One man's trash is another man's....

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Treasure, of course.

In the AFL there are 18 teams and around 760 players.

A new batch of 80-something kids will soon be drafted. Most of them won't make it.

My question - why don't we see more player swaps? I would argue that in the current climate, with a stretched competition (don't get me started on bringing in another 2 teams), we SHOULD see more player-for-player movements than in the history of the game.

More specifically, the top 6 should be more active in this regard. Depth is more important than ever; the list of talent is literally spread thinner than ever. I look at our list and there are a number of players that wouldn't even be on a list 10 years ago, or, wouldn't be on it for half as long.

If you're a top 6 side, you clearly have some high end talent. There's a chance you'll trade for some extra pieces sign free agents etc. So why draft an unknown kid with pick 60+? Yes, there's always exceptions to the rule with gems found late, but how often has that happened in the current 18-team setup? Rarely.

For example;

The likes of Parker and McComb - were there really no other delisted/fringe types from other clubs that could give us the same if not more service?

Crozier/Cordy/Schache/Wallis/Hannan/McNeil/Sweet - surely there are a few clubs who might seek leaders (Crozier/Wallis) or tall depth (Schache/Sweet/Cordy). Players who you know what they are, what they can bring, their strengths/weaknesses .... And surely clubs with these needs would have something we could use? Be it KPD depth, small forward depth, wingers etc.

Long winded post and there's a cap for everything - can't fill a list with these types - but I'd guess every club would have around 8-10 who fit into this bracket.

I look at what Melbourne did with Dunstan and think yes - smart move. Add midfield depth, a known type, much more likely to contribute to their success than a pick 60+ or a player on their list already that they have an abundance of and don't play anyway.

More or less, I feel clubs should use this tactic to rebalance their lists. We have too many half backs - why not trade one (Crozier) to a club who has a player we could use even IF it's only as depth?

Rant over!

[bornadog]

Balancing a list must be one of the hardest tasks for any list manager. Most lists get out of balance because clubs draft the best available and you can get an over abundance of similar players and they seem to be mainly mids.

What is it with young footballers that all want to be a mid? Then you look at KPP and no one drafts a young ruck (well almost no one) . why is that, don't clubs have patience to allow young guys to develop. The balance starts from drafting and then there is a scramble to trade for needs.

I think the AFL needs to look at the whole system of drafting and trading and maybe even look at a mid-season trade. Maybe that is the answer to TBB question.

[1eyedog]

Treasure, of course.

In the AFL there are 18 teams and around 760 players.

A new batch of 80-something kids will soon be drafted. Most of them won't make it.

My question - why don't we see more player swaps? I would argue that in the current climate, with a stretched competition (don't get me started on bringing in another 2 teams), we SHOULD see more player-for-player movements than in the history of the game.

More specifically, the top 6 should be more active in this regard. Depth is more important than ever; the list of talent is literally spread thinner than ever. I look at our list and there are a number of players that wouldn't even be on a list 10 years ago, or, wouldn't be on it for half as long.

If you're a top 6 side, you clearly have some high end talent. There's a chance you'll trade for some extra pieces sign free agents etc. So why draft an unknown kid with pick 60+? Yes, there's always exceptions to the rule with gems found late, but how often has that happened in the current 18-team setup? Rarely.

For example;

The likes of Parker and McComb - were there really no other delisted/fringe types from other clubs that could give us the same if not more service?

Crozier/Cordy/Schache/Wallis/Hannan/McNeil/Sweet - surely there are a few clubs who might seek leaders (Crozier/Wallis) or tall depth (Schache/Sweet/Cordy). Players who you know what they are, what they can bring, their strengths/weaknesses .... And surely clubs with these needs would have something we could use? Be it KPD depth, small forward depth, wingers etc.

Long winded post and there's a cap for everything - can't fill a list with these types - but I'd guess every club would have around 8-10 who fit into this bracket.

I look at what Melbourne did with Dunstan and think yes - smart move. Add midfield depth, a known type, much more likely to contribute to their success than a pick 60+ or a player on their list already that they have an abundance of and don't play anyway.

More or less, I feel clubs should use this tactic to rebalance their lists. We have too many half backs - why not trade one (Crozier) to a club who has a player we could use even IF it's only as depth?

Rant over!

This will be happening more post-Geelong's flag I'm half sure of it. I think if your club has done enough hard yards to get into a window you should exploit it by bringing in players that can service a need.

Wouldn't mind getting in Rayner's ear good Taylors Lakes boy he is.

[GVGjr]

Balancing a list must be one of the hardest tasks for any list manager. Most lists get out of balance because clubs draft the best available and you can get an over abundance of similar players and they seem to be mainly mids.

What is it with young footballers that all want to be a mid? Then you look at KPP and no one drafts a young ruck (well almost no one) . why is that, don't clubs have patience to allow young young guys to develop. The balance starts from drafting and then there is a scramble to trade for needs.

I think the AFL needs to look at the whole system of drafting and trading an maybe even look at a mid-season trade. Maybe that is the answer to TBB question.

We are fortunate that both Weightman and Garcia see themselves as forwards more than mids.
I'm not a fan of mid season trades as clubs should balance their lists a lot better than they do. It's the clubs that draft too many marginal mids and then blame injuries to KPP for when they lose a close one.

[GVGjr]

Treasure, of course.

In the AFL there are 18 teams and around 760 players.

A new batch of 80-something kids will soon be drafted. Most of them won't make it.

My question - why don't we see more player swaps? I would argue that in the current climate, with a stretched competition (don't get me started on bringing in another 2 teams), we SHOULD see more player-for-player movements than in the history of the game.

More specifically, the top 6 should be more active in this regard. Depth is more important than ever; the list of talent is literally spread thinner than ever. I look at our list and there are a number of players that wouldn't even be on a list 10 years ago, or, wouldn't be on it for half as long.

If you're a top 6 side, you clearly have some high end talent. There's a chance you'll trade for some extra pieces sign free agents etc. So why draft an unknown kid with pick 60+? Yes, there's always exceptions to the rule with gems found late, but how often has that happened in the current 18-team setup? Rarely.

For example;

The likes of Parker and McComb - were there really no other delisted/fringe types from other clubs that could give us the same if not more service?

Crozier/Cordy/Schache/Wallis/Hannan/McNeil/Sweet - surely there are a few clubs who might seek leaders (Crozier/Wallis) or tall depth (Schache/Sweet/Cordy). Players who you know what they are, what they can bring, their strengths/weaknesses .... And surely clubs with these needs would have something we could use? Be it KPD depth, small forward depth, wingers etc.

Long winded post and there's a cap for everything - can't fill a list with these types - but I'd guess every club would have around 8-10 who fit into this bracket.

I look at what Melbourne did with Dunstan and think yes - smart move. Add midfield depth, a known type, much more likely to contribute to their success than a pick 60+ or a player on their list already that they have an abundance of and don't play anyway.

More or less, I feel clubs should use this tactic to rebalance their lists. We have too many half backs - why not trade one (Crozier) to a club who has a player we could use even IF it's only as depth?

Rant over!

Hard to know why player for player swaps are so minimal now but I think it's just so much harder for clubs to get the agreements done. It's probably also easier for clubs to swap draft picks around as most fans have no attachment to those picks.
I think a new level of maturity will come where clubs are more open to move their non essential players to other clubs for token returns. Sydney moved Biggs to us to move just 2 spots. Our pick 37 for Biggs and their pick 39 and I can see more of those type deals happening.

By the way, good rant.

[mjp]

I look at what Melbourne did with Dunstan and think yes - smart move. Add midfield depth, a known type, much more likely to contribute to their success than a pick 60+ or a player on their list already that they have an abundance of and don't play anyway.



Good rant.

I have honed in on the Dunstan example because there can be problems with this approach.

- He is an experienced player who WANTS to play. Getting players like this to accept their role ("I am an injury backup") and still train/play at tier 2 level with the same intensity is hard...some players can, some become distractions - especially when younger, developing players are promoted/prioritised ahead of them even though 'right now' the younger player isn't as good OR as capable of contributing.

- Tier 2 coaches want to win (and supporters of T2 clubs WANT to win). And PLAYERS want to win. So when experienced players end up in secondary roles the agitation/frustration can really build up...

- You already know his warts so it is hard for them to get a truly fresh start.

I guess I understand why Melbourne selected Dunstan...but he was NEVER going to play and...make this double because he offered no significant point of difference over Harmes, Viney etc. They think they're in premiership mode and wanted mid depth in case one of their core players went down...I understand all that. But what I don't really get is why they wanted to do that with a one-dimensional mid like Dunstan?

Dunstan is a GOOD PLAYER. He is 25 touches, 5x clearances, 5x tackles every week, mark it down. But that's exactly what he is. I would suggest that Melbourne would have been better using a combination of players like Pickett and Salem as inside support (5-8 mins per q each) in the event someone like Oliver got injured and backfill the roles played by those players...If you want to maintain a winning edge then you don't need more foot soldiers...if Harmes got injured I guess Dunstan is like-for-like but, at the same time, who cares if Harmes gets injured?

I'm sort of rambling now but Dunstan - as good a ball winner as he is - has shown over a pretty lengthy period of time that he is no better than a 4th/5th mid at AFL level...so why recruit him?

[Mofra]

To the OP - with current and future picks available, and the NGA/FS bid matches, picks at different stages of the draft have different values to different clubs. This makes trading more 'dynamic' than just swapping players.

Coaches like players to be 'flexible' too (although some may argue that's a double edged sword) so you get mids playing high half forward, KPPs pinch hitting as second ruck, etc
That flexibility means coaches can cover short term losses by moving the magnets as well, reducing the need for depth players in a single position,.

I looked at trades for the past few years and there are virtually no player swap trades, picks can be just so valuable for future trades, bid matching and of course to take to draft.

I expect us to want to take picks to draft this year (and next year's draft is supposed to be good, but that gets said every year) rather than chase a whole bunch of players.

1. TPPs are easier to manage with a younger group - more players on their first two year base salary
2. Most of our list holes are filled, and the obvious ones aren't going to cost us first rounders given the players we've been linked to.
3. The Tassie team licence decision is due soon. Remember GCS & GWS absolutely mining the draft for 3 years? I'd expect Tassie gets two years of that. Meaning for two years, 18 established clubs only get the scraps. The time to get highly rated teenagers into our program is right now

[bornadog]

The Tassie team licence decision is due soon. Remember GCS & GWS absolutely mining the draft for 3 years? I'd expect Tassie gets two years of that. Meaning for two years, 18 established clubs only get the scraps. The time to get highly rated teenagers into our program is right now

Apparently one of the ideas for the Tassie club is not allow them to fill the list with just 18 year olds. They will have to trade in established players.

[Mofra]

Apparently one of the ideas for the Tassie club is not allow them to fill the list with just 18 year olds. They will have to trade in established players.
GWS was given access to players as well as draft concessions.
I think draft concessions in some form will absolutely form party of the package. It's just one reason why I'm pretty keen to get some top-rated kids in.

I know we talk of the 'class of 99' forming the core of our team for a while - then 2010 gave us a leg up while every other team flubbed the draft, and we had Stinger/Macrae/Bont in quick succession.

2 first rounders and a 2nd rounder this year to accompany Marra & Darcy would seem to be a 'similar' block of players to build around, especially considering Naughts & Smith are still young.

[hujsh]

GWS was given access to players as well as draft concessions.
I think draft concessions in some form will absolutely form party of the package. It's just one reason why I'm pretty keen to get some top-rated kids in.

I know we talk of the 'class of 99' forming the core of our team for a while - then 2010 gave us a leg up while every other team flubbed the draft, and we had Stinger/Macrae/Bont in quick succession.

2 first rounders and a 2nd rounder this year to accompany Marra & Darcy would seem to be a 'similar' block of players to build around, especially considering Naughts & Smith are still young.

This time there must be a condition to trade some of them much like North have been made to. Too much top end talent was lost to GWS/GCS and their development black holes. This time give the club a proper foundation to bring their kids into even if it's still a bit rocky initially they can't be losing every week by 60 points like we had to watch with GCS and GWS for 3-4 years