Trade period review

[Mug Punter]

Yes I would have thought so - and in fact did think that's the way it worked -'until I worked my way through the the AFL scenarios based on last year's drafts.

According to the AFL's examples, under this new system, we would have had to match Melvourne's bid of pick 2 for Heeney by using our picks 18, 37, 38, and part of 57. And then picks 18, 37 & 38 would have become picks 86, 87, & 88 (after each sequential adjustment) and pick 57 would have become pick 64. So none of the four picks would have been extinguished.

Whereas in the Darcy Moore example, Collingwood would have used their pick 6 to match the Bulldogs pick 5 bid, which would have extinguished their bid 6 and they would have lost their surplus 249 points (surplus the result of the 20% discount).

I must be missing something I think. Doesn't seem logical.

Probably something to do with the value of the pick given (Collingscum's Pick 6) having a higher value than the pick taken (Pick 5 @ 80%) - so in this case it is extinguished because it is totally covered.

It's the only thing I can think of. It probably doesn't have any practical effect as the picks at the back are as good as useless anyway

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with this. And I'm very sure Gill doesn't understand it! I recall he seemed very bemused right from the beginning about where this was heading!

From what I hear there aren't many rooms where Gill is the smartest man, how on earth did this trumped up pompous college boy end up running the game, he is just so unbelievably smug

[Meg]

It probably doesn't have any practical effect as the picks at the back are as good as useless anyway

That's generally true, but they could be valuable in a scenario where we delist, say Marsh and Derickx, but then want to draft them again (for example, to make up minimum list number) once we have our high priority drafts in place.

[Ludwig]

I thought all this was supposed to be programmed so on draft night everything gets updated on the spot. So there must be a set of logically consistent rules governing how all this works. Why don't they just tell us what it is? That is, just print the rules so everyone can see them and work it out for themselves instead of just giving us ambiguous examples.

[Bloods05]

From what I hear there aren't many rooms where Gill is the smartest man, how on earth did this trumped up pompous college boy end up running the game, he is just so unbelievably smug

Son of Adelaide privilege. Extremely well-connected quasi-aristocratic family. They just get these jobs.

[707]

And after Vlad the big clubs wanted a puppet they could manipulate and tell what to do - viola, we have Gill the dill.

Now we just wait for all the rules and processes to be changed for academy bidding after this ND because the big clubs think we've rorted the system.

This will be a good test of Gill, he should just say to Eddie and Newbold, we'll leave it alone for a couple of years to see how it settles down.

[111431]

Probably something to do with the value of the pick given (Collingscum's Pick 6) having a higher value than the pick taken (Pick 5 @ 80%) - so in this case it is extinguished because it is totally covered.

It's the only thing I can think of. It probably doesn't have any practical effect as the picks at the back are as good as useless anyway

- - - Updated - - -



From what I hear there aren't many rooms where Gill is the smartest man, how on earth did this trumped up pompous college boy end up running the game, he is just so unbelievably smug

he can't be too bad - $2.5B reasons for AFL and Clubs to be happy

[Mug Punter]

he can't be too bad - $2.5B reasons for AFL and Clubs to be happy

You seriously think Gill the Dill is personally responsible for that?

- - - Updated - - -

And after Vlad the big clubs wanted a puppet they could manipulate and tell what to do - viola, we have Gill the dill.

Now we just wait for all the rules and processes to be changed for academy bidding after this ND because the big clubs think we've rorted the system.

This will be a good test of Gill, he should just say to Eddie and Newbold, we'll leave it alone for a couple of years to see how it settles down.

This system should be left for at least five years and then re-assessed.

[Ludwig]

This system should be left for at least five years and then re-assessed.

It will take at least that long for Gill understands it. Even RWO is struggling with it. What chance do the execs at AFLHQ have?

I was living in the U.S. when they where getting ready to transition to the metric system. Products in the supermarkets were being shown in both pounds and kilors, quarts and liters. Then Reagan became president and put a halt to it. He thought it would be too embarrassing for the president not to understand his own country's measurement system.

[barry]

It would be mind bogglingly stupid if we had to delist as many players as picks we are going to use.

We should have 4 spots free. 1 for mills, one for dunkley and 2 spare if mills goes late and we can use a 40 something pick elsewhere.

[707]

First list lodgement Thursday 2pm.

Just had a thought, there are still picks in the late 50s/60s/early 70s that will disappear if clubs choose not to use them, clubs that have only a couple iof vacancies and two pointy end picks. As these picks disappear with each list lodgement, our later picks will move up the order thus giving us more points with which to play.

If by chance Mills did drift to say pick 6/7 then it's highly likely that we'll have useful live picks after Dunkley goes as well. Fascinating ND, so much is unknown right up to the time the picks are taken, can't wait!

- - - Updated - - -

It would be mind bogglingly stupid if we had to delist as many players as picks we are going to use.

We should have 4 spots free. 1 for mills, one for dunkley and 2 spare if mills goes late and we can use a 40 something pick elsewhere.

By my reckoning we have 35 on the list at present so that's five spare places. AJ retyained on the main list, Naismith has been flagged as an upgrade which happens late in the draft I think.

[Meg]

I skim read a thread on BF Brisbane site last night in which there was a similar discussion as ours in regard to picks v list vacancies. Someone who seemed to be knowledgable said that the ability to only take to the draft the same number of picks as list vacancies didn't apply where multiple picks were expected to be used for academy / FS bids. That is, the Ugg2 scenario. I think that must be right.

[Mug Punter]

I skim read a thread on BF Brisbane site last night in which there was a similar discussion as ours in regard to picks v list vacancies. Someone who seemed to be knowledgable said that the ability to only take to the draft the same number of picks as list vacancies didn't apply where multiple picks were expected to be used for academy / FS bids. That is, the Ugg2 scenario. I think that must be right.

If that is the case then I think it will be addressed and amended and rightly so.

There needs to be some reality to the new system - there is no problem at all moving your won picks back if you get rewarded for it, like we did from WCE. But for mine the points available to pay for Academy and F/S picks should be limited to the maximum number of players you could draft on Daft night (i.e. you number of live picks).

I don't see why you should be able to stickpile picks at the enmd of the draft that you are unable to ever use and still get these picks to pay for live picks. It encourages trading that are not arms length and where we are only trading to exploit a quirk

[Dosser]

A crazy scenario, i know, but imagine you work for an afl club who was interested enough in Carlisle to do some due diligence and you find there is an incriminating video floating around. You don't say anything because you are not in the front running anyway. Then one day, bang! Two of your players hit the media for alleged rape and now your club is under seige. How can i take the heat off the club? Wait a moment - there is that video that should do it, but if we release it now and it is traced back to us then it looks worse because we are supposedly in the hunt for the player. I can only release it as soon as Carlisle signs his deal. Now the heat is on him and you can't find any reference to our troubles in the media at all. Crazy idea, eh?

[Meg]

Trade period review

Very surprised to read that Essendon have dropped Craig Bird down to the VFL team for this week's match. We might not have got much for Bird in trading him out but we did free up needed salary space. If his form really is as bad as this suggests (which I find really hard to believe in Essendon's team) then the deal is looking like a good one for the Swans. I feel for Craig though, a valued Swan most of his career with us.

[Mug Punter]

Very surprised to read that Essendon have dropped Craig Bird down to the VFL team for this week's match. We might not have got much for Bird in trading him out but we did free up needed salary space. If his form really is as bad as this suggests (which I find really hard to believe in Essendon's team) then the deal is looking like a good one for the Swans. I feel for Craig though, a valued Swan most of his career with us.

He wouldn't be anywhere near playing in that side last Saturday. He was a good servant and I'm glad he's got to get a final payday, you'd think he'd be good enough to play for the Bombers though.

On that scummy club, I can really see them going downhill fast. Then again what's the best Gill the Dill offers them a concessional draft pick getting numbers 1 and 2 in next year's draft? One must look after one's establishment clubs