Page 337 of 418 FirstFirst ... 237287327333334335336337338339340341347387 ... LastLast
Results 4,033 to 4,044 of 5008

Thread: 2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

  1. #4033
    Quote Originally Posted by longmile View Post
    Fixed
    Haha, you beat me to it. Bulldogs are the exception. They arsed it thanks to incompetent or corrupt umpiring.

  2. #4034
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Sun View Post
    Thats a fantastic article.

    The big question is whether we can stay healthy and injury-free. Important for any club of course, but more important for the current Swans list - we lack depth as young players are still maturing. He also makes a valid point about the future of our young bloods, Longmire seems to be forming the core of a Swans team built for the next decade. Kind of reminds me of the Hawthorn core from 2008-2015 - heres hoping we're just as successful!
    Except that Hawthorn had a team loaded with top 5 draft picks from a number of years of being terrible as well as tanking.

  3. #4035
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by rb4x View Post

    All this is predicated on the Swans following through on what Beatson said in that they will take Blakey plus three in the 2018 draft. Having 38, 39 and 40 which will become 37, 38 and 39 is nice as the club does not need to antagonise over what order they are taken which would be the situation if another club had an intervening pick. Blakey and the first three picks in in round three is quite a nice position.
    A lot can happen with open slather on trading picks, but if things stand as it is now, and Blakey goes at pick 7 or later, then our 3 late picks will actually drop to at least 39-40-41, because Quaynor and Thomas will get matched by Collingwood and North, respectively, with picks after our pick 40, so everyone will drop down 2 slots. But we could move back up to our starting postion if Rhylee West goes to the Buildogs at higher than pick 18, which will be a close one.

    Even if Blakey gets bid at pick 6 we should only drop back 3 spots at most with our current pick 40 as several Collingwood and North picks will have dropped out due to academy bid matching.

    I initially feared that there might be some malicious bidding when the system was first introduced, because the introduction of the system came in a the toxic environment of punishing the Swans for getting Mils after getting Heeney the year before. But now I see that the list managers form a rather collegial group and are not out to hurt any of their mates, which could lead to retribution down the line. This is why I doubt Blakey will be bid before Pick 7, which is around the consensus of where he should go. If anything, he might drop a few spots. We have a good relationship with both Saint Kilda and GCS who haves picks 4 and 6, and Port is known to want to get a South Australian, which will probably be either Rankine or Rozee, so bidding on Blakey at pick 5 would look malicious.

    Now that the Mills' draft is history, I hear there is pressure to change the value points curve to a flatten out the top, which would make it closer the HPN system. Now that Victorian clubs, like Collingwood and North also have academies, they may also get punished by a system designed just to punish the Swans, and we can't have that, can we now?

    I probaby made some computation errors. There was too much calculating to work out everything in your head withoug making some mistakes, especially if you're stoned (just saying hypothetically, of course).

  4. #4036
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Yep - we are stuffed if we have any reasonable number of injuries, and it could get ugly if there are a lot of injuries and our biggest names are among them. But with a decent run and more development from the younger players, it can be OK.
    I don't think our depth is all that big a problem. I tried to come up with the best team without either the 4 2019 out of contract over 30s, Macca, Reg, Smith and Jack, or the draftees from 2017 and 2018, McCartin, Ling, Stoddart and Blakey. So can we field a good team missing 8 decent players from both ends of the age demographic? Here it is:


    FB: Thurlow, Melican, Aliir
    HB: O'Riordan, Rampe, Lloyd
    C: Mills, Kennedy, Jones
    R: Cameron, Parker, Heeney
    HF: Hayward, Reid, Dawson
    FF: Ronke, Franklin, Papley
    INT: Florent, Cunningham, Clarke, Hewett

    There's also Naismith and Sinclair not included. So if a club can go into the season with 32 players probably good enough to play AFL football, then it must have some decent depth. It doesn't mean that the club is necessarily even good enought to make the eight, but it does mean that we should be able to select a competitve side if they go out and play solid, hard and spirited footy.

  5. #4037
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    A lot can happen with open slather on trading picks, but if things stand as it is now, and Blakey goes at pick 7 or later, then our 3 late picks will actually drop to at least 39-40-41, because Quaynor and Thomas will get matched by Collingwood and North, respectively, with picks after our pick 40, so everyone will drop down 2 slots. But we could move back up to our starting postion if Rhylee West goes to the Buildogs at higher than pick 18, which will be a close one.
    I've seen one phantom draft that had our picks 38-40 landing up past the 50 mark due to the number of FS and academy players taken beforehand. Blakey and Thomas have had most of the attention but there are quite a lot of potential priority access players available to clubs this year. I suspect not as many will be bid upon in the first 40 or so picks as this phantom drafter assumed, but as well as the two mentioned, plus West and Quaynor, there are players like Cameron, Scott, Brownless, Kelly, McFayden, Briggs, Khamis. Predictions of where most of these players will be bid upon seem to vary wildly.

  6. #4038
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I've seen one phantom draft that had our picks 38-40 landing up past the 50 mark due to the number of FS and academy players taken beforehand. Blakey and Thomas have had most of the attention but there are quite a lot of potential priority access players available to clubs this year. I suspect not as many will be bid upon in the first 40 or so picks as this phantom drafter assumed, but as well as the two mentioned, plus West and Quaynor, there are players like Cameron, Scott, Brownless, Kelly, McFayden, Briggs, Khamis. Predictions of where most of these players will be bid upon seem to vary wildly.
    I tried to consider those players most likely to get bids before pick 38. Quaynor and Thomas has to drop back everyone after their matched bids because the first selection either Collingwood or North has is pick 41, so there's no extra caluculating to do, as far as our picks are concerned. Rhylee West is the one that could affect us because he's in the range where the Bulldogs might have to use 2 of their 2nd round picks to match the bid. I didn't consider Khamis, but he is also likely to get a bid before the Bulldogs second 2nd round pick, and if that happens, then it's wash, with the Bulldogs using both second round picks for their 2 priority selection players.

    It doesn't really matter if we drop back a slot or 2 if it arises due to a matched bid in the 1st 2 rounds for players that shouldn't get drafted before the 3rd round. Who cares if say Collingwood uses picks in the 50s to match a bid on Kelly at pick 35, and we drop back a slot as a result. It has no effective impact as it's really a 3rd round quality player getting picked early using 3rd round picks. Another wash.

    I have no idea how much pick trading will eventuate. If there is a lot, it could have an impact. It will interesting to see the first go around this year.

  7. #4039
    Senior Player sharp9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cust, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck'n'Roll View Post
    Indeed, our recent history suggests it's not a great route for us.


    I hope that is still true of the Swans, it certainly was in the past) - but I think we can only assume/hope it still applies today (actual evidence will only emerge with the passage of time).


    A good positive piece, although the publication date makes it look a little post-facto.



    On a less sombre note, regarding the midfield, I sometimes think there's a self fulfilling meme that anyone good should end up in the midfield. There's been lots of talk about freeing up Jones and Mills for the midfield.

    I love the way Jones plays the wing, and hope he is released from the backline permanently. He reminds me so much of Stewie Maxfield. The both play/ed with such fury and vigour, even the same excessive-enthusiasm-induced-clangers. If only he wasn't bald, tattooed and lacking an exaggerated ball drop . . . it'd be uncanny.

    On the other hand, from his very first season, I have always thought Mills bore an remarkable resemblance to Johnny Rantall in the way he plays, do any other old timers see it?
    If the midfield thing doesn't work out, perhaps the coaches should consider him as backline general/quarterback and think of moving Lloyed upfield.
    In our case, though, the problem is our midfield. We got destroyed all year in the inside 50 count. If we win that stat we win the game (well about 90%) of the time. So that's what we need to fix (primarily) and that's why we need maximum talent in the midfield. Hopefully all those coaches are as aware of this as I am
    "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

  8. #4040
    After Blakey, picks 37,38 and 40 are not really worth much. If you get one 100 gamer out of that lot, you're doing well.
    I hope we upgrade those to a 20's pick

  9. #4041
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    After Blakey, picks 37,38 and 40 are not really worth much. If you get one 100 gamer out of that lot, you're doing well.
    I hope we upgrade those to a 20's pick
    That’s a pretty bold statement Bazza. Got any evidence to back it up?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I’m thinking of players in this years team taken around that mark or as rookies.

  10. #4042
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    That’s a pretty bold statement Bazza. Got any evidence to back it up?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I’m thinking of players in this years team taken around that mark or as rookies.
    Our record with pick 40+ is pretty good I think it’s our 1st & 2nd rounders that struggle a bit more I’d suggest

  11. #4043
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    After Blakey, picks 37,38 and 40 are not really worth much. If you get one 100 gamer out of that lot, you're doing well.
    I hope we upgrade those to a 20's pick
    There's a few things wrong with that observation / suggestion.

    If picks 38-40 (as we currently hold) "are not really worth much", why would any other club trade a pick in the 20s in exchange?

    If picks in that range "are really not worth much", why do clubs continue to draft players with picks at that range, and much later in the draft (including into the rookie draft)? Clubs would have very short lists if they never drafted players beyond pick 35 or so (or wherever the cut-off for them to be valuable is deemed to be).

    If picks in that range really weren't worth much, there are an awful lot of players who've carved out good careers for the Swans (and other teams) who shouldn't even have been drafted. From our current list (just looking at those who've played a more than a handful of senior games) that includes Luke Parker, Heath Grundy, Kieren Jack, Nick Smith, Jake Lloyd, Tom Papley, Ben Ronke, Lewis Melican, Dane Rampe, Aliir Aliir, Callum Sinclair (via West Coast), and Sam Naismith.

    And notable recent past players who would never have got their chance include Micky O'Loughlin, Adam Goodes, Ryan O'Keefe, Nick Malceski, Brett Kirk, Marty Mattner (via Adelaide), Adam Schneider, Amon Buchanan etc etc

  12. #4044
    Still waiting for a few words about Ling, the club speaks more about Stoddard.
    I know one played and one didnt but one is also a pick in the 50s which is typically not spoken about with regard to seniors

    If he is a flop at 14 gonna be hard to convince me what KB can do with picks in the 40s

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