List Mgmt. 2019 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals Thread

[scaryness]

I was hoping it wasn't him. We should not be giving away anything more than a 3rd or 4th rounder for him. Every year someone is going to free Mills up to move into the midfield. Horse has ruined Mills career.

He won't be expensive at all which is why it's a good move if he wants to come.

 

[Punts]

Bennell and Daniher not bad so far of happens

2 walk in best 22s

 

[6yearsold]

I have. I'm seeing a little go-er who has a real crack but I'm also not seeing the creative and dangerous play-maker off half forward that has got him so much hype. That's no fault of his, he's a boy playing against men, but I think playing as an inside mid hasn't helped him show his best assets yet, and not sure they will.



Well Bruce we may have to agree to disagree re our midfield stocks. Constable would be a great get though, not sure how we'd get him.

I don't agree at all. I have been really impressed with the way he has hunted the ball playing inside mid in the reserves and that it will be great for his development.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I know it's probably been covered 50x this thread. But I don't understand why we'd ship a gun small fwd for a volatile KPF who we already have multiple versions of: Blakey, McCartin, Franklin and (god willing) Reid

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I was a bit more impressed with the bits I saw of Campbell.

 

[S120]

I know it's probably been covered 50x this thread. But I don't understand why we'd ship a gun small mid for a volatile KPF who we already have multiple versions of: Blakey, McCartin, Franklin and (god willing) Reid

My sense is that Daniher is too good to pass up - presuming his body isn't completely buggered which I'm sure the club will confirm before doing anything.

If you get Daniher, you play him and Franklin forward of course. Then Blakey, for now, will probably play a lot on the wing. McCartin I'd keep forward and I'd shift Reid into defence and have him take Melican's spot. Pretty good way of doing it imo. We're certainly not starved for key position players if we bring in Daniher.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I know it's probably been covered 50x this thread. But I don't understand why we'd ship a gun small mid for a volatile KPF who we already have multiple versions of: Blakey, McCartin, Franklin and (god willing) Reid

There are a lot of them. I thought Reid was good this year.

 

[Punts]

Blakey will end up a roaming winger not a KF imo

Reid is the one we can be flexible with

 

[scaryness]

I know it's probably been covered 50x this thread. But I don't understand why we'd ship a gun small mid for a volatile KPF who we already have multiple versions of: Blakey, McCartin, Franklin and (god willing) Reid

If the gun small forward wants out regardless you can't ask for much better back in return than Daniher, who is arguably more valuable overall than Papley anyway.

Blakey could have a future in the midfield instead of forward, McCartin could have a future in the back line instead of forward, Buddy is slowly on the way out and Daniher is just a better player than Reid.

 

[S120]

The interesting thing for us is, if we bring in Daniher and lose Papley, we're going in the opposite direction to other successful clubs right now. By that I mean, Richmond (Rioli, Butler, Castagna, Bolton, Higgins etc.), WCE (Ryan, Rioli, Petrucelle, Cripps, Cameron etc.), Collingwood (Elliott, Thomas, Varcoe, WHE) are piling their forward lines with small forwards who chase and tackle and kick goals. We'd be getting rid of our one consistent small forward presumably to do this. Not to say it won't work, it could precipitate another shift in how teams play but it's going in an opposite way to rivals.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Blakey will end up a roaming winger not a KF imo

Reid is the one we can be flexible with

Prolly right on both points. If we play McLean or Sinkers as fwd/ruck our forward line risks being tall and slow.

 

[Crust]

Not sure about a Daniher trade if it involves losing Papley.
When fit, Daniher is a gun - but is he fit?
I can only assume Swans doctors have given the Club an opinion.
If the Swans doctors reckon they can get him fit I don't see why the Bombers doctors cannot. He's such a valuable player the Bombers doctors would have obtained specialist opinion far and wide.
Therefore I reckon it's probably the case that the medical opinion on both sides is similar.
Therefore the trade value will reflect the odds on him getting fit.
If he cannot get fit we would not be interested.
If he is less than 50% chance then he is worth maybe a pick in the 60s or whatever.
If he is 50-75% chance to get fit he is worth more.
No doctor will say he is 100% chance to get fit.
Therefore given there is some chance he cannot get fit, why would we give up Papley?
Maybe I'm too conservative. We have a known quantity in Papley while Daniher is an unknown.

Second, as I understand it, there are academy picks we want next year. If we trade this year's first round for next year's first, then we get two first round picks next year.
I can't see how we get Daniher for less than our first round pick this year.
So if Papley is off the table, is it therefore the case that we are effectively trading one of our academy picks next year for Daniher?
(And hopefully the other academy pick will develop a significant bout of homesickness after two years)

 

[Opts]

no doubt before swans even entertain a trade they would put him through a pretty decent medical?

A medical usually only gives a club an indication of a players future fitness. It's never a guarantee. If you can't get him fit then why would we be able to?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Re the earlier debate between C88 and Bruce, I think our fwd line was pretty efficient given it had less supply than some other fwd lines. That is due in part to the quality of ball coming in I50 but also to the ability of our fwds to win the ball.

 

[Opts]

We cant have everything but the Bombers are squeezed, really squeezed on the CAP.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

And that is the reason we should be driving a hard bargain and keeping our first pick.

 

[replicant]

Correct re Rowbottom. I can't say the same for Gulden as he's just a big TBD at this point. I'm excited by him based on what I've heard from non-bias scouts, but to pretend like his size won't be a factor may be a bit naive. I've heard he's played his best footy as a kind of half forward who causes the most damage on a flank (like a shorter Dawson or Blakey.)

Either way I don't see how Rowbottom at 19 next year and Gulden who will be in the U18s next year, will help our midfield at all, but we've already been well over that already!

Looking at how Gulden has played in the NEAFL, i think they see him as a Jack replacement. Pretty close, really. Similar size, but runs all day, tackles hard and can get into space. He'll likely start on a wing at centre bounces and tail his man in in a run-with role. Seems to be what he's done in the NEAFL and allies games i watched, so that seems to be the role they have planned for him.

 

[Olian]

The interesting thing for us is, if we bring in Daniher and lose Papley, we're going in the opposite direction to other successful clubs right now. By that I mean, Richmond (Rioli, Butler, Castagna, Bolton, Higgins etc.), WCE (Ryan, Rioli, Petrucelle, Cripps, Cameron etc.), Collingwood (Elliott, Thomas, Varcoe, WHE) are piling their forward lines with small forwards who chase and tackle and kick goals. We'd be getting rid of our one consistent small forward presumably to do this. Not to say it won't work, it could precipitate another shift in how teams play but it's going in an opposite way to rivals.

Tigers recruited Lynch last year?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Not sure about a Daniher trade if it involves losing Papley.
When fit, Daniher is a gun - but is he fit?
I can only assume Swans doctors have given the Club an opinion.
If the Swans doctors reckon they can get him fit I don't see why the Bombers doctors cannot. He's such a valuable player the Bombers doctors would have obtained specialist opinion far and wide.
Therefore I reckon it's probably the case that the medical opinion on both sides is similar.
Therefore the trade value will reflect the odds on him getting fit.
If he cannot get fit we would not be interested.
If he is less than 50% chance then he is worth maybe a pick in the 60s or whatever.
If he is 50-75% chance to get fit he is worth more.
No doctor will say he is 100% chance to get fit.
Therefore given there is some chance he cannot get fit, why would we give up Papley?
Maybe I'm too conservative. We have a known quantity in Papley while Daniher is an unknown.

Second, as I understand it, there are academy picks we want next year. If we trade this year's first round for next year's first, then we get two first round picks next year.
I can't see how we get Daniher for less than our first round pick this year.
So if Papley is off the table, is it therefore the case that we are effectively trading one of our academy picks next year for Daniher?
(And hopefully the other academy pick will develop a significant bout of homesickness after two years)

Good post with many key points. Daniher's own asking price and our interest in meeting it is also a factor. If we offer a deal close to what Essendon is after we should also ask them to carry part of his salary.

Our record in getting injured players fit and back on the park is not spectacular. I am not overly thrilled at paying big dosh for a guy with JDs injury history at a heavy trade and salary price.

 

[Opts]

Bennell and Daniher not bad so far of happens

2 walk in best 22s

Only if we don't lose Papley.

 

[Tedeski]

Number 3

We've been preparing for this for a long time now. It explains Hanners being moved on for the bigger picture.

 

[6yearsold]

My sense is that Daniher is too good to pass up - presuming his body isn't completely buggered which I'm sure the club will confirm before doing anything.

If you get Daniher, you play him and Franklin forward of course. Then Blakey, for now, will probably play a lot on the wing. McCartin I'd keep forward and I'd shift Reid into defence and have him take Melican's spot. Pretty good way of doing it imo. We're certainly not starved for key position players if we bring in Daniher.

Reid has never had to be accountable in defence.

 

[Tedeski]

Broke the bank for Shiel.

Bombers also probably only offering 2 or 3 years.
Maybe we have offered 5 to entice him but the big thing that came out of his own mouth was that he doesn't enjoy the fishbowl of Melbourne.
Good stuff Swans. Now lets go get us some more "you can't have everyone'" type players from other Vic clubs.

 

[Tedeski]

Bennell and Daniher not bad so far of happens

2 walk in best 22s

Or in the rehab room should thing not go to plan.

 

[Punts]

Or in the rehab room should thing not go to plan.

Let’s hope that not the case

Both them fit though is something awesome

 

[Kapanis]

With all those potential talls and a fit Naismith can't see any room for Sinkers in the 22. My fear is we play Daniher as a second ruck to Naismith and he gets broken too early/easily. Definitely a transition from Buddy as he ages thinking re Daniher, so it'll be a long contract length if it happens. You would think the futures of some of our talls in the reserves like Cameron depend on the Daniher outcome.