2025 List Management

[imuninformedtwo]

Bulldogs currently have picks 14 and 33. 14 seems a bit high for Carmichael, when all the pundits are going 25-40 range. I'm big on Carmichael, but I doubt if the Bulldogs would step so far outside common opinion. 33 we can match.

If anyone lodges a bid like that at 14, we should waive it through.

[dejavoodoo44]

If anyone lodges a bid like that at 14, we should waive it through.

Probably. I rate Carmichael, but with our current picks and the overall increased difficulty of matching bids, going that high for him would almost certainly mean missing out on both King and Kyle.

We're possibly a bit lucky this year, in that, Carmichael is strangely underrated, King has only produced the occasional eye catching quarter and Kyle is still a work in progress. With the changes made to the points system, one high bid is likely to ruin the rest of your draft; unless you've already traded out a player or two for picks.

[Dow]

Probably. I rate Carmichael, but with our current picks and the overall increased difficulty of matching bids, going that high for him would almost certainly mean missing out on both King and Kyle.

We're possibly a bit lucky this year, in that, Carmichael is strangely underrated, King has only produced the occasional eye catching quarter and Kyle is still a work in progress. With the changes made to the points system, one high bid is likely to ruin the rest of your draft; unless you've already traded out a player or two for picks.

I could live with that, I rate Carmichael light years ahead of the other 2, I am completely baffled as to why he isn't rated so much higher the other 2 are pure speculators

[BRS328]

Probably. I rate Carmichael, but with our current picks and the overall increased difficulty of matching bids, going that high for him would almost certainly mean missing out on both King and Kyle.

We're possibly a bit lucky this year, in that, Carmichael is strangely underrated, King has only produced the occasional eye catching quarter and Kyle is still a work in progress. With the changes made to the points system, one high bid is likely to ruin the rest of your draft; unless you've already traded out a player or two for picks.

Not necessarily, yes it will gobble up more points than we would like, but there is a couple of options. We could trade back into the draft or go into carryover points deficit for next year. I think the club know exactly what they are doing with this and from what I am hearing they are very keen on all three.

[KSAS]

Carlton is indeed interesting. If Dean is still on the board when Carlton is on the clock with their first pick (9), they won't draft him then. They will draft him with their second pick (11) because their next pick is currently pick 43. However, I think Dean will be bid on before Carlton's first pick.

Have read Carlton are planning to swap out their picks 9 and 11 on the night, in preparation for bid on Harry Dean coming early from West Coast.

Pick 9 to Essendon for their picks 21 and 27. Essendon will then have 3 picks in the top 10.

Pick 11 to North for their picks 25 and future 2nd. Gets North back into the first round, who gave up their 2025 1st round to Richmond last year to draft Matt Whitlock.

If this happens, not sure whether there'll be any flow on effects in relation to our picks to match bids on our Academy boys.

[KSAS]

Bulldogs currently have picks 14 and 33. 14 seems a bit high for Carmichael, when all the pundits are going 25-40 range. I'm big on Carmichael, but I doubt if the Bulldogs would step so far outside common opinion. 33 we can match.

Have to consider the possibility of the Bulldogs or any club interested in our Academy boys, trading down in order to receive picks before our picks and bid on them.

The first Draft night has the potential to be a pick swaps fest!

[dejavoodoo44]

Not necessarily, yes it will gobble up more points than we would like, but there is a couple of options. We could trade back into the draft or go into carryover points deficit for next year. I think the club know exactly what they are doing with this and from what I am hearing they are very keen on all three.

Sure, but I'd be a touch hesitant to further dilute our future draft stocks, given that we've already traded out our 26 and 27 first rounders. Though of course, the likelihood of doing that, does depend on how highly our recruiters rate our current crop. And probably how they rate the future players coming through the academy.

Currently our most highly rated prospects for 2026 are McCartney and the Jenkin twins. McCartney is a bit like King, in that, he has the occasional spell where he looks like he should be a high pick, but then has longer periods where he seems a bit ordinary. There's also plenty of talk that he'll choose North as a F/S. Personally, I really like the Jenkin twins, but if they remain skinny kids, they're more likely to go later in the draft. However, if they bulk up a bit, then we might have to spend plenty of draft capital to keep them both. And I really wouldn't like to just take one of them. There's also a few others that I think could stake a claim over the next season: McGroder, Blackwell-Smith, Beavis, Luke, etc.

Decisions, decisions.

[dejavoodoo44]

Have to consider the possibility of the Bulldogs or any club interested in our Academy boys, trading down in order to receive picks before our picks and bid on them.

The first Draft night has the potential to be a pick swaps fest!

That's an irritating possibility. But still, to do that, the Bulldogs would have to rate him as a more desirable option, than those players currently around the 14 mark. Though they probably would also get an extra pick later in the draft, wouldn't they?

[BFG]

With four matches to happen in the top 8 or so picks, the Dogs pick 14 will have become pick 18 by the time it's on the clock, so that's where they would be rating Carmichael if they are serious. With discount we'd need to match the equivilent of pick 20.

But in matching those four bids, our batch of picks will come in 4-6 places, the first two to 25-27 territory. Perfectly doable with the picks we have

Slight correction KSAS, Dons will be giving 21, 27 & 30 for pick 9, all of which will (hopefully with a high bid) evaporate matching Dean.

Just by adjusting the draft value index, we suddenly have clubs paying fair price to match. Why didn't the AFL do this years ago when it was obvious from the pick trades being done that the original DVI was seriously flawed and being rorted big time by clubs. Was it four 40's picks for Nick Daicos?

Only three sleeps until the most interesting ND in ages.

[Thunder Shaker]

Have read Carlton are planning to swap out their picks 9 and 11 on the night, in preparation for bid on Harry Dean coming early from West Coast.

Pick 9 to Essendon for their picks 21 and 27. Essendon will then have 3 picks in the top 10.

Pick 11 to North for their picks 25 and future 2nd. Gets North back into the first round, who gave up their 2025 1st round to Richmond last year to draft Matt Whitlock.

If this happens, not sure whether there'll be any flow on effects in relation to our picks to match bids on our Academy boys.

If picks before Sydney's first picks are used up in bid matching, every pick after the first that is used up in this way promotes Sydney's picks.

Someone told me today about a draft simulator, here is the link: Draft Simulator (pommyinoz.shop).

[KSAS]

Slight correction KSAS, Dons will be giving 21, 27 & 30 for pick 9, all of which will (hopefully with a high bid) evaporate matching Dean

Thanks BFG. I doubled checked the "Zero Hanger" article which i sourced this from and it still states only picks 21 & 27. But i take your word and hope pick 30 is also used by Carlton in matching bid for Dean, as it pushes our picks up by a further spot as you'd mentioned.

Carlton may also have pick 25 if they trade down pick 11 with North. Doubt they will need to use 4 picks to match Dean, but 3 would be nice!

[Thunder Shaker]

I ran the trade simulator (see my previous post for link) to see how it would play out if the Bulldogs bid on King with their first-round pick (currently 14). Sydney starts with 31, 32, 42, 60. Pick 60 doesn't bear any points yet.

Live pick trades (actual trades will be a bit different):
Carlton 9, 2027 R3 to Essendon, picks 21, 27 and 30 to Carlton.
Carlton pick 11 to North Melbourne, picks 25 and 2026 second-round pick to Carlton.

(Gold Coast may also trade out their first-round picks, but I have no idea of likely trades here.)

Bids:
2 Zeke Uwland (GCS)
4 Dylan Patterson (GCS)
6 Danial Annable (BL)
8 Harry Dean (Carlton)

By this point, the Bulldogs' pick 14 is now pick 18 (+4). Sydney's points-bearing picks are 26 (-5), 27 (-5), 36 (-6) and 54 (-6). Pick 60 has become 54 and bears 14 points.

18 Max King (Sydney) - this bid uses up picks 26 and 27, and 34 is created with the excess points. Sydney's picks are now 34, 36 and 54.

At this point in the draft (around pick 19), a bid can be matched with two picks about 18 places later in the draft, which Sydney would hold in this scenario. Sydney can also go into deficit if needed.

I won't go further, but the Bulldogs bidding on an Academy player with pick 14 won't be a problem.

[Dow]

I ran the trade simulator (see my previous post for link) to see how it would play out if the Bulldogs bid on King with their first-round pick (currently 14). Sydney starts with 31, 32, 42, 60. Pick 60 doesn't bear any points yet.

Live pick trades (actual trades will be a bit different):
Carlton 9, 2027 R3 to Essendon, picks 21, 27 and 30 to Carlton.
Carlton pick 11 to North Melbourne, picks 25 and 2026 second-round pick to Carlton.

(Gold Coast may also trade out their first-round picks, but I have no idea of likely trades here.)

Bids:
2 Zeke Uwland (GCS)
4 Dylan Patterson (GCS)
6 Danial Annable (BL)
8 Harry Dean (Carlton)

By this point, the Bulldogs' pick 14 is now pick 18 (+4). Sydney's points-bearing picks are 26 (-5), 27 (-5), 36 (-6) and 54 (-6). Pick 60 has become 54 and bears 14 points.

18 Max King (Sydney) - this bid uses up picks 26 and 27, and 34 is created with the excess points. Sydney's picks are now 34, 36 and 54.

At this point in the draft (around pick 19), a bid can be matched with two picks about 18 places later in the draft, which Sydney would hold in this scenario. Sydney can also go into deficit if needed.

I won't go further, but the Bulldogs bidding on an Academy player with pick 14 won't be a problem.

Thank you for this I enjoyed the analysis

[imuninformedtwo]

I ran the trade simulator (see my previous post for link) to see how it would play out if the Bulldogs bid on King with their first-round pick (currently 14). Sydney starts with 31, 32, 42, 60. Pick 60 doesn't bear any points yet.

Live pick trades (actual trades will be a bit different):
Carlton 9, 2027 R3 to Essendon, picks 21, 27 and 30 to Carlton.
Carlton pick 11 to North Melbourne, picks 25 and 2026 second-round pick to Carlton.

(Gold Coast may also trade out their first-round picks, but I have no idea of likely trades here.)

Bids:
2 Zeke Uwland (GCS)
4 Dylan Patterson (GCS)
6 Danial Annable (BL)
8 Harry Dean (Carlton)

By this point, the Bulldogs' pick 14 is now pick 18 (+4). Sydney's points-bearing picks are 26 (-5), 27 (-5), 36 (-6) and 54 (-6). Pick 60 has become 54 and bears 14 points.

18 Max King (Sydney) - this bid uses up picks 26 and 27, and 34 is created with the excess points. Sydney's picks are now 34, 36 and 54.

At this point in the draft (around pick 19), a bid can be matched with two picks about 18 places later in the draft, which Sydney would hold in this scenario. Sydney can also go into deficit if needed.

I won't go further, but the Bulldogs bidding on an Academy player with pick 14 won't be a problem.

Really good analysis.

And this is not directed at you specifically, but don't think we should go into deficit. None of the three is an exceptional talent that would justify us doing so. In a normal draft, none of them would be inside the top 30. It's a truly terrible draft this year, and we'd be unwise to further downgrade ourselves next year when we're already missing our first rounder.

[UUaswan]

Really good analysis.

And this is not directed at you specifically, but don't think we should go into deficit. None of the three is an exceptional talent that would justify us doing so. In a normal draft, none of them would be inside the top 30. It's a truly terrible draft this year, and we'd be unwise to further downgrade ourselves next year when we're already missing our first rounder.

I think now is the time to go into Deficit.
ATM we have pick 35ish as our 1st Pick for 2026.

No big deal if that slides and based on how Bidding works, the later the pick the more it gains thru matching