2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[aardvark]

This McCrae stuff is just nonsense, not worth uttering his name again. As much creedence as Parker to Essendon, so please stop.

Yep, Rumor started by some bloke called the "Whisperer" on big footy.

[waswan]

This McCrae stuff is just nonsense, not worth uttering his name again. As much creedence as Parker to Essendon, so please stop.

Also doubt there's any player coming from the Saints.

We'll probably get in a couple of bottom six types, trade our first for a couple of seconds for more points and head to the draft for Blakey and a couple in the mid 30s. The real cream will be in the rookie draft of course!

- - - Updated - - -

That would be his WA U18s coach? How has this come to be discussed in the west? Not that I think we're getting a Saints player in the trade.

WA under 18s coach.......Owns the gym I go to, Acres happy at the Saints

[0918330512]

WA under 18s coach.......Owns the gym I go to, Acres happy at the Saints

Dempster & Schneider were happy at the Swans ...

[Melbourne_Blood]

Compare us to how Geelong are dealing with Kelly.
Not sure the role of 'the good guts' during trade period serves us that well...

Hardly think the situations are comparable mate . Kelly is asking to go home a year after entering the draft ! He is a jet and under contract and no way should the cats let him go. Don’t enter the draft if you can’t handle leaving your state , play in the wafl , simple. On the other hand, hanners leaving us is seen by many as a good thing , he’s served up ordinary footy the last two seasons and he will open up cap space for us. He also is happy to go. How hard a bargain can we really drive if we’re happy to see him go ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CureTheSane]

Hardly think the situations are comparable mate . Kelly is asking to go home a year after entering the draft ! He is a jet and under contract and no way should the cats let him go. Don’t enter the draft if you can’t handle leaving your state , play in the wafl , simple. On the other hand, hanners leaving us is seen by many as a good thing , he’s served up ordinary footy the last two seasons and he will open up cap space for us. He also is happy to go. How hard a bargain can we really drive if we’re happy to see him go ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course.
Every trade is different.
But what would you do if we were offered a 4th rounder and payment of half of his salary?
You'd keep him, because the deal sucks.
At some point there is a line as to what is acceptable for him.
And St.Kilda want him and he wants the Saints.

So even though the deal is different, are the Swans going to bend over or be prepared to keep him on the list if the deal is no good.

If the Swans had Kelly and he wanted to leave with a year on his contract, you get the feeling that the club would be all like "he wants to go, and if we don't get a good deal now while we have a bit of sway, we'll get a lot less next year, so let's do a deal"
Geelong are like "you want him, you f'n pay for him or we'll make him stay for a year (unhappily) and deal with the consequences next year"
Most teams don't take too much crap. The Swans track record with trades (and dealing with the AFL trade ban etc) is very subordinate comparatively.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Of course.
Every trade is different.
But what would you do if we were offered a 4th rounder and payment of half of his salary?
You'd keep him, because the deal sucks.
At some point there is a line as to what is acceptable for him.
And St.Kilda want him and he wants the Saints.

So even though the deal is different, are the Swans going to bend over or be prepared to keep him on the list if the deal is no good.

If the Swans had Kelly and he wanted to leave with a year on his contract, you get the feeling that the club would be all like "he wants to go, and if we don't get a good deal now while we have a bit of sway, we'll get a lot less next year, so let's do a deal"
Geelong are like "you want him, you f'n pay for him or we'll make him stay for a year (unhappily) and deal with the consequences next year"
Most teams don't take too much crap. The Swans track record with trades (and dealing with the AFL trade ban etc) is very subordinate comparatively.

I’d be pissed if we accept anything less than a second rounder , and would keep him under those circumstances. I’m confident the saints will come to the party , they’d look pretty silly if they couldn’t get a trade done after committing to him so publicly. I agree we should be stronger going forward but this trade isn’t the one to play hardball on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

Of course.
Every trade is different.
But what would you do if we were offered a 4th rounder and payment of half of his salary?
You'd keep him, because the deal sucks.
At some point there is a line as to what is acceptable for him.
And St.Kilda want him and he wants the Saints.

So even though the deal is different, are the Swans going to bend over or be prepared to keep him on the list if the deal is no good.

If the Swans had Kelly and he wanted to leave with a year on his contract, you get the feeling that the club would be all like "he wants to go, and if we don't get a good deal now while we have a bit of sway, we'll get a lot less next year, so let's do a deal"
Geelong are like "you want him, you f'n pay for him or we'll make him stay for a year (unhappily) and deal with the consequences next year"
Most teams don't take too much crap. The Swans track record with trades (and dealing with the AFL trade ban etc) is very subordinate comparatively.

Unfortunately, if we took on the AFL over the trade ban, disgraceful as it was, then the vindictiveness would have been worse. Vicious power obsessed organisation, especially with Fitzpatrick in charge.

[waswan]

If we don't land anything and we have Money, keep him for another year and offload him next year
Beats bringing in fringe players, he is a Vice Captain

[707]

Unfortunately, if we took on the AFL over the trade ban, disgraceful as it was, then the vindictiveness would have been worse. Vicious power obsessed organisation, especially with Fitzpatrick in charge.

Correct, did you want to get the draw from hell for the next couple of years?

We'll get what the clubs power brokers think is correct for Hanners, if that's pick 40 and next years second then the cap space it gives us will be worth accepting that.

[Markwebbos]

If we don't land anything and we have Money, keep him for another year and offload him next year
Beats bringing in fringe players, he is a Vice Captain

1. The fact there has been talk of us paying part of his salary indicates this is trade initiated by the club to get an underperforming and expensive player off our list.

2. St Kilda appear prepared to offer him a deal similar to the one he is on at the Swans, which is way way overs for his current performance. I don’t think there is another club that would do that.

So it’s a great opportunity for the Swans. We don’t want the deal to fall over.

This is all predicated on Dan not returning to his AA form.

3. We may be able to front end current contracts to open space in our salary cap next year. Or we may have a ‘crisis’ now that losing Hanners will fix.

If he returns to his 2016 AA form next year then I would say trading him will have been a mistake.

Let’s wait and see what the next couple of weeks brings.

[Ludwig]

I'm surprised Mason Cox doesn't ask to be traded to the Dallas Cowboys. Why do so many Australians in their mid 20s need to be less than an hour from mummy?

I've been absolutely appalled this year by how the AFL has permitted the dismantling of the GC Suns and the general tolerance of allowing players to have de facto free agency even though a formal free agency process has already been negotiated and is in effect.

The AFL has become a total farce. I still want to enjoy seeing the Swans play entertaining football, but couldn't care less if we win the premiership or the wooden spoon. The equalisation program touted by AFL is a complete failure, and equity in the competition has never been worse.

[CureTheSane]

Unfortunately, if we took on the AFL over the trade ban, disgraceful as it was, then the vindictiveness would have been worse. Vicious power obsessed organisation, especially with Fitzpatrick in charge.

Yes, to a point.
To a point where they are clearly being spiteful and vindictive towards the Swans and have to wind it back.
Look at Eddie. Says whatever he wants, spite and all directed at the AFL, and they still mop the floors in front of him as he walks.

The Swans needed to want to take the trade ban as far as they could, and let the AFL know that.
They would have backed down rather than have proceedings take place for an extended period.

I'm not saying it was the wrong call in the end, but I would have liked them to have attacked, consequences and all.
Unfortunately it would have taken this for the media to start to play a more active role in exposing the true nature of the inequity.