List Mgmt. 2019 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals Thread

[Ticky009]

Why?

Well, I don’t exactly know. But if the article said we would use picks and players then maybe we move Hayward on. Either to Essendon or Adelaide.

Do I think it’s a good move? Hell no. But just thinking out loud.

 

[SSwans2011]

Well, I don’t exactly know. But if the article said we would use picks and players then maybe we move Hayward on. Either to Essendon or Adelaide.

Do I think it’s a good move? Hell no. But just thinking out loud.

Then short answer: no.

Long answer: unless Hayward requests a trade, no.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Swans injury list R1 2020

Franklin (hamstring) 3 weeks
Daniher (groin) 6 weeks
Bennell (calf) indefinite
Reid (quad) 4 weeks
Ling (foot) indefinite

Makes for an expensive, but sadly predictable list.

 

[Edmund hunt]

Swans injury list R1 2020

Franklin (hamstring) 3 weeks
Daniher (groin) 6 weeks
Bennell (calf) indefinite
Reid (quad) 4 weeks
Ling (foot) indefinite

Makes for an expensive, but sadly predictable list.

Reids injuries may be behind him after playing every game this year.

 

[Superstar swan]

Im holding on to hopw that this year was a one off for buddy. They held off on surgery until the last minute this year and it put him too far back in his preparation.. sounds like they are getting surgeries done asap so should get a full pre season under his belt

 

[RUNVS]

Im holding on to hopw that this year was a one off for buddy. They held off on surgery until the last minute this year and it put him too far back in his preparation.. sounds like they are getting surgeries done asap so should get a full pre season under his belt

I agree with that. Buddy got no pre-season due to the medical staff leaving his surgery so late and as we all know players who do not get a proper preseason are more susceptible to injury.

 

[The Gong]

Swans injury list R1 2020

Franklin (hamstring) 3 weeks
Daniher (groin) 6 weeks
Bennell (calf) indefinite
Reid (quad) 4 weeks
Ling (foot) indefinite

Makes for an expensive, but sadly predictable list.

Since you can see into the future, who wins the Grand Final? This could be my Back To The Future 2 moment.

 

[dosser]

Swans injury list R1 2020

Franklin (hamstring) 3 weeks
Daniher (groin) 6 weeks
Bennell (calf) indefinite
Reid (quad) 4 weeks
Ling (foot) indefinite

Makes for an expensive, but sadly predictable list.

You forgot:
Rampe (splinters) 2 weeks

 

[The Gong]

You forgot:
Rampe (splinters) 2 weeks

Lloyd (leather poisoning) 4 weeks

 

[tombomb]

Have to admit in the same boat.

Honestly, JD is quality when fit. He has not been fit for two years and has been a few murmurs around the traps that his groin is cooked.

I will back in our recruiters but reckon we are going to give too much and his output will not be near the price.

Also, we cannot get him for free next year. RFA. Ess likely to match to force a trade ala Danger trade

Pre season draft would be right in play if he became a rfa.

I posted this in the JD thread on the main board and was scoffed at by bombers supporters, but he could easily get to us that way.

 

[The King!]

I did hear one Daniher trade

Reid good but also mccartin (yuck) for Daniher

Everyone’s just guessing though

 

[dosser]

I did hear one Daniher trade

Reid good but also mccartin (yuck) for Daniher

Everyone’s just guessing though

That wouldn't be much cap pressure release for the bombers

 

[The King!]

That wouldn't be much cap pressure release for the bombers

Nope not at all

 

[Crust]

If the Herald Sun article is correct, and we can get Daniher without losing Papley, then:

1. Bombers want two first rounders and
a. we trade another player for another first rounder; or
b. we give them next years' first rounder; or

2. We say he's not worth two firsts and
a. he's worth one only and here's Pick 4; and
b. Bombers say p off he's worth more than one first rounder; and
c. we then say split the difference and here's 4 and 23 (or 4 and whatever second rounder we get for Jones).

Can't see us allowing 1 - we need next year's first for academy picks, and we probably want to trade this years second for a second next year.

I reckon 2c is most likely.

 

[BloodySwan]

If the Herald Sun article is correct, and we can get Daniher without losing Papley, then:

1. Bombers want two first rounders and
a. we trade another player for another first rounder; or
b. we give them next years' first rounder; or

2. We say he's not worth two firsts and
a. he's worth one only and here's Pick 4; and
b. Bombers say p off he's worth more than one first rounder; and
c. we then say split the difference and here's 4 and 23 (or 4 and whatever second rounder we get for Jones).

Can't see us allowing 1 - we need next year's first for academy picks, and we probably want to trade this years second for a second next year.

I reckon 2c is most likely.

Fully expecting it to play out that way too

 

[tombomb]

If the Herald Sun article is correct, and we can get Daniher without losing Papley, then:

1. Bombers want two first rounders and
a. we trade another player for another first rounder; or
b. we give them next years' first rounder; or

2. We say he's not worth two firsts and
a. he's worth one only and here's Pick 4; and
b. Bombers say p off he's worth more than one first rounder; and
c. we then say split the difference and here's 4 and 23 (or 4 and whatever second rounder we get for Jones).

Can't see us allowing 1 - we need next year's first for academy picks, and we probably want to trade this years second for a second next year.

I reckon 2c is most likely.

Hsun article is just speculating. I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

That said, I think our first next year is almost more valuable (to us) than pick 4 this year. The general view seems to be that Gulden and Campbell are potentially mid to late 1st round picks (although opinion on this does vary). But if our 1st pick comes before any bid for them ... we could effectively have three 1st round picks next year.

 

[mtooler]

Daniher is worth no more than Mitchell, dont get him this year and they can have compensation pick for him next year.

 

[Crust]

Hsun article is just speculating. I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

That said, I think our first next year is almost more valuable (to us) than pick 4 next year. The general view seems to be that Gulden and Campbell are potentially mid to late 1st round picks (although opinion on this does vary). But if our 1st pick comes before any bid for them ... we could effectively have three 1st round picks next year.

Tombom did you mean "our first next year is almost more valuable (to us) than pick 4 this year."?
If it secures us Daniher the real question is how we rate Daniher compared to either Gulden or Campbell.

Re Jones/St Kilda.
Saints have 5 and 55. 5 is overs and 55 is under.
So if we trade Jones for a second round pick next year, we stock up on picks for Gulden and Campbell.
As I understand it, you don't get change from picks, so if someone bids on Gulden before us, we use the first and part of the second round pick, we don't get credit for the part of the second round pick we did not use. Therefore we may then be short to get Campbell.

Is this correct?

 

[tombomb]

Tombom did you mean "our first next year is almost more valuable (to us) than pick 4 this year."?
If it secures us Daniher the real question is how we rate Daniher compared to either Gulden or Campbell.

Re Jones/St Kilda.
Saints have 5 and 55. 5 is overs and 55 is under.
So if we trade Jones for a second round pick next year, we stock up on picks for Gulden and Campbell.
As I understand it, you don't get change from picks, so if someone bids on Gulden before us, we use the first and part of the second round pick, we don't get credit for the part of the second round pick we did not use. Therefore we may then be short to get Campbell.

Is this correct?

yep, corrected my post.

As for how the draft points work. As I understand it, if you have surplus points for a player it impacts the next pick you have.

So as an example if someone bid on gulden at 15 and we then matched with 25 and 28. If there was a surplus of points, our next pick would move up the draft. So if our next pick was 40, then it would become 37 ... or something like that.

I think in reality though, its much more likely to work the other way where your next pick goes backwards.

 

[dosser]

yep, corrected my post.

As for how the draft points work. As I understand it, if you have surplus points for a player it impacts the next pick you have.

So as an example if someone bid on gulden at 15 and we then matched with 25 and 28. If there was a surplus of points, our next pick would move up the draft. So if our next pick was 40, then it would become 37 ... or something like that.

I think in reality though, its much more likely to work the other way where your next pick goes backwards.

I thought that if you have 20 points left over from the trade then you go to the back of the line and get the draft pick worth 20 points (probably pick 50 or something)

 

[TheMase]

My understanding in the past has been that if there are surplus points you get a draft pick to the value of the points remaining. Unless they have changed the rules which they could have.

So if you had say 207 points surplus you’d be allocated pick 55.

 

[tombomb]

I thought that if you have 20 points left over from the trade then you go to the back of the line and get the draft pick worth 20 points (probably pick 50 or something)

My understanding in the past has been that if there are surplus points you get a draft pick to the value of the points remaining. Unless they have changed the rules which they could have.

So if you had say 207 points surplus you’d be allocated pick 55.

If you dont need an entire pick, which was the question, you deduct the amount of points from the pick that you partially need which gives the pick a new value.

So, if someone bid 15 for our player (value 1,112). And we had pick 20 and 25 (912 +756 =1668). We would only need 200 points of pick 25.

So we would give up pick 20 and that goes to the end of the draft. And pick 25 would go back to 33 (value 563).

That is without the discounts applied.

That is how I understand it to work. Either way, you don't forfeit the points.

 

[RUNVS]

Seems like a fair trade

Buddy + Papley = Mason Wood

and yes, it is a parody account, but you can bet some North Melbourne fan thinks it is a fair trade.

 

[wilsonmatic]

Anbody else think we should throw some cash at scott thompson from north? Bit of a hack but he's a bloody good defender.. I was suprised he retired this year.

 

[Tedeski]

If the Herald Sun article is correct, and we can get Daniher without losing Papley, then:

1. Bombers want two first rounders and
a. we trade another player for another first rounder; or
b. we give them next years' first rounder; or

2. We say he's not worth two firsts and
a. he's worth one only and here's Pick 4; and
b. Bombers say p off he's worth more than one first rounder; and
c. we then say split the difference and here's 4 and 23 (or 4 and whatever second rounder we get for Jones).

Can't see us allowing 1 - we need next year's first for academy picks, and we probably want to trade this years second for a second next year.

I reckon 2c is most likely.

OR

3. Let's just enjoy watching Joe play for Essendon next year and
a. take him as a Free Agent next year or
b. throw all our efforts into getting a gun replacement for JPK in the midfield.