List Mgmt. 2023 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

Key Dates:

Trade Period, October 6–18

• Restricted & Unrestricted Free Agency Period: Friday, October 6, 9am – Friday October 13, 5pm (bid matching ends Monday October 16, 5pm)
• Trade Period (1), picks & players: Monday, October 9, 9am – Wednesday October 18, 7.30pm

Quiet Period, October 19–November 20

• Trade Period (2), picks only: Monday, October 23, 9am – Friday November 10, 5pm
• List Lodgement 1*: Tuesday, October 31, 2pm
• Delisted Free Agency Period (1): Wednesday, November 1, 9am – Wednesday November 8, 5pm
• Delisted Free Agency Period (2): Friday, November 10, 9am–5pm
• List Lodgement 2*: Tuesday, November 14, 2pm

Draft Period, November 20–22

• Round 1 of the National Draft: Monday, November 20, time and venue TBA
• Trade Period (3), picks only: Tuesday, November 21, 5.45pm–6.30pm
• Round 2–end of the National Draft: Tuesday, November 21, 7pm until completion
• Rookie Promotions: Tuesday, November 21, after the National Draft
• Delisted Free Agency Period (3): Tuesday, November 21, after the National Draft
• List Lodgement 3*: Wednesday, November 22, 10am (optional; required for those participating in the PSD)
• Pre-Season Draft: Wednesday, November 22, 3pm
• Rookie Draft: Wednesday, November 22, 3.20pm
• Final List Lodgement*: Thursday, November 23, 4pm

* List lodgement dates are yet to be made public, so are approximate based on past history and the requirements of the AFL Rules. When lists are lodged, the number of players on the list must not exceed maximum list sizes. At the same time, clubs must provide the AFL with estimates of total player payments in the current and following year, which must prove the club is not and will not exceed the salary cap. (AFL Rules 5.3, 6.1, 6.8, 7.2, 7.9)

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pick 19 (up to 24 or 25) is possible but where would he fit in the Pies plans? They were already dropping Adams out of CBAs.
Surely a tall would fit their needs better?
Pick 33 (whatever that ends up) might be a different matter.
Or are you just catastrophizing?

Their midfield is ageing it sort of makes sense to a degree but the bid is early. We'll match but I wouldn't

 

[Bloods86]

Their midfield is ageing it sort of makes sense to a degree but the bid is early. We'll match but I wouldn't

Cleary doesn't meet a need (at least one that is Top 5 positionally), but what's the point of an academy if we don't take the best (local) prospects from it, those who are already acclimatised to the club, likely more professional than other draftees etc (in Cleary's case he has been with the academy since 10 years old).

Also, if we start passing up highly rated players, academy detractors will use that as a reason to why they aren't needed or should be reviewed. It doesn't make sense, as some of those players may not play AFL (for any club) or to the same level without it, but we know these sorts of arguments don't need to make sense for them to be effective.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Cleary doesn't meet a need (at least one that is Top 5 positionally), but what's the point of an academy if we don't take the best (local) prospects from it, those who are already acclimatised to the club, likely more professional than other draftees etc (in Cleary's case he has been with the academy since 10 years old).

Also, if we start passing up highly rated players, academy detractors will use that as a reason to why they aren't needed or should be reviewed. It doesn't make sense, as some of those players may not play AFL (for any club) or to the same level without it, but we know these sorts of arguments don't need to make sense for them to be effective.

There should be a line, no issue at pick 25 plus not before then please, we don't need to carry deficits into next year. We can easily bring him home in 3 years.

 

[BloodySwan]

Cleary doesn't meet a need (at least one that is Top 5 positionally), but what's the point of an academy if we don't take the best (local) prospects from it, those who are already acclimatised to the club, likely more professional than other draftees etc (in Cleary's case he has been with the academy since 10 years old).

Also, if we start passing up highly rated players, academy detractors will use that as a reason to why they aren't needed or should be reviewed. It doesn't make sense, as some of those players may not play AFL (for any club) or to the same level without it, but we know these sorts of arguments don't need to make sense for them to be effective.

We need an inside mid. At the moment all hopes are dreams are pinned on Sheldrick but long term he will need support (He may not even develop further!)

 

[BloodySwan]

Inside mid, key defender and ruck are the 2 targets for me. We will likely get 2, so whatever happens I imagine we will come out strong

 

[Bloods86]

There should be a line, no issue at pick 25 plus not before then please, we don't need to carry deficits into next year. We can easily bring him home in 3 years.

Who cares about a slight deficit, based on a few spots. Sorry, the often used "we'll just bring him home later" doesn't make any sense.

Why would you risk a) turning the player off you by saying you don't want them enough and making them move (from the club they've been at since age 10), b) them loving their new club / city so they never contemplate leaving, c) not being able to control their development and maybe not having a player worth fighting for in a few years time, or d) having to pay up even more if they turn out to be good?

 

[RUNVS]

This board will be a doddle compared to the Draft board - will be earning my not so any big bucks tonight.

Historically speaking it won't be an issue as there are no posts to clean up if the entire site crashes. Bigfooty does not handle draft day well.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Who cares about a slight deficit, based on a few spots. Sorry, the often used "we'll just bring him home later" doesn't make any sense.

Why would you risk a) turning the player off you by saying you don't want them enough and making them move (from the club they've been at since age 10), b) them loving their new club / city so they never contemplate leaving, c) not being able to control their development and maybe not having a player worth fighting for in a few years time, or d) having to pay up even more if they turn out to be good?

The slight deficit may mean missing a target next year, can't see us matching if it's a deficit.

 

[bedford]

Your not going to catch him

 

[Bloods86]

We need an inside mid. At the moment all hopes are dreams are pinned on Sheldrick but long term he will need support (He may not even develop further!)

We should match Cleary any bid after our first pick. Cleary will be a Best 22 player at some point, reasonably confident of that.

But, mids aren't as big of a need as other areas (as you rightly reference some of them elsewhere). Assuming Mills' fitness, and ignoring we have Rowy, Gulden, Warner, Jordon for the longer term (admittedly the preference is for some of these guys to be on the outside more often)... we have Sheldrick and Roberts that will need to force their way in (both looked promising before injuries this year, Sheldrick moreso, but Roberts looks like he'll be AFL quality).

We also have several up and coming hybrids in Co Warner and Mitchell (both showed signs this year), and players that could play in midfield if there was room (Campbell drafted as a mid/fwd, Heeney, Paps assuming we don't just keep him there some of the time as we already do). Magor was even a med fwd / inside mid in his draft year.

Mids also (often) take less time to impact, so if we don't take Cleary (bad idea), then it's better to bring in a KPP or ruck earlier in general. We'd have to wait until the 40s to get someone else in though, so should just match Cleary despite if there's a small deficit.

 

[Bloods86]

Your not going to catch him

Gotta give you something to post about. I even dropped an Ethan Phillips reference for you yesterday (as a potential KPD late pick / rookie). He's nominated for the draft. Any thoughts?

 

[Bloods86]

The slight deficit may mean missing a target next year, can't see us matching if it's a deficit.

So a hypothetical target 1 year later, where the predictions of future draft strength get downgraded every year (when that future draft arrives), and maybe it'd just be better to pay up a bit more for a more known quantity?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So a hypothetical target 1 year later, where the predictions of future draft strength get downgraded every year (when that future draft arrives), and maybe it'd just be better to pay up a bit more for a more known quantity?

I doubt we'll have a deficit so the point is moot but personally I wouldn't match before pick 30, been consistent with this.

 

[liz]

The slight deficit may mean missing a target next year, can't see us matching if it's a deficit.

Should we tank next season so that we don’t land up with nominal pick 18 and risk missing a draft target?

 

[Membling]

I doubt we'll have a deficit so the point is moot but personally I wouldn't match before pick 30, been consistent with this.

I would have been in agreeance when we had picks 23 and 30 odd.

But we do not anymore and Cleary is likely to be better than any player available at picks 45 and 55 in this draft.

 

[RUNVS]

For what it's worth, someone on Reddit claiming to be a friend of Cleary had said Collingwood have told him he will be their first pick.

Out of interest where is this post?

Thank you.

 

[SydneyPhilly]

Out of interest where is this post?

Thank you.

reddit.com/r/sydneyswans/comments/17yqetd/draftcaiden_cleary/

 

[TheMase]

I doubt we'll have a deficit so the point is moot but personally I wouldn't match before pick 30, been consistent with this.

So… if he went at 28 you’d instead pass and wait until the 40s to take an inferior player?

The way the draft picks move around with bids it’s likely we can match all the way down to around 22/23. Anything above that is unlikely but any deficit would be extremely minor and would come from I think 3rd round next year (ie. who cares).

Your point of view doesn’t make sense sorry.

 

[Kiama Chris]

So… if he went at 28 you’d instead pass and wait until the 40s to take an inferior player?

The way the draft picks move around with bids it’s likely we can match all the way down to around 22/23. Anything above that is unlikely but any deficit would be extremely minor and would come from I think 3rd round next year (ie. who cares).

Your point of view doesn’t make sense sorry.

An extremely mechanistic view of the world, yet not taking into account the amount already invested that would have to be invested into a non-academy pick, the lost opportunity of waiting another year, the loss of brand loyalty and on and on. How many kids would decide not to waste their time on the academy?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So… if he went at 28 you’d instead pass and wait until the 40s to take an inferior player?

The way the draft picks move around with bids it’s likely we can match all the way down to around 22/23. Anything above that is unlikely but any deficit would be extremely minor and would come from I think 3rd round next year (ie. who cares).

Your point of view doesn’t make sense sorry.

Honestly don’t see much difference between 28 and a pick in the 40’s which will move to the mid to late 30’s with all those matching with GC players. I’m not a fan of deficits regardless of what round it is. It’s a moot thing as it’s likely we don’t have a deficit anyway.

Deficit comes from the round picked by the way likely to have 25-26 picks tonight so if a bid is tonight deficit comes from our first

I’m just hoping we don’t reach at our pick tonight it’s making me way too nervous. Taking a mid at 12 could have epic melts on here

 

[sahi11]

So… if he went at 28 you’d instead pass and wait until the 40s to take an inferior player?

The way the draft picks move around with bids it’s likely we can match all the way down to around 22/23. Anything above that is unlikely but any deficit would be extremely minor and would come from I think 3rd round next year (ie. who cares).

Your point of view doesn’t make sense sorry.

Keep in mind that if pick 22-23 this year is in the first round, then the deficit will come from next year's first pick

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Membling]

Keep in mind that if pick 22-23 this year is in the first round, then the deficit will come from next year's first pick

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I would put a hefty wager on and Cleary bid being after pick 23

 

[caesar88]

Yeah, and we're the ones who took Adams from them. They'd be very confident we match anyway, but he's still a decent pick if we didn't.

Absolutely. I said a few months ago that if I'm a recruiter, I'm taking particular interest in our academy products. After seeing Heeney and Mills and Blakey and Gulden so far, why wouldn't you be confident that if you end up with one of our academy players you'll have a dedicated, professional, capable player for the next decade?

 

[BloodySwan]

So… if he went at 28 you’d instead pass and wait until the 40s to take an inferior player?

The way the draft picks move around with bids it’s likely we can match all the way down to around 22/23. Anything above that is unlikely but any deficit would be extremely minor and would come from I think 3rd round next year (ie. who cares).

Your point of view doesn’t make sense sorry.

Deficit gets applied to the round the original pick was in.

As it's still round 1 it would be applied to our first pick

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Historically speaking it won't be an issue as there are no posts to clean up if the entire site crashes. Bigfooty does not handle draft day well.

Dammit. I have a relaxing game of ww to play.