32 for 14 & 17? Could they be interested in sliding back? I figure probably not.

[111431]

I thought about those guys too. Weddle would be very bad news for Gould. Plus Weddle is Vic Metro, not our favourite hunting ground.

- - - Updated - - -

Once Geelong get pick 7 from the Suns, what about we offer picks 14, 17 & 37 (total 2703 DVI points) for Geelong's picks 7, 25 and 58 (2570 DVI points)?

Ordinarily I don't think Geelong would do this deal (especially because pick 7 is about the right point for them to snap up Jhye Clark) but if Geelong did the deal then they could trade pick 17 to Collingwood for Henry (and I think the Pies would take that) and still have pick 14 to take a good kid in the first round. Considering that means they will bring in three young, worthy first rounders (Bruhn, Henry and pick 14) in a year they won the comp, they could well be satisfied with that.

The good thing about this is that 25 is still a very decent second selection. We could use pick 7 to take someone like Phillipou or Humphrey and then grab a tall like Keeler or Gruzewski at 25. Gruzewski is noted for his marking ability, which might be a nice complement to McDonald's running and leading ability in the front half.

Thoughts?

Is there any other pick we would have a hope of trading up for? I don't see Hawthorn wanting to trade back - or would they? Port will have to use pick 8 if they want to trade in JHF (and clearly they do want to) and then, assuming it went to North, I don't think they would want to trade down. Similarly, if it went to the Eagles it would mean they had already traded back and would they want to trade back again, even if it means turning one first rounder into three? What about Saints - 9 & 32 for 14 & 17? Could they be interested in sliding back? I figure probably not.

I like your Geelong theory but would Geelong want to see us potentially stronger?

[Markwebbos]

I reckon Norf might be open to swapping the future first they got from Port for our 17, if that’s the way we want to go.

Or Weagles 12 and 20 for 14 and 17 mebbe

[Ludwig]

I thought about those guys too. Weddle would be very bad news for Gould. Plus Weddle is Vic Metro, not our favourite hunting ground.

- - - Updated - - -

Once Geelong get pick 7 from the Suns, what about we offer picks 14, 17 & 37 (total 2703 DVI points) for Geelong's picks 7, 25 and 58 (2570 DVI points)?

Ordinarily I don't think Geelong would do this deal (especially because pick 7 is about the right point for them to snap up Jhye Clark) but if Geelong did the deal then they could trade pick 17 to Collingwood for Henry (and I think the Pies would take that) and still have pick 14 to take a good kid in the first round. Considering that means they will bring in three young, worthy first rounders (Bruhn, Henry and pick 14) in a year they won the comp, they could well be satisfied with that.

The good thing about this is that 25 is still a very decent second selection. We could use pick 7 to take someone like Phillipou or Humphrey and then grab a tall like Keeler or Gruzewski at 25. Gruzewski is noted for his marking ability, which might be a nice complement to McDonald's running and leading ability in the front half.

Thoughts?

Is there any other pick we would have a hope of trading up for? I don't see Hawthorn wanting to trade back - or would they? Port will have to use pick 8 if they want to trade in JHF (and clearly they do want to) and then, assuming it went to North, I don't think they would want to trade down. Similarly, if it went to the Eagles it would mean they had already traded back and would they want to trade back again, even if it means turning one first rounder into three? What about Saints - 9 & 32 for 14 & 17? Could they be interested in sliding back? I figure probably not.

I quite like players like Phillipou and Humphrey, but why would we want them? Who would they replace in our side? How would they affect the future of AFL prospects looking to make our best 22 like Sheldrick, Roberts and HHK?

The problem I have with trading up is that the players in the top part of the draft that look good,play positions where we already have good young players, so as good as they might be, they would just be adding to the logjam. It would probably end with someone wanting to be traded out for lack of opportunity.

All the projected outgoing player movement over the next few years is in the KPP category. We have a good Academy midfield prospect in Cleary in the 2023 draft. We have an opportunity this year to shore up our KPP stocks, because there are a bevy of KPPs in our part of the draft, with top midfield types in the top end of the draft. So there's no reason to move out of the part of the draft we want to be in to get into a part of the draft that has players that don't really improve our list, as good as they might be.

There are a couple of tall versatile mids in Hustwaite and Ed Allen, who should also show up in our part of the draft and might be players we could target, as it would seem they could substitute for a KPP (a la Bleakey) if need be, and perhaps move into the midfield in the future, if needed.

I didn't like Lewis Hayes falling over during the time trial. And that's without an opponent to compete with. I think I'm striking him off my draft list.

Just saw this:
Recruiting manager Simon Dalrymple told AFL.com.au's NAB AFL Draft Combine wrap show that the club would be searching to see if it can put the two picks together to break into the very early part of the draft.

Clearly, Simon Dalrymple doesn't see the draft the same way I do. He's much more in line with bloodspirit and some others.Maybe there's a target player we really like near the top of the draft.

[Ludwig]

Here's a bit more from Simon:

The Swans made strong progress in 2022 before their Grand Final thrashing to Geelong, but Dalrymple said they wouldn't be targeting needs with their early picks at the draft next month.

"Best player has always been our philosophy and if you get a bit cute with types you can tend to miss out," he said. "In the rookie draft we might have a look at list needs, but certainly with those two early ones it's about the best player."

This is contrary to what was said last year when we went specifically to boost our midfield. Some lack of consistency there, or just not being honest.

[bloodspirit]

I agree with your analysis, Ludwig, and in particular that KPPs are what we need, but not the conclusion that we therefore necessarily should not draft a mid. You can't have too many mids and Sheldrick and Roberts may have to deal with competition for spots. If we have to trade one or more of them out later because they are not getting enough opportunities then I don't see that as a disaster, especially not if we can then trade in or draft someone else good.

I also like HHK but don't see him competing for an on ball role with the rest of them any time soon.

Dalrymple has said we'll take best available talent in the first round and I don't think that's a bad strategy.

Sad to say but I had exactly the same thoughts about Hayes falling over. And those doubts were reinforced when I noticed he is a Vic Metro player. Hence my warming to Gruzewski (Vic Country) even if he isn't as tall.

[Markwebbos]

Here's a bit more from Simon:

The Swans made strong progress in 2022 before their Grand Final thrashing to Geelong, but Dalrymple said they wouldn't be targeting needs with their early picks at the draft next month.

"Best player has always been our philosophy and if you get a bit cute with types you can tend to miss out," he said. "In the rookie draft we might have a look at list needs, but certainly with those two early ones it's about the best player."

This is contrary to what was said last year when we went specifically to boost our midfield. Some lack of consistency there, or just not being honest.

Isn’t “best available” the line that list managers hide behind?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Here's a bit more from Simon:

The Swans made strong progress in 2022 before their Grand Final thrashing to Geelong, but Dalrymple said they wouldn't be targeting needs with their early picks at the draft next month.

"Best player has always been our philosophy and if you get a bit cute with types you can tend to miss out," he said. "In the rookie draft we might have a look at list needs, but certainly with those two early ones it's about the best player."

This is contrary to what was said last year when we went specifically to boost our midfield. Some lack of consistency there, or just not being honest.

My understanding is Beatson didn’t rate the talls around our pick last year. He apparently asks who the talls have played on. Not just can they intercept, mark, muscle etc - but did they do against anyone of value. And last year, he felt outside the top 10, the talls were average.

Whether he was right or wrong, we will see.

[Ludwig]

My understanding is Beatson didn’t rate the talls around our pick last year. He apparently asks who the talls have played on. Not just can they intercept, mark, muscle etc - but did they do against anyone of value. And last year, he felt outside the top 10, the talls were average.

Whether he was right or wrong, we will see.

It's always hard evaluating players from the outside, like we are. Last year, I was keen on Jacob Van Rooyen, who went just after we picked Sheldrick. I really do like Sheldrick, so it's hard to complain that we didn't take my choice. JVR didn't play an AFL game this year, but I hear he's done well in the VFL and Melbourne see a big future for him.

I've always had a problem with the draft points rating system, which I believe was skewed toward the top end to make us pay up for Callum Mills. Interestingly, HPN use a rating system which is about 15% more compressed than the AFL, i.e. they value later picks more highly than the AFL do, which is closer to my own rating.

Picks 14 + 17 roughly converts to a pick 3, and usually it's not good enough to get a pick 3. It's easy to screw up a top pick. So many have failed. Aaron Francis and Weideman are a couple of example who are going cheap this year. It's harder to make a big mistake with 2 picks in the teens, than 1 in the top 5.

I would say that I'm more of a moneyball type list manager than a star power list manager. I think a team with good players across the ground does better than one with a few superstars that have to carry the rest of the team on their shoulders.