List Mgmt. 2026 Draft and Trade Thread

[Highflying Swans]

I’d be surprised if both McLean and Armatey were on our list next year.

Likely one, but not both.

Could potentially lose both. Amartey is in reasonable form at the moment so will attract interest from a few clubs. He might be loyal but at the end of the day it will get down to dollars and if we can afford him or match another clubs offer.
McLean is an interesting one, much maligned but could be a good get. If he is still languishing in the Reserves other clubs will show interest and he will of course look at other options.
Depending on how it pans out our depth could be tested next season.

 

[FreeAgent1]

We are in a real TPP squeeze.

Look at the ages of all our best players and starting 23.

We have virtually no starters in initial contracts (Bice and Cootee) and we have a couple of veterans rookie contracts Lloyd, Rampe.

Other than that most in prime or that area. IMHO we need to clear some of that out (McLean, Adams ) I guess if we assume we are going to lose Warner that fixes it

 

[Ticky009]

 

[Adnico26Parker]

It’ll be interesting to see what the club’s reaction is to the changes.

Pridham said last September if the changes went too far they’d consider the funding levels - “investment will be materially diminished” (ie. a significant, substantial reduction).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Everyone knows my thoughts on it. About time for mine. Clubs will have plenty of ability to match but you will have to make some calls if you have 2,3,4 + top tier talents in the same draft period.

The discount stays in so that’s the compromise for clubs that don’t make finals

 

[liz]

Seems half-baked and not thought through.

Why top five picks only? Sometimes there is almost nothing between the team finishing 13th (with pick 6) and 14th (with pick 5). One gets an extra pick and the other doesn't?

What happens if the pick is held by a club that finished high on the ladder because they traded for a future first with another club who had a shocker of a season? Do they get that extra pick, even if their top 5 pick is something of a windfall? For example, during the 2020 trade period, Collingwood traded their future first pick to GWS. They knew they had Nick Daicos available in the following year's draft and he was expected to go very early in the draft. Collingwood had qualified for the finals in 2020 (in 8th place) and probably expected they'd have a similar (or better) result in 2021. I daresay GWS expected that when they made the trade. The link below suggests that the estimated value of Collingwood's future first when the trade was made was pick 13, and they received two picks in the twenties in return (in the 2020 draft), which further indicates that Collingwood didn't think they were trading the future pick 2.

2020 Collingwood and GWS Trade for Draft Picks - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Then 2021 comes around and Collingwood have an awful season, way worse than they expected. So that future pick they traded away becomes pick 2. GWS finished 7th in that year. Should they get a double windfall, not only receiving a pick far, far higher than anyone anticipated, but then also receiving another pick (at the end of the first round) when that pick is pushed backwards due to the Darcy bid?

This example raises another question. Does a club receive an additional pick when it is the club doing the bidding (as GWS did when they bid on 2021 on Darcy, thereby pushing their pick 2 back to pick 3)?

How about if a pick is traded for? Just hypothetically (and definitely not making a prediction): Sydney wins the GF this season. Chad Warner has a blinder second half of the season, culminating in winning the NS. He then comes to the club and says his girlfriend is desperate to get back to Perth immediately and will we please trade him to West Coast. West Coast have just finished 16th on the ladder, are very keen to get Chad and agree to include their pick 3 as part of the trade. When the draft comes around, there are two bids at the very start (on Walker and Cochrane) so this pick 3 we traded for becomes pick 5. Do we - reigning premier - qualify for an extra pick at the end of round 1?

Another layer of hypothetical: Suppose Port finish one spot higher than West Coast this year (on form, unlikely, but not beyond possible). So they start with pick 4. They then lose Zak Butters to free agency and get a tier one compensation pick so they hold picks 4 and 5. Richmond (wooden spooners) open the draft by bidding on Walker so those picks 4 and 5 both get pushed back one spot. Do Port now get TWO end of first round compensation picks? What happens if Richmond bid on Cochrane first, instead of Walker. Now the first Port pick will disappear and maybe the second one gets pushed back a few spots to match that bid. So now they get no compensation picks at the end of round 1? There's a bit motivation for Port and Richmond to do some under the table shenanigans to persuade Richmond to bid on Walker first.

Which leads into another (and for now the last) question mark. What of poor Adelaide who finish one spot further ahead of Port and therefore would have received pick 5. Except this pick is pushed back to pick 6 before bidding even starts due to Port getting that compensation pick for Butters. Do they also get an end of round 1 pick because their top 5 pick has been pushed out of the top 5? Or are those only awarded for bidding push-downs, not FA push-downs. Does it make any difference if it's Carlton, rather than Adelaide who have pick 5 pushed back to pick 6, given they're about to match a high bid on Walker.

It's all ever so arbitrary and messy.

And that's before someone points out how hard it is for the winless Tigers to rebuild - yes, they got the first pick but their second round pick was pushed back by all these additional end of first round picks manufactured out of thin air.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Seems half-baked and not thought through.

Why top five picks only? Sometimes there is almost nothing between the team finishing 13th (with pick 6) and 14th (with pick 5). One gets an extra pick and the other doesn't?

What happens if the pick is held by a club that finished high on the ladder because they traded for a future first with another club who had a shocker of a season? Do they get that extra pick, even if their top 5 pick is something of a windfall? For example, during the 2020 trade period, Collingwood traded their future first pick to GWS. They knew they had Nick Daicos available in the following year's draft and he was expected to go very early in the draft. Collingwood had qualified for the finals in 2020 (in 8th place) and probably expected they'd have a similar (or better) result in 2021. I daresay GWS expected that when they made the trade. The link below suggests that the estimated value of Collingwood's future first when the trade was made was pick 13, and they received two picks in the twenties in return (in the 2020 draft), which further indicates that Collingwood didn't think they were trading the future pick 2.

2020 Collingwood and GWS Trade for Draft Picks - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Then 2021 comes around and Collingwood have an awful season, way worse than they expected. So that future pick they traded away becomes pick 2. GWS finished 7th in that year. Should they get a double windfall, not only receiving a pick far, far higher than anyone anticipated, but then also receiving another pick (at the end of the first round) when that pick is pushed backwards due to the Darcy bid?

This example raises another question. Does a club receive an additional pick when it is the club doing the bidding (as GWS did when they bid on 2021 on Darcy, thereby pushing their pick 2 back to pick 3)?

How about if a pick is traded for? Just hypothetically (and definitely not making a prediction): Sydney wins the GF this season. Chad Warner has a blinder second half of the season, culminating in winning the NS. He then comes to the club and says his girlfriend is desperate to get back to Perth immediately and will we please trade him to West Coast. West Coast have just finished 16th on the ladder, are very keen to get Chad and agree to include their pick 3 as part of the trade. When the draft comes around, there are two bids at the very start (on Walker and Cochrane) so this pick 3 we traded for becomes pick 5. Do we - reigning premier - qualify for an extra pick at the end of round 1?

Another layer of hypothetical: Suppose Port finish one spot higher than West Coast this year (on form, unlikely, but not beyond possible). So they start with pick 4. They then lose Zak Butters to free agency and get a tier one compensation pick so they hold picks 4 and 5. Richmond (wooden spooners) open the draft by bidding on Walker so those picks 4 and 5 both get pushed back one spot. Do Port now get TWO end of first round compensation picks? What happens if Richmond bid on Cochrane first, instead of Walker. Now the first Port pick will disappear and maybe the second one gets pushed back a few spots to match that bid. So now they get no compensation picks at the end of round 1? There's a bit motivation for Port and Richmond to do some under the table shenanigans to persuade Richmond to bid on Walker first.

Which leads into another (and for now the last) question mark. What of poor Adelaide who finish one spot further ahead of Port and therefore would have received pick 5. Except this pick is pushed back to pick 6 before bidding even starts due to Port getting that compensation pick for Butters. Do they also get an end of round 1 pick because their top 5 pick has been pushed out of the top 5? Or are those only awarded for bidding push-downs, not FA push-downs. Does it make any difference if it's Carlton, rather than Adelaide who have pick 5 pushed back to pick 6, given they're about to match a high bid on Walker.

It's all ever so arbitrary and messy.

And that's before someone points out how hard it is for the winless Tigers to rebuild - yes, they got the first pick but their second round pick was pushed back by all these additional end of first round picks manufactured out of thin air.

It sounds as if they're going to compromise the draft even further.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It sounds as if they're going to compromise the draft even further.

They had to do something last year was so bad. You had a bottom 2 side get pick 6. That’s a problem

I don’t have an issue with the changes albeit I don’t love the comp pick coming in. Just making clubs match with two selections is fair

 

[Neverwas]

Seems half-baked and not thought through.

Why top five picks only? Sometimes there is almost nothing between the team finishing 13th (with pick 6) and 14th (with pick 5). One gets an extra pick and the other doesn't?

What happens if the pick is held by a club that finished high on the ladder because they traded for a future first with another club who had a shocker of a season? Do they get that extra pick, even if their top 5 pick is something of a windfall? For example, during the 2020 trade period, Collingwood traded their future first pick to GWS. They knew they had Nick Daicos available in the following year's draft and he was expected to go very early in the draft. Collingwood had qualified for the finals in 2020 (in 8th place) and probably expected they'd have a similar (or better) result in 2021. I daresay GWS expected that when they made the trade. The link below suggests that the estimated value of Collingwood's future first when the trade was made was pick 13, and they received two picks in the twenties in return (in the 2020 draft), which further indicates that Collingwood didn't think they were trading the future pick 2.

2020 Collingwood and GWS Trade for Draft Picks - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Then 2021 comes around and Collingwood have an awful season, way worse than they expected. So that future pick they traded away becomes pick 2. GWS finished 7th in that year. Should they get a double windfall, not only receiving a pick far, far higher than anyone anticipated, but then also receiving another pick (at the end of the first round) when that pick is pushed backwards due to the Darcy bid?

This example raises another question. Does a club receive an additional pick when it is the club doing the bidding (as GWS did when they bid on 2021 on Darcy, thereby pushing their pick 2 back to pick 3)?

How about if a pick is traded for? Just hypothetically (and definitely not making a prediction): Sydney wins the GF this season. Chad Warner has a blinder second half of the season, culminating in winning the NS. He then comes to the club and says his girlfriend is desperate to get back to Perth immediately and will we please trade him to West Coast. West Coast have just finished 16th on the ladder, are very keen to get Chad and agree to include their pick 3 as part of the trade. When the draft comes around, there are two bids at the very start (on Walker and Cochrane) so this pick 3 we traded for becomes pick 5. Do we - reigning premier - qualify for an extra pick at the end of round 1?

Another layer of hypothetical: Suppose Port finish one spot higher than West Coast this year (on form, unlikely, but not beyond possible). So they start with pick 4. They then lose Zak Butters to free agency and get a tier one compensation pick so they hold picks 4 and 5. Richmond (wooden spooners) open the draft by bidding on Walker so those picks 4 and 5 both get pushed back one spot. Do Port now get TWO end of first round compensation picks? What happens if Richmond bid on Cochrane first, instead of Walker. Now the first Port pick will disappear and maybe the second one gets pushed back a few spots to match that bid. So now they get no compensation picks at the end of round 1? There's a bit motivation for Port and Richmond to do some under the table shenanigans to persuade Richmond to bid on Walker first.

Which leads into another (and for now the last) question mark. What of poor Adelaide who finish one spot further ahead of Port and therefore would have received pick 5. Except this pick is pushed back to pick 6 before bidding even starts due to Port getting that compensation pick for Butters. Do they also get an end of round 1 pick because their top 5 pick has been pushed out of the top 5? Or are those only awarded for bidding push-downs, not FA push-downs. Does it make any difference if it's Carlton, rather than Adelaide who have pick 5 pushed back to pick 6, given they're about to match a high bid on Walker.

It's all ever so arbitrary and messy.

And that's before someone points out how hard it is for the winless Tigers to rebuild - yes, they got the first pick but their second round pick was pushed back by all these additional end of first round picks manufactured out of thin air.

Blockbuster post Liz. Case closed. The AFL don't have a clue.

 

[Kbroome]

Anyone know if the rule will apply immediately after a bid is matched in the top 5, or after the completion of the top 5 selections, as it could have massive ramifications e.g. Carlton get the benefit of Cochrane getting bid on before Walker so earn the slid back extra pick but then their pick gets eaten up by the bid match/they trade out of the pick after it did its job of getting an extra pick so that they can match Walker easily and then effectively turn Pick 4 atm into say Walker + 19, whilst still having the Sydney pick at 18 live to chose who they want.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Anyone know if the rule will apply immediately after a bid is matched in the top 5, or after the completion of the top 5 selections, as it could have massive ramifications e.g. Carlton get the benefit of Cochrane getting bid on before Walker so earn the slid back extra pick but then their pick gets eaten up by the bid match/they trade out of the pick after it did its job of getting an extra pick so that they can match Walker easily and then effectively turn Pick 4 atm into say Walker + 19, whilst still having the Sydney pick at 18 live to chose who they want.

The only one that would get the “compensation” pick would be the bidding team surely. It makes no sense to have 5 compensation picks generated with one bid. Now if Richmond have a brain which I’m sure they do they bid at picks 1&2 for the two talents and get the two end of first comp picks they can use or trade into 2027 with another side. If they don’t bid WCE will or Essendon.

 

[liz]

It makes no sense to have 5 compensation picks generated with one bid.

That seems to be what the vague executive summary suggests. Someone is bid upon (and matched) at pick 1, the original top five picks all slide down one and five compensation picks at the end of the first round are awarded.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That seems to be what the vague executive summary suggests. Someone is bid upon (and matched) at pick 1, the original top five picks all slide down one and five compensation picks at the end of the first round are awarded.

Twomey has suggested it is ONLY the bidding team that gets the comp pick. Let’s wait and see on this part of it, was the only part of the changes I wasn’t a fan of however I get it in the top 5 if you are not getting a player you want you should get compensation.

Every other change I love. Two pick rule is a great change and 10% stays in if you miss finals.

 

[alex4445]

As usual with the AFL it is bad decisions on top of bad decisions on top of bad decisions.

The underlying problem is that the AFL has all of the power and none of it at the same time. They undermine themselves trying to keep the club chairmans, CEO's, media personalities and behind the scenes power-brokers happy while being incredibly incompetent at every turn. The only time they consider the actual supporters is when they sit down to figure out how to spin each change and even then they usually do a terrible job at it due to the aforementioned incompetence and isolation within their own industry bubble.

Ultimately they need to wipe the slate clean and start again.

NGA's gone

Academy's funded exclusively by the AFL. Clubs are paid to run their academy and have no rights to players during the main draft. If a player gets overlooked in the draft they can be directly rookie listed by the club.

Father Sons will be the only time where the points system is used. No discount, in fact there should be a 20% loading to match bids which accounts for the club paying for their exclusive rights to that player. Increase the rate at which pick values fall and wipe away all the extra rules around which and how many picks must be used and allow clubs to figure out how they want to generate the points to pay for the player.

No priority picks, no compensation picks instead take a longer term view and change the structure of the draft to better advantage the bottom teams. In my mind this should see the first round run 1-18 with the only variation being father sons. Then 19-26 like normal and then picks 27-34 should go to the bottom 8 teams in random order. Now this may not seem like much but it gives teams down the bottom an extra second round pick and it pushes the top 10 teams back, this makes it harder to rebuild lists while at the top. Over one off season it won't amount to much but over 2-3 off seasons it should allow well run clubs to balance trades and drafting while rebuilding.

There are other changes that would also be required but this post is already in the realm of TLDR so I will leave it there.

 

[Jewelsbon]

As usual with the AFL it is bad decisions on top of bad decisions on top of bad decisions.

The underlying problem is that the AFL has all of the power and none of it at the same time. They undermine themselves trying to keep the club chairmans, CEO's, media personalities and behind the scenes power-brokers happy while being incredibly incompetent at every turn. The only time they consider the actual supporters is when they sit down to figure out how to spin each change and even then they usually do a terrible job at it due to the aforementioned incompetence and isolation within their own industry bubble.

Ultimately they need to wipe the slate clean and start again.

NGA's gone

Academy's funded exclusively by the AFL. Clubs are paid to run their academy and have no rights to players during the main draft. If a player gets overlooked in the draft they can be directly rookie listed by the club.

Father Sons will be the only time where the points system is used. No discount, in fact there should be a 20% loading to match bids which accounts for the club paying for their exclusive rights to that player. Increase the rate at which pick values fall and wipe away all the extra rules around which and how many picks must be used and allow clubs to figure out how they want to generate the points to pay for the player.

No priority picks, no compensation picks instead take a longer term view and change the structure of the draft to better advantage the bottom teams. In my mind this should see the first round run 1-18 with the only variation being father sons. Then 19-26 like normal and then picks 27-34 should go to the bottom 8 teams in random order. Now this may not seem like much but it gives teams down the bottom an extra second round pick and it pushes the top 10 teams back, this makes it harder to rebuild lists while at the top. Over one off season it won't amount to much but over 2-3 off seasons it should allow well run clubs to balance trades and drafting while rebuilding.

There are other changes that would also be required but this post is already in the realm of TLDR so I will leave it there.

That all sounds very logical to me, so that of course rules it out!
AFL + logical just doesn't go together.

 

[MF]

It sounds as if they're going to compromise the draft even further.

Yep. Typical AFL reaction to something... Instead of doing the hard work to correct the underlying problem we'll just keep coming up with half baked ideas to patch it up until it all inevitably collapses like a house of cards.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yep. Typical AFL reaction to something... Instead of doing the hard work to correct the underlying problem we'll just keep coming up with half baked ideas to patch it up until it all inevitably collapses like a house of cards.

Unfortunately they can't win. This all was going to be sorted out in 2024, but Carlton among other sides had a sook, and then they delayed it. Then in the meantime GC and Brisbane can get away with paying lets just say not enough for talents. Now we are back to square 1. They need to have these new rules in and having run a year (at least) before the Tasmania drafts. That's the issue they have at the moment.

Look the comp picks I hate but half get it, so long as it's only the bidding club receiving them not the entire top 5.

They have kept the 10% for out of finals sides, so Carlton will get that and maybe Port Adelaide, the latter is a chance at a wildcard finals spot though

 

[liz]

Twomey has suggested it is ONLY the bidding team that gets the comp pick. Let’s wait and see on this part of it, was the only part of the changes I wasn’t a fan of however I get it in the top 5 if you are not getting a player you want you should get compensation.

Every other change I love. Two pick rule is a great change and 10% stays in if you miss finals.

I have no idea how you take from Twomey’s comments that it would only be the bidding team that gets the extra pick. He explicitly says it would be all clubs whose top five picks are shifted down. And it would make zero sense for it to only be the bidding club if you consider what they seem to be trying to achieve.

 

[giantsully]

Academy's funded exclusively by the AFL. Clubs are paid to run their academy and have no rights to players during the main draft. If a player gets overlooked in the draft they can be directly rookie listed by the club.

They've tried this before and it didn't work. There is no incentive for the northern clubs to run academies if they don't get access to the players and they can't be run by remote control from Melbourne.

Talented non-footy athletes won't be interested in joining an academy if the end result is they may end up anywhere in the country. They'll choose from the multitude of footballing options that exist in their own state.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Shifter has complied early Top 75 players for this year's draft

Four Swans Academy players listed:

Will Jenkin - A wingman who has excellent game sense and awareness; stood out with his clean ball handling and classy ball use. [Will] started the 2026 season in good form, averaging 22.7 disposals at 77 per cent efficiency across his first three matches in the Talent League.

Guy Jenkin - A clever wingman, [Guy] reads the game exceptionally well, is a one-touch player at ground level and uses his vision, decision making and neat disposal skills to create for his team; has made a steady start to 2026. He averaged 16.3 disposals across his first three games in the Talent League this year, including finishing among the side’s best players in a round 6 win over Tasmania.

Mason McGroder - A powerful and athletic tall defender who is aggressive in the air, McGroder also possesses excellent closing speed and intent to compete with his chasing and tackling at ground level. A dual-sport athlete who is a world-ranked long jumper, he has had limited exposure to high levels of football. He has not featured in the early part of this year in the Talent League after competing in athletics championships in recent weeks as he keeps his options open on which sport to pursue. But he is expected to resume football commitments shortly.

Aidan McCartney - A developing tall forward, McCartney provides a safe set of hands overhead and on the lead and has nice speed off the mark to present himself as a target in attack. He also showed excellent goalkicking craft from long range and tight angles during the under-16 national championships in 2024


Early Top 15 (in no particular order):

Arki Butler (Vic Metro/Sandringham Dragons)

Tate Hodgson (Vic Metro/Northern Knights)

Harry Van Hattum (Vic Metro/Northern Knights)

Xavier Ladbrook (Vic Country/Gippsland Power)

Cody Walker (Vic Country/Bendigo Pioneers)

Noah Williams (Vic Country/Geelong Falcons)

Douglas Cochrane (South Australia/Central District)

Kodah Edwards (South Australia/South Adelaide)

Ethan Herbert (South Australia/North Adelaide)

Koby LeCras (Western Australia/West Perth)

Heath Mellody (Western Australia/Claremont)

Lucas Robinson (Western Australia/South Fremantle)

Benji Van Rooyen (Western Australia/Claremont)

Hugh McCallum (Tasmanian Devils/Clarence)

Caylen Murray (Queensland/Brisbane Lions Academy)

No Cookies | CODE Sports

No Cookies | CODE Sports

www.codesports.com.au

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I have no idea how you take from Twomey’s comments that it would only be the bidding team that gets the extra pick. He explicitly says it would be all clubs whose top five picks are shifted down. And it would make zero sense for it to only be the bidding club if you consider what they seem to be trying to achieve.

It makes more sense if it's just the club that's done the bid. Who knows this is the AFL. I'm just happy that we won't have a GC situation again.

 

[SydneyBlood]

I assume the write-up of the four Swans players from Sheehan's article is copy and pasted? It's a fair effort from the Codesports website editors to give twins differently spelled last names. Takes some doing.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

I assume the write-up of the four Swans players from Sheehan's article is copy and pasted? It's a fair effort from the Codesports website editors to give twins differently spelled last names. Takes some doing.

That was me

 

[alex4445]

They've tried this before and it didn't work. There is no incentive for the northern clubs to run academies if they don't get access to the players and they can't be run by remote control from Melbourne.

Talented non-footy athletes won't be interested in joining an academy if the end result is they may end up anywhere in the country. They'll choose from the multitude of footballing options that exist in their own state.

Correct me if I am misremembering but the previous system was paid for and run by the AFL and the states not clubs.

What I am suggesting is that not only will the AFL provide the funds to run the academies they will also pay the clubs a management fee to do so and use the already established academies. This fee and access to rookie list players passed over in the main draft are the incentives for the clubs to put actual effort into running the academies.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Correct me if I am misremembering but the previous system was paid for and run by the AFL and the states not clubs.

What I am suggesting is that not only will the AFL provide the funds to run the academies they will also pay the clubs a management fee to do so and use the already established academies. This fee and access to rookie list players passed over in the main draft are the incentives for the clubs to put actual effort into running the academies.

Clubs are not going to run the academies for a few random rookie players that in likelihood are just list cloggers

The two pick rule will solve 90% of the issues whilst giving clubs access. Clubs will however have to make calls on how many they can match/how much of their future assets they want to give for a player