List Mgmt. 2020 Trade/FA TARGETS

[Strapping Young Lad]

Trade hypotheticals and discussion of how you think or want a trade to happen go here - 2020 FA, Draft and Trade HYPOTHETICAL thread.

If you want to talk about a current Hawthorn player and if they’re staying on the list, it goes here - Should I stay or should I go now? End of season list management discussion (now continued for 2020)

Trade/FA targets thread is for discussion of News about players we are to target via trade of FA. It’s not for “Kane Cornes

Kane Cornes

Age

41

Ht

183cm

Wt

78kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.5

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

11.0

5star

M

5.2

5star

T

3.3

5star

CL

2.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

13.0

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.2

3star

says we should get this player”.

 

[Brishawk]

Results-wise, we're better than most & I think our offering is as good as any club (I think it's better, but of course I'm biased our way).

I also think the perception that we're bad is skewed. We seem to get to the final decision a bit, yet the player stays or goes elsewhere; but, that has to be seen in the correct light: i.e. We got to the final decision stage. 12-15 other clubs aren't even getting that far, which I reckon shows that we are pretty good at this FA stuff.

IMO, no club is (yet) 'good' at converting FAs into acquisitions.

But I do consider a player staying at their club as a 'miss', just as much as if they go to another club. Either way, they're not with us. Probs semantics though, worrying about the terminology of 'miss'.

It’s just a bad way to measure list management though. We target literally dozens of players at some level each year but only bring in 1-3. Do we miss on the others? Or do we seek to maximise the return on resources and improve the list on that basis?

only a very small fraction of free agents leave their club. Getting one contested free agent ever might actually be statistically good going. By contested I mean where other clubs are also trying to lure the player. So missing on a free agent that doesn’t move isn‘t of equal weight to successfully landing a free agent or missing a free agent that does move.

also, the distinction between trade and free agency is really just Currency. it doesn’t matter if you pay in picks or cap space. It only matters what the opportunity cost is and while it isn’t easy to make that assessment I think we as a club are able to do that better than most which is why We improve our list better than any other club given our resources. Don’t get hung up on free agents.

 

[Brant]

It’s just a bad way to measure list management though. We target literally dozens of players at some level each year but only bring in 1-3. Do we miss on the others? Or do we seek to maximise the return on resources and improve the list on that basis?

only a very small fraction of free agents leave their club. Getting one contested free agent ever might actually be statistically good going. By contested I mean where other clubs are also trying to lure the player. So missing on a free agent that doesn’t move isn‘t of equal weight to successfully landing a free agent or missing a free agent that does move.

also, the distinction between trade and free agency is really just Currency. it doesn’t matter if you pay in picks or cap space. It only matters what the opportunity cost is and while it isn’t easy to make that assessment I think we as a club are able to do that better than most which is why We improve our list better than any other club given our resources. Don’t get hung up on free agents.

Why on Earth would you measure List Management that way? And who is doing so?

Crazy notion for crazy types.

 

[Brishawk]

Why on Earth would you measure List Management that way? And who is doing so?

Crazy notion for crazy types.

Your saying not recruiting a player via free agency from a club who stays at their club is some sort of miss. It’s not a view that is aligned with the holistic view of list management.

 

[Brant]

Your saying not recruiting a player via free agency from a club who stays at their club is some sort of miss. It’s not a view that is aligned with the holistic view of list management.

Yes. Not getting a ‘hit’ is a miss in a scenario that doesn’t allow for a ‘draw’. It can’t be a ‘not-hit’. IMO, we’re considerably better at getting ‘at bat’ than most clubs, which is where you have to be to get ‘a hit’.

Nobody was discussing holistic list management - not really sure why you keep quoting me when bringing that up. MrPremiership opened with a statement along the lines of us not missing very often & I replied that we miss a fair bit. Nobody mentioned list management, nor was holistic list management the context of the discussion. No idea how/why you even brought it up... but, now that you have... I (I’m sure most) agree that you’d be mad to consider it as a reliable means for acquiring top end talent or pillars around which to build your list.

 

[Brishawk]

Yes. Not getting a ‘hit’ is a miss in a scenario that doesn’t allow for a ‘draw’. It can’t be a ‘not-hit’. IMO, we’re considerably better at getting ‘at bat’ than most clubs, which is where you have to be to get ‘a hit’.

Nobody was discussing holistic list management - not really sure why you keep quoting me when bringing that up. MrPremiership opened with a statement along the lines of us not missing very often & I replied that we miss a fair bit. Nobody mentioned list management, nor was holistic list management the context of the discussion. No idea how/why you even brought it up... but, now that you have... I (I’m sure most) agree that you’d be mad to consider it as a reliable means for acquiring top end talent or pillars around which to build your list.

as I said above, virtually no free agents leave their clubs as a percentage of all free agents. Saying we missed isn’t really saying anything. Nobody hits very often. Getting on contested free agent in frawley is good going for any club. That is the context lacking. You can’t target free agents and hope to get them all or even a moderate percentage of them. It’s not like trading where once the player agrees to come hitting and missing is about the successful transaction. For free agents barely any are convinced to leave which is probably similar to trade targets but no one bothers talking about all the players we tried to talk into leaving via trade but failed to get them to want to leave their club.

 

[TylerDurden]

Bailey Smith signed a 2 year extension with Dogs.

 

[cs61]

Delisted free agency is under rated as well. To be able to strengthen our depth freely is a big change. It doesn’t get people as excited as the absolute cream, but it’s vitally important in a different way. Think we have really done well to strengthen up our depth with a combination of DFA, astute trades, later draft picks and ‘salary dump’ selections like Patton and Scully. Hope we can continue on the same as we are evolving each year; free agent is a bonus at this stage.

 

[Brant]

as I said above, virtually no free agents leave their clubs as a percentage of all free agents. Saying we missed isn’t really saying anything. Nobody hits very often. Getting on contested free agent in frawley is good going for any club. That is the context lacking. You can’t target free agents and hope to get them all or even a moderate percentage of them. It’s not like trading where once the player agrees to come hitting and missing is about the successful transaction. For free agents barely any are convinced to leave which is probably similar to trade targets but no one bothers talking about all the players we tried to talk into leaving via trade but failed to get them to want to leave their club.

If saying that we missed isn't saying anything, then saying that we didn't miss is also saying nothing. And the fact that very few clubs convert acquisitions via FA isn't the context that is lacking. I think this point has been well made. I also said that (IMO) we're far better than most clubs as we seem to be in with a genuine shot on a number of players - sure they may not sign with us, but at least we seem genuinely active & pursuing opportunities which if nothing else drives up their price at wherever they go. DFA has been pretty good for us too, which should be considered in the conversation.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Bailey Smith signed a 2 year extension with Dogs.

Hahah absolute pipedream that people thought we had a chance of luring him.

 

[Sixpence]

Hahah absolute pipedream that people thought we had a chance of luring him.

The same was said about O'Meara in his early days too.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

The same was said about O'Meara in his early days too.

When was the last time a hugely talented wanted young player switched Victorian club for Victorian club 2 years into his career ?

 

[Bugs1977]

When was the last time a hugely talented wanted young player switched Victorian club for Victorian club 2 years into his career ?

It usually takes a severe fall out or a severe injury for a gun player to want to leave. We pounced on Mitchell because he got squeezed out of the Swans best 22 (also $$$) and we pounced on JOM because he’d had a severe injury.

When these young kids arrive at the clubs that drafted them as 17-18 year old’s it really takes something drastic for them to want to leave because by the time they are coming off their rookie deals they are early to mid 20s and most of the time have made some pretty well bonded friendships (ie Cogs).

The go home factor is one are clubs will angle towards in stealing young guns but it seems clubs are now dolling out 5-7 year extensions to kids with untapped potential. The landscape is definitely changing in regards to free agency so it seems that savvy trading and bargain buy drafting is a pretty good way of improving your list.

 

[Topiary]

When was the last time a hugely talented wanted young player switched Victorian club for Victorian club 2 years into his career ?

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, BUT we have cap room to have a big go at someone (that is not from GILGWS or GILGC) AS WELL AS THE necessary TRADE bounty.

I have been told to watch this space. I have never heard of any connection between us and Bailey.

 

[Syd]

It usually takes a severe fall out or a severe injury for a gun player to want to leave. We pounced on Mitchell because he got squeezed out of the Swans best 22 (also $$$) and we pounced on JOM because he’d had a severe injury.

When these young kids arrive at the clubs that drafted them as 17-18 year old’s it really takes something drastic for them to want to leave because by the time they are coming off their rookie deals they are early to mid 20s and most of the time have made some pretty well bonded friendships (ie Cogs).

The go home factor is one are clubs will angle towards in stealing young guns but it seems clubs are now dolling out 5-7 year extensions to kids with untapped potential. The landscape is definitely changing in regards to free agency so it seems that savvy trading and bargain buy drafting is a pretty good way of improving your list.

Titch was in no way squeezed out of our best 22

Took awhile to break into it as the Coaches wanted him to improve the defensive side of his game, but he was absolutely a lock in the 22.

Only left for more $$ than we could offer

 

[dermott]

Titch was in no way squeezed out of our best 22

Took awhile to break into it as the Coaches wanted him to improve the defensive side of his game, but he was absolutely a lock in the 22.

Only left for more $$ than we could offer

With good list management you would not have been in that position.
But the Swans love a MEGA deal don’t they?

 

[Syd]

With good list management you would not have been in that position.
But the Swans love a MEGA deal don’t they?

No question 2 large deals offered in successive years hurt our retention and cost us some valuable players.
FWIW, I don't think we would have recruited Tippett if we had an inkling that Buddy would have been available.

That being said, would you have said 'No' to Buddy in that second year and allowed him to walk into GilWS lineup?

Had either 2014 (well done to your team) or 2016 (cheating at its best) resulted in Premiership(s) no one would question the recruitment or players lost as well.
In financial terms (memberships, promotions, bums on seats) Franklin's recruitment has been a massive success, pity there won't be a Premiership Cup to go with it.

 

[Bugs1977]

No question 2 large deals offered in successive years hurt our retention and cost us some valuable players.
FWIW, I don't think we would have recruited Tippett if we had an inkling that Buddy would have been available.

That being said, would you have said 'No' to Buddy in that second year and allowed him to walk into GilWS lineup?

Had either 2014 (well done to your team) or 2016 (cheating at its best) resulted in Premiership(s) no one would question the recruitment or players lost as well.
In financial terms (memberships, promotions, bums on seats) Franklin's recruitment has been a massive success, pity there won't be a Premiership Cup to go with it.

I’m sorry but if there is no premiership/s then it is not a massive success. The only thing the Buddy recruitment did was sign up more members which lined the clubs pockets. Here at the HFC the only our currency we deal in is not $$$.

Oh and FWIW Tom was not in your best 22 with the main reason being that you had too many slow mids already. That’s one of the reasons why the coaching department wanted him to improve his defensive game because guys like Kennedy, Parker, McVeigh and Jack were / are all plodders.

Tom was being under utilised in Sydney and all the while regularly gathering 40 and sometimes 50 possessions in the NEAFL. Long story short you guys made the same mistake that we did with keeping Sewell too long instead of giving the opportunity to Joey. You guys should’ve traded one of your other veterans and kept Tom but these things always seem to go in swings and roundabouts.

 

[Brishawk]

I’m sorry but if there is no premiership/s then it is not a massive success. The only thing the Buddy recruitment did was sign up more members which lined the clubs pockets. Here at the HFC the only our currency we deal in is not $$$.

Oh and FWIW Tom was not in your best 22 with the main reason being that you had too many slow mids already. That’s one of the reasons why the coaching department wanted him to improve his defensive game because guys like Kennedy, Parker, McVeigh and Jack were / are all plodders.

Tom was being under utilised in Sydney and all the while regularly gathering 40 and sometimes 50 possessions in the NEAFL. Long story short you guys made the same mistake that we did with keeping Sewell too long instead of giving the opportunity to Joey. You guys should’ve traded one of your other veterans and kept Tom but these things always seem to go in swings and roundabouts.

Did you not read the part where the poster said ‘in financial terms’?

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Titch was in no way squeezed out of our best 22

Took awhile to break into it as the Coaches wanted him to improve the defensive side of his game, but he was absolutely a lock in the 22.

Only left for more $$ than we could offer

Mitchell played every game for you that last season, including a near BOG performance in the Grand Final. He'd well and truly established himself in your side that year.

 

[Syd]

I’m sorry but if there is no premiership/s then it is not a massive success. The only thing the Buddy recruitment did was sign up more members which lined the clubs pockets. Here at the HFC the only our currency we deal in is not $$$.

Oh and FWIW Tom was not in your best 22 with the main reason being that you had too many slow mids already. That’s one of the reasons why the coaching department wanted him to improve his defensive game because guys like Kennedy, Parker, McVeigh and Jack were / are all plodders.

Tom was being under utilised in Sydney and all the while regularly gathering 40 and sometimes 50 possessions in the NEAFL. Long story short you guys made the same mistake that we did with keeping Sewell too long instead of giving the opportunity to Joey. You guys should’ve traded one of your other veterans and kept Tom but these things always seem to go in swings and roundabouts.

In 2014 Titch played 6 Senior games while toiling in the NEAFL

In 2015 he played 19, and 26 on 2016. He was well and truly entrenched in the starting 22

I don't disagree that it was thought we had 'too many midfielders' but disagreed with our coaching staff in terms of his value and role into the future.

But I'm not in the recruiting or coaching departments.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I’m sorry but if there is no premiership/s then it is not a massive success. The only thing the Buddy recruitment did was sign up more members which lined the clubs pockets. Here at the HFC the only our currency we deal in is not $$$.

Oh and FWIW Tom was not in your best 22 with the main reason being that you had too many slow mids already. That’s one of the reasons why the coaching department wanted him to improve his defensive game because guys like Kennedy, Parker, McVeigh and Jack were / are all plodders.

Tom was being under utilised in Sydney and all the while regularly gathering 40 and sometimes 50 possessions in the NEAFL. Long story short you guys made the same mistake that we did with keeping Sewell too long instead of giving the opportunity to Joey. You guys should’ve traded one of your other veterans and kept Tom but these things always seem to go in swings and roundabouts.

Mitchell played every game for Sydney in 2016 and was firmly entrenched in their best side. Not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise? The years prior to 2016 we could say he was under used, but 2016 was the year he established himself.

 

[Davo23]

No question 2 large deals offered in successive years hurt our retention and cost us some valuable players.
FWIW, I don't think we would have recruited Tippett if we had an inkling that Buddy would have been available.

That being said, would you have said 'No' to Buddy in that second year and allowed him to walk into GilWS lineup?

Had either 2014 (well done to your team) or 2016 (cheating at its best) resulted in Premiership(s) no one would question the recruitment or players lost as well.
In financial terms (memberships, promotions, bums on seats) Franklin's recruitment has been a massive success, pity there won't be a Premiership Cup to go with it.

How has it been a financial success: your attendances have been much the same before and after Franklin.

And it's still not a success if you win squat - losing Grand Finals don't count!

 

[Syd]

Mitchell played every game for Sydney in 2016 and was firmly entrenched in their best side. Not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise? The years prior to 2016 we could say he was under used, but 2016 was the year he established himself.

Pretty much every game from Round 5 of 2015

Had an absolutely brilliant last month and a half as well.

I would have preferred someone else was traded off or retired to make Cap Room, but with theTrade Ban in full swing players like Goodes, McVeigh, Jack played on longer than they might have otherwise.

Can't change it now and hope he recovers and gets back to his best this year.
Big fan of Titch

 

[Bugs1977]

Did you not read the part where the poster said ‘in financial terms’?

Yes I did but I still don’t call his recruitment a massive success and IDGAF about the financial side of it one iota. The very point that I was making was that the financial success should not be classed as a massive success at all especially for the fans. Yes it is great that that the club is doing well but off field success doesn’t always translate to on field success especially if your abiding to the salary cap. The only massive success out of the Buddy deal is the clubs coffers, Buddy’s bank balance and the HFC being able to come in and get Mitchell for 50c on the dollar. Now as a fan if you can look in the mirror and seriously tell yourself that your happy with almost winning a couple of premierships and then all the while not being able to retain good players due to the mega deals shelled out then to me that’s just faux happiness.

The poster said that if they knew they were getting Buddy then they wouldn’t have signed Tippett which is BS because at that point Tippett was relatively healthy. Then the year they got Buddy all the injuries kicked in and it all blew up in their faces which is what I hope ends up happening with the 7+ year deals that GWS are dolling out.

 

[Bugs1977]

Mitchell played every game for Sydney in 2016 and was firmly entrenched in their best side. Not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise? The years prior to 2016 we could say he was under used, but 2016 was the year he established himself.

How has it been a financial success: your attendances have been much the same before and after Franklin.

And it's still not a success if you win squat - losing Grand Finals don't count!

Yes I am very aware that he played a huge part in their 2016 campaign which was highlighted by him being the Swans best in the GF but what I meant by him not being in their best 22 was more so due to his role once in it. They had way too many in and under mids and he was being played out of position to succeed. He was also getting dropped down to the NEAFL every now and then so was made to feel he wasn’t in their future plans. Also in 2016 I’m pretty sure the only reason he featured a fair bit was due to injuries to Parker, Jack and McVeigh.

Brownlow Medal 2018: Tom Mitchell reveals lack of opportunity behind decision to leave Sydney Swans

They could have kept him on their books, and the Swans may be regretting this move.

www.sportingnews.com