Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 91

Thread: Trade period review

  1. #37
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney East
    Posts
    4,683
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    Just reading this which is official on the clubs website "With a number of Academy and Father-Son prospects on the horizon, the club used the trade period as an opportunity to increase the cumulative value of picks."

    A number of Academy and F/S prospects - think that is unofficially official that Dunks will be in red and white next year. We had no other reason to keep downgrading pick places to increase points unless Dunks was the target.
    That's what I've assumed as well. Of course it also acts as pretty clear signalling to the rest of the competition that we're committed to him.

  2. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Dillon View Post
    Probably deserves its own thread given the length of the other one!

    I believe we've done okay, given the circumstances.

    � Needed a ruckman - Sinclair
    � Needed a KPD - Talia
    � Needed extra draft points for Mills, Dunkley. Done
    � Needed to free up salary, traded Bird to Essendon.

    Heading into 2016 our list is going to be very young, but overall I believe it's much more balanced than this year.

    Our midfield is still elite, we've added another gun in Mills, our ruck stocks are better (and more versatile). Our backline is deeper and more flexible. Our forward line will have Buddy with a point to prove, an in form Tippett and a confident Reid.

    Plenty of reasons to be optimistic about next season....bring it on!
    I agree , but to be a serious contender our back defense needs to be better than last year, Buddy's health , Tippets continues his improvement and Reid finally moves up to the next level .

  3. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

    The club website says: The Swans will enter next month�s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

    I think that is probably correct.
    I can confirm that Ugg is correct. The only picks you can use are the "live picks". The number of live picks is the same as the number of vacancies you have on your list. I don't know the situation of the other academy clubs they, even GWS and GCS, would be under the same rules.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by giant View Post
    That's what I've assumed as well. Of course it also acts as pretty clear signalling to the rest of the competition that we're committed to him.
    It could also mean that he hasn't decided yet and we need the points in case he chooses us.

  4. #40
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    I can confirm that Ugg is correct. The only picks you can use are the "live picks". The number of live picks is the same as the number of vacancies you have on your list. I don't know the situation of the other academy clubs they, even GWS and GCS, would be under the us.
    Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

    This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

    I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

    Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

    The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!

  5. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

    This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

    I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

    Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

    The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!
    Yep, that makes sense about GWS because they and GCS still have larger list next year.

  6. #42
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,929
    I was talking to someone involved with recruiting today and he is under the impression clubs will be allowed to take in all their picks.

  7. #43
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

    This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

    I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

    Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

    The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!
    All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

    Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

    In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.

  8. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

    Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

    In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.
    I don't think it is so wrong actually.

    Why should a club be able to use points on picks that can never be used?

    We'll be fine and it wouldn't surprise me to see us de-list two players to use both 69 and 72 as I am sure we traded our way with a delisting strategy in mind. One will probably be our highest live pick after Dunks (mid 50s I'd guess) and maybe one academy player at the back of the draft

    As Meg has rightly pointed out GWS can stockpile higher because they still have an expanded list of 46 and whilst they may not use all the picks they will draw down on they could if they wanted to and that is important. I can see GWS going with an actual list well below 46 given the recent development of their squad. Of course the GWS situation will not re-occur once their list limit falls into line with other clubs.

    I think this is all a storm in a teacup - our strategy was quite normal because we have to cater for Dunkley going too early and us not picking him (unlikely I know) plus WCE offered us a good dela to get extra points for an early pick. All our trading was pretty normal actually, it was only GWS who exposed some short term opportunities available to them.

    The more I see this system the more I feel it is fundamentally sound, remember it was not designed by the AFL but an economist

  9. #45
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

    Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

    In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.
    A club will never run out of picks because the ones it uses on academy players aren't extinguished. They are just sent to the end of the draft.

  10. #46
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    A club will never run out of picks because the ones it uses on academy players aren't extinguished. They are just sent to the end of the draft.
    Oh Yeah! Good point. Forgot about that. But still doesn't make sense being forced to take players are the end of the draft just so academy players can be taken with multiple picks. It forces academy clubs into restrictions that other clubs don't have.

  11. #47
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,041
    There's a final list lodgement after the draft, I'm fairly sure clubs *could* draft above their maximum list size and then delist guys if they really wanted to and had the out of contract players or forward year cap space. I think the idea that clubs only take X number of live picks to the draft is just a convention.

  12. #48
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    I was talking to someone involved with recruiting today and he is under the impression clubs will be allowed to take in all their picks.
    Aargh! Just when I was getting a handle on this ...........!

    But now I'm nervous - "someone involved with recruiting today and he is under the impression".[/QUOTE]

    Under the impression? Or knows? I sure hope someone in recruiting KNOWS what is allowed!

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 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