Ugle-Hagan
MacDonald
Hollands
Thilthorpe
Phillips
Other: Please specify
If you calculate the number of points we may need, we would come up about 500 points short. Splitting pick 22 won't provide enough to cover such a shortfall. Furthermore, the first round already goes out to pick 19, and the first round will extend further by the time picks are matched on Ugle-Hagan, Campbell and maybe one or two other players. It's not hard to see the first round going as far as pick 22 (and our pick 22 would go out to pick 25).
If we end up with a deficit by matching a pick at the end of such a bloated first round, that would come off next year's first-round pick. If we end up with pick 5 next year, such a deficit would push our first round pick down the draft by about 1 spot for every 100 points.
Our points-bearing picks after pick 3 are 22 (845), 54 (220), 56 (194) total: 1259 points.
A hypothetical draft situation:
* Campbell is bid on at pick 10 (1395 points). We match, and that costs us 1116 points. Pick 22 and pick 54 get used up, and 51 points comes off pick 56 that moves down to about pick 61. We have 143 points left.
* Gulden is bid on at pick 24 (785 points). We match, that costs us 628 points. Having only 143 points left, we end up with a 485-point deficit. If pick 24 is a second-round pick, our 2021 second-round pick moves about 24 places down the draft towards the end of the third round.
* If Gulden is bid on only a couple of picks earlier, that will be with a first-round pick. Such a points deficit will mean we won't be drafting next year until about pick 12 or so. Next year's draft is a strong draft. Compromising our draft hand in such a draft isn't a good idea.
This is why splitting pick 3 may be considered. It's an insurance policy. We would be trading down in this year's draft to minimise the risk of being forced down next year's draft.
Other options are possible, and IMO are much preferable. Like everyone else, I would like to see us take pick 3 to the draft, but it's important to know that we currently lack the points to recruit pick 3, Campbell and Gulden where they are likely to go in the draft.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
If we know that the next years draft is strong ... then we give away one future 3rd rounder next year and take one 3rd rounder this year. This can be decided on the draft night after Campbell bid. That should be probably be enough to hold on to our first round draft pick next year. But going by the vision on highlights, I would be surprised if Campbell drifts down to 10. He looks amazing.
Amongst the midfielders - looking at the vision, I thought Finlay Macrae looks very good - composed, good vision and good kicking. We dont necessarily need someone like him given we have Justin McInerney and Dylan Stephens in similar mould.
Will Phillips to me looked a bit one dimensional, get in there and good hand ball based again only on 2 min Highlights
If we are reluctant to choose Elijah, then may be go for Tanner Bruhn or Finlay than Will Phillips.
Elijah Hollands would be an upgrade replacement for Elijah Taylor. Would he takeover the number 37?
When Dylan Stephens was drafted, I recall one of his parents saying, that he was a good kid and that they'd never really had an angry word with him. Which sounded truly remarkable to me (I assume that it's true). So, given that record of behaviour, perhaps the club should ask young Dylan, if he wants to swap to 37? That would probably keep the number controversy free, for around ten years or so.
When I wrote my hypothetical Campbell-Gulden draft to demonstrate the need for more draft points, I felt that I was being a little conservative with my estimates of where Campbell and Gulden might go in the draft.
If you go by the Draft Central power rankings for September, Campbell is ranked at #7, Gulden outside the first 25. Back in March, ESPN's Draft Power rankings had them at #19 and #20. AFL.com.au's more recent (July) article 25 top prospects rated Campbell as a "possible top-10 selection", Gulden also made this list. I based my conservative assessment most closely on the AFL.com.au's list.
Swapping 3rd-round picks is an approach, but it may not be enough. I'm guessing that we may end up trading out some young players for draft picks.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
If the Swans decide to split pick 3, it will be remembered up there with Horse's decision to use Mark Seaby as the sub in the first game the rule came in, an absolute disaster.
We haven't had a top 3 pick for over a decade, you don't palm them off for a hypothetical
Ronke, Stoddart, Ling, O'Riordan, Brand, Foot, Thurlow, Clarke plus ?E Taylor! ET has a contract and I am not sure he can be delisted that easily. Remember M Talia.
We need to remove at least five of the above players from our list to make room for replacements and list reductions. Which of them could we trade for draft points. I suspect there is very little value to other clubs in any of them. Most clubs will be in a similar situation to the Swans and will show little interest in our list cloggers.
Unfortunately our worst list cloggers, Sam Gray and Squizzy have contracts and are likely to stay.
I'm pretty sure that a player can be sacked if they commit a felony, but not certain.
I don't think any of the players in your post will be delisted, although some may be traded or moved to the rookie list.
What's wrong with delisting Knoll, Maibaum, Reynolds and Rowles?
McLean and Amartey are vulnerable to delisting as well, depending on who we pick up in trades. Naismith could be manipulated into retirement, or at the very least moved to the rookie list.
Only COR is contracted for 2021. The other 7 can opt for rookie listing commitment in lieu of delisting. We still don't know what the list structure and sizes will be for next year, so not clear what the options will be.
Exactly - no way should we split such a high pick when the benefit just evaporates into matching the academy bids.
And even if the net benefit was an extra pick or two in the second round after matching bids on Campbell and Gulden, in such an uncertain draft we’d be gambling - perhaps pick up a bargain but could also end up with a couple of busts.
If we’ve cooled on Daniher I’d say it would be because either we like one of the talls in the top end of the draft who are now accessible given we finished so low, or we have another ready made target (maybe both).
My preference would be a gun midfielder but I’m warming to one of the talls if Kinnear and co rate them highly enough.
If we don’t go for a tall I like the look of Bruhn, he will be a very good player.
I think the cooling on Daniher ( if that’s correct ) would be due to the reluctance to splash big dollars on a guy who’s body has a big question make over it. We’ve just paid Buddy millions for ten games over two years, don’t need Joe taking 800k plus for 6 games a year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bookmarks