2023 List Management

[liz]

What we do will, in part, be determined by how many players we want / can take at the National Draft.

Unless I can't count, we currently have 46 on the list, which comprises 36 senior listed players, six A list rookies from the start of the season (Fox, McCartin, HHK, McAndrew, Owen and Magor, I think), two B list rookies (Edwards and Sheather). And then the two mid-season rookie picks.

Franklin and McCartin have already been replaced on the list by Buller and Arnold. I believe Buller is already signed for next year - and Longmire spoke optimistically about him at his press conference. I don't know Arnold's status but I hope we keep him on. I was a bit underwhelmed by him for most of the second half of the season. He seemed to do more prancing in defence than actual defending. But I thought his final three games were terrific. It looked as if something had clicked. It was hard to tell a whole lot about his actual defensive positioning in a team that was beaten up in the middle by Gold Coast and Werribee in the last two games but his rebound and energy were terrific in both games and against the Giants.

Hickey is gone. Stephens sounds like he's gone. Melican sounds like he won't be vacating his spot just yet. So that's probably two more gone from the senior list. There needs to be some list reshuffling between the rookie and senior list, partly because we have more rookies than we're allowed (with Buller and Arnold joining as rookies).

(It really would make things much easier to follow if the AFL just merged the rookie and senior lists. There seems absolutely no point in the distinction nowadays apart from initial contract list length.)

So before trading any players in and delistings we have just two spots to fill across the combined list.

From the senior list, Wicks has surely done enough to earn himself another contract. Clarke has played a decent number of senior matches but could be deemed expendable. Rankin and Gould are probably more likely gone than not.

Reid is a wait and see and his position likely depends on trade activity. He's one that could be shuffled to the rookie list with little risk if they need to rebalance between the two lists. But I think Fox needs to be shuffled back up to the senior list as it has now been three years since he was "demoted" to the rookie list.

On the rookie list, Sheather hasn't had much of a run of it but could find himself pushed out. Owen, who knows? It's too hard to judge such a young, tall player. Edwards and McAndrew are, I believe, already contracted for next year. Magor surely did enough to earn himself another year, assuming he wants to stay. HHK? I know he has his fans on here. I'm agnostic, but more importantly, I have no idea what the club thinks about him.

So compared to where we need to get to to replicate the list structure at the start of this year (36 + 6 + 2) we have

Confirmed senior changes = -2 (Franklin, Hickey)
Confirmed rookie changes = even (Buller/McCartin)
Almost certain senior changes = -1 (Stephens)
Probable senior changes = -2 (Gould, Rankin)
Possible A rookie change = + 1 (recontracting Arnold) / -2 (Owen, HHK)
Possible senior changes = -1 (Clarke)
Required rookie B list changes = -1 (pretty sure Sheather can't be a Cat B rookie next year but whether he is moved to Cat A or delisted is hard to read)
Unlikely but not inconceivable A rookie change = -1 (delisting Magor - surely not)

There is a suggestion that clubs will be able to increase their senior list sizes with the addition of a veteran. I don't know if that is being mooted for 2024 or sometime in the future. If it is for next year we would be in a position to take advantage since Rampe would qualify (and maybe others would too, but you only need one to take advantage). I think it's a dumb idea but that's for another post.

Apart from the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Elijah Taylor, the Swans have never, to my knowledge, cut a first year senior listed player. So I'll assume they're not going to do that this year.

If the club is the most ruthless it can be, the net changes are (I think) - senior list - 6; Cat A rookie list - 4; Cat B rookie list -1

That takes into account the need to move Fox to the senior list but not the possibility of shuffling other players down to the rookie list. It also assumes the delistings of all of Gould, Rankin. Reid and Clarke (the last of week I suspect won't happen). The rookie cull assumes delisting all of Sheather, Owen, Magor, Arnold, HHK but factors in the retention of Buller.

A more likely outcome in my view is senior list -4/5 (keeping Clarke, Reid 50/50), Cat A list -2 (keeping Arnold and Magor), Cat B list -1

Beatson, in his recent Gettable interview, stated that the club isn't looking at Irish talent at the moment because it believes it has an obligation to provide a pathway for its academy graduates. That tells me that there is at least one of the current crop that they intend to list to fill that Cat B spot that Sheather needs to relinquish (Cabor? May? Kirk? Rider? Gander?)

And all this is before the possibility of trading in players and/or the unexpected trading of current players elsewhere.

[Roadrunner]

He has to want to go to the Hawks. Heard today from a pretty reliable source that he is bound for the Roos (he’s agreed to North’s contract), the Swans now need to agree to trade terms to get it done

So long Dyl- Goodbye and good luck. We made a mistake and time to move on and get the best deal we can. Shame we wasted a high pick but it happens!

[Thunder Shaker]

So we officially start with picks 11, 22, 30, 41 and 49.

I’d love us to simply walk up to Gold Coast and say what’s pick 4 gonna cost, but I reckon they’ll basically run an auction on it.

The good: we have pick 11, and this year's draft class has 11 good players.

The bad: We probably won't get any of those 11 players. By the time we use our pick, it will be pick 15. Gold Coast has three Academy players that are likely to go before our first pick (pushing it out 3 places), and North is likely to get a priority pick.

So I can see us upgrading our pick 11 to pick 4 if we win the Gold Coast "auction". (It will be pick 5 to 7 on draft night.)

I have outlined a possible scenario before. We offer Gold Coast pick 11 and some later picks including one of the second-round picks we hold. We get pick 4 from Gold Coast, and Gold Coast on-trades pick 11 to another club for additional picks. Gold Coast end up splitting pick 4 into four or five later picks.

However, that is optimistic. About six clubs are realistically interested in Gold Coast's pick 4, and it could end up with any of them.

This year's draft is not a deep draft. I read somewhere that fewer than 50 players may be chosen this year. So our third-round picks 41 and 49 are almost worthless. I can see clubs wanting to trade out of this year's draft to improve their draft hands next year. So if we don't win Gold Coast's auction for pick 4, a side trade is possible. We offer our two third-round picks for one of Gold Coast's second-round picks, perhaps pick 31 (giving Gold Coast 93 draft points) or Gold Coast's future second-round pick (giving Gold Coast 699 draft points at the cost of a pick next year). In such a trade we would have picks 11, 22, 30 and 31, or picks 11, 22 and 30 and Gold Coast's future second-round pick.

Other draft machinations to consider:
* North Melbourne want pick 1. They will want to trade for it.
* North Melbourne want two draft picks in the top 5. Will the AFL give them a priority pick, or a favourable decision on McKay's free agency?
* West Coast would want two or three first-round picks in return for pick 1. West Coast's draft hand is similar to ours: a first-round pick (pick 1), two second-round picks, two third-round picks. West Coast could be involved in a complex trade involving these later picks, and they end up with pick 4.
* Hawthorn have pick 3. I expect they will hold on to it.
* It is possible that West Coast, North Melbourne and Gold Coast draft up to seven players in the first 10 between them, with Hawthorn, GWS Giants and Melbourne making up the other three of the top 10. Draft could go North Melbourne (Reid), West Coast (Curtin), Gold Coast (match), North Melbourne, Hawthorn, West Coast, Gold Coast (match), Melbourne, GWS Giants, Gold Coast (match), Geelong. (Geelong' pick 7 drifts out to pick 11 here.)
* Others have posted that Stephens may end up at North Melbourne. What would that trade look like? North's future second-round pick? Pick 16?

[Thunder Shaker]

So long Dyl- Goodbye and good luck. We made a mistake and time to move on and get the best deal we can. Shame we wasted a high pick but it happens!

It happens rather a lot. For us, picks 4 and 5 are cursed. We often draft duds or players we can't retain. Other early picks are not much better.

Top 10 picks:
1991: pick 4, Andrew McGovern (29 games then 63 games for Fremantle)
1991: pick 6, Paul Burton (no games)
1992: pick 5, Jason Spinks (no games)
1993: pick 1, Darren Gaspar (21 games, then 207 games for Richmond)
1993: pick 4, Glenn Gorman (no games)
1993: pick 5, Adam Heuskes (49 games, 37 games for Port Adelaide, 39 games for Brisbane Lions)
1994: pick 2, Anthony Rocca (22 games then 220 games for Collingwood)
1994: pick 3, Shannon Grant (58 games then 243 games for North Melbourne)
1996: pick 4, Mark Kinnear (6 games)
1998: pick 3, Nic Fosdike (164 games)
1998: pick 4, Ryan Fitzgerald (10 games then 8 games for Adelaide)
1998: pick 8, Jude Bolton (325 games - included for context)
2002: pick 5, Jarrad McVeigh (325 games - first time we drafted a great and loyal player with a top-5 pick!)
2009: pick 6, Gary Rohan (106 games, then 86 games for Geelong, still playing)
2015: pick 3, Callum Mills (155 games, Academy, still playing)
2018: pick 10, Nick Blakey (102 games, Academy, still playing)
2019: pick 5, Dylan Stephens (43 games, still playing)
2020: pick 4, Logan McDonald (44 games, still playing)
2020: pick 5, Braeden Campbell (48 games, Academy, still playing)

Pick 4: 5 times. 1 player played no games. Logan McDonald the clear best player, who has played about the same number of games for us than the other 4 players combined.
pick 5: 5 times. 1 player played no games. A better pick overall. McVeigh has played the most games of any player we have drafted with a top-10 pick.
Picks before pick 4 have usually seen us draft good players who are disloyal. Nic Fosdike is the only top-3 pick we've had from the open draft pool who played 100 or more games for us.

[liz]

I think the idea that Gold Coast are going to want to trade pick four down multiple times to accumulate more picks is misguided. They already have around ten picks with points value attached, many of them quite late in the draft. Unless they have ten list spots available before draft night they will already forfeit some of those picks with value attached. Turning pick four into three or four picks with greater value might not help them that much if they lose later picks with value. I suspect they'll be looking to consolidate some of those later picks up and/or trade them into next year (where they also have promising academy prospects).

Of course, come draft night, they can split their picks as much as they want without losing any. Which is a dumb outcome of the AFL half-heartedly introducing methods to limit junk-pick matching but not seeing it through.

Clearly they'll want to maximise the value they can get for pick four but if they trade it ahead of draft night they'll want those points concentrated in as few picks as they can manufacture.

One other possibility if the club is looking to trade up is Geelong's pick 7 (as it currently is). After that pick they have nothing until pick 81. They might prefer to drop down slightly in the first round and bring in a second or even third round pick as compensation. Whether it's worthwhile to move up just four places is another matter.

[lwjoyner]

I have said in earlier pots we should go hard for GC pick 4. gave some scenarios. Go for osuulvan or another key defender and or the reining Larke medalist to assist in centre, Ignore Ben McKay

[Roadrunner]

I have said in earlier pots we should go hard for GC pick 4. gave some scenarios. Go for osuulvan or another key defender and or the reining Larke medalist to assist in centre, Ignore Ben McKay

Liz (and others) has done some great number crunching on our list and looked at various scenarios at draft and trade time.

For me, looking at our team and the season we just finished, I’ve come to the conclusion that we need 4 upgrades to what we currently have in order to truly challenge. I put the fact that we can’t play 4 quarters consistently down to us missing these upgrades:

Defense: Pelican is injury prone so we need 1 top cover as Francis is ok but not quite above average.

Midfield: We should play Paps and Isaac in bursts only as they are needed forward to provide teeth and class. So we need 1 top midfielder in addition to hoping Gus and Roberts step up.

Ruck:We need a No 1 ruckman to replace big Tom, as Mensa is a No 2. This will improve our clearances and stoppages where we have been beaten more often than not. For me, Grundy is the one to go for if possible.

Attack: We need 1 more classy small forward, now that Buddy is gone. Unfortunately Wicks is average and I can’t see him ever as a match winner, as this is what’s needed if we are to contend for a flag. It doesn’t look like we have anyone in the ressies either and no one has put any pressure to claim this spot.

Bottom line: if we can successfully fill at least 3 of the above spots, we can compete for the flag next year.
That’s the task of our recruiters and list managers as Horse and Co can’t pull rabbits out of a hat.

[dejavoodoo44]

I think the idea that Gold Coast are going to want to trade pick four down multiple times to accumulate more picks is misguided. They already have around ten picks with points value attached, many of them quite late in the draft. Unless they have ten list spots available before draft night they will already forfeit some of those picks with value attached. Turning pick four into three or four picks with greater value might not help them that much if they lose later picks with value. I suspect they'll be looking to consolidate some of those later picks up and/or trade them into next year (where they also have promising academy prospects).

Of course, come draft night, they can split their picks as much as they want without losing any. Which is a dumb outcome of the AFL half-heartedly introducing methods to limit junk-pick matching but not seeing it through.

Clearly they'll want to maximise the value they can get for pick four but if they trade it ahead of draft night they'll want those points concentrated in as few picks as they can manufacture.

One other possibility if the club is looking to trade up is Geelong's pick 7 (as it currently is). After that pick they have nothing until pick 81. They might prefer to drop down slightly in the first round and bring in a second or even third round pick as compensation. Whether it's worthwhile to move up just four places is another matter.

I think the Geelong option would make sense for both clubs, if it meant that we were a good chance of getting Connor O'Sullivan, but there's a fair chance that pick 7 would creep out to pick 10, so he might be already gone, regardless.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Some good observations above.

The other issue with GC is they’ll like gain points from trading out three or four players - starting with Sharp, Burgess and Hollands. I suspect between that and using pick 4 in an auction, they both get the points for this year, and a head start on next year (when apparently their academy is going to produce more good talent).

Like a few others, whether it involves GC or otherwise, I’m keen for us to be to progessive ‘stack’ up our picks and get as high up the order as possible. Melbourne, Port and GWS do this in a very single minded way regularly. We have an excellent list build underway, but you can never have enough high end talent.

We will probably need to keep our options open re a bid on Cleary. (May is more likely rookie). But I sense that’s all manageable either by leaving ourselves a mid-40s pick, or trading back in on draft night.

The other thing I’d put on the table is we know Stephens is - unfortunately - out the door, and we can probably expect no more than a pick in the 30s. But who else? Either because they want to leave (does Melican request a trade if we recruit McKay), or if we’re being really ruthless, we ‘encourage’ to substantially improve our list either via a trade or higher draft picks? It’s not done often these days against the will of players and because it risks fracturing the trust between playing groups and clubs, but . . .

[MattW]

Here we go:

'The Sydney Swans are reportedly the frontrunners for Brodie Grundy’s services.'

AFL 2023: Trade news, whispers, player movement, contract, latest, Jack Silvagni, Liam Henry, Jed Walter

[liz]

Here we go:

'The Sydney Swans are reportedly the frontrunners for Brodie Grundy’s services.'

AFL 2023: Trade news, whispers, player movement, contract, latest, Jack Silvagni, Liam Henry, Jed Walter

I'm not going to believe anything reported by footy journalists until it happens. They make most of the stuff up. But if we had to choose between a competent ruckman and a competent tall defender I'd opt for the latter. Especially if the defender is McKay with an $800k pa price tag. (It's possible we don't need to make choice - it may be a situation of "why not both".)

There is some weird stuff in that article that makes you wonder if journalists put their brains in to gear.

The Demons could offer up their first pick – Currently pick five (originally held by Fremantle) and their two second round selections that could net the Suns an extra 500 points on the Draft value index.

Why on earth would the Demons spend two second round selections to move up one spot in the draft. That makes no sense. I think it is more likely that the Demons would try to get their hands on pick four using those two second round picks AND next year's first round pick, which most clubs would value as a likely late teens pick. If they held picks 4 and 5 they might be able to tempt West Coast into trading the overall first pick to them.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I agree Liz Re KPD dominant as our no1 chase…….as long as we find a strong solution but not necessarily elite for the ruck.

Those two positions for me are leaving us below the best right now and sadly maybe for 2024 also

We are not the best midfield in the comp at all…..so we need to bolster some other areas of significance impact if we can’t help our mids be recognised week in week out as top 4 in the comp.

[Captain]

We need a ruckman over a key defender.

Would rather we win it out of the centre than lose it and have the ball keep going over the head of our brand new key defender.

[MattW]

We need a ruckman over a key defender.

Would rather we win it out of the centre than lose it and have the ball keep going over the head of our brand new key defender.

I may be in the minority, but I think Grundy is exactly what we need to push to towards top four.

Our tall defenders have stood up in the second half of this year. McCartin in near elite, if not there.

We need more ball winning at clearances, but that's Sheldrick.

We could also really do with another goalscoring small forward.

[Captain]

I may be in the minority, but I think Grundy is exactly what we need to would push to towards top four.

Our tall defenders have stood up in the second half of this year. McCartin in near elite, if not there.

We need more ball winning at clearances, but that's Sheldrick.

We could really do with another goalscoring small forward.

Absolutely. Definitely don’t reckon you are in the minority with Grundy. Imagine preferring Ladhams instead of one of the best ruckmen in the comp!