List Mgmt. 2019 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals Thread

[dosser]

I love the way we abuse the Swans negotiators for caving in on all of these deals that we are making up.

 

[Membling]

I love the way we abuse the Swans negotiators for caving in on all of these deals that we are making up.

Eh, more so looking at our history of being walk overs

 

[DST]

Eh, more so looking at our history of being walk overs

I take it you haven’t seen today’s article on last years trading and drafting that says we are ahead on the two deals we did last year?

In the world of back dated contracts, free agency and live draft picks, you can’t base a win/loss on a deal on its own any more.

Last years work in its entirety was masterful by our list management team.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[David C]

If the alternative is some very ordinary second rounder which we won't use...

Saint's first for Joness and our second, that's pretty fair. We could then ship that for Daniher.

Saints first is pretty much guaranteed to be going to Freo in the Hill deal.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pick 5? I think you’re dreaming.

Why wouldn’t we use the second rounder?

I can actually see us trading out our 2020 first and trying to get more picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to match for Gulden and Campbell.

I'd be going for their future first for Jones & our 2020 2nd or this years second, either one.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Saints first is pretty much guaranteed to be going to Freo in the Hill deal.

2020 one then. Some useless 2nd is taking lying down, which I bet you we do as we don't prolong these trades, in this case I wish we would.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I love the way we abuse the Swans negotiators for caving in on all of these deals that we are making up.

So the Mitchell trade was a good one then? Some late first for him was bending over royally.

 

[Wayne Swan]

So the Mitchell trade was a good one then? Some late first for him was bending over royally.

It was pick 14 and we did it very quickly so we didn't get embroiled in the O'Meara trade quagmire. It was take pick 14 or see that go to GC and then having to take a future first. Bird in the hand thinking, we took less than we should but we got clear air for the balance of the trade period.

Different year, different circumstances, let's give the team credit for clever and value dealings last year and hope they get the right outcomes again this year.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It was pick 14 and we did it very quickly so we didn't get embroiled in the O'Meara trade quagmire. It was take pick 14 or see that go to GC and then having to take a future first. Bird in the hand thinking, we took less than we should but we got clear air for the balance of the trade period.

Different year, different circumstances, let's give the team credit for clever and value dealings last year and hope they get the right outcomes again this year.

We’d have been better taking the future first anyway.

 

[dosser]

So the Mitchell trade was a good one then? Some late first for him was bending over royally.

I think you completely misread my post.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think you completely misread my post.

My view is we’ve accepted way unders for a long time in trades

 

[Tedeski]

I don't put anything past this mob.

Well that's your issue not the club's because their record is pretty terrific at the trade table, especially having to deal with players eager to get home.

 

[Bandicoot]

Has Papley given any evidence/credence to the supposed fact that he wants to go back to Melbourne? If so, I haven't heard it. All I've heard is that Carlton/North want to get him. That doesn't necessarily mean he wants to go.
With four years still to go on his contract, he'll only go if the Swans are happy for him to go. We hold the whip hand here.
If we were to get pick 8 from Carlton for him, we offer that (and that alone) to Essendon for Daniher. If they say no, we say "OK, we'll pick him up next year as a free agent and you can take whatever pick the AFL think he's worth to you".
Even if it were a first round pick, it wouldn't be better than pick 8.
So it then really becomes a straight swap - Papley for Daniher. I can probably live with that. I would be extremely pissed if we were to offer Essendon anything more than that.

 

[Olian]

The club did well with the live trading last year so that we ended up getting Rowbottom after bidding on Blakey.

Easy for some to smash the club for some trades but when a player nominates a club the Swans (like all clubs) have little choice but to facilitate a trade with that designated club.

 

[HighReeve]

It was pick 14 and we did it very quickly so we didn't get embroiled in the O'Meara trade quagmire. It was take pick 14 or see that go to GC and then having to take a future first. Bird in the hand thinking, we took less than we should but we got clear air for the balance of the trade period.

Yes, woe to us had we haggled.

From a GF to winning no finals since.

Unrestricted from trading.... we brought in... no one

Lose a brownlow medal winning mid, and a premiership medal winning ruck, on top of a years worth of draft capital

and weve got

50 odd games from Hayward and Florent
1 game from Cameron, and he's out
0 from Maibaum, gone?

while Hawthorn gave us pick 14 for Mitchell, they gave St Kilda picks 7, 23 and 36 for pick 10.

but yeah so lucky..

Well that's your issue not the club's because their record is pretty terrific at the trade table, especially having to deal with players eager to get home.

It's not terrific and every team deals with players wanting out.

 

[The King!]

Been ages since anyone put buddy on the trade table

 

[BloodySwan]

Been ages since anyone put buddy on the trade table

Buddy for Daniher?

 

[dosser]

Been ages since anyone put buddy on the trade table

Need to get Parker to Essendon done first

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Wonder who the Swans player will be that doesn’t come up in discussion or rumours but suddenly wants a trade that nobody was thinking of.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Wonder who the Swans player will be that doesn’t come up in discussion or rumours but suddenly wants a trade that nobody was thinking of.

Wont be someone who is in our best 22.

 

[DST]

Lose a brownlow medal winning mid, and a premiership medal winning ruck, on top of a years worth of draft capital

and weve got

50 odd games from Hayward and Florent
1 game from Cameron, and he's out
0 from Maibaum, gone?

while Hawthorn gave us pick 14 for Mitchell, they gave St Kilda picks 7, 23 and 36 for pick 10.

but yeah so lucky..



It's not terrific and every team deals with players wanting out.

I always love a bit of re writing of history, sure Mitchel won a Brownlow after leaving us, but at the time of the trade he was a promising midfielder who had played 65 games over 5 years and was ranked as our fourth best midfielder.

Pick 14 was reasonable value for what he was rated at the time.

Just the same as someone like Jones is only worth a very late first or early second round pick at present.

If St Kilda gets more out of him and that standing improves, good on them and their development work.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sataris]

Well that's your issue not the club's because their record is pretty terrific at the trade table, especially having to deal with players eager to get home.

The definition of 'terrific' must have changed since I was at school.

Also, taking whatever another club offers regardless of the value of the trade doesn't make it 'terrific'.

God I wish I was a happy clapper. Life would be so much simpler.

 

[Opts]

It was pick 14 and we did it very quickly so we didn't get embroiled in the O'Meara trade quagmire. It was take pick 14 or see that go to GC and then having to take a future first. Bird in the hand thinking, we took less than we should but we got clear air for the balance of the trade period.

Different year, different circumstances, let's give the team credit for clever and value dealings last year and hope they get the right outcomes again this year.

Why did we need clear air? I don't recall us trading in anyone we were targeting. The clear air helped Hawthorn not us.

 

[Tedeski]

The definition of 'terrific' must have changed since I was at school.

Also, taking whatever another club offers regardless of the value of the trade doesn't make it 'terrific'.

God I wish I was a happy clapper. Life would be so much simpler.

Nothing to do with happy clapper.
Plenty to do with having to deal with things as a club, when the time comes. We obviiously had to clean up things with regards to the cap because pre trade ban & cola removal, we signed ALL our list thinking we would still have the cola. So tough decisions were made . Mitchell didn't want to be there, simple otherwise he would have stayed just like many Vic players have chosen to stay even though they were destined to be in & out of the senior team.
Langford of the Hawks stayed & was mostly played in the twos.

Our biggest mistake may still be in the making. The recruitment of Buddy. I say he has no more than 20 games left in him. Two GF losses with him taking 15% of the cap, forcing other players to take less & perhaps creating a negative feeling among some player, Mitchell being one for sure because we had no money left for him. I bet you feel that we should have taken the money off a lesser player rather then Buddy because Buddy does lots of tricks with the ball & runs & kicks lots of fun goals. . . . . . . In those 10 games he plays per year.
It's very Sydney that.

 

[Punts]

Nothing to do with happy clapper.
Plenty to do with having to deal with things as a club, when the time comes. We obviiously had to clean up things with regards to the cap because pre trade ban & cola removal, we signed ALL our list thinking we would still have the cola. So tough decisions were made . Mitchell didn't want to be there, simple otherwise he would have stayed just like many Vic players have chosen to stay even though they were destined to be in & out of the senior team.
Langford of the Hawks stayed & was mostly played in the twos.

Our biggest mistake may still be in the making. The recruitment of Buddy. I say he has no more than 20 games left in him. Two GF losses with him taking 15% of the cap, forcing other players to take less & perhaps creating a negative feeling among some player, Mitchell being one for sure because we had no money left for him. I bet you feel that we should have taken the money off a lesser player rather then Buddy because Buddy does lots of tricks with the ball & runs & kicks lots of fun goals. . . . . . . In those 10 games he plays per year.
It's very Sydney that.

Tippett by far imo

You don’t pay a million for a bloke that wasn’t even A grade at the time. The clause was just absurd paying him that much