Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 21

Thread: Swans Drafting and Trading History

  1. #1

    Swans Drafting and Trading History

    There's been some talk here that we trade well but don't draft well, which I must admit was my gut feeling.

    Had a look at the last 10 years

    Stats are for draft pick and senior games played for the Swans (in brackets)

    2003-2007
    2003 Willoughby 16 (-) Schmidt 29 (17)
    2004 Moore 31 (68) Spriggs 47 (5) Traded for Darren Jolley for Pick 15 (118)
    2005 Laidlaw 51 (1) Thornton 54 (8) Traded for Ted Richards for Picks 19 and 50 (173 and counting)
    2006 Daniel O'Keefe 15 (-) Currie 49 (-) Traded for Spida Everitt for Pick 33 (39)
    2007 Vezpremi 11 (11) Meredith 26 (16) Traded in Mattner 28 (115) and Playfair 44 (16) and Schneider and Dempster out

    Would classify 2003, 2006 and 2007 as LOSS trade years and 2004 and 2005 as BREAK EVEN years only because we traded in premiership players. Moore our best top 2 draft picks in any years with 68 games. Honourable mention to Craig Bird drafted at 59 in 2007 which could upgrade 2007 to BREAK EVEN perhaps

    2008-2012
    2008 Lewis Johnston 12 (2) Hanneberry 30 (101) plus Shaw for Pick 46 (99)
    2009 Rohan 6 (27) Jetta 14 (78) Reid 38 (56) plus Mumford traded in 28 (79), McGlynn (81) and JPK (98) for picks 39,46, 70 Seaby (18) in Hall, Jolley and Buchanan traded out
    2010 Lamb 21 (12) Parker 40 (57) and AJ 57 (45)
    2011 Mitchell 21 (14) and Lockyer 43 (-) with Walsh, Armstrong and Morton traded in
    2012 No drafted players have made a senior debut yet

    2012 obviously too early to call but 2008, 2009 and 2010 have to be WINS (2009 a truly inspired trading period) with 2011 about BREAK EVEN.

    Conclusion: There's no too much wrong with our recent drafting record and our trading record is second to none

  2. #2
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    People tend to look at drafting and ignore the rookie draft. We're far from the only club to find some gems on the rookie list, but I don't think we'd have won the 2012 premiership without the bargain basement pickups of Jack, Smith, Pyke and Grundy.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    People tend to look at drafting and ignore the rookie draft. We're far from the only club to find some gems on the rookie list, but I don't think we'd have won the 2012 premiership without the bargain basement pickups of Jack, Smith, Pyke and Grundy.
    Agreed, and think this is an area the better clubs tend to use better than others. It's much less risky as they've already been in the system. Just goes to show how much of a lottery the draft is

  4. #4
    On the Rookie List Jewels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Copacabana
    Posts
    3,258
    Great work Mug, makes for some interesting reading and changed my opinion a little on our draft history.
    Funny if just a few things changed though. For example as you correctly say Birdy drafted at 59 in 2007 would probably upgrade 2007 to break even, but if he had been our first pick at 11 and played 110 games and counting, in my opinion that would make 2007 a win and if we had gotten Spida in 2005 when we wanted him, we would have probably been back to back premiers and that would have made 2005 draft a big win also.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewels View Post
    Great work Mug, makes for some interesting reading and changed my opinion a little on our draft history.
    Funny if just a few things changed though. For example as you correctly say Birdy drafted at 59 in 2007 would probably upgrade 2007 to break even, but if he had been our first pick at 11 and played 110 games and counting, in my opinion that would make 2007 a win and if we had gotten Spida in 2005 when we wanted him, we would have probably been back to back premiers and that would have made 2005 draft a big win also.
    Cheers, yes it is all quite subjective and clearly you are never going to get it right. It does really dispel, though, the notion that we haven't chosen our picks well (in recent times anyway).

    Will be interesting to see how Towers, Marsh and Membrey kick on this year in terms of judging our 2012 draft picks.

  6. #6
    Salt future's rising SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gala Mill
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    People tend to look at drafting and ignore the rookie draft. We're far from the only club to find some gems on the rookie list, but I don't think we'd have won the 2012 premiership without the bargain basement pickups of Jack, Smith, Pyke and Grundy.
    Yep. When assessing the success or failure of a 'drafting year', you need to take account of all warm bodies who came in and out of your club in the off-season. I appreciate that the task of assessing success or failure becomes somewhat harder through that process, but the important thing is whether the year-on-year change to your list has been a positive or negative. For example, regardless of other trades and almost regardless of how well Hawthorn do in the draft, they would have to count the 2013 draft & trading period as a negative?at least until their first pick in the 2013 ND becomes one of the most celebrated players of his generation!

    For Sydney, what seems to be merely a very good year in 2008 (the bust of Johnston, who was traded for what turned out to be limited value in Armstrong, being more than accounted for by the value we've had from pick 46 for Shaw, and one of the great steals of the last decade that Hannebery slipped through to pick 30) becomes an outstanding year when you remember that we got Mike Pyke at something like pick 57 in the rookie draft (the actual number doesn't matter, because in reality it was a direct-contract signing; he was never realistically on the open market).

    2007 comes very close to a break-even when you bear in mind that we got not only Craig Bird with a late ND pick, but Nick Smith in the RD that year. (It was still a loss though, 'cos you shouldn't stuff up both of your first 2 ND picks in round 1 and round 2?luckily the 2003 and 2007 disasters didn't persist as a 4-year-curse in 2011 when we got the excellent Sam Mitchell.)

    Bearing in mind that the ND picks we had to work with in 2005 were nonsense after we traded our only good ones for players (let's not forget that we traded ND pick 35 for the infamous Paul Chambers, and also picked up the list-clogging Ryan Brabazon at ND pick 57 or thereabouts), that year is a win when you add to Ted, one Mr Kieran Jack in the rookie draft.

    Actually, if we didn't trade so well and use the rookie draft so wisely, a lesser club (e.g. Melbourne) and its supporters would still be whinging that cumulative failures in the 2003?2007 NDs had confined them to mediocrity for a generation, if they'd drafted as we have. The Swans, on the other hand, just roll on busily building a winning list any way they can. Including a flag right in the middle of the window period when your 2003?2007 players are supposedly the most important ones on your list!

    The golden rule (that the Swans had seemingly worked out by 2005 at latest, but other clubs are just coming to): actual, real-life players who've proved they can play AFL are underrated in the draft/trade process. Draft picks, especially high draft picks, are overrated. I still remember the howling now about the ridiculous sums over market rates that we'd paid for a fringe player like Ted Richards, in giving up ND pick 19. They drafted Courtenay Dempsey with it. Dempsey, on 88 AFL games so far and solid but no star when he can get on the park, is probably travelling, if anything, above the average of players taken at around that point in the draft. But well and truly below Super Ted.

  7. #7
    One Man Out ShockOfHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Due north
    Posts
    3,668
    Fair points Simon. There's the famous story of Paul and Tammy Roos scrolling through the 20 years of the draft after he was appointed coach and figuring out that after pick 15 the ND is a lottery. Even the top 15 is a bit of a crapshoot - especially for us it seems. I'd love to see a detailed statistical breakdown of every top 30 pick and score them on the basis of age/body type/position against how many games they played and other stats. How many played 100+ games and whose stats were in the top 25% of players in their position?

    The other thing about the Roos/Swans approach is that he's always said that the draft age is too young. Just on that alone you can see why they might take a punt on a mature professional sportsman like Pyke, or a Lewis Jetta who's been around a few years and is tearing it up in the WAFL. The one good thing about GWS/GOld Coast coming is that that's pushed other clubs to reach into minor leagues and give guys like Barlow, Callinan, JPod a go.

    Plus the Swans have excellent player management. It's rare that a player wants to leave because of dissatisfaction with the club (Hall is the only one I can think of recently, and he left through an open door). That's a sign of a well-run club - the same applies to clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong. It must really help in landing players. It did with Buddy.

  8. #8
    Salt future's rising SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gala Mill
    Posts
    1,647
    Totally agree SOH that player management plays a huge part. 'Success' or 'failure' at the ND (or in a trade) is hardly a closed book at the time when the name is called out or the deal is signed.

    GWS in 2011 and thereabouts mostly went down a disappointingly one-dimensional path towards building a list. The rules of their establishment gave them the perfect platform to pick the eyes out of mature state league players, and go in with a pretty competitive unit, balancing lots of young exciting talent with some size and maturity, in round 1, 2012. In reality, they signed Tim Mohr, Jonathan Giles (both successes) and Steve Clifton (failure) and that was about it. They put themselves in the position of having to manage an improbable number of young kids, almost all living away from home, without a good number of players across a spread of ages to act as informal mentors, and so of course some were and are going to flee as well. They will have a very very good team in 2016, don't get me wrong. But rather than GWS pushing other sides into accessing state league players by overloading on yet another half-a-dozen 'gunna be a megastar' skinny 18 year olds, GWS should have been accessing more of them itself.

    Even though hard data tells us that 18yo is too young, the fact is that there are (going back a generation) kids like Tim Watson who started their VFL careers at age 16 without long-term disaster, and quite frankly there would be a legal challenge if an 18yo was prevented from playing AFL, and the AFL would never run the risk because it fears that the whole draft could be declared illegal. 'Increasing' the draft age relies not on preventing clubs from picking 18yos, but clubs using their common sense to recognise that picking 18yos may not be in their best interests. Common sense is pretty slow coming for some!

  9. #9
    On the Rookie List tasmania60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    i a house
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    Agreed, and think this is an area the better clubs tend to use better than others. It's much less risky as they've already been in the system. Just goes to show how much of a lottery the draft is
    watched fo 40 years and in the last 4 ------7 years they drafted as well as the golden years!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by SimonH View Post
    Totally agree SOH that player management plays a huge part. 'Success' or 'failure' at the ND (or in a trade) is hardly a closed book at the time when the name is called out or the deal is signed.

    GWS in 2011 and thereabouts mostly went down a disappointingly one-dimensional path towards building a list. The rules of their establishment gave them the perfect platform to pick the eyes out of mature state league players, and go in with a pretty competitive unit, balancing lots of young exciting talent with some size and maturity, in round 1, 2012. In reality, they signed Tim Mohr, Jonathan Giles (both successes) and Steve Clifton (failure) and that was about it. They put themselves in the position of having to manage an improbable number of young kids, almost all living away from home, without a good number of players across a spread of ages to act as informal mentors, and so of course some were and are going to flee as well. They will have a very very good team in 2016, don't get me wrong. But rather than GWS pushing other sides into accessing state league players by overloading on yet another half-a-dozen 'gunna be a megastar' skinny 18 year olds, GWS should have been accessing more of them itself.

    Even though hard data tells us that 18yo is too young, the fact is that there are (going back a generation) kids like Tim Watson who started their VFL careers at age 16 without long-term disaster, and quite frankly there would be a legal challenge if an 18yo was prevented from playing AFL, and the AFL would never run the risk because it fears that the whole draft could be declared illegal. 'Increasing' the draft age relies not on preventing clubs from picking 18yos, but clubs using their common sense to recognise that picking 18yos may not be in their best interests. Common sense is pretty slow coming for some!
    Minor point: Watson was 15.

  11. #11
    Just wild about Harry
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,833
    Back then it wasn't all football, either. They had jobs outside of footy and only trained 3 nights a week. The toll on young bodies was minor compared to today.

  12. #12
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    People tend to look at drafting and ignore the rookie draft. We're far from the only club to find some gems on the rookie list, but I don't think we'd have won the 2012 premiership without the bargain basement pickups of Jack, Smith, Pyke and Grundy.
    We have done really well from the Rookie draft but my point was that our first two round draft picks have rarely lived up to expectation. Looking at that list I think I am right in that. Lamb is now playing for GWS so that is another loss. We tend to do well with players drafted over 30.
    Parker 40,
    AJ 57,
    Birdie 53,
    Goodsie 43,
    Hannas 30 (how did he last that long?),
    Mal 64,
    ROK 56,
    Reid 38.

    Then let us look at rookie elevations; Smithy, Reg, Rampe, /kizza, BJ, Harry & Biggs have all played seniors and some have played in premierships.

    Add to that players we traded for Teddy 27, Joey 40, Benny rookie 55 & Rhyce 18. Not to mention Tip 32 & Buddy who was actually a first rounder at 5.

    We have done very well at the trade in the past too. Hally, Plugger, Schwatta, Marty, Craig Bolton, N. Cordy, Cressa (played in Cats reserves), Nick Davis, Spida, Jolly, Jason Ball, Kappler, Healy, Maxfield, Merv Neagle, Schauble, Steve Taubert (mainly because he is the greatest ruck coach ever), Bernard Toohey, Willo, Greg Williams. I must admit we have had a fair amount of retirees in the early days coming up here and not earning their money. We have also had a lot of good players go the other way, the name Morwood stands out because there were so many of them.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO