List Mgmt. 2025 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[caesar88]

I actually found Bonz posts suggesting that length of contract is the sticking point with Gus a bit interesting.

If I was Gus, I’d only want 2 years.

Because he won’t be getting huge money in his next contract - but if he can have a really good 2026/27, THEN the big payday comes.

To be fair, I can't see Sheldrick getting anything more than 2 years from us anyway.

If I'm Sheldrick, I am taking the Eagles up on whatever their interest is and hoping they are desperate and ill-advised enough to throw 3-4 years at him, like North were with Stephens. At least that way he's guaranteed best 22 and playing quality footy for a cellar dweller at best, outside of the best 22 but still on the list with a contract & salary at worst.

If he takes 2 years with us, the possibilities are far more varied and potentially disastrous for him individually. He could end up best 22 and playing quality footy for sure. He could also continue to struggle to cement his place in the 22 of a flag contender and be out of contract in 2 years time, only then without the interest from West Coast or the optimism of youth from us. Then you're really in the footy abyss.

This is the same point in Stephens' career, when Stephens made a decision to further himself individually and it was proven to be the correct one, as he hasn't really progressed at North but at least is getting games and is contracted beyond what he likely would've been with us. My gut feel is that Sheldrick might be a better prospect than Stephens, but he has the exact same decision to make.

It's such a difficult position to be in and I don't envy him at all.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

To be fair, I can't see Sheldrick getting anything more than 2 years from us anyway.

If I'm Sheldrick, I am taking the Eagles up on whatever their interest is and hoping they are desperate and ill-advised enough to throw 3-4 years at him, like North were with Stephens. At least that way he's guaranteed best 22 and playing quality footy for a cellar dweller at best, outside of the best 22 but still on the list with a contract & salary at worst.

If he takes 2 years with us, the possibilities are far more varied and potentially disastrous for him individually. He could end up best 22 and playing quality footy for sure. He could also continue to struggle to cement his place in the 22 of a flag contender and be out of contract in 2 years time, only then without the interest from West Coast or the optimism of youth from us. Then you're really in the footy abyss.

This is the same point in Stephens' career, when Stephens made a decision to further himself individually and it was proven to be the correct one, as he hasn't really progressed at North but at least is getting games and is contracted beyond what he likely would've been with us. My gut feel is that Sheldrick might be a better prospect than Stephens, but he has the exact same decision to make.

It's such a difficult position to be in and I don't envy him at all.

Difference is that Stephens hadn’t had the injury issues that Sheldrick has.

Which means: Stephens ceiling was established, Sheldrick’s isn’t.

 

[Ehswan]

The AFL is a business.

They need northern clubs to produce revenues more than they need St Kilda.

What will happen is: it’ll achieve St Kilda’s immediate aim (draw media attention away from their own dismal mess) for a short while ….. but there is no way the AFL will pander to St Kilda’s whinging.

Might be conspiracy theories...but it looks like the same bs tactic of years ago when Eddie started championing the poor bulldogs and the Vic media peddled it until every person believed the special swans treatment.
Get the weak vic club as the poor underprivileged.. everyone get behind it and ignore all the benefits enjoyed by Vic clubs..

You watch the 'story 'gather momentum

 

[Jimbo OZ]

Well, bye week has come & gone ... and still no Gus contract.

Its starting to look & feel like the exit door at the end of season 2025 will look something like this:

• Florent (trade)
• Sheldrick (trade)
• Rampe (retired)
• Kirk (delisted)
• Fox (delisted)
• Buller (delisted)
• Mitchell (delisted)
• Paton (delisted)
• Hamling (delisted)

Lloyd, Francis, Ladhams and Leidler could go either way. A negotiated exit deal could also be struck with Adams.

If we assume 4 draftees + a couple of rookies, that leaves quite a bit of space on the list for "trade ins".

I really hope we can keep a few of our older champions on reduced "depth" contracts. Our VFL team, especially our young draftees, could really do with some on field coaching. Rampe, Lloyd, and Fox would be excellent in this role. They'd also be good replacements when in an injury crisis. I reckon Callum Sinclair did this sort of thing for a few years. There were probably others.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I really hope we can keep a few of our older champions on reduced "depth" contracts. Our VFL team, especially our young draftees, could really do with some on field coaching. Rampe, Lloyd, and Fox would be excellent in this role. They'd also be good replacements when in an injury crisis. I reckon Callum Sinclair did this sort of thing for a few years. There were probably others.

I think our VFL team is beyond saving lol

 

[Jimbo OZ]

I think our VFL team is beyond saving lol

2026

 

[joeykanga]

Is that word allowed

What a peculiar fellow you are. Perhaps you prefer moats

 

[The King!]

Sheldrick will stay I reckon.


Florents manager is the only one pushing interest is my guess

 

[The King!]

Difference is that Stephens hadn’t had the injury issues that Sheldrick has.

Which means: Stephens ceiling was established, Sheldrick’s isn’t.

You just added 50,000 a year to his contract

 

[Kbroome]

Sheldrick will stay I reckon.


Florents manager is the only one pushing interest is my guess

Agreed,

Sheldricks value is building especially if he continues to put in 20+ disposal efforts with a basically fully fit Sydney side.

Florent is cooked especially with Carmichael coming in the next draft and the general overload we have at the wing/half back spot. Florent could easily get into some of the Vic clubs on a wing but just not really us atm in the form he is in

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Agreed,

Sheldricks value is building especially if he continues to put in 20+ disposal efforts with a basically fully fit Sydney side.

Florent is cooked especially with Carmichael coming in the next draft and the general overload we have at the wing/half back spot. Florent could easily get into some of the Vic clubs on a wing but just not really us atm in the form he is in

Not long ago, the club thought it was a good idea to sign Ollie Florent to 2029.

It was when the club was revelling in the euphoria of being 3
games clear atop the ladder.

It seemingly caused some ill-considered list management calls - as we clearly overrated some players when the team was flying (McLean to 2027 is a case in point).

And now we have to deal with the fallout.

Note: I still believe Florent is a good player who’ll find form again. But I’m of a view that long-term contracts are almost NEVER a good idea.

 

[Bonz]

I actually found Bonz posts suggesting that length of contract is the sticking point with Gus a bit interesting.

If I was Gus, I’d only want 2 years.

Because he won’t be getting huge money in his next contract - but if he can have a really good 2026/27, THEN the big payday comes.

On the other hand, job security in case of injury. You only get one shot at AFL generally.

 

[bedford]

What a peculiar fellow you are. Perhaps you prefer moats

Moats , are that's what were around in the medieval age with Castles ?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Not long ago, the club thought it was a good idea to sign Ollie Florent to 2029.

It was when the club was revelling in the euphoria of being 3
games clear atop the ladder.

It seemingly caused some ill-considered list management calls - as we clearly overrated some players when the team was flying (McLean to 2027 is a case in point).

And now we have to deal with the fallout.

Note: I still believe Florent is a good player who’ll find form again. But I’m of a view that long-term contracts are almost NEVER a good idea.

You dont ever give bottom 6 players of your side a 5yr extension... its ludicrous no wonder we are trying to ship him off.

Its probably the worst extension we have ever done yes worse than Sam Reid.

 

[bedford]

You dont ever give bottom 6 players of your side a 5yr extension... its ludicrous no wonder we are trying to ship him off.

Its probably the worst extension we have ever done yes worse than Sam Reid.

Sam Reid is a Premiership player , who fit was a walk up start , now ...................

 

[rustycrate]

You dont ever give bottom 6 players of your side a 5yr extension... its ludicrous no wonder we are trying to ship him off.

Its probably the worst extension we have ever done yes worse than Sam Reid.

Ollie is not a bottom six player.

That is like saying your posts are credible.

 

[McRobie]

If you're waiting for another Heeney to be on the list, you'll be waiting a while. Goodes & Buddy are the only Swans I have seen in my entire lifetime with a comparable amount of talent. It's just not worth pinning our hopes of success on. We're best served trying to get the best out of everyone else, which has worked in the past, like the back ends of 2022 & 2023 when we went on strong winning streaks with minimal impact from Heeney.

I hear you but let’s be real, we are a bottom 6 team with significant depth issues.
The team in 2022/2023 you’re referring to had far better depth which meant our best 22 was always strong.
Right now our bottom 6-8 players are pretty ordinary.
Heeney and at times Warner paper over these cracks and hence my point with this current squad we need stars to be performing to be competitive.
You said get “best out of everyone”, that’s cool when you have depth, I think you’re seriously over rating what we have if you think we can play that game with the current list. I mean we are losing games by 90 plus points.

We badly need top end talent, that’s what I’m arguing for, I don’t see how that’s not a legitimate point.
As I previously stated someone can pop up or a few might pop up that enter that zone. I never said that wasn’t possible.

 

[caesar88]

I hear you but let’s be real, we are a bottom 6 team with significant depth issues.
The team in 2022/2023 you’re referring to had far better depth which meant our best 22 was always strong.
Right now our bottom 6-8 players are pretty ordinary.
Heeney and at times Warner paper over these cracks and hence my point with this current squad we need stars to be performing to be competitive.
You said get “best out of everyone”, that’s cool when you have depth, I think you’re seriously over rating what we have if you think we can play that game with the current list. I mean we are losing games by 90 plus points.

We badly need top end talent, that’s what I’m arguing for, I don’t see how that’s not a legitimate point.
As I previously stated someone can pop up or a few might pop up that enter that zone. I never said that wasn’t possible.

I literally said in the quoted comment below from a few days ago that our list is too top heavy and it drops away a little too much after the top tier. So I agree with you that our depth isn't good enough and it's been costly. I just think there is more to our top tier beyond just Heeney, so he could go down with injury, or play poorly, and we could still be fine. (In an ordinary year, that is - in these post-GF belting years, no one on the list can be trusted. So in that sense I disagree with your assessment that we're a bottom 6 team. I think we're a top 8 team simply having a bottom 6 year.)

I posted something similar a few months ago, but I wanted to try and assess who the players are that are the most influential in regards to our success, and those who maybe aren't so consequential, and therefore maybe expendable going forward.

I crunched some numbers and looked at how our players measured in two key categories - AFLCA votes (for a coaches perspective) and POTY votes from this board (for a fans perspective) - across three key periods of extended team success: 9-0 in the back end of 2022, 6-0 in the back end of 2023, and 13-1 in the first half of last year. I felt it important to consider multiple periods for a greater look at the whole of a player's contributions in recent seasons, and not just last year when we were dominant, or this year when we've struggled.

So through a rather meticulous process that my close mate who is a statistician and physics teacher that I definitely did not consult with I undertook, I was able to come up with final scores.

1. Errol Gulden (2)
2. James Rowbottom (8)
3. Chad Warner (10)
4. Luke Parker (11)
5. Isaac Heeney (12)
6. Nick Blakey (14)
=7. Brodie Grundy, Tom Papley (17)
9. Callum Mills (18)
=10. Hayden McLean, Will Hayward (19)
12. Ollie Florent (24)
13. Buddy Franklin (26)
=14. Joel Amartey, Justin McInerney (28)
=16. Jake Lloyd, Sam Reid (30)
=18. Robbie Fox, Tom McCartin (34)
20. Tom Hickey (36)
=21. Dane Rampe, James Jordon (40)
=23. Dylan Stephens, Matt Roberts (45)
25. Paddy McCartin (47)
26. Logan McDonald (49)
=27. Harry Cunningham, Lewis Melican, Taylor Adams (54)

So, what to make of it?

I think the top nine probably don't surprise anyone, beyond maybe the order. I tend to think that if any team did a similar exercise on their periods of success, their top-liners would all occupy the upper echelons of the list.

But I think what can be gleamed from the rest is that the tier of players below matter. When they are firing and performing well, the team is better for it. That includes McLean when in contested marking form, Hayward when in goal-kicking form, and Florent when in smooth-moving, prolific (by his standards) form. What makes these guys so tricky from a list management/trade perspective is that it's not easy to just move on players who have played a significant role in on-field success before, but it's also not easy to trust that they'll ever do it again.

Another thing that can be gleamed is that talls matter. As mentioned above about McLean, but also Reid. When we've had that tall taking contested marks down the line or ahead of the ball, we're a different team. It gives us shape and structure and gives us more confidence to flex with our running game as we can get more numbers ahead of the ball.

But really, once you get down to about 10th and below, I think it speaks to the inconsistency we've had from all of those names, either by their own flaws or just bad luck. There's a lot of great names in the 10th-27th range, but they are where they are on that list because they're too old, too injury-prone, or too inconsistent. Names like Reid, Fox, Stephens & Paddy were only able to have short stints being strong contributors for us before either age, fitness or form robbed them of the chance to be longer-term players for us across multiple periods of success. Names like McInerney, Amartey & McDonald I think most recognise are quality talents but haven't been able to consistently contribute at that highest level yet. Names like Rampe & Lloyd have been great players for a long time but these periods of success have aligned mainly with their twilight years. Names like the McCartin brothers & Melican have just been too damn interrupted by injury to know how good they could've been by now.

So it's probably nothing groundbreaking that I'm saying here. From all I've seen across the various platforms, the consensus amongst Swans fans is that our best players are enough, but we need to have better quality and list depth around them, and definitely more consistency.

Hopefully we can find that with the right moves this off-season.

 

[McRobie]

I literally said in the quoted comment below from a few days ago that our list is too top heavy and it drops away a little too much after the top tier. So I agree with you that our depth isn't good enough and it's been costly. I just think there is more to our top tier beyond just Heeney, so he could go down with injury, or play poorly, and we could still be fine. (In an ordinary year, that is - in these post-GF belting years, no one on the list can be trusted. So in that sense I disagree with your assessment that we're a bottom 6 team. I think we're a top 8 team simply having a bottom 6 year.)

I agree with all your points except I can’t reconcile how we are top 8 side when we are getting whacked by huge margins by teams outside the 8.

 

[bedford]

Ollie is not a bottom six player.

That is like saying your posts are credible.

2 magnificent posts after midnight

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Ollie is not a bottom six player.

That is like saying your posts are credible.

In fairness, if you’re dropped it suggests you ARE a bottom six player in the context of the senior team.

I’d agree Ollie isn’t a bottom six player on the overall list.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

In fairness, if you’re dropped it suggests you ARE a bottom six player in the context of the senior team.

I’d agree Ollie isn’t a bottom six player on the overall list.

Bottom 6 is a fluid situation. On a week by week basis, Heeney, Chad and Gulden are consistently in the top 6. Fully fit Mills is a lock too. At the next level, I'd say Lizard, Mccartin, Melican, Papley, Grundy, Rowie and pleasingly Wicks feature prominently. I would've categorised Ollie in this category until this year. He has really struggled to impact games when the hope wouldve been that he would not step up during our injury crisis. What this tells me is that he's a mid ranger who mainly plays good games when surrounded by good players.

 

[caesar88]

I agree with all your points except I can’t reconcile how we are top 8 side when we are getting whacked by huge margins by teams outside the 8.

It depends on exactly how fluid you think form is. Everyone is probably different there, but for me personally I look at the fact that over half of this week's 23 played in the GF three years ago. Eighteen of them played in the GF one year ago. That is a large enough sample size for me to think that is a better representation of what they are than this year's version.

It doesn't negate the fact our depth isn't good enough. It can just mean we're a good side whose depth is one of our weaknesses. Every team's got a few.

 

[Kbroome]

I know this is wild to

It depends on exactly how fluid you think form is. Everyone is probably different there, but for me personally I look at the fact that over half of this week's 23 played in the GF three years ago. Eighteen of them played in the GF one year ago. That is a large enough sample size for me to think that is a better representation of what they are than this year's version.

It doesn't negate the fact our depth isn't good enough. It can just mean we're a good side whose depth is one of our weaknesses. Every team's got a few.

I think there is a difference between depth and then going to your outright development players in some positions.

We have decent depth across the board the problem is that this year we have basically felt the squeeze in 3 positions. KPD, KPF and small forward. When injuries are so concentrated in those areas it is hard if your backups are already called up to then fill the hole again with the next injury/suspension

 

[caesar88]

Not long ago, the club thought it was a good idea to sign Ollie Florent to 2029.

It was when the club was revelling in the euphoria of being 3
games clear atop the ladder.

It seemingly caused some ill-considered list management calls - as we clearly overrated some players when the team was flying (McLean to 2027 is a case in point).

And now we have to deal with the fallout.

Note: I still believe Florent is a good player who’ll find form again. But I’m of a view that long-term contracts are almost NEVER a good idea.

I don't think Florent (and Hayward etc) was signed long-term just because we were in ripping form on top of the ladder. It's not as if Florent was the key driver of that form so we were deluded by him.

I think those two just seemed way more valuable than they actually were because Horse just loved them. Under Horse they were undroppable stalwarts who we could say with reasonable certainty were never going to be dropped within those four years, so signing them for those four years was the logical thing to do.

The only problem is that a lot of other coaches probably wouldn't have held them in the same regard....