deejammin'

I think this has needed to be posted for awhile in the context of both our drafting and list management. 18-21 (New recruits): Davis, Blease, Gawn, TMac,Taggert, Tapscott, Trengove, Tynan, Watts, Viney, Toumpas (!!!!), Barry, Hogan, Kent, Evans. 22-25 (Established players): Bail, Clark, Dunn, Fitzy, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Howe, Jetta, Jones, Jordie, Sellar, Spencer, Strauss, Dawes, Pedersen, Nicholson, Gillies, M Jones, Terlich. 26-28(Senior Players): JMac, Sylvia, Byrnes, 29+(Veterans): Davey, Jamar, Rodan. Bold: New Looking at our list at this stage of the trade period I think Neeld's mindset becomes clear. The vast majority of our list (particularly with the exits of Rivers, Moloney, Green and Jurrah) are in the first two groups, with only 5 players pre our new ins over 26. It should also be noted that of those players over 26, only 2 have really cemented their spots in the 22 in 2012 (Jamar and Sylv and thats still debatable). The vast majority of the quality on our list is in the age group between 22-25, with more entering over the next couple of years (Trenners, Watts and Blease for example). But in the key 26-28 age group, where I would argue most players are hitting their peak we only have 3 players with 2 famously inconsistant and JMac, who we could debate the quality of. Clearly our list is deficient in this region and even with several good players entering this age group over the next couple of years it is clear it needs to be bolstered. Clearly we have plenty of talent in the younger region of our list and this will be bolstered with at least 4 young recruits this year. I am sure multiple conclusions can be drawn from this, and sure the age groups are arbitrary and I haven't guessed at the delistings, but I think it has needed to be posted as I feel it would answer a lot of the concerns given in several threads. Obviously we are actually adding more youth than anything else in this draft so those like Cam Mooney who argue we aren't continuing to add quality to the young end of our list are way off the mark. But in Byrnes, Ray and Dawes (who will be 25 next year) we have added 3 experienced players who have come from quality cultures, experienced success and are equally as good, if not better than most of our current experienced players. Edited to include Rodan, also in this context Rodan makes far more sense as he adds to an age and experience group we have very little in. Edited to include delistings, Pedersen and trades (Gys, Morton). Edited to include upgraded Rookies and Gillies. Edited to include draft Edit: For all the talk during trade period of "not adding enough youth" we have now added 6 players under 22 to our primary list along with 4 over 25. Seems pretty balanced to me. Also the depth of this list is looking better and better, there are far fewer in the team that I can't see getting an AFL game than when we started. Also with at least 5 (Dawes, Jones, Pedersen, Clark, Frawley, Jones) high quality players moving into the "Senior player" age group over the next 2 years this list is starting to look more and more competitive, rather than developmental.

Read this article by one of the most respected post-season and draft analysts in the Age: Three win in mini-draft It is not tampering, it is within the rules, it is smart, and it worked out for every party involved. QED

With regards to bidding on Viney my source is the numerous members of the press and football community that agree that for Viney to slip to 26(7) involved a 3 way deal between GWS, GC and MFC involving Hogan, Barry, Martin and many draft picks. You suggest we offer 4 for Hogan, which gives our FD so little credence, there is no way we didn't offer 4 first as part of that 3 way deal, it obviously wasn't enough, and in that deal if we insult one of the other 2 they bid on Viney. This is widely known in the greater football community, if you wish to deny it, do so, it says more about you than anything else. Many Phantom drafts had Barry going in the 30s, there is no guarantee he would have got to that pick. In my view it is unlikely. Collingwood would never have excepted Martin or one of our "rejects" as you call them over Bulldogs pick 22 and a swap of later picks, which is what they offered. The only way we get Dawes in your scenario is to trade pick 14, which negates your net gain, makes Barry far more risky, potentially has us taking Viney at 3 when GWS and GC rejected the offer of pick 4 as part of the Viney deal. Your scenario to me sees us potentially losing Hogan, taking Viney at 3, not getting Barry, either not getting Dawes or taking him with pick 14 and has us taking far more risks on getting the type of players we want in the draft.

Fine, looks like its my turn to bite on one of your posts. 1. That would now be pick 14, 2. Your order could never have happened that way as GC or GWS would have bid on Viney 3. There's no guarentee that GC or GWS having had us refuse to deal on a Viney bid would have offered Barry at all, and its possible they may have considered other offers on Hogan. Best case scenario in your world: Viney (Pick 3), Hogan (Pick 4), Pick 14, 26 (would probably not been enough for Dawes as the Bulldogs would offer 21 (now 22)) I'll take what the footy department has done any day!

My biggest one was Nathan Carroll, thought he would hold down a key back spot for a decade after that tackle on Gehrig.......

I think this is a great and interesting point. Between needing to develop younger players like TMac and Watts, having an AA fullback in Frawley and other players like Garland, Sellar, Dunn and potentially Martin all fighting for a spot the MFC backline would have been hotly contested for Riv next year, at Geelong with Scarlett gone he's a walk-up start.

Taking into account what Neeld has said about players like Watts and Dawes' roles here is what I think we have so far: KP Backs: Frawley, Tmac, Garland, Watts, Utilities/Depth: Dunn, Sellar, Martin, KP Forwards: Clark, Dawes, Fitzpatrick, Its a hell of a lot better than last year but we really could use Pedersen as a KPF/Ruck. Then we have 4 potential KPD and KPF with 2/3 Utilities. Thats pretty good competition for spots and dare I say it, almost good depth......... Anyway, it certainly shows how well Dawes will impact our list.

Must win game. Thats all.

Good luck Riv, would have loved for you to stay, but best of luck at the cats. PS. I think you have made a bad decision as the Cats will have to fight hard to play finals footy this year with Carlton, Richmond, Essendon and St Kilda pushing them all the way. Also for those that thought one of the issues Neeld had to fix was our leadership only Aaron Davey remains of the 2010 leadership group.

I am very happy with the off-season thus far, I am enjoying it so much more than the last few seasons I almost don't want season 2013 to roll around. Neeld has done two things I am immensely happy: 1. Brought in experienced players with good records from successful clubs to fill roles that were otherwise vacant. 2. Shown a large amount of faith in the young side of our list. Neeld seems to think that several will step up this year and that all they need is solid role players to help them improve. Its a good sign.

Its also been reported that we will play Clark as back-up ruck. Not sure I like this.

Very very funny. Why can't there be a hand over the top of the head emoticon?

For our list, Chris Dawes, Lynch's career would be over by the time our list is peaking.

Me too, I would assume Bartram to be rookie listed. Bate gone. Cook to be delisted (Lets face it, Clark, Dawes, Martin (if he stays), Fitzy, Sellar, Rivers (If he stays), Garland, Pedersen (If we get him) and even possibly Watts are rated ahead of him in his current position). The next two are debatable.

It would, its also interesting to note (I am assuming the rookie list becomes 4 this year with a larger senior list of 40?), then with Lawrence gone, Evans and Nicho upgraded we will have one free Rookie spot. So it may be possible to re-draft a delisted player with this spot if we need to, so possibly only four more will go.

Assuming Nicho and Evans are upgraded then, Viney, Byrnes, Pick 4, Dawes, Barry, PSD3 = 8 With Moloney, Green, Jurrah gone its 5. Rivers compo will cancel itself out so 5 players to get delisted at this stage.

Based on the "American Pickers" principle of bundling old junk 0+0+0+0= -1, bundling makes em cheaper not more expensive essentially.

Thanks Nudge, really enjoyed your contribution. Hope to see you again next year, or, if you have anything for the rest of trade period....? Anyway, thanks mate.

I for one am very tolerant of Moloney having an off year, I think he will play well for the Lions but he did himself no favours by playing a terrible year appearing to spit the dummy and then having his manager shop him around in round 10. Dawes on the other hand had a great start to the season, got injured and played an unfamiliar role, stuck at it with a terrific attitude towards training and the club had no intension of leaving until the post season and was still more useful than Moloney in a top side in pressure games. They are apples and oranges in so many ways.

Not really sure if 1/3 of our list over 193 is a problem. For the record 11 of Sydney's 38 senior listed players ( http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/players/tabid/7920/default.aspx) are over 193 cms, with at least two others sitting at 192, also they are chasing Tippett, which will add more height. The Hawks also have 10 of their list over 193 with Brian Lake set to add to that no. next year. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a large no. of tall players as long as they are fulfilling all the different required roles. Also technically we gained Dom Barry for the slide from pick 13 to 20. So we got Hogan, Barry and Dawes for 3 and 13. Not Bad.

Jones, Trengove, Viney, Pick 4, Grimes, Howe, Blease, Byrnes, Tapscott, Strauss, Bail, Mckensie, Magner, Gysberts, Davey, Taggert, Tynan. All these players will rotate through our midfield next year. Not great, but not as dire as many are saying.

One of the main things people are doing in their critique of the Dawes trade is obsessing over picks. Not even saying who they wanted for 20 but getting really upset because in previous drafts good players were available there. So I thought for the argument how about this: Viney Rated Top 5 Pick, We pay 26 Hogan, Potential No.1 Pick, We pay 3 Pick 4, Rated No.4 Pick, We Pay 4 Barry, Rated 30s, We Pay 13 to 20 slide Dawes, Drafted 28 2006, + 6 Years of experience 2 GFs and a Premiership we pay 20 + 45 to 58 Slide Byrnes, Drafted Rookie, We pay some of our Moloney compo. If you look at it purely in picks every deal can look bad, or good depending on your outlook. The fact is we will have 2 high quality mids + a mid 30s rated mid who our club clearly rate. A premiership small forward/mid from one of the most successful clubs of the past decade. And a KPF from a premiership side who is young and could potentially fill a role in our forwardline for 8 years. I am happy. I think we will be better than last year. I am looking forward to Dawes sticking it up the big Q-Stick and Collingwood next year by hitting the best form of his career. Edit: Thanks Jonesy!

I would suggest we are waiting for the compo so: 20 and 27 to Collingwood for Dawes and 38, 38 for Pederson. i wouldn't mind this at all.

I hope GWS don't enter the bidding for Dawes with the pick 13 we traded them.....

Every time I see a new reply to this thread I get excited that its a new list of rumours from Nudge, only to be slightly dissappointed (still some great posts).....Coincidentally sorry to anyone that my post has just made this happen to.