List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

 

[Callipygian]

Don't know why the post was removed, but if we're paying difference between back ended 2025 and AFL average it's not good.

It was rumoured to be 4 x 700 at the time, so if he was on say 600 average for 3 years, then it'd be $1m and we'd be paying half that, maybe 600. If it's 650 over 3, then 850, probably paying 400ish.

I said it at the time I wouldn't want the 4th Parker year to be a problem (if he walked over only 3, so be it), but most had him as the #1 priority over extra for Dawson and keeping Hewett.

I interpreted it to mean the difference between the average of his 4 year deal and the amount he is due this year - so, using your numbers, that would be $300K this year: (4x700K) - (3 x 600K) - 700K = 300K. That still feels like a lot but it makes sense that we agreed to pay some of it (and noting that we're relieved of paying the rest of it).

That also goes some way to explaining why North were only wanting to give up a pick in the 60s. I'm sure that evening out of the salary was a big part of the discussions to work out the pick trade. Remember: cap space has a trade value, just like picks. Last year (after the Bowes AND pick 7 trade to Geelong) there was all the talk of how, in the future, trading picks for straight out salary cap will be a thing.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Don't know why the post was removed, but if we're paying difference between back ended 2025 and AFL average it's not good.

It was rumoured to be 4 x 700 at the time, so if he was on say 600 average for 3 years, then it'd be $1m and we'd be paying half that, maybe 600. If it's 650 over 3, then 850, probably paying 400ish.

I said it at the time I wouldn't want the 4th Parker year to be a problem (if he walked over only 3, so be it), but most had him as the #1 priority over extra for Dawson and keeping Hewett. All worked out well.

I could be wrong, but I think the average was the average over the 4 years of Parker’s contract.

Parker makes off like a bandit in my mind. Gets his juicy final year and two year extension. Surely he could have taken a cut from NM to get another 2 years?

If we don’t use the savings to extend Warner, then we were seriously rolled over in that trade.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This would be fair enough if the midfield issue was one isolated to this season, and this particular group. But it dates back to about 2018 now and an entirely different generation of midfielders.

Josh Kennedy, Dan Hannebery, Kieren Jack, Luke Parker, George Hewett, Zak Jones, Ollie Florent, James Rowbottom, Chad Warner, Callum Mills, Isaac Heeney and Errol Gulden are the names Horse has had at his disposal since 2018 and he's failed to remedy the contested ball and clearance issue with all of them.

See my lengthy comment in the Sack Horse thread for why I think his poor identification and assessment of midfield talent is largely to blame.

It’s also so much easier to move the coach on than the whole playing list.

Horse did a lot of things right then halfway through brought 10% fit players back and wondered why everything turned to trash. Was this the only reason no. His inability to go outside the 3 talls plus a ruck has been a hindrance to our side for too long

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So we are paying a fair chunk of Parkers salary

Only for next year. The last two years will be on norths book

 

[Callipygian]

This would be fair enough if the midfield issue was one isolated to this season, and this particular group. But it dates back to about 2018 now and an entirely different generation of midfielders.

Josh Kennedy, Dan Hannebery, Kieren Jack, Luke Parker, George Hewett, Zak Jones, Ollie Florent, James Rowbottom, Chad Warner, Callum Mills, Isaac Heeney and Errol Gulden are the names Horse has had at his disposal since 2018 and he's failed to remedy the contested ball and clearance issue with all of them.

See my lengthy comment in the Sack Horse thread for why I think his poor identification and assessment of midfield talent is largely to blame.

I can't face reading that thread but it still sounds as though you are being overly harsh to both Horse and our coaches generally. Our intense disappointment at our repeated, crushing GF losses shouldn't be allowed to obscure how much we have got right.

However, I have been quite receptive to some of your posts about the balance of players in the team and there perhaps being too many outside types and not enough ballwinners.

 

[Superstar swan]

Only for next year. The last two years will be on norths book

Yep wer paying the difference between the average salary and his next year . So approx 350-400k

 

[Bloods86]

I interpreted it to mean the difference between the average of his 4 year deal and the amount he is due this year - so, using your numbers, that would be $300K this year: (4x700K) - (3 x 600K) - 700K = 300K. That still feels like a lot but it makes sense that we agreed to pay some of it (and noting that we're relieved of paying the rest of it).

That also goes some way to explaining why North were only wanting to give up a pick in the 60s. I'm sure that evening out of the salary was a big part of the discussions to work out the pick trade. Remember: cap space has a trade value, just like picks. Last year (after the Bowes AND pick 7 trade to Geelong) there was all the talk of how, in the future, trading picks for straight out salary cap will be a thing.

I thought it said AFL average, but hope you're right!

 

[Superstar swan]

Annoyed we're paying any of Parkers contract. North wanted him, they should be taking his whole contract

It just keeps getting better and better

 

[caesar88]

I can't face reading that thread but it still sounds as though you are being overly harsh to both Horse and our coaches generally. Our intense disappointment at our repeated, crushing GF losses shouldn't be allowed to obscure how much we have got right.

However, I have been quite receptive to some of your posts about the balance of players in the team and there perhaps being too many outside types and not enough ballwinners.

In fairness I've been pretty consistent on the issue of our midfield for years now, including this season even when we were winning, so it's definitely not a kneejerk, post-GF reaction.

 

[Swansujelly]

media suggesting one of the Whitlock boys for us..

 

[tombomb]

It doesn't make any sense really that North would have needed/wanted us to pay any of Parker's wage.

 

[kelpie_X]

Annoyed we're paying any of Parkers contract. North wanted him, they should be taking his whole contract

What the actual ****!

 

[Bloods86]

It just keeps getting better and better

To be fair on the club, he wanted to leave and I think it showed this year that his role would be more limited as time goes on. He had some good patches up forward and some good quarter/halves as a mid, but not consistently.

If we use the savings to front end someone else's extension, cool, though would prefer the whole amount and probably not to have given him the 4 years anyway.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

media suggesting one of the Whitlock boys for us..

I don't want either, let alone one

 

[caesar88]

OK draft watchers, who are some small forwards I can hope we call out on draft night and then be disappointed when we pick some flanker whose standout attribute is his endurance instead?

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I don't think we can expect a player like Parfitt to become part of our best 22 (which is not to say it couldn't happen). We would only be recruiting for depth and is that the depth we need/want. We already have enough depth in ballwinners: Mills, Heeney, Rowbottom, Adams, Sheldrick, Roberts, Papley, Cleary and then on to players who are more outside like Warner, Gulden, JJ, JMac, Warner, Mitchell etc.



You have to remember we pretty much won an equal share of clearances and contested possessions in the granny. The problem is not that simple.



I am not a fan of the 'baby and the bathwater' approach to analysing our 2024 (and before) performance based on just the GF. The conundrum that the club faces is how to balance the fact that we had a huge amount of success this season (minor premiers, made GF) with our dismal GF performance. As much as we have to address the problems we can't overlook that we had to have done a heck of a lot right. And when I say that, the coaches have to get a lot of credit for that - it is by no means the case that the players are just so talented that it was the inevitable end product.

Which leads to my second point: it's no good just singling Horse out. Of course he's the loudest voice in the room and carries the most responsibility but the coaches are a group. There's even a midfield specific coach (I believe it was Dean Cox this season) but you don't see him copping as much flak (even though he was around for 2022 too). Both the brickbats and the plaudits should be shared among the coaching group, with an outsized share of both - but still only a share - for Horse.

Good points.

One area I somewhat differ is on our performance during the year vs the grand final. I’d argue that all year when the opposition was hot, we struggled - it was just that we were more damaging when we were hot and the opposition was cold. But in GF, the opportunities for opposition down patches are much rarer. (Although I also think stage fright was a factor as well).

I think this is why so many pundits kept finding teams other than Sydney to tip as premiership favourites right through the year, even as each one fell away and we held onto our lead on the ladder relatively comfortably. I think this is why I always felt nervous as well.

I think the big focus on the offseason has to be on developing a New Game Plan A for competing well when the opposition is hot, while still having scope to pile on points when the opposition goes cold (ie. reverse the focus).

We have a lot of explosive but not terribly strong players. Therefore, I think the focus should therefore be on initiating hard impacts at the contest, and winning those to get the ball outside - rather than entering into wrestling contests, where bigger teams will suffocate us (see Gulden, Warner, Grundy as good examples).

Rugby League may be a good place to find inspiration. The Manly Sea Eagles focused on winning the hit the first time Des Hasler coached them. I remember Gus Gould loved them because their style brought rugby league back to winning the hit, rather than Bellamy’s wrestling approach to slow the game down (I think Manly also won a couple of premierships). Maybe the Swans can find someone involved in that team to teach some tactics and impart the mindset required? Hell, maybe just get the Swans to do no holds barred tackling drills with a rugby league team and find out what hardness at the point of contact is all about. Those guys are bloody tough!

 

[Kbroome]

I’m warning to playing Warner as a high half forward for the majority. Put Mills in for Warner and that’s my mix too.Mills and Sheldrick to be the true insides with Rowy your defensive mid. Heeney the 1 off the ruck mid.

Substitute Warner for Mills, take Gulden out of the equation and have Florent or Campbell in there for 10-20% instead of Errol and Paps, and you've got my vote.

Agree with the Mills call just don't know if moving him from the backline will allow us to keep all of Campbell Lloyd and Florent out of the backline which is a worry

 

[Kbroome]

Don't know why the post was removed, but if we're paying difference between back ended 2025 and AFL average it's not good.

It was rumoured to be 4 x 700 at the time, so if he was on say 600 average for 3 years, then it'd be $1m and we'd be paying half that, maybe 600. If it's 650 over 3, then 850, probably paying 400ish.

I said it at the time I wouldn't want the 4th Parker year to be a problem (if he walked over only 3, so be it), but most had him as the #1 priority over extra for Dawson and keeping Hewett. All worked out well.

I interpreted it as we are paying the difference between the 2025 contract at Sydney and the average of the 4 years of his last deal at Sydney (it would be even better if it was the average of the North 3 year deal). But its probably like 100-150k that we have to pay Parker and that is for 2025 only. In the end for Parker's list spot we save roughly 500-600k (when you factor in the new rookie that will fill it). All that money can go to Chad

 

[Bloods86]

media suggesting one of the Whitlock boys for us..

Probably just the one. Unless we see Matt as a KPD.

If we're getting Cochran and keeping Francis, I'm getting more inclined to postpone a KPD, and then look for another mature ager (to replace Francis) at the MSD or next year. I won't be unhappy with an O'Farrell or Barrat at our 2nd pick, but if we make the move to a smaller fwd line and bring in a KPF draftee, along with Buller's return, we'll be able to move Hamling back if needed (in 25 anyway). Might have quite a tall VFL lineup.

Still, we require Snell or Edwards as it stands, to be ready to replace Rampe in a year, so if we brought another in to increase our chances (though likely 2-3 years until ready), then there's always going to be an injury or two, and we could give Cochran a year on the wing before moving him back, play Snell on smaller types if needed etc.

If we are to postpone a KPD, then as I see it, a KPF, medium fwd, small defender (actually quite a hole coming up in about 2 years) are the biggest needs where we don't have depth or much of it. Also would like a mature age inside mid in case Mills and Sheldrick don't work out.

 

[Bloods86]

Agree with the Mills call just don't know if moving him from the backline will allow us to keep all of Campbell Lloyd and Florent out of the backline which is a worry

Fox, until Sheldrick and Cleary can play big midfield minutes.

Does require someone like Lloyd being sub or out of the team though, if we're also giving opportunities to Sheldrick, Cleary etc (assumption is to drop a KPF as well).

 

[dosser]

I see that Port have delisted Kyle Marshall who is a 20yo KPD. I know he tested well at the SA Combine in his draft year, and that tall kids (he's 201cm) take longer to develop, so does anyone know anything about him? Would he be a smoky for the rookie draft, maybe? Would Port be delisting him because list spots are at a premium?

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

 

[dosser]

I see that Port have delisted Kyle Marshall who is a 20yo KPD. I know he tested well at the SA Combine in his draft year, and that tall kids (he's 201cm) take longer to develop, so does anyone know anything about him? Would he be a smoky for the rookie draft, maybe? Would Port be delisting him because list spots are at a premium?

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Do I sound really needy?

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

 

[Bloods86]

I see that Port have delisted Kyle Marshall who is a 20yo KPD. I know he tested well at the SA Combine in his draft year, and that tall kids (he's 201cm) take longer to develop, so does anyone know anything about him? Would he be a smoky for the rookie draft, maybe? Would Port be delisting him because list spots are at a premium?

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

Can't speak for Marshall, but Port delisting a KPD while having only 1 quality KPD (Aliir) possibly says more about them and their intelligence than whoever they delist.

Maybe they'll throw Lukosius back or try Esava again.

 

[wolftone57]

You have significantly more confidence than I do that Mills will be healthy and Longmire will play Sheldrick when he is healthy.

My guess is that our round 1 centre bounce midfield next year will be Heeney, Rowbottom, and Warner/Gulden.

And by Round 6 the coaches will be saying 'we don't understand why we keep starting slowly?!?!?!?'

Yeah, I don't have much confidence in them either. It isn't just the bad starts. We need some players who can win contested possession. Most of our guys get pushed off it. We are great on the outside. But lack that big bodied mid who gets it done. I like Sheldrick, even though he is small, like Rowie, he will fight like the devil to get ball in a contested situation. Rowie, Mills & Sheldrick are the only ones who can. Gulden battles hard but just doesn't have the core strength. I think Blakey, Llloyd or Fox could spend time there but also Roberts & Mitchell. Mitchell is the guy. That hard nut. I think with development from Kirky & Matthews he could be a great addition.

 

[wolftone57]

I think McAndrew was drafted about a decade too late. He had real talent in the ruck, but offered very little around the ground. I don't think you can get away with such a ruck in the modern game.

For all his faults, Ladhams is a much more dynamic player than McAndrew and I think 18 clubs would select him as a back-up ruck over McAndrew.

Big Mac 27 HO, 12 Disp, 2 marks, 6 tackles in 1.25 games. Ladhams 10 HO, 6 Disp, 2 Marks, 2 tackles in 1 game

Not a lot of difference, except of course HO. Ladhams HO to advantage, 0. Mac 16.