Sydney Swans Draft Thread

[SM]

I was obviously being a bit facetious.

IMO the jolly trade wasn't that far off the mark. The trades for kennedy, mummy and mcglynn I think were.

The big factor that none of us are privy to is the salaries of the players.

The question that I would ask is, did the difference in salary between what we paid for jolly and mummy allow us to pick up a Kennedy or a mcglynn.

I know none of us will know the answer for sure, so I am happy to leave it up to the list managers.

Anyway, makes for a good discussion.

I do know that Jolly's increased salary forced Schneider and Dempster out.

 

[.Shotties.]

I probably shouldn't post this as it is cruel.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=527112

I'm guessing that's the one with one of their players v Pendles? It's what I always want to post every time I hear about one of their elite young stars.

I can't talk though, I had massive hopes for Meredith.

 

[Super sub]

I do know that Jolly's increased salary forced Schneider and Dempster out.

And then that is a fair point. And you can make a judgement on that.

What I was trying to say is that we usually only see the trade ie: what did we give up to get Walsh and what did we get for Johnston.

What I would love to know is was there differences in the salaries and if so what impact did that have on our cap.

With all of that information the discussion becomes more informed.

I loved it when the crows CEO came out this week and said they could not afford Leon. The supporters were stunned. Their list is very average and yet there is no room. So they must be paying overs for a lot of players.

In the NBA all of the players salaries are listed which would help us here if that happened. Won't hold my breath for it.

 

[Swanee]

Oh, I'm not arguing that the trade turned out really well for us, but that's not really the point. Jolly didn't know that. In the end, what we got from Collingwood was below Jolly's market value, and that was only possible because Jolly nominated Collingwood and only Collingwood. That had nothing to do with being homesick.

We can be thankful that things turned out the way they did, but that doesn't make Jolly's behaviour any less poor.

Have to totally agree with you. The fact that Jolly was still under contract made it all the more ridiculous that we allowed him to nominate which Melbourne club he wanted to go to.

helping Jolly out helps our reputation as a team that looks after it's players, scoring brownie points for us from agents, players and teams.

I thought the fact that we were allowing an important player out of his recently signed contract was sufficiently looking after him. He was of much more value than what we got for him, and we would have gotten much more if we had shopped him around all the Melbourne based clubs. And not sure brownie points mean a lot for future deals, they are quickly forgotten when new deals are being negotiated.

 

[liz]

. In the end, what we got from Collingwood was below Jolly's market value, and that was only possible because Jolly nominated Collingwood and only Collingwood.

Was it? How do you determine what Jolly's market value was if it wasn't what Collingwood paid. There were no other suitors for his services that made themselves publicly known. I think it highly likely that by the time we, the public, got wind of Jolly's trade request, his manager would have spoken to every Melbourne club and worked out that Collingwood were the one with the most interest and the most able to provide something approaching a fair trade.

It is close to impossible to compare trades with each other due to the different needs of clubs at different times, different perceptions of each year's draft strength (and hence the value of highish draft picks), different perceptions of a player's worth (partly based on age) and the lumpiness of the currency available to clubs to trade with.

But I think it is hard to find a similar trade for a similarly aged and rated played in recent seasons that indicates we received significantly under his "market value".

Indeed, given that we were able to find a more than adequate replacement who was 5 or so years younger and paid only pick 28 indicates that we weren't fleeced at the trade table at all.

 

[S120]

Was it? How do you determine what Jolly's market value was if it wasn't what Collingwood paid. There were no other suitors for his services that made themselves publicly known. I think it highly likely that by the time we, the public, got wind of Jolly's trade request, his manager would have spoken to every Melbourne club and worked out that Collingwood were the one with the most interest and the most able to provide something approaching a fair trade.

It is close to impossible to compare trades with each other due to the different needs of clubs at different times, different perceptions of each year's draft strength (and hence the value of highish draft picks), different perceptions of a player's worth (partly based on age) and the lumpiness of the currency available to clubs to trade with.

But I think it is hard to find a similar trade for a similarly aged and rated played in recent seasons that indicates we received significantly under his "market value".

Indeed, given that we were able to find a more than adequate replacement who was 5 or so years younger and paid only pick 28 indicates that we weren't fleeced at the trade table at all.

As normal, I tend to agree with what liz has said. I still harbour some resentment towards Jolly merely because of his wife's behaviour during GF week in 2006 and consequently his performance during that game.

At the time of the trade, I thought we were getting badly fleeced but a few weeks later I came to think that it was a relatively even trade under the circumstances (perhaps we were just on the worse end, but it was marginal in my mind).

 

[Irvin11]

Just had a read of a few phantom drafts as well and they had these players going to us.

Pick 43:

#43 Sydney - Jack Crisp (189cm forward - Murray Bushrangers)

Doesn't have the biggest profile, but an easy player to like. I don't think the second round would be out of the equation for him come draft day. Lots to like about Crisp up forward, strong mark above his head and can kick a decent ball too. It wouldn't surprise me if Crisp was to get an early debut, particularly as his defensive work as a forward is already right where it needs to be.

AFL Comparison: Chris Mayne

#43 - Sydney - Brett O’Hanlon (189cm forward - Dandenong Stingrays)

Power forward who has all the aspects of becoming elite but needs to develop a few tricks. Very strong marker, presents well, great reader of the play, work his way to the front at all costs, fifty plus meter left foot kick and is able to kick bags and win the game for the team.

#43 Sydney – Brett O’Hanlon (189cm forward - Dandenong Stingrays)

Forward who probably is one of if not the strongest mark going around in this years draft. On the lead incredibly strong and as well as overhead. Reads the ball in the air. Marks consistently at the highest point and always marks out in front. Just keeps his eyes on the ball and that’s all there is to it. Even while jumping in the air or leaping forward always seems to come down with the strong grab. Left footer with a 55m kick on him. Can kick bags of goals. Might need to become more versatile and add a few more strings to his bow at the next level but there is allot to like.

#43 – Sydney – Henry Schade (194cm defender - North Hobart)

Has really impressed after breaking into the North Hobart senior team this season. Has the advantage of playing against men in the lead up. Provides very good rebound for a big man. Has good distance to his kicking and has been used as a bit of an outlet in junior football.

Pick 61:

#61 Sydney - Lachlan Dalgleish (185cm midfielder - North Ballarat)

I said he was a midfielder, but he has played just as much across half forward and given what he has shown up forward I could easily have called him that. Excellent speed and has run competitively. Will be an interesting player to watch, potentially more of an athlete and teams have been moving away from those types lately. But there is plenty of interest in him.

AFL Comparison: Ricky Henderson

#61 - Sydney - Jordan Staley (195cm forward - Gippsland Power)

A monster kick and more importantly a very accurate kick. He's able to play as a strong leading CHF and can take a ripper mark, attacks the ball with his 2nd and 3rd efforts and does have footy smarts. He's also able to play in the ruck and compete well.

#61 Sydney – Murray Newman (177cm midfielder - Swan Districts)

Really nice midfielder/forward who is really dangerous whenever he gets the ball in hand. Really good user of the footy and something just seems to happen every time he gets near it. Has pace. Has really good vision and is really good at finding space. Looks like a really nice talent even though he is on the small side. Physically a fair bit of development to come.

#61– Sydney – Nick O’Brien (189cm forward - North Ballarat)

O’Brien has good leadership skills and has an incredible workrate. Has good hands and although doesn’t have great speed he has very good endurance. I think eventually with his workrate he could push into the midfield, but it is a fair way off.


#61 - Sydney - Sam Gordon (197cm forward - Geelong Falcons)

Power forward who can turn a game upside down. Really good contestant ball marker, field kicking is good, leads well and is a really good size. His goal kicking is usually good but he is known to have off days where his dominance won't be known on the scoreboard.

 

[Swanee]

Was it? How do you determine what Jolly's market value was if it wasn't what Collingwood paid. There were no other suitors for his services that made themselves publicly known. I think it highly likely that by the time we, the public, got wind of Jolly's trade request, his manager would have spoken to every Melbourne club and worked out that Collingwood were the one with the most interest and the most able to provide something approaching a fair trade.

It is close to impossible to compare trades with each other due to the different needs of clubs at different times, different perceptions of each year's draft strength (and hence the value of highish draft picks), different perceptions of a player's worth (partly based on age) and the lumpiness of the currency available to clubs to trade with.

But I think it is hard to find a similar trade for a similarly aged and rated played in recent seasons that indicates we received significantly under his "market value".

Indeed, given that we were able to find a more than adequate replacement who was 5 or so years younger and paid only pick 28 indicates that we weren't fleeced at the trade table at all.

I cant agree with you on this Liz. I doubt very much if Jolly or his manager would have given a tinker's cuss whether Collingwood could provide a fair trade to the Swans or not.

And you can't compare the worth of Jolly with Mumford. Sydney only managed to get Mumford for pick 28 due to the change in the rules for rookie listed players and I believe caught every one else by surprise. Good work by our recruiting but certainly not indicative of Mumfords true value. If he had been openly banded about, he would have drawn much higher than pick 28.

Jolly was the best ruckman in the competition at the time and (imo) was worth much more than pick 14 & 28.

 

[Super sub]

I am personally glad he chose to leave when he did.

The fact he was still under contract was a blessing IMO, and I think that the swans realized it to.

The other option was to wait a year at which time he would have been out of contract. Then I don't think it would have mattered greatly where he wanted to go, 14 would have been hard to get.

I know it is early days by I just wish we had used 14 better.

 

[bedford]

Just had a read of a few phantom drafts as well and they had these players going to us.

Pick 43:

#43 Sydney - Jack Crisp (189cm forward - Murray Bushrangers)

Doesn't have the biggest profile, but an easy player to like. I don't think the second round would be out of the equation for him come draft day. Lots to like about Crisp up forward, strong mark above his head and can kick a decent ball too. It wouldn't surprise me if Crisp was to get an early debut, particularly as his defensive work as a forward is already right where it needs to be.

AFL Comparison: Chris Mayne

#43 - Sydney - Brett O’Hanlon (189cm forward - Dandenong Stingrays)

Power forward who has all the aspects of becoming elite but needs to develop a few tricks. Very strong marker, presents well, great reader of the play, work his way to the front at all costs, fifty plus meter left foot kick and is able to kick bags and win the game for the team.

#43 Sydney – Brett O’Hanlon (189cm forward - Dandenong Stingrays)

Forward who probably is one of if not the strongest mark going around in this years draft. On the lead incredibly strong and as well as overhead. Reads the ball in the air. Marks consistently at the highest point and always marks out in front. Just keeps his eyes on the ball and that’s all there is to it. Even while jumping in the air or leaping forward always seems to come down with the strong grab. Left footer with a 55m kick on him. Can kick bags of goals. Might need to become more versatile and add a few more strings to his bow at the next level but there is allot to like.

#43 – Sydney – Henry Schade (194cm defender - North Hobart)

Has really impressed after breaking into the North Hobart senior team this season. Has the advantage of playing against men in the lead up. Provides very good rebound for a big man. Has good distance to his kicking and has been used as a bit of an outlet in junior football.

Pick 61:

#61 Sydney - Lachlan Dalgleish (185cm midfielder - North Ballarat)

I said he was a midfielder, but he has played just as much across half forward and given what he has shown up forward I could easily have called him that. Excellent speed and has run competitively. Will be an interesting player to watch, potentially more of an athlete and teams have been moving away from those types lately. But there is plenty of interest in him.

AFL Comparison: Ricky Henderson

#61 - Sydney - Jordan Staley (195cm forward - Gippsland Power)

A monster kick and more importantly a very accurate kick. He's able to play as a strong leading CHF and can take a ripper mark, attacks the ball with his 2nd and 3rd efforts and does have footy smarts. He's also able to play in the ruck and compete well.

#61 Sydney – Murray Newman (177cm midfielder - Swan Districts)

Really nice midfielder/forward who is really dangerous whenever he gets the ball in hand. Really good user of the footy and something just seems to happen every time he gets near it. Has pace. Has really good vision and is really good at finding space. Looks like a really nice talent even though he is on the small side. Physically a fair bit of development to come.

#61– Sydney – Nick O’Brien (189cm forward - North Ballarat)

O’Brien has good leadership skills and has an incredible workrate. Has good hands and although doesn’t have great speed he has very good endurance. I think eventually with his workrate he could push into the midfield, but it is a fair way off.


#61 - Sydney - Sam Gordon (197cm forward - Geelong Falcons)

Power forward who can turn a game upside down. Really good contestant ball marker, field kicking is good, leads well and is a really good size. His goal kicking is usually good but he is known to have off days where his dominance won't be known on the scoreboard.

None of these tips are ever right unless its top 10, some of these so-called journo's have to justify their salary.

 

[grimlock]

I don't think they are journos, just posters on BF who have a keen interest in junior footy. Some of them are a lot better than what most of the journos at the major newspapers could produce.

 

[Irvin11]

I don't think they are journos, just posters on BF who have a keen interest in junior footy. Some of them are a lot better than what most of the journos at the major newspapers could produce.

Yeah I compiled them from BigFooty and another footy website.

I did the same last year, and they usually are very close to the mark.

 

[bedford]

Very very hard to pick what a club will do with picks that high as who knows what will be left, thou i suppose some have alot of spare time on their hands.

 

[BarneyBent]

Very very hard to pick what a club will do with picks that high as who knows what will be left, thou i suppose some have alot of spare time on their hands.

They're meant less as a prediction and more as a way of listing likely types that might go around that pick, with the exact pick assigned loosely on the basis of perceived need. I don't think any phantom drafter will be concerned if they don't get a single pick above 20 correct, it's more about the general placing of the players, combined with guessing a club's general draft approach.

 

[liz]

I cant agree with you on this Liz. I doubt very much if Jolly or his manager would have given a tinker's cuss whether Collingwood could provide a fair trade to the Swans or not.

And you can't compare the worth of Jolly with Mumford. Sydney only managed to get Mumford for pick 28 due to the change in the rules for rookie listed players and I believe caught every one else by surprise. Good work by our recruiting but certainly not indicative of Mumfords true value. If he had been openly banded about, he would have drawn much higher than pick 28.

Jolly was the best ruckman in the competition at the time and (imo) was worth much more than pick 14 & 28.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Jolly was contracted. The Swans may be fair trades but they are not mugs. If Jolly (and by extension Jolly's manager) wanted to go to Collingwood, it was very much in their interests to ensure that Collingwood could and would trade fairly. Otherwise the Swans wouldn't have traded.

Unless a player has really fallen out with his club, I think most are keen to see the club he is leaving treated fairly at trade table, even when they are out of contract. Look at ROK for example. He agreed to stay at the Swans when no other club came close to offering the Swans a fair trade for him.

I don't buy the idea that no other club realised that rookies could be traded for. If another club had been in the market for a ruckman I am sure Mummy would have been on their consideration list. The reason why he was cheaper at the trade table than Jolly is because he was far less proven, not because no other club understood he could be traded.

And it is a huge stretch to claim Jolly was the best ruckman in the competition. He has never made the AA team, and was in the AA squad just once, which was 2010 as a Pies player. He may have been in the best handful of rucks but was always soundly beaten by Cox and Sandilands.

For people claiming Collingwood got him for less than fair market value, what do think the Swans might have received, and from which club, had he not indicated his preference for the Pies but just asked to go to any Melbourne club?

 

[Swanee]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Jolly was contracted. The Swans may be fair trades but they are not mugs. If Jolly (and by extension Jolly's manager) wanted to go to Collingwood, it was very much in their interests to ensure that Collingwood could and would trade fairly. Otherwise the Swans wouldn't have traded.

Unless a player has really fallen out with his club, I think most are keen to see the club he is leaving treated fairly at trade table, even when they are out of contract. Look at ROK for example. He agreed to stay at the Swans when no other club came close to offering the Swans a fair trade for him.

I don't buy the idea that no other club realised that rookies could be traded for. If another club had been in the market for a ruckman I am sure Mummy would have been on their consideration list. The reason why he was cheaper at the trade table than Jolly is because he was far less proven, not because no other club understood he could be traded.

And it is a huge stretch to claim Jolly was the best ruckman in the competition. He has never made the AA team, and was in the AA squad just once, which was 2010 as a Pies player. He may have been in the best handful of rucks but was always soundly beaten by Cox and Sandilands.

For people claiming Collingwood got him for less than fair market value, what do think the Swans might have received, and from which club, had he not indicated his preference for the Pies but just asked to go to any Melbourne club?

On the first bolded point you make, I agree (that is to disagree).

The second point I also agree, and I accept you're quite right on that. Jolly wasnt the best, but would have been top 4 or 5.

In the end, i'm glad he's (Jolly) gone. I didint particularly like his attitude or dedication anyway and Mummy is great for us and will be hopefully for a long time to come.

 

[baja]

this might be a silly question, I was reading the player academy thread on the main board and a couple of posts from Liz and Legend166 got me thinking and I didnt wanna sound goose there so Ill ask here.. (you all already know I am)

How do our draft concessions work via the academy? Does it mean that players that are from our academy cant be touched by other clubs and we get first crack?

*I was thinking maybe we could rort it if we could identify great talent and chuck em in the academy for a year just to lock em in??

 

[mark121]

Same as the father / son rule, if a team bids pick 11 we need to use our next pick.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

None of these tips are ever right unless its top 10, some of these so-called journo's have to justify their salary.

Whilst Phantom Drafts are hardly ever very accurate with exact players to exact clubs they are often very close to the mark regarding what sort of range players are likely to be taken in.

Some very keen junior footy watchers on BF, and they are often pretty accurate with their ratings of players.

Personally from those mentioned I'd be most keen on a combo of

Pick 43
#43 – Sydney – Henry Schade (194cm defender - North Hobart)

Has really impressed after breaking into the North Hobart senior team this season. Has the advantage of playing against men in the lead up. Provides very good rebound for a big man. Has good distance to his kicking and has been used as a bit of an outlet in junior football.

Pick 61:

#61 - Sydney - Sam Gordon (197cm forward - Geelong Falcons)

Power forward who can turn a game upside down. Really good contestant ball marker, field kicking is good, leads well and is a really good size. His goal kicking is usually good but he is known to have off days where his dominance won't be known on the scoreboard.

With Midfield class coming in the form of Mitchell, I think a defender at 43, and a speculative forward at #61 would be a decent way to go.

Not really all that keen on mid-sized lead up forwards in the draft, as I think Spangher did a decent job at that, and Morton when playing his best is already made for that role.

Also from reports Gordon fits in with our kicking infront of goal pretty well

Would love to see some more discussion about this years draft and some less about Jolly/previous years trades

 

[bedford]

Ben Darrou from Sandy Dragons would be a good pick as a key defender, smashed Tom Curran in the Grand Final. Tough as nails and a massive kick.
I will admit to being biased as he is from my club.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Ben Darrou from Sandy Dragons would be a good pick as a key defender, smashed Tom Curran in the Grand Final. Tough as nails and a massive kick.
I will admit to being biased as he is from my club.

What sort of pick would we need to give up for him / what are his weaknesses/strengths in your opinion?

 

[bedford]

I would be happy for him to go as either pick we have. He's got a mans body and is rarely beaten, tough and a massive kick and is a good kid with no bullshit about him.

 

[CAS79]

Been away a fortnight so if it's been discussed apologies but we need to look at a development ruckman. None of the three are that young and with Currie having departed we need to be looking to put a young specialist ruck into development looking a few years ahead.

 

[Riders of Rohan]

Been thinking the same thing CAS, could be looking up a Tom Downie or Mitch Brewer if they are still available by 43. Take a project defender with 61.

From Knightmare's mock draft.

#37 St Kilda – Tom Downie (VIC – Ruck)
Height: 205cm, Weight: 95kg, DOB: 04/27/1993
Recruited from: North Ballarat Rebels
Style:
Player comparison:
Range: 30-rookie
Profile: Super tall ruckman from a basketball background. Has only players the two matches this year, but gee has he stood out in the games he has played! Tap work is good. Can take a mark around the ground. Has a very long way to go. Endurance very much a work in progress. Project. Will take time.

#22 Brisbane – Mitch Brewer (QLD – Ruck)
Height: 204cm, Weight: 119kg, DOB:
Recruited from: Broadbeach
Style: Ben Hudson/Damian Monkhorst
Player comparison:
Range: 45-undrafted
Profile: Very strong ruckman. New to the game and from rugby background. Has shown allot of improvement in a short space of time which is nice to see. Ruckwork good. Really physical type and a big presence around the ground. Surprisingly good by foot and is reasonably co-ordinated for someone of his size. Skill level ok. Probably more of a rookie pick but well worth a shot!
Why:

 

[bedford]

We DONT need anyone new to the game from a basketball background, like a White or Soph's mate from Queensland who's name escapes me.