List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[Eiffel 65]

Like a dog with a bone...


I don;'t get why you keep pointing to Papley's output this year in an injury-ravaged, bottom 4 Swans line-up as any kind of evidence we should/shouldn't trade for him.

The Swans aren't kicking goals. They're averaging 7.5 goals per game this season. Papley is the only player on their list to have kicked 10 or more (22). He's kicked more than double the next best on their list - McCartin (9) - who has now been swung into defence because where else do you want your second highest goal scorer? The Swans are hardly even trying to kick winning scores any more, they're just trying to restrict their opponents' ability to blow them out of the water.

Playing as a small forward last year, Papley kicked 37 goals. He's just turned 24. He has the ability to be rotated on ball for short bursts. And in the event that our key forwards were to succumb to injury, he's even shown that he can make a decent fist of playing as a drastically undersized key forward.

His current form is not indicative of what he would/should offer in a new environment, playing at the feet of and delivering the ball to genuine aerial threats like McKay, Curnow, Casboult, De Koning and McGovern. His current form is a fantastic opportunity to drive the asking price down to something more realistic, despite his importance to the Swans and his ongoing contract.

I think we'd be pushing the 1st rounder for Papley and change now, instead of 1st rounder and change for Papley. I'd be pushing for an upgrade of a future third or something of that nature.

Every club has had injuries.

Sydney have had injuries, but is Papley injured?

I've been watching him very closely this season. His form slump can be attributed to him being beaten by his opponent. I'm looking at the game and his match up for what it is. Like last night, I strongly believe that Papley had minimal impact because Plowman beat him on the night. However, that's clearly not what everyone thinks, because I just responded to a poster this morning who attributed Papley's lack of influence to the fact that Sydney's ball movement was too good to the point where it took small forwards out of the game. I personally don't agree with that and think it's a poor excuse to justify any poor performance Papley puts in.

I've based my opinion on my assessment of our game and our list profile. People don't have to agree with it, but it's an opinion I've formed.

Papley rotating through our midfield would only exacerbate our ball movement issues heading inside forward 50. He's not a great kick. Also don't think he has enough impact in the midfield. He's only averaging approx. 11 disposals per game. Doesn't get it enough when he goes in there. He's more dangerous playing deep in the forward line.

His current contract and the fact that Sydney rate him (or at least say that rate him) as their most important player, not his current form will dictate the trade value.

I had these same conversations with people regarding Mitch McGovern and received similar feedback. I feel pretty confident in my assessment of our list, game style and current performance to stand by my argument that Papley isn't our man or the right player for us.

Clearly my opinion isn't popular with some, but I feel that I've justified it using logical arguments in my past posts.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I personally attribute Papley's lack of goals to Plowman.

Papley has been quite poor now since round 8. No secrets there and if everyone is being honest around here, they'll actually acknowledge that.

I've seen the heat maps and watched the game.

The reality is everyone is saying we need a crumbing and pressure forward. I haven't seen Papley do much of that all year.

He kicked 19 goals in 8 rounds as a pseudo full forward (the primary target), not as a small forward. That's not the role we'll be using him for and it's not the role he's currently playing which has seen him kick 3 goals since round 8.

Also, we should be aiming for slick ball movement. If we're getting Papley because of our terrible ball movement heading inside forward 50, it's not a vote of confidence for the club. We should be rectifying the issue at the source. Sydney are 15th on the ladder. If they can have excellent ball movement forward of centre, why can't we?

I guess we viewed the game differently.

Papley is a top 3 (5 at worst) small forward in the game, he fills a massive need and would allow us to release Fish+Cuners further up the ground, he fits the age profile perfectly and he wants to play for the Blues.

We won’t be paying overs for him. Last year we didn’t budge either.

You can choose to ignore his 2019 and the first 8 matches of the year in favour of the dire product the Swans have put up of late if you’d like. I’m glad the club will see the bigger picture.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Who was going to trade a pick of the value of #40 for a future 3rd?

There's 17 other clubs in the competition. So the answer is anyone.

A back end pick swap could have been orchestrated.

And like I said, that back end pick wouldn't have been the sticking point for the trade.

 

[Blue__Balls]

It actually was. The deal hinged on Adelaide giving up #40 to get #13.
There are no 2 x 4th round picks that can equal the points of pick #40. The first two 4th round picks are equal to #44.

On top of that - had they introduced the "as many picks as list spots" rule that year as well? Or was that added afterwards?

 

[Eiffel 65]

I agree with you re Witherden. I've watched a lot of the Lions over the last few years and I can't understand why he's fallen out of favour there. Witherden and Newman could replace Simmo and SPS in defence and free up SPS to spend more time on the ball.

Correct. So the acquisition of one player improves our side in two positions.

If we can make a trade like this, I can't see why it shouldn't be our #1 priority because it will improve our list in more ways than one.

 

[Bleez40]

Teague: We're going to learn who steps up

David Teague provided his thoughts on the engrossing Round 16 win.

www.carltonfc.com.au

A pretty big statement from Teague in his presser I think. Going off this, then surely TDK stays in for the year. Stood up tall in the last quarter and showed a hunger to get us over the line which has been a rare quality outside of Weiters and Walsh for our team. He is going to be a big part of our future but is still only 21 so needs time. SPS showed he is clean, which we knew, and can compete in the contest when he is pushed up the ground. Praying Teague persists with him in this position so he can finish the year off strong. We need SPS in the middle. He stops, props and looks to find a man and change the angles when we attack and is a point of difference for us.

McGovern was disappointing all round but I would rather we leave him in the team. I don't think anyone would say he doesn't have the talent but if he continues to stink it up then Teague can point to this stretch of games in the end of season interview and say he's not at the level needed. Either he cracks in over the offseason or plays resies next year.

 

[HARKER]

Correct. So the acquisition of one player improves our side in two positions.
If we can make a trade like this, I can't see why it shouldn't be our #1 priority because it will improve our list in more ways than one.

Why do you think we need someone like Witherden?
He really hasn't the pace we should be looking for.

Even with Simpson gone and SPS out of the backline, we still have Jones, Weitering, Docherty and Plowman as mainstays.
Marchbank will be back and Williamson is doing fine. We then have Newman involved next year and we're looking at Williams.

Williams is a much better get for mine, so where does Witherden fit into the equation and why?

 

[JustaBattler]

I trust that our List Management team don't flip-flop the way we can here.
One week we need this...next week we need that...

That's understandable as supporters, but the club knows what it needs and has done so for some time now.
Don't expect the unexpected....we'd be disappointed.

Never cared about small forwards - and still don't and never will. We need a couple of faster shorter blokes who can tackle and kick the occasional scrappy goal - that is small forward and nothing more.

 

[Stamos]

There's 17 other clubs in the competition. So the answer is anyone.

A back end pick swap could have been orchestrated.

And like I said, that back end pick wouldn't have been the sticking point for the trade.

You can't just say anyone, because it's obviously not true.
If (any) clubs were willing to trade out of the 40s in 2018 for a future 3rd, who did such a trade?

The picks that Adelaide traded to Sydney for #13 were worth pick #6.
Nobody was giving us trade to move up like you suggest.

 

[Stamos]

On top of that - had they introduced the "as many picks as list spots" rule that year as well? Or was that added afterwards?

Before then

 

[Blue__Balls]

Every club has had injuries.

Sydney have had injuries, but is Papley injured?

I've been watching him very closely this season. His form slump can be attributed to him being beaten by his opponent. I'm looking at the game and his match up for what it is. Like last night, I strongly believe that Papley had minimal impact because Plowman beat him on the night. However, that's clearly not what everyone thinks, because I just responded to a poster this morning who attributed Papley's lack of influence to the fact that Sydney's ball movement was too good to the point where it took small forwards out of the game. I personally don't agree with that and think it's a poor excuse to justify any poor performance Papley puts in.

I've based my opinion on my assessment of our game and our list profile. People don't have to agree with it, but it's an opinion I've formed.

Papley rotating through our midfield would only exacerbate our ball movement issues heading inside forward 50. He's not a great kick. Also don't think he has enough impact in the midfield. He's only averaging approx. 11 disposals per game. Doesn't get it enough when he goes in there. He's more dangerous playing deep in the forward line.

His current contract and the fact that Sydney rate him (or at least say that rate him) as their most important player, not his current form will dictate the trade value.

I had these same conversations with people regarding Mitch McGovern and received similar feedback. I feel pretty confident in my assessment of our list, game style and current performance to stand by my argument that Papley isn't our man or the right player for us.

Clearly my opinion isn't popular with some, but I feel that I've justified it using logical arguments in my past posts.

So what if every club has had injuries? How is that even remotely relevant?

The point is that you're saying Papley isn't playing well. I'm saying that Papley has still kicked more than double the amount of goals as anyone on Sydney's list this year, with the next best being in single figures. That player has now been moved to the backline. Sydney are not trying to score heavily. They're in damage control and trying to avoid being scored heavily against. So yes, Papley is struggling now. Yes, Papley was beaten by Plowman. Plowman is underrated and a genuinely good defender against smalls who lack express pace.

Papley, in a more representative 2019 season, also lead Sydney's goal tally with 37. He is more than capable of hitting the scoreboard heavily, he does apply pressure, he does get involved in general play, he does hit targets inside 50. He has had a downturn of form in the last 2 months. At a time where Sydney are missing a significant number of players, are playing kids through the middle, have moved their second most dangerous forward to the backline, and are (just quietly) incentivised to not move any higher up the ladder. Papley himself might be due a spell, but there's not much depth left available and he could be playing under duress for all we know.

It's now going to be much harder for Sydney to demand the world for him if he requests a trade for the second year running.

So...target him, offer a first and try to get something else back, and if Sydney play hardball, then yeah - walk away and look elsewhere.

Papley, Williams and Witherden would mean Eddie, Murph and Simmo can be moved on, and instead of replacing them with kids who we hope will start to come on, we replace them with players who are absolutely capable of playing to a high standard on a regular basis.

 

[Eiffel 65]

I guess we viewed the game differently.

Papley is a top 3 (5 at worst) small forward in the game, he fills a massive need and would allow us to release Fish+Cuners further up the ground, he fits the age profile perfectly and he wants to play for the Blues.

We won’t be paying overs for him. Last year we didn’t budge either.

You can choose to ignore his 2019 and the first 8 matches of the year in favour of the dire product the Swans have put up of late if you’d like. I’m glad the club will see the bigger picture.

If you want a small forward, look at Luke Breust.

And yes, I get that he's going to be 30 at the end of the year and doesn't fit our age profile.

But I don't give two hoots about that. He's a 3 x premiership player and 2 x All Australian.

You know what he'll bring to our club? He'll bring a winning culture, drive standards and educate our younger players on how to win. Think of him as being in a similar role to Luke Hodge.

You can't bring both Breust and Papley in. We don't need both. So if I had to choose between the two, I'm choosing Breust due to the overall package you get as a player.

He's also potentially more gettable than Papley on the trade table too.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Before then

There you go. So the two fourth round picks are even less valuable to Sydney than a single third rounder.

 

[Blue__Balls]

If you want a small forward, look at Luke Breust.

And yes, I get that he's going to be 30 at the end of the year and doesn't fit our age profile.

But I don't give two hoots about that. He's a 3 x premiership player and 2 x All Australian.

You know what he'll bring to our club? He'll bring a winning culture, drive standards and educate our younger players on how to win. Think of him as being in a similar role to Luke Hodge.

You can't bring both Breust and Papley in. We don't need both. So if I had to choose between the two, I'm choosing Breust due to the overall package you get as a player.

He's also potentially more gettable than Papley on the trade table too.

Here's a reasonable point to discuss, at last.

I'd be keen on Breust too. I disagree that you can't take him and Papley, because Breust absolutely comes cheap given his age. I also don't think Breust and Papley take the same spot. If anything, Breust puts immediate pressure on McGovern's spot as a marking foil for the talls, or allows us to push Martin or Fisher into the middle.

If we take Breust without Papley, then we commit fully to the longer term pairing of Fisher and Honey, with Honey spending the next couple of years developing in the reserves with a view to overtaking Breust as he declines.

 

[Eiffel 65]

So what if every club has had injuries? How is that even remotely relevant?

The point is that you're saying Papley isn't playing well. I'm saying that Papley has still kicked more than double the amount of goals as anyone on Sydney's list this year, with the next best being in single figures. That player has now been moved to the backline. Sydney are not trying to score heavily. They're in damage control and trying to avoid being scored heavily against. So yes, Papley is struggling now. Yes, Papley was beaten by Plowman. Plowman is underrated and a genuinely good defender against smalls who lack express pace.

Papley, in a more representative 2019 season, also lead Sydney's goal tally with 37. He is more than capable of hitting the scoreboard heavily, he does apply pressure, he does get involved in general play, he does hit targets inside 50. He has had a downturn of form in the last 2 months. At a time where Sydney are missing a significant number of players, are playing kids through the middle, have moved their second most dangerous forward to the backline, and are (just quietly) incentivised to not move any higher up the ladder. Papley himself might be due a spell, but there's not much depth left available and he could be playing under duress for all we know.

It's now going to be much harder for Sydney to demand the world for him if he requests a trade for the second year running.

So...target him, offer a first and try to get something else back, and if Sydney play hardball, then yeah - walk away and look elsewhere.

Papley, Williams and Witherden would mean Eddie, Murph and Simmo can be moved on, and instead of replacing them with kids who we hope will start to come on, we replace them with players who are absolutely capable of playing to a high standard on a regular basis.

The reality is his output doesn't match his trade value or requested trade value from the Swans.

I wouldn't have any issues with trading our First for Papley + change, but that won't happen given his contract situation.

I still feel there are smarter ways we can use our currency.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

If you want a small forward, look at Luke Breust.

And yes, I get that he's going to be 30 at the end of the year and doesn't fit our age profile.

But I don't give two hoots about that. He's a 3 x premiership player and 2 x All Australian.

You know what he'll bring to our club? He'll bring a winning culture, drive standards and educate our younger players on how to win. Think of him as being in a similar role to Luke Hodge.

You can't bring both Breust and Papley in. We don't need both. So if I had to choose between the two, I'm choosing Breust due to the overall package you get as a player.

He's also potentially more gettable than Papley on the trade table too.

I wouldn’t mind looking at Breust if Papley is unavailable or the cost is too high. For the reasons you have mentioned.

If we think it’ll be Fisher long term I’ll back the club, but I just don’t see it. Prefer him up the ground, and we know Fisher prefers that too.

As long as we look to fill the role. I wonder what the Hawks would want for him.

 

[Eiffel 65]

You can't just say anyone, because it's obviously not true.
If (any) clubs were willing to trade out of the 40s in 2018 for a future 3rd, who did such a trade?

The picks that Adelaide traded to Sydney for #13 were worth pick #6.
Nobody was giving us trade to move up like you suggest.

LOL, the picks Adelaide gave up?

They were our picks!!!!!!

 

[Blue__Balls]

The reality is his output doesn't match his trade value or requested trade value from the Swans.

I wouldn't have any issues with trading our First for Papley + change, but that won't happen given his contract situation.

I still feel there are smarter ways we can use our currency.

We don't know that though, do we. We're just speculating based on scuttlebutt that it was going to take 2 first rounders this year. That's when he was leading the Coleman.

Sydney were prepared to take Pick 9 last year on the proviso that it got them over the line for Daniher. We don't know what's happening with Joe this year, but there's a decent chance that Essendon will force a trade if it comes to it. In that scenario, our first may well be just what Sydney need. And they need a key forward more than they need Papley. Follow that train and you reach the first for Papley and a little bit of change station.

It's not unreasonable at all.

 

[Stamos]

LOL, the picks Adelaide gave up?

They were our picks!!!!!!

Fine, the picks that Adelaide traded to Sydney for #13 were worth #6.

My point stands. We did not have the trade currency to get a pick in the teens, McGovern did not cost us a first round pick.

 

[Eiffel 65]

You can't just say anyone, because it's obviously not true.
If (any) clubs were willing to trade out of the 40s in 2018 for a future 3rd, who did such a trade?

The picks that Adelaide traded to Sydney for #13 were worth pick #6.
Nobody was giving us trade to move up like you suggest.

That's rubbish.

There's always clubs out there looking to shuffle around late picks to get deals over the line.

You could easily step in and facilitate any trade or just make a swap.

If you're saying absolutely no club would consider swapping 3rd's or do some sort of swap to reconfigure their draft position, you're kidding yourself.

It's just a matter of whether the club actively sought that trade.

 

[Eiffel 65]

Fine, the picks that Adelaide traded to Sydney for #13 were worth #6.

My point stands. We did not have the trade currency to get a pick in the teens, McGovern did not cost us a first round pick.

Go and look up our draft hands in 2018 and 2019 because we did.

McGovern did cost us a 1st round pick plus some.

McAdam was also a part of that deal. What do you think the value of McAdam was?

There were clubs that had him in the top 20 on their draft boards! He wasn't chump change.

 

[Curnowhan]

Why do you think we need someone like Witherden?
He really hasn't the pace we should be looking for.

Even with Simpson gone and SPS out of the backline, we still have Jones, Weitering, Docherty and Plowman as mainstays.
Marchbank will be back and Williamson is doing fine. We then have Newman involved next year and we're looking at Williams.

Williams is a much better get for mine, so where does Witherden fit into the equation and why?

Depends on how we intend to use Williams if we were able to get him. Would he be played predominantly off HB or more on the ball?

 

[Stamos]

That's rubbish.

There's always clubs out there looking to shuffle around late picks to get deals over the line.

You could easily step in and facilitate any trade or just make a swap.

If you're saying absolutely no club would consider swapping 3rd's or do some sort of swap to reconfigure their draft position, you're kidding yourself.

It's just a matter of whether the club actively sought that trade.

If it's as easy as you say, and it was in clubs' interests to do that trade, then that trade would have been done. So who did it?

You're also ignoring that your proposed trade would have left us with no 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick for 2019.

 

[JustaBattler]

One can name them anything we want and it didn't surprise me we went hard for Papley last year and nor will it surprise me we go even harder this year.
Again, one may want an inside mid, one an outside mid, another a small back-man etc etc but when it comes down to it, the club has already told us what we're looking for, in a roundabout way...and it makes perfect sense.

It is all about price and competing needs

eg - we have sacrificed Walsh's presence on ball to a wing - and yet when Walsh was moved into on ball last night - THAT move turned the tide.

as for other needs ....

eg Cottrell isn't an answer for a crying need for a wingman - bloke has low skill added to high running power which is in the invitation to disastrous on-field results - as seen in every match he has played - cant kick , doesn't make many tackles and is caught out of position by better players - every time....run run run is all he's got and he needs it and no couldn't care less about one contested mark - although I do congratulate him on actually kicking the goal.

Teams make low picks into great smalls by getting them fit enough to play and tackle - Papley isn't a 2X firsts player. Owies didn't disgrace himself at all last night btw - very pleasing debut from my POV - thought he was unfairly penalised for two of his very good tackles as well.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

That's rubbish.

There's always clubs out there looking to shuffle around late picks to get deals over the line.

You could easily step in and facilitate any trade or just make a swap.

If you're saying absolutely no club would consider swapping 3rd's or do some sort of swap to reconfigure their draft position, you're kidding yourself.

It's just a matter of whether the club actively sought that trade.

That looks like a bloody bad trade for whoever would make it though so would be highly unlikely. We also wouldn’t have taken Duursma we would’ve taken Stocker.