2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Ralph Dawg]

A KPD would be at the bottom of my list of possible draftees. Granted, we have a lot to sort our with our KPDs, but we have so many, the answer surely exists in the team already. Gould is big enough to play KPD and I expect he will be a good player. Kaiden Brand looked okay until he got injured. Melican has a ways to go, but he's had injury interruptions the past couple of years. I'd like to see him get some more time to develop. We don't know if we will ever see Maibaum, and O'Connor looks a promising prospect. McCartin and Reid can also play in defence. That's 7 candidates to fill 1 or 2 spots.

There's still a lot to play out before draft decisions can be made with the Daniher saga yet to play out. But my inclinations at this moment in time would be to, in this order:

1. Down trade our first rounder to GC for Peter Wright.
2. Down trade our first rounder to Richmond for Mabior Chol.
3. Try to recruit Braden Preuss with a 2nd or 3rd rounder and select either Thilthorpe or Hollands with pick 2.

What do you mean by down trade Ludwig?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

In the case of Sier, he is built like a bull (even bigger than Josh).

WTF? He's 3 cm taller, and 9 kg lighter.
In any case size isn't everything, if it was Andrew Bomford would have been in the Swans team of the century.

[Ludwig]

What do you mean by down trade Ludwig?

If we have pick 2 and GC have pick 9, for example, we swap picks. That nets GC around 1000 points or around a pick 16 or 17. So effectively we would be giving GC a late 1st rounder for Peter Wright, which seems okay to me. Pick 9 would be a good pick to use for Campbell, if he's bid early. There may be other compensation involved depending on pick positions and other factors, but trading down the draft order to get a player we need to fill the void left by Naismith is the goal.

I figure we don't take more than 3 picks in the draft: Campbell, Gulden, and whatever happens with our early first rounder, whether it be a live pick or trade.

[Ludwig]

A rethink may be needed regarding traditional thinking of what it takes to be a good on-baller. It's worth looking at how well skinny little Shai Bolton is doing since being moved on ball for Richmond.

The most important thing is to win the ball and move it on quickly. This is not necessarily done by brute strength. BTW, I think the Swans do have a physical presence in the middle and it's not something we need more of. Chad Warner looks like a bull already. Rowbottom is very solid.

[Ralph Dawg]

If we have pick 2 and GC have pick 9, for example, we swap picks. That nets GC around 1000 points or around a pick 16 or 17. So effectively we would be giving GC a late 1st rounder for Peter Wright, which seems okay to me. Pick 9 would be a good pick to use for Campbell, if he's bid early. There may be other compensation involved depending on pick positions and other factors, but trading down the draft order to get a player we need to fill the void left by Naismith is the goal.

I figure we don't take more than 3 picks in the draft: Campbell, Gulden, and whatever happens with our early first rounder, whether it be a live pick or trade.

So we get 9 and Wright, GC get 2 and 16/17? If that was to play out, wouldn't mind that all.
Many on here have said not to fiddle with pick 2 and use it to get the best player in the draft. I don't subscribe to this. This year's draft is compromised by so many NGA, father/sons and the lack of under age games to view prospective draftees. If we can split 2 to get a more known quantity, then draft in Campbell and Gulden, both very well known to us, then that could be a better option in this very different year (in so many ways!).

[Markwebbos]

If we have pick 2 and GC have pick 9, for example, we swap picks. That nets GC around 1000 points or around a pick 16 or 17. So effectively we would be giving GC a late 1st rounder for Peter Wright, which seems okay to me. Pick 9 would be a good pick to use for Campbell, if he's bid early. There may be other compensation involved depending on pick positions and other factors, but trading down the draft order to get a player we need to fill the void left by Naismith is the goal.

I figure we don't take more than 3 picks in the draft: Campbell, Gulden, and whatever happens with our early first rounder, whether it be a live pick or trade.

Giving up pick 2 for Peter Wright, even if we get pick 9 in return, would be madness.

[MattW]

Surely we're taking pick 2 to the draft. This is a (hopefully) rare shot at elite talent. I'm sure we can nab Peter Wright for less, if we want him.

[AB Swannie]

There's still a lot to play out before draft decisions can be made with the Daniher saga yet to play out. But my inclinations at this moment in time would be to, in this order:

1. Down trade our first rounder to GC for Peter Wright.
2. Down trade our first rounder to Richmond for Mabior Chol.
3. Try to recruit Braden Preuss with a 2nd or 3rd rounder and select either Thilthorpe or Hollands with pick 2.

Ludwig, you have suggested downgrading our pick 2 a few times including here for Chol or Wright. Depending on finishing positions that would equate to anywhere between pick 8-15 in points value. Normally, that would get you a top 10 player from another club. Wright can’t get a game at the Suns and Chol is fringe. I’m interested in your reasoning here.


Don’t get me wrong, I like both players but I can’t see the value in paying that much for a fringe tall. I’d rather draft best available (Phillips, Hollands, Thilthorpe, McDonald in that order).

[Ludwig]

So we get 9 and Wright, GC get 2 and 16/17? If that was to play out, wouldn't mind that all.

GC would only get pick 2. The swap nets out to the equivalent of giving a pick 16 or 17 for Peter Wright.

Giving up pick 2 for Peter Wright, even if we get pick 9 in return, would be madness.

Madness for GC or Sydney?

Wright went for pick 8 in the 2014 draft. I think he's worth a last 1st rounder. And he's the kind of player we need.

I don't like the options available early in the draft this year. Ugle-Hagan would be great, but he's tied to the Dog via NGA. I like Thiltorpe, but he'll probably go to the Crows. In any case. it takes a good few years to develop a ruckman. We need one now. In fact, either Wright or Chol look better to me than any of the draft options at pick 2, even though it would seem paying overs.

We are already getting 2 of the best midfielders in the draft in Campbell and Gulden. We can'\ take another one. There's just no way to push them through the system. We would just be creating a situation where we lose good players for lack of opportunity.

I believe the best use of a high first rounder this year is to use it to fill the hole left by the injury to Naismith. We have plenty of depth at all other positions.

Probable list size reductions will make it hard to recruit many players over the next 2 years, especially for the Swans who won't have many, if any, retirements.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Giving up pick 2 for Peter Wright, even if we get pick 9 in return, would be madness.

Agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aardvark]

Giving up pick 2 for Peter Wright, even if we get pick 9 in return, would be madness.

Agree too. The bloke can't get a run for GC. A third rounder should do the trade.

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, you have suggested downgrading our pick 2 a few times including here for Chol or Wright. Depending on finishing positions that would equate to anywhere between pick 8-15 in points value. Normally, that would get you a top 10 player from another club. Wright can’t get a game at the Suns and Chol is fringe. I’m interested in your reasoning here.


Don’t get me wrong, I like both players but I can’t see the value in paying that much for a fringe tall. I’d rather draft best available (Phillips, Hollands, Thilthorpe, McDonald in that order).

Wright can't get a game because Witts is too good a ruckman and there's no place to fit him into the forward line with King and Day. Fringe or not, Chol is the kind of player we need. He's tall and athletic and a good kick. He's a true forward/ruck with a lot of upside. He's become a regular in the Richmond side of late and doing a pretty good job for a 17 gamer. Wright and Chol are both 23yo, the perfect demographic for the Swans, and ready to play now.

I am saying that I would be willing to give up the equivalent of a late 1st rounder for either, but if we can do better trade, then naturally that would be better. I think Wright should be gettable. I'm not sure about Chol. Richmond must like what they see, so if there is an asking price, it's likely to be higher than we would like to pay.

I don't think we should go into next season with Sinclair as our number 1 ruck option. It may cost us to do something about it.