2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[liz]

Can I go back to this to ask someone who knows - I have no clue on such matters - what does it actually mean that we have "sought and received permission to audition" these three players? Does it mean, for example, that we have exclusive access to taking them onto our rookie list, or just what is the significance?

The leads different posters have given suggest that they would all certainly be worth an audition.

It just means that they're training with us so the club can have a look at them. Clearly it signals an interest in them but not necessarily priority access to them.

You have to ask permission from the AFL to have non-listed players train so other clubs get a signal that you are interested in them. It stops clubs having a secret look at smokies. And they have to be overage - you can't invite the standard draftees to train with you, though presumably Blakey could as a member of the academy (and maybe other academy players too - I'm not sure if there are any restrictions on them).

It sounds like Blair might qualify as a Cat B rookie. I don't know the exact parameters. Usually this means they haven't been registered in an official Australian Rules league for the past three years. Blair has (the article says he played with UNSW this year) so maybe there is a little leeway. The article certainly suggests he could be a Cat B rookie. If so, this means he can sign directly with the club (if he wishes) without going through the draft. You've probably seen various articles in recent months about other clubs signing Irishmen and basketballers as Cat B rookies.

Although the Swans don't have priority access to Maguire and Baker prior to the National Draft, it is possible they can sign them before the rookie draft if they go through the ND and PSD undrafted. Again, I am not 100% sure of the rules but the fact they are NSW boys who played in NSW in 2018 (if you loosely categorise the ACT as part of NSW) means they might qualify. Certainly we can preselect (in the rookie draft) any academy players who make it through the ND undrafted. But access seems to be a little broader than just our academy. Both Harry Cunningham and Sam Fisher were taken as priority rookies in their respective years, even though both were in the Giants' academy, not the Swans. Of course, this means the Giants had passed on them.

Maguire has garnered a little attention beyond the shores of NSW/ACT after winning the NEAFL RS award in 2018, and coming 4th in the overall MVP award. So there's maybe some chance he could be taken in the ND. There's possibly some chance, too, for Baker but probably a much lower one.

Maguire is, by the way, an ex-Giants academy player, while Baker is an ex-Swans academy player.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Interesting that GWS have 7 Academy names; Brisbane 5; Suns 3; Swans 2.
I understand the lists are not official ....
But says something

It says that the AFL screwed us over when they allocated the zones in order to look after their favourite baby.

[liz]

It says that the AFL screwed us over when they allocated the zones in order to look after their favourite baby.

The Giants' zones were more advanced (in terms of how ingrained AFL was/is) but I think the Swans' zones are catching up fairly quickly. I believe there are more Swans players in the recently announced U17 and U18 AFL Academy squads for 2019 than Giants players, and a few more Swans players a little unlucky to miss out.

We also benefit from the handful of players we have drafted being true locals - really just Heeney and Mills at this stage but with a few more to join them in the next few seasons (I suspect). I reckon having Heeney and Mills play for their local team does more to inspire other kids in the non-traditional regions than Setterfield, Kennedy, Steele and Hopper have done for the Giants' aligned zones (noting that the first three of those are no longer even with the Giants). Hopefully Nicholas Shipley can do something to inspire kids actually in western Sydney.


And while that BF page listed a lot of academy players available to the Giants in this year's draft, I think it mostly reflects that whoever compiled the list knew more about the Giants players than the Swans ones. Of those, only Briggs looks a ND certainty this year.

[Bloody Hell]

I have an idea regarding the draft that I'm going to throw out there.

I have always seen a problem with the bidding system for F/S and Academy players, clubs bidding for players they know will be matched at an earlier point then they would otherwise have been selected, giving clubs the ability to disadvantage other clubs. For example, would Melbourne have bid for Mills at 3 if they didn't know the Swans were going to take him (they may very well have).

I'm sure clubs have been warned against this by the AFL behind closed doors, but marginal calls are always made.

To make this completely transparent, how about if AFL introduced that the club with the rights to that player could choose to match the pick rather than to take the player, with the selected player going to the selecting club with the following pick.

For example, it is accepted by most that Blakey will go around Pick 9. Say Carlton selected him with Pick 1. The Swans have the option of matching their bid using the points system and add Blakey to the list, OR matching the bid and taking the number 1 pick, with Blakey going to Carlton as the number 2 pick.

This is an extreme example, but consider someone who is worth pick 20 who is picked at 8. I don't know if you can ever stop shenanigans, but I would be comfortable the players were picked at market value.

[Odysseus]

It just means that they're training with us so the club can have a look at them. Clearly it signals an interest in them but not necessarily priority access to them.

You have to ask permission from the AFL to have non-listed players train so other clubs get a signal that you are interested in them. It stops clubs having a secret look at smokies. And they have to be overage - you can't invite the standard draftees to train with you, though presumably Blakey could as a member of the academy (and maybe other academy players too - I'm not sure if there are any restrictions on them).

It sounds like Blair might qualify as a Cat B rookie. I don't know the exact parameters. Usually this means they haven't been registered in an official Australian Rules league for the past three years. Blair has (the article says he played with UNSW this year) so maybe there is a little leeway. The article certainly suggests he could be a Cat B rookie. If so, this means he can sign directly with the club (if he wishes) without going through the draft. You've probably seen various articles in recent months about other clubs signing Irishmen and basketballers as Cat B rookies.

Although the Swans don't have priority access to Maguire and Baker prior to the National Draft, it is possible they can sign them before the rookie draft if they go through the ND and PSD undrafted. Again, I am not 100% sure of the rules but the fact they are NSW boys who played in NSW in 2018 (if you loosely categorise the ACT as part of NSW) means they might qualify. Certainly we can preselect (in the rookie draft) any academy players who make it through the ND undrafted. But access seems to be a little broader than just our academy. Both Harry Cunningham and Sam Fisher were taken as priority rookies in their respective years, even though both were in the Giants' academy, not the Swans. Of course, this means the Giants had passed on them.

Maguire has garnered a little attention beyond the shores of NSW/ACT after winning the NEAFL RS award in 2018, and coming 4th in the overall MVP award. So there's maybe some chance he could be taken in the ND. There's possibly some chance, too, for Baker but probably a much lower one.

Maguire is, by the way, an ex-Giants academy player, while Baker is an ex-Swans academy player.

With thanks, liz, I thought you'd be all over it. So Blair, if I understand correctly, we might be able to get without other clubs having a chance? Of the three, he seemed perhaps the most interesting, in that getting a ruckman who has a competitive attitude would be particularly valuable, even if as a longer-term project.

[MattW]

Not Townsend apparently: Flag hero likely to remain a Tiger after Swans cool interest - AFL.com.au.

[liz]

With thanks, liz, I thought you'd be all over it. So Blair, if I understand correctly, we might be able to get without other clubs having a chance? Of the three, he seemed perhaps the most interesting, in that getting a ruckman who has a competitive attitude would be particularly valuable, even if as a longer-term project.

Might. As I said above, I'm completely relying on what it says in the article about him in terms of whether he qualifies as a Cat B rookie.

Other clubs can still get in his ear and try to persuade him to join them - these players don't go through the draft but can agree to join whoever they want to join. But the Swans certainly seem to have a big head start with him.

[liz]

I have an idea regarding the draft that I'm going to throw out there.

I have always seen a problem with the bidding system for F/S and Academy players, clubs bidding for players they know will be matched at an earlier point then they would otherwise have been selected, giving clubs the ability to disadvantage other clubs. For example, would Melbourne have bid for Mills at 3 if they didn't know the Swans were going to take him (they may very well have).

I'm sure clubs have been warned against this by the AFL behind closed doors, but marginal calls are always made.

To make this completely transparent, how about if AFL introduced that the club with the rights to that player could choose to match the pick rather than to take the player, with the selected player going to the selecting club with the following pick.

For example, it is accepted by most that Blakey will go around Pick 9. Say Carlton selected him with Pick 1. The Swans have the option of matching their bid using the points system and add Blakey to the list, OR matching the bid and taking the number 1 pick, with Blakey going to Carlton as the number 2 pick.

This is an extreme example, but consider someone who is worth pick 20 who is picked at 8. I don't know if you can ever stop shenanigans, but I would be comfortable the players were picked at market value.

I think you're trying to come up with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Or at least one for which there is no evidence that it exists.

One of the major justifications of the Northern Academy system is that it will eventually help even out the disparity of local representation on lists suffered by the four northern clubs. Giving the clubs the choice of opting out of drafting their nominated players and taking the pick instead does nothing to achieve that end.

There's no evidence, thus far, of clubs bidding unfairly. I did raise a bit of an eyebrow when Melbourne bid on Mills at number three but only because he'd missed so much football in his final u18 year. Those players are rarely taken as high as their talent suggests. But the bid came from Melbourne, where Roos was coach. I don't find it that hard to believe Roos really did rate Mills as highly as that. He had coached him for several years, and Mills was good friends with one or both of Roos' sons. And then when Mills comes out and wins the RS award in his first season, it's pretty hard to mount a convincing argument that he was drafted too high.

Also remember that host clubs have the benefit of a 20% discount on the points required to match a bid, which, among other purposes, provides some protection against an unfairly high bid. Plus they always have the choice of not matching and leaving the bidding club to take the player if they don't believe the cost is warranted. The Swans have shown their hand this year by trading out of the first round (as they did a few years back with Mills) but it was their choice to do so. No-one forced them to. And in doing so, they were able to boost their points tally by around 600 points, thus getting a bit more protection.

[Bloody Hell]

Also remember that host clubs have the benefit of a 20% discount on the points required to match a bid, which, among other purposes, provides some protection against an unfairly high bid. Plus they always have the choice of not matching and leaving the bidding club to take the player if they don't believe the cost is warranted. The Swans have shown their hand this year by trading out of the first round (as they did a few years back with Mills) but it was their choice to do so. No-one forced them to. And in doing so, they were able to boost their points tally by around 600 points, thus getting a bit more protection.

I agree it is a hypothetical, but even Dunkley (I believe the only case of not matching) went high for where he was touted to go. And Heeney at #2 - he wasn't in that conversation? From my own draft observations, if Blakey goes at 9 or higher I will be surprised.

The highlighted part of your quote is the crux of the thought. With the current setup, if Blakey was picked at #1, we would match it. He's better than anything we would get if we waited till our next pick (even before trading our first pick), I think we would have to use future picks to match? disadvantaging the Swans in this draft and future drafts.

[liz]

I agree it is a hypothetical, but even Dunkley (I believe the only case of not matching) went high for where he was touted to go. And Heeney at #2 - he wasn't in that conversation? From my own draft observations, if Blakey goes at 9 or higher I will be surprised.

The highlighted part of your quote is the crux of the thought. With the current setup, if Blakey was picked at #1, we would match it. He's better than anything we would get if we waited till our next pick (even before trading our first pick), I think we would have to use future picks to match? disadvantaging the Swans in this draft and future drafts.

Dunkley is the only player thus far that the Swans haven't matched a bid on but there have been plenty of players aligned to other academies for whom bids haven't been matched. I'm not sure on what basis you think he was bid upon higher than expected. He was touted as a top ten choice after his U17 year, but fell a bit after carrying injuries throughout his final U18 year. I reckon the Bulldogs had an inkling the Swans might not match that bid, suggesting they bid on him where they wanted him.

Heeney isn't relevant to the conversation because he was taken under an old bidding system. We just had to give up our next pick regardless of where he was bid upon. There were no points back then.

As for the rest, until Carlton does bid on Blakey with pick one it's just hypothetical. I don't think it's a given that the Swans would match a bid there but it's certainly possible they would. We can't know, and I suspect we'll never know because it's highly unlikely that Carlton will be upon him with the first pick.

[AB Swannie]

I have to agree with Liz. We are jumping at shadows. There has been no real evidence of clubs making malicious bids. Even in all the draft redos, Mills is ranked in the top 5 -10 players so 3 wasn't too much of a stretch even with the wonder of hindsight. Just be thankful that we get Blakey and move on.

[barry]

I have to agree with Liz. We are jumping at shadows. There has been no real evidence of clubs making malicious bids. Even in all the draft redos, Mills is ranked in the top 5 -10 players so 3 wasn't too much of a stretch even with the wonder of hindsight. Just be thankful that we get Blakey and move on.

I remember Mills got a lot of hype before he was drafted. Better than Henney they were saying, and we got Heenney for a bargain.
I wonder if the hype was artificially inflated because he was seen as the next academy steel. Perhaps a little skulldugery there. He hasnt shown anything to indicate hes a top 10 player yet, certainly not a 3.