Trade period review

[707]

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

So it's official that we've done well this trade if we've done well by Annie's measure!

Interesting debate about number of selections allowed. I'm figuring that there must have been a rule change to allow for the fact that the AFL expect academy and F/S to be paid for with multiple picks.

Also hadn't thought about vexatious bidding in order to drag your own later draft picks up the order. Not sure the VFL will do it but they should be eyeballing all the non academy and F/S clubs that have first round picks to make it clear that vexatious bidding won't be tolerated. Still think Melbourne at pick 3 is a worry as the VFL's own draft guru Callum Twomey keeps ranking Mills at 3 :-(

Only 32 daze until the exciting ND, can't wait although we will know who we are getting. Still better than three years ago when we called out Towers with our first pick and I didn't even know who he was, that's how far left field he was.

[Scottee]

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...

It looks like nobody at the VFL has thought this through. Majestic stuff up.

It looks as though the academy clubs are actually being penalised for top draft picks because it is in the interests of the other clubs to up bid them. This is like playing Poker with a stacked deck.[emoji35]

[Mug Punter]

It looks like nobody at the VFL has thought this through. Majestic stuff up.

It looks as though the academy clubs are actually being penalised for top draft picks because it is in the interests of the other clubs to up bid them. This is like playing Poker with a stacked deck.[emoji35]

I cannot believe GWS or the Lions wouldn't have thought this through and have gotten signoff re this. We'll be OK, might mean de-listing and re-drafting Harry but thee others would be royally rooted

[Auntie.Gerald]

not only.........

there would have been a massive amount of examples sent thru to the AFL clubs on the possible, probables, ifs and maybes !

[lwjoyner]

still no answer to my earlier post, how do you calculate 235 extra points what am I missing

[ugg]

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.

After the free agent compo picks for Leuenberger and Suckling we ended up with picks 54 and 72

[giant]

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.

That's what I've assumed as well. Of course it also acts as pretty clear signalling to the rest of the competition that we're committed to him.

[Kumarangk]

Probably deserves its own thread given the length of the other one!

I believe we've done okay, given the circumstances.

? Needed a ruckman - Sinclair
? Needed a KPD - Talia
? Needed extra draft points for Mills, Dunkley. Done
? Needed to free up salary, traded Bird to Essendon.

Heading into 2016 our list is going to be very young, but overall I believe it's much more balanced than this year.

Our midfield is still elite, we've added another gun in Mills, our ruck stocks are better (and more versatile). Our backline is deeper and more flexible. Our forward line will have Buddy with a point to prove, an in form Tippett and a confident Reid.

Plenty of reasons to be optimistic about next season....bring it on!

I agree , but to be a serious contender our back defense needs to be better than last year, Buddy's health , Tippets continues his improvement and Reid finally moves up to the next level .

[S.S. Bleeder]

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 can confirm that Ugg is correct. The only picks you can use are the "live picks". The number of live picks is the same as the number of vacancies you have on your list. I don't know the situation of the other academy clubs they, even GWS and GCS, would be under the same rules.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what I've assumed as well. Of course it also acts as pretty clear signalling to the rest of the competition that we're committed to him.

It could also mean that he hasn't decided yet and we need the points in case he chooses us.

[Meg]

I can confirm that Ugg is correct. The only picks you can use are the "live picks". The number of live picks is the same as the number of vacancies you have on your list. I don't know the situation of the other academy clubs they, even GWS and GCS, would be under the us.

Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!

[S.S. Bleeder]

Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!

Yep, that makes sense about GWS because they and GCS still have larger list next year.

[ugg]

I was talking to someone involved with recruiting today and he is under the impression clubs will be allowed to take in all their picks.

[Ludwig]

Thanks to Ugg for firstly explaining this, and now to SSB for confirming it. I have learnt something that I knew nothing about before.

This suggests the Swans will be delisting at least one player before the draft, to allow them to take their first six picks to the draft, and possibly two if they also want to take their seventh pick (pick 72).

I counted up GWS offs and ons earlier today (after reading Ludwig's posts on this topic). I think (if my calculations were right) that they now have a current list of 39 (eight out, one in) and are holding 12 picks. I believe GWS can have a senior list of 46 in 2016. So to use their picks they will need to delist up to five players (but almost certainly less and not take all the picks into the draft).

Am I understanding this correctly? Does the above sound right?

The points system and new bidding for academy and F/S players have certainly added a lot of complexity to the draft night!

All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.

[Mug Punter]

All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.

I don't think it is so wrong actually.

Why should a club be able to use points on picks that can never be used?

We'll be fine and it wouldn't surprise me to see us de-list two players to use both 69 and 72 as I am sure we traded our way with a delisting strategy in mind. One will probably be our highest live pick after Dunks (mid 50s I'd guess) and maybe one academy player at the back of the draft

As Meg has rightly pointed out GWS can stockpile higher because they still have an expanded list of 46 and whilst they may not use all the picks they will draw down on they could if they wanted to and that is important. I can see GWS going with an actual list well below 46 given the recent development of their squad. Of course the GWS situation will not re-occur once their list limit falls into line with other clubs.

I think this is all a storm in a teacup - our strategy was quite normal because we have to cater for Dunkley going too early and us not picking him (unlikely I know) plus WCE offered us a good dela to get extra points for an early pick. All our trading was pretty normal actually, it was only GWS who exposed some short term opportunities available to them.

The more I see this system the more I feel it is fundamentally sound, remember it was not designed by the AFL but an economist

[liz]

All I can say on this why in the world would Sydney and GSW be trading down to acquire picks they cannot use? It is utter buffoonery. Someone should have told them about this limitation, or if they knew, the list management staff should be sacked.

Out of all the restrictions placed on the academy clubs, this one is absolutely the most egregious and the one worth going to court over.

In order to get a high bid academy player the club must eliminate 4 players from its list and a second academy player, perhaps the same and that is just to make room to have enough live picks, and little to do with having enough points. The club may still have to go into deficit. If these 2 players were in fact taken, then six places would have to be filled on the senior list and no draft picks left to fill them (all going for the academy kidsI which could only be filled from the PSD, which may not even have any players, as this is the only remaining source of adding players to a senior list after the ND. So the club would technically be shut out out of taking the academy players, since if they did take them, they would be in violation of the minimum list requirement rule. This is a catch 22 if I ever heard one.

A club will never run out of picks because the ones it uses on academy players aren't extinguished. They are just sent to the end of the draft.