2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[dejavoodoo44]

Speaking of GWS burning picks, I'm just wondering if it's worth us being a bit antisocial and bidding for both Setterfield and Perryman, if they are still there at our pick 9. On the purely football side, apparently they are both highly skilled midfielders, they are more or less from NSW, and being a part of the GWS academy, it's possible that they've already spent some time in Sydney. On the possibly antisocial side, two successive bids will make GWS burn a whole lot of picks.
Our pick 9 is worth 1469 points. With the 20% discount, they will have to use 1175 points, for say, Setterfield. I assume we then move to pick 10. If we use that to bid for Perryman, GWS will have to find another 1116 points. They have 10 available picks to use, starting at pick 15, which is worth 1112 points, and ending at pick 60, which is worth 146. Those 10 picks add up to 3497 points. They have find 2291 points to match our bids. So, if you take 2291 from 3497 (still with me?) that leaves 1206 points.
Which means that they can still take somebody at 15, but they burn all the other 9 picks and don't reenter the draft until pick 77. Not entirely sure if that's a feasible way for us to behave, but I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion?

[WauchopeAnalyst]

Speaking of GWS burning picks, I'm just wondering if it's worth us being a bit antisocial and bidding for both Setterfield and Perryman, if they are still there at our pick 9. On the purely football side, apparently they are both highly skilled midfielders, they are more or less from NSW, and being a part of the GWS academy, it's possible that they've already spent some time in Sydney. On the possibly antisocial side, two successive bids will make GWS burn a whole lot of picks.
Our pick 9 is worth 1469 points. With the 20% discount, they will have to use 1175 points, for say, Setterfield. I assume we then move to pick 10. If we use that to bid for Perryman, GWS will have to find another 1116 points. They have 10 available picks to use, starting at pick 15, which is worth 1112 points, and ending at pick 60, which is worth 146. Those 10 picks add up to 3497 points. They have find 2291 points to match our bids. So, if you take 2291 from 3497 (still with me?) that leaves 1206 points.
Which means that they can still take somebody at 15, but they burn all the other 9 picks and don't reenter the draft until pick 77. Not entirely sure if that's a feasible way for us to behave, but I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion?

Things like this sound good at the time but they will have early picks for years and the payback might hurt us more, particularly if they change the Academy zones. Blakely in 2018 maybe!

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Interesting reading on X club may not want him back.



AFL trades 2016: Xavier Richards to plot next move after being overlooked in trade period

In a way I feel sorry for him. I can't help but feel someone put him up to it. No club made an inquiry and his manager was hocking him around in trade week. It looks like X didn't watch the GF replay.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I don't have any problem with a lopsided trade in that circumstance - ie. where the team on the 'worse side' of the trade are clearly doing so to facilitate another deal that they obviously want to get done.

However the one with Carlton is the one worth review - where Carlton strangely accept a detrimental deal with no obvious benefit to them.

Article also said Ken Wood reviews each trade where picks are involved for integrity purposes, which he did for that St Kilda <> Hawthorn trade - however he wasn't even at ALH House on the final day of the trade period. That's quite inexplicable, given the number of trades that go through on the last day - but explains why the Carlton <> Hawthorn one went through without any review.

Didn't we accept a deal that was detrimental to us in the Craig Bird trade? We traded a player and went backwards in points. Why to clubs do this?

[Mug Punter]

Didn't we accept a deal that was detrimental to us in the Craig Bird trade? We traded a player and went backwards in points. Why to clubs do this?

Don't agree with that. We did it to free up a spot on the list and some cap space and to help out a loyal servant of the club to get game time.

The Carlton deal with the Hawks had absolutely none of that, it was a deal with no basis other than engineering the result for the Hawks. To be fair though they have paid absolute top dollar when you factor in what they paid for Pick 10 and I have no problem with Carlton getting stiffed in a deal

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of GWS burning picks, I'm just wondering if it's worth us being a bit antisocial and bidding for both Setterfield and Perryman, if they are still there at our pick 9. On the purely football side, apparently they are both highly skilled midfielders, they are more or less from NSW, and being a part of the GWS academy, it's possible that they've already spent some time in Sydney. On the possibly antisocial side, two successive bids will make GWS burn a whole lot of picks.
Our pick 9 is worth 1469 points. With the 20% discount, they will have to use 1175 points, for say, Setterfield. I assume we then move to pick 10. If we use that to bid for Perryman, GWS will have to find another 1116 points. They have 10 available picks to use, starting at pick 15, which is worth 1112 points, and ending at pick 60, which is worth 146. Those 10 picks add up to 3497 points. They have find 2291 points to match our bids. So, if you take 2291 from 3497 (still with me?) that leaves 1206 points.
Which means that they can still take somebody at 15, but they burn all the other 9 picks and don't reenter the draft until pick 77. Not entirely sure if that's a feasible way for us to behave, but I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion?

No way would Setterfield be left at Pick 9, I suspect Carlton will be for him at Pick 5. I'd leave Perryman, just no need to upset the applecart with GWS IMO

[Ludwig]

Speaking of GWS burning picks, I'm just wondering if it's worth us being a bit antisocial and bidding for both Setterfield and Perryman, if they are still there at our pick 9.

Setterfield almost certainly will be bid for prior to our pick. I would be worried that if we bid on Perryman that the Giants would let him go and I don't think he's the best choice at that number. Ben Davis tackled him twice in the 4th quarter of the all star game and was caught HTB. GWS have lots of talent in this draft after these 2, including McCreadie, Sproule, Mutch, Garthwaite and Tiziani. These last 2 are serious possibilities if around at pick 46 and may well be worth a bid. By that time the Giants will have expended all their points for this year and will be cutting into 2017.

In a way I feel sorry for him. I can't help but feel someone put him up to it. No club made an inquiry and his manager was hocking him around in trade week. It looks like X didn't watch the GF replay.

He will probably find a home somewhere. We need to cut 2 more players. It must be Hiscox and Richards. If Richards is still available at the rookie draft, we should consider taking him, although it would be on a much lower salary than the one he's already kicked back. He did a good job when we needed to dig deep into our depth to cover the losses off Ted, Talia, Reid and AJ, but once everyone is up and going it's hard to see Xav getting a senior spot.

This draft was a learning experience for everyone including player who thought they were worth a lot, but found out that no one wanted them at any price.

[Mug Punter]

Early days but this is a quick draft forecast for me

(1) McCluggage (Essendon)
(2) McGrath (GWS)
(3) Bowes (Suns matching a bid from Lions)
(4) Brodie (Lions)
(5) Setterfield (GWS matching bid from Carlton)
(6) Ainsworth (Carlton)
(7) English (Gold Coast)
(8) Petrevski-Seton (Freemantle)
(9) Logue (Gold Coast)
(10) Berry (Swans)
(11) Taranto (Gold Coast)

I reckon we'll miss out on Logue by a slot or two. The only reasoning for this, and it's got no real basis to be honest, is that I think Gold Coast will go for a spread of players across the positions. Two midfielders, a KPF/Ruckman and a KPD. They have no experienced mids in this year but they do seem a little light on for quality rucks so I could see taking a punt on English who sounds like a freak to be honest.

[dejavoodoo44]

Don't agree with that. We did it to free up a spot on the list and some cap space and to help out a loyal servant of the club to get game time.

The Carlton deal with the Hawks had absolutely none of that, it was a deal with no basis other than engineering the result for the Hawks. To be fair though they have paid absolute top dollar when you factor in what they paid for Pick 10 and I have no problem with Carlton getting stiffed in a deal

- - - Updated - - -



No way would Setterfield be left at Pick 9, I suspect Carlton will be for him at Pick 5. I'd leave Perryman, just no need to upset the applecart with GWS IMO

Yes, I never really convinced myself that it was a good idea. On one hand, it would only advance our fortyish picks three places, and it would piss off GWS. On the other hand, it would piss off GWS.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Speaking of GWS burning picks, I'm just wondering if it's worth us being a bit antisocial and bidding for both Setterfield and Perryman, if they are still there at our pick 9. On the purely football side, apparently they are both highly skilled midfielders, they are more or less from NSW, and being a part of the GWS academy, it's possible that they've already spent some time in Sydney. On the possibly antisocial side, two successive bids will make GWS burn a whole lot of picks.
Our pick 9 is worth 1469 points. With the 20% discount, they will have to use 1175 points, for say, Setterfield. I assume we then move to pick 10. If we use that to bid for Perryman, GWS will have to find another 1116 points. They have 10 available picks to use, starting at pick 15, which is worth 1112 points, and ending at pick 60, which is worth 146. Those 10 picks add up to 3497 points. They have find 2291 points to match our bids. So, if you take 2291 from 3497 (still with me?) that leaves 1206 points.
Which means that they can still take somebody at 15, but they burn all the other 9 picks and don't reenter the draft until pick 77. Not entirely sure if that's a feasible way for us to behave, but I'm curious if anyone else has an opinion?

They've shown their intentions by bidding on our players before so why take it easy on them?

[Mug Punter]

They've shown their intentions by bidding on our players before so why take it easy on them?

GWS have not bid on any of our academy kids as far as I am aware, the Demons bid on both Heeney (at #2) and Mills (at #3) and in hindsight neither of those bids were vexatious.

If we genuinely believe Perryman is worthy of our pick we should place a bid, it's as simple as that really.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I never really convinced myself that it was a good idea. On one hand, it would only advance our fortyish picks three places, and it would piss off GWS. On the other hand, it would piss off GWS.

Someone will bid for him, early teens I'd suggest, and that will also achieve the desired result if moving our pick 40s up the list. It doesn't really matter anyway because they movements up the list will only be GWS picks anyway and those picks will be used for their academy kids who we cannot select anyway.

Really excited about us getting two quality kids in the top 20

[Ludwig]

Early days but this is a quick draft forecast for me

(1) McCluggage (Essendon)
(2) McGrath (GWS)
(3) Bowes (Suns matching a bid from Lions)
(4) Brodie (Lions)
(5) Setterfield (GWS matching bid from Carlton)
(6) Ainsworth (Carlton)
(7) English (Gold Coast)
(8) Petrevski-Seton (Freemantle)
(9) Logue (Gold Coast)
(10) Berry (Swans)
(11) Taranto (Gold Coast)

I reckon we'll miss out on Logue by a slot or two. The only reasoning for this, and it's got no real basis to be honest, is that I think Gold Coast will go for a spread of players across the positions. Two midfielders, a KPF/Ruckman and a KPD. They have no experienced mids in this year but they do seem a little light on for quality rucks so I could see taking a punt on English who sounds like a freak to be honest.

I think the 1st 8 picks are 80% set with perhaps some shuffling around. Taranto may sneak in, but not sure in whose place. Brisbane more likely to take Ainsworth than Brodie as they need more X factor (but not enough to get XR).

What GC do is pretty much the key to who is available for us. They just traded in Witts from Collingwood to backup Nicholls and Peter Wright. They seem solid enough in the ruck and probably don't need English. I think Freo traded down to pick 7 because they want English and didn't believe he would go to any of the picks above them.

I don't think GC will take Logue as they are pretty strong in the tall defender department with May, Thompson, and promising youngsters Shade and Leslie. They will also be in line to get top academy key forward Connor Ballenden in next year's draft, which means that Sam Day can also drop into defense in due course.

They've lost O'Meara, Prestia and are likely to lose David Swallow next year. Ablett is not too far off retirement and is more likely to play forward than midfield at his age. What they desperately need are midfielders, particularly inside mids.

You are are probably right they will have a choice between Logue, Taranto, Berry and perhaps Scrimshaw. I think Logue is the least likely one to be taken by them (by my reasoning above). I think it's a very hard choice between Logue and Taranto for us anyway, if they would both be available at our pick. It was a good move to get to pick 9. I suspected that the very best talent would all be gone, but it looks as though we will just sneak in with a very strong selection, whoever it is (but please not Todd Marshall).

[Mug Punter]

I think the 1st 8 picks are 80% set with perhaps some shuffling around. Taranto may sneak in, but not sure in whose place. Brisbane more likely to take Ainsworth than Brodie as they need more X factor (but not enough to get XR).

What GC do is pretty much the key to who is available for us. They just traded in Witts from Collingwood to backup Nicholls and Peter Wright. They seem solid enough in the ruck and probably don't need English. I think Freo traded down to pick 7 because they want English and didn't believe he would go to any of the picks above them.

I don't think GC will take Logue as they are pretty strong in the tall defender department with May, Thompson, and promising youngsters Shade and Leslie. They will also be in line to get top academy key forward Connor Ballenden in next year's draft, which means that Sam Day can also drop into defense in due course.

They've lost O'Meara, Prestia and are likely to lose David Swallow next year. Ablett is not too far off retirement and is more likely to play forward than midfield at his age. What they desperately need are midfielders, particularly inside mids.

You are are probably right they will have a choice between Logue, Taranto, Berry and perhaps Scrimshaw. I think Logue is the least likely one to be taken by them (by my reasoning above). I think it's a very hard choice between Logue and Taranto for us anyway, if they would both be available at our pick. It was a good move to get to pick 9. I suspected that the very best talent would all be gone, but it looks as though we will just sneak in with a very strong selection, whoever it is (but please not Todd Marshall).

It will be interesting to see where Marshall goes, he was getting touted as a potential Number 1 and now nobody seems to rate him. Suspect that he'll go late teens but we'd have to be tempted if he was still available at 19.

I really like the sound of Galluci but I suspect he may well get taken just before 19 too, regardless there will be a good selection available there if we have done our homework.

Gold Coast have traded in two mids and they'll take Bowes and Scheer at the ND. Surely they wouldn't think of bringing in seven midfielders into the squad? Agree though that the Suns will hold the key as to who we select.

[S.S. Bleeder]

GWS have not bid on any of our academy kids as far as I am aware, the Demons bid on both Heeney (at #2) and Mills (at #3) and in hindsight neither of those bids were vexatious.

If we genuinely believe Perryman is worthy of our pick we should place a bid, it's as simple as that really.- - - Updated - - -

I thought they had but could be wrong. Regardless, not bidding on other F/S and academy players isn't going to by us any favours.

[Auntie.Gerald]

You would suspect an unwritten rule amongst the academy clubs not to bid on each other's players

Especially after last draft issues

[CureTheSane]

Richards was getting a run in the team as it stood.
I know players coming back may keep him out, but he's versatile and may work his way back in, or come in again due to injuries.
May be worth it for both the Swans and him to take a 1 year deal.
May fill a gap for us, and if he still wants to go/we need him to go at the end of 2017 he may be worth more.

I'd be keeping Towers if we can, but I know many here will be happy top see him go (mainly based on a couple of late kicks)