Trade period review

[707]

Love the word 'regeneration' instead of 'rebuild'

Rebuild is what bottom clubs do, regeneration is what top clubs like us do!

Careful replacement of retired warriors with the well schooled in house next generation. We are in a good place if you look at our list closely and the expected sharp increase in Salary Cap from 2017 and no stupid trade ban will assist us in being a destination club for FA from next year.

[Mug Punter]

I'm not referring to list sizes. I'm referring to the fact if we want to bring the picks we have that have draft points assigned to them on draft night, then we need 5 spaces on the night

I don't get your logic here, maybe I am missing something

At the moment have picks 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72

Unless Mills goes ridiculously late we'll lose 33,36 and 37 to the back of the draft and we'll get 44 moved back to about 50 by which stage 54 will be moved to about 51 and 69 to about 66

By the time GWS and the Lions have had their picks dropped to teh back of the draft we should be left with a couple of low 40s picks and mid to low 50s pick. We can then use those points (about 1,000) to draft Dunkley but we will have a decent darft pick left. What possible reason is there why we cannot use that pick to take a third player from the Draft?

[707]

Just reading this which is official on the clubs website "With a number of Academy and Father-Son prospects on the horizon, the club used the trade period as an opportunity to increase the cumulative value of picks."

A number of Academy and F/S prospects - think that is unofficially official that Dunks will be in red and white next year. We had no other reason to keep downgrading pick places to increase points unless Dunks was the target.

[ugg]

I don't get your logic here, maybe I am missing something

At the moment have picks 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72

Unless Mills goes ridiculously late we'll lose 33,36 and 37 to the back of the draft and we'll get 44 moved back to about 50 by which stage 54 will be moved to about 51 and 69 to about 66

By the time GWS and the Lions have had their picks dropped to teh back of the draft we should be left with a couple of low 40s picks and mid to low 50s pick. We can then use those points (about 1,000) to draft Dunkley but we will have a decent darft pick left. What possible reason is there why we cannot use that pick to take a third player from the Draft?

Again I re-iterate I'm not talking about how many players we will draft on the night. We have the 7 picks (33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69 and 72) that you've stated, but we can only bring those 7 picks if we have 7 vacancies on the list

We have lost Shaw, Goodes, Pyke, Bird and Jetta
We have gained Sinclair and Talia

We had 38 on the senior list in 2015, a net loss of 3 takes us to currently 35 on the senior list. We are allowed to have up to 40, so that means we have 5 vacancies as it stands. Having 5 vacancies will result in the AFL only allocating 5 draft picks on the night (33, 36, 37, 44 and 54) and we miss out on 69 and 72.

So we have to delist TWO players (not 1 as I originally posted) to utilise 69 and 72.

That's what I'm led to believe any way, I may be wrong due to the intricate and capricious nature of the AFL draft rules and regulations.

[Mug Punter]

Again I re-iterate I'm not talking about how many players we will draft on the night. We have the 7 picks (33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69 and 72) that you've stated, but we can only bring those 7 picks if we have 7 vacancies on the list

We have lost Shaw, Goodes, Pyke, Bird and Jetta
We have gained Sinclair and Talia

We had 38 on the senior list in 2015, a net loss of 3 takes us to currently 35 on the senior list. We are allowed to have up to 40, so that means we have 5 vacancies as it stands. Having 5 vacancies will result in the AFL only allocating 5 draft picks on the night (33, 36, 37, 44 and 54) and we miss out on 69 and 72.

So we have to delist TWO players (not 1 as I originally posted) to utilise 69 and 72.

That's what I'm led to believe any way, I may be wrong due to the intricate and capricious nature of the AFL draft rules and regulations.

Thanks for explaining that, makes sense now, so we could draft but it would be from the back of the field, I think we will de-list one player to bring pick 69 into play and offset the risk of any early pick for Mills

[lwjoyner]

Uggg that's what my son says. Don't understand it but there must be something in the rules that says you can only have the picks if you have spaces. By the way can some one explain how we are 235 points in front. I must be missing something
pick 14 1161
pick 33 563
pick 53 233 and pick 71 29 a total of 1986. By my calc the new picks give us 2198 a differenc of 212.

[Ludwig]

I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

The club website says: The Swans will enter next month?s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

I think that is probably correct.

[liz]

I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

The club website says: The Swans will enter next month?s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

I think that is probably correct.

I believe that is provisional though, and will be amended once lists are finalised pre-draft.

[ugg]

I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

The club website says: The Swans will enter next month?s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

I think that is probably correct.

It's the way it's worked in previous years. Obviously the bidding system might change this but we won't know until draft night what the AFL decides

[Ludwig]

I believe that is provisional though, and will be amended once lists are finalised pre-draft.

Say we want to use 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72 to draft Mills and Dunks. Does that mean that we need 7 vacancies on our senior list to do so? When do we elevate rookies? I can't see how that works as the situation on the night can see us use anywhere between 2 and 7 picks which leaves 5 picks or players hanging. Wouldn't that mean that we have to make rookie elevations and final draft choices on the fly, so to speak? How can this be done, planning wise, regarding salary cap?

Something doesn't make sense here. Usually clubs enter the draft know exactly how many picks they will use in both the main and rookie drafts, but this cannot be done with new bidding system.

If we enter the draft with a senior list of 33 in order to come to the draft with 7 picks, then we use all 7 for 2 picks, we have to make us at least 3 senior spots with rookie elevations, because we wouldn't have any additional draft picks available even to pick players if we wanted to. So that forces us to carry at least 3 rookies over just to be available for elevation on draft night. Then we would have to fill 6 rookie spots 3 days later as well as give senior contracts to 3 elevated rookies. What am I missing here?

[liz]

Say we want to use 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72 to draft Mills and Dunks. Does that mean that we need 7 vacancies on our senior list vacant to do so? When do we elevate rookies? I can't see how that works as the situation on the night can see us use anywhere between 2 and 7 picks which leaves 5 picks or players hanging. Wouldn't that mean that we have to make rookie elevations and final draft choices on the fly, so to speak? How can this be done, planning wise, regarding salary cap?

Something doesn't make sense here. Usually clubs enter the draft know exactly how many picks they will use in both the main and rookie drafts, but this cannot be done with new bidding system.

I don't think it's that difficult. We go into the draft with the maximum number of picks we are allowed to take, which will be 40 minus the number of players we have on our senior list on the last list finalisation date before draft night. If we have 35 players on the list, we will have five picks - 33, 36, 37, 44 and 54. 69 and 72 won't exist (or at least, they won't belong to us) and we can't use any points value they have towards whatever we owe on academy or FS players. If we are short, the deficit will be deducted from our 2016 picks.

If we enter the draft with 35 players, we can then pick Mills, Dunkley (if he nominates) and elevate Naismith if that is all we wish to do. We are allowed to pass on the last two picks. We can't do less than draft two players and elevate one rookie.

If we need the points for pick 69, we will need to have no more than 34 on the list on draft night. At this stage we have 38-5+2 = 35. We would have to delist someone. If it were someone we wanted to keep, we could always redraft them if no other club gets in first. Marsh would seem to be the most likely candidate. Or we could just delist them and say goodbye but then we'd need to draft a 4th player or promote someone else from the rookie list.

[rb4x]

If say Melbourne bid pick 3 on Mills and we match then picks 33, 36, 37 will slide to the back of the draft and pick 44 will be downgraded. It is clear that when 33 goes to the back that 36 stays at 36 and does not get upgraded in points before also being sent to the back of the draft. Once we have taken Mills with the new pick 3 what happens to all the picks that have moved up in position due to us having several picks sent to the back of the draft. Do their points value get upgraded or do they retain their original points value. Brisbane with picks 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 would be getting a bonanza if the points are upgraded. Melbourne with picks 46 and 50 would be moving up in the order by four positions by knocking Sydney's picks to the back of the draft by bidding 3 on Mills knowing Sydney would match. They would also move up many further positions when GWS and Brisbane start bidding on their academy kids. Sydney bidding on Dunkley will probably be not affected because by then I think our pick 44 will be below Melbourne's picks. It does not seem fair to me that Melbourne by making a bid on Mills that will not succeed (whether or not vexatious) will be improving the value of their later draft picks.

The explanation at the link below does not go into this aspect at all.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

[Ludwig]

I don't think it's that difficult. We go into the draft with the maximum number of picks we are allowed to take, which will be 40 minus the number of players we have on our senior list on the last list finalisation date before draft night. If we have 35 players on the list, we will have five picks - 33, 36, 37, 44 and 54. 69 and 72 won't exist (or at least, they won't belong to us) and we can't use any points value they have towards whatever we owe on academy or FS players. If we are short, the deficit will be deducted from our 2016 picks.

GWS have traded down to get 10 picks with value, 7 after pick 52. Why would GWS do this unless they intended to use them? But that would mean that GWS would need to have 10 vacancies on their list. I think Ugg mentioned they only have one rookie listed player at this time, so they could be left with a predicament of being forced to delist a slew of former 1st round picks to be replaced with picks in the 60s or not take a bunch of picks to the draft that they feverishly manipulated the system to acquire.

I don't know how the AFL can keep the previous rule about number of picks taken to the draft and still have multiple picks used to acquire one player. If so, it puts those with academy and FS selections at a serious disadvantage.

On a further note, the particularities of the new system established some very strange relationships. It was said the intention was to bring equalisation to the draft, but instead has established 2 classes of clubs, those with and those without academies. The academy clubs have become 'insurers' in the draft in that they acquire risk from the other clubs in exchange for a premium. The risk acquired is that of lower draft picks that they exchange for the less risky higher picks. For this they get a premium in the form of additional value points. The system add liquidity to the player exchange market, but at the cost of creating separate classes of market participants. This contrasts with the started intentions of why the bidding system was introduced.

It wouldn't pay for the academy clubs to acquire this risk if the premiums, lower draft picks, were lost in the process. There are several anomalies in the new system that require clarification. I don't know if the AFL has considered them all. How they will handle these is not public knowledge atm.

[AnnieH]

Even with restrictions, Kinnear is a genius.
Sad to lose Jetts and Birdy, but very happy with our trading this season.

[Mug Punter]

I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

The club website says: The Swans will enter next month?s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

I think that is probably correct.

If Ugg is right then GWS in particular are stuffed and will have a huge points deficit, I can't believe they would have made such a schoolboy error if this is the case...