2016 trading and drafting (merged thread)

[dejavoodoo44]

Fairfax Media believes the Giants could lose selections 15 and 37 in this year's draft over the Lachie Whitfield debacle
GWS face loss of draft picks over Lachie Whitfield affair

Hopefully the AFL will go down that path. Giants premiership window closing?

[liz]

Sounds like being hit by a limp lettuce leaf to me. If they find the club and any of the individuals are guilty of anything (ie there is sufficient evidence, given the standard of proof required, they should apply some proper sanctions. Bear in mind Kurt Tippett was bared from playing for half a season for something he probably wasn't even aware was a breach. Dean Bailey was banned for at least a year despite not being found guilty of anything. The Swans were given a two year trading ban despite everyone (including the AFL) agreeing they'd not broken any rules.

Given their bounty of academy players, most of whom it is questionable how much they've actually invested in, and who they will all get at a discount, losing those picks will do close to nothing to affect their list. At least the AFL should strip them of pick 2.

[chammond]

Given their bounty of academy players, most of whom it is questionable how much they've actually invested in, and who they will all get at a discount, losing those picks will do close to nothing to affect their list. At least the AFL should strip them of pick 2.

The key is where the article says: "It is understood the Giants were mindful during the trade period to not only secure sufficient points from early draft picks but also to safeguard those points with enough picks in the event of an AFL sanction over the Whitfield affair."

In other words, if they still get Will Setterfield and Harry Perryman, they haven't really been punished at all . . . and Gill the Dill and his mates will have been outsmarted again.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Liz
Lachie and the Giants being of the Milennial demographic ........ would that be more likened to Kale rather the lettuce ?



- - - Updated - - -

Given that 4years out of the game for lachie was a worst case scenario

[annew]

Sounds like being hit by a limp lettuce leaf to me. If they find the club and any of the individuals are guilty of anything (ie there is sufficient evidence, given the standard of proof required, they should apply some proper sanctions. Bear in mind Kurt Tippett was bared from playing for half a season for something he probably wasn't even aware was a breach. Dean Bailey was banned for at least a year despite not being found guilty of anything. The Swans were given a two year trading ban despite everyone (including the AFL) agreeing they'd not broken any rules.

Given their bounty of academy players, most of whom it is questionable how much they've actually invested in, and who they will all get at a discount, losing those picks will do close to nothing to affect their list. At least the AFL should strip them of pick 2.

Yes I totally agree with you, cant believe swans got two year ban for not breaking rules and GWS get this limp punishment for staff allegedly colluding on how a player can avoid a possible drug test

[S.S. Bleeder]

Fairfax Media believes the Giants could lose selections 15 and 37 in this year's draft over the Lachie Whitfield debacle
GWS face loss of draft picks over Lachie Whitfield affair

So they should too. That said, it's not much of a penalty considering they've had 25 first round draft picks (and high ones too) in the previous five drafts. The concessions they've received have been far too weighted in their favour. Gold Coast must be really p155ed about the inequity.

[dimelb]

... Bear in mind Kurt Tippett was bared from playing for half a season for something he probably wasn't even aware was a breach ...

Some people will be fuming they missed out on that.

[liz]

Lol. I have a rotating set of photos as the desktop background on my work computer. Many of the pictures are Swans related, and one is of a topless Kurt sparring with JPK ( who sadly is fully clothed). A colleague (who happens to be one of our lawyers) saw it a couple of days ago and (jokingly, I think) asked if that was appropriate for an office environment.

[Mug Punter]

The AFL is incredibly conflicted with GWS of course.

Losing Picks 15 and 37 will still be extremely damaging for GWS but not fatal for their trade plans. I would agree they should lose pick 2 instead but I doubt it.

Losing those picks gives them roughly 2000 points once you account for pick upgrades. If Setterfield goes at 5 and Perryman at 12 (a reasonable assumption I think) then they are into deficit territory already to the tune of about 400 points. Their other picks like MacReadie could well be second rounders and send them into deficit to the tune of about 1,500 points plus.

Granted they have three second rounders next year and will be able to accommodate that deficit but this is the last bite at the cherry for GWS and their drafting and trading bonanza. That will also go a long way to quelling some of the hysteria re their academy as they will now start to miss out on players.

The AFL would be privately quite happy about that I think

- - - Updated - - -

The key is where the article says: "It is understood the Giants were mindful during the trade period to not only secure sufficient points from early draft picks but also to safeguard those points with enough picks in the event of an AFL sanction over the Whitfield affair."

In other words, if they still get Will Setterfield and Harry Perryman, they haven't really been punished at all . . . and Gill the Dill and his mates will have been outsmarted again.

True per my post but they will bear the impact next year

[Mug Punter]

You are just misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not targeting any state or any particular players. I won't go into any further detail, because it's the principle which is more important.

It is simply this: It has become all too easy to use homesickness as an excuse for players to effectively become free agents. It undermines the integrity of the draft and fairness in particular to the non traditional states. The AFL has sat on its hands and ignored the problem. If the AFL want to go to full-on free agency, that okay by me. But this mendacious play-acting to evade contractual agreements and bargaining in good faith has got to stop. AFL administrators and commentators ignore the matter as if it doesn't exist, yet the list of players demanding to go to a particular club before their free agency period accrues is growing exponentially.

Your argument simply is just not supported by the facts and stats.

Here's the figures from players drafted in the top 40 for the 10 years from 2004 to 2013 - feel free to check them. No WA players drafted in 2014 wished to be traded back home but one (Pickett) did get traded to a Melbourne club.

From 2004 to 2013:

* 73 players from WA were drafted in the Top 40 (quite impressive I thought but a quick glance show that the TAC Cup is the engine roo for the draft)
* 22 were drafted to West Coast or Fremantle
* 51 were drafted to Interstate Clubs
* Of those 51 players, only NINE returned to a WA club

Now of those nine Mummy's Boys who held a gun to the head of their clubs, lets have a quick look

* Kennedy from Carlton back to WCE but that was to facilitate the Judd trade (a Vic boy going home...)
* Gumbleton who was crocked and never played a game
* Cale Morton who went back to West Coast and played 3 games
* Two indigenous kids in Jetta and Bennell, one who was very very high risk and basically kicked out of his club, the other who facilitated a fair trade
* In the 2011 draft we had three kids but one was getting out of a basketcase club (Yeo), one went with his club's blessing (Hill) and one player was depth at best (Kersten)
* One very ill young man who needed to be with his family for health reasons (McCarthy)

None of these players are stars, in fact you could say most were duds.

I'm sure you'll come back with some justification why you are right but the facts are clear. There is no systemic go home issue with WA boys but from time to time a WA boy drafted interstate will go home. Then again don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I know I never do

[Untamed Snark]

Lol. I have a rotating set of photos as the desktop background on my work computer. Many of the pictures are Swans related, and one is of a topless Kurt sparring with JPK ( who sadly is fully clothed). A colleague (who happens to be one of our lawyers) saw it a couple of days ago and (jokingly, I think) asked if that was appropriate for an office environment.

One of my favorite pictures, and yes, it is absolutely appropriate for an office environment

[Ludwig]

If the Giants only lose Whitfield for a few weeks it can hardly be called a penalty. He'll just be fresher for the finals. Not that I care, but Collingwood would seem to take the brunt of the penalties, losing their football manager after letting go of Neil Balme. Given that 2 administrators were involved in this affair, it only seems right that the club should be penalised, as is often the case when the club is the main culprit in the incident. If the case doesn't go to ASADA, then GWS should lose picks.

GWS will only have 1902 Value Points if they lose picks 15 and 37. It Carlton bid for Setterfield, then all their value points could be consumed to match this bid and perhaps McCreadie, who could go at around pick 30. I think they made a commitment to McCreadie that they would draft him. The Giants need to fill 6 senior spots, so along with Pick 2, that would leave 3 more. There are still several good players likely to be bid on in the second and 3rd rounds, including Sproule, Cumming, Mutch, Garthwaite and Tiziani.

I wonder if they will have to let Perryman go and not match the bid for him as it could eat too deeply into next year's draft, where they yet have more very promising players to come.

They have enough midfielders without Perryman, so I wouldn't be surprised if they passed on him. He will probably get a 1st round bid, which would mean that there will be one more player I hadn't counted on available at pick 19.

They will also have to let some other players go as well and perhaps just take players bid on after a certain pick so they don't go too far into deficit. It should also make a few more players available at our pick 46, which would effectively become pick 42 after Setterfield is taken.

[Mug Punter]

If the Giants only lose Whitfield for a few weeks it can hardly be called a penalty. He'll just be fresher for the finals. Not that I care, but Collingwood would seem to take the brunt of the penalties, losing their football manager after letting go of Neil Balme. Given that 2 administrators were involved in this affair, it only seems right that the club should be penalised, as is often the case when the club is the main culprit in the incident. If the case doesn't go to ASADA, then GWS should lose picks.

GWS will only have 1902 Value Points if they lose picks 15 and 37. It Carlton bid for Setterfield, then all their value points could be consumed to match this bid and perhaps McCreadie, who could go at around pick 30. I think they made a commitment to McCreadie that they would draft him. The Giants need to fill 6 senior spots, so along with Pick 2, that would leave 3 more. There are still several good players likely to be bid on in the second and 3rd rounds, including Sproule, Cumming, Mutch, Garthwaite and Tiziani.

I wonder if they will have to let Perryman go and not match the bid for him as it could eat too deeply into next year's draft, where they yet have more very promising players to come.

They have enough midfielders without Perryman, so I wouldn't be surprised if they passed on him. He will probably get a 1st round bid, which would mean that there will be one more player I hadn't counted on available at pick 19.

They will also have to let some other players go as well and perhaps just take players bid on after a certain pick so they don't go too far into deficit. It should also make a few more players available at our pick 46, which would effectively become pick 42 after Setterfield is taken.

I suspect they'll just go into deficit but next year reality will start to bite but they will have an absolutely powerful list for a few year until free agency starts to bite.

[Ludwig]

Your argument simply is just not supported by the facts and stats.

Here's the figures from players drafted in the top 40 for the 10 years from 2004 to 2013 - feel free to check them. No WA players drafted in 2014 wished to be traded back home but one (Pickett) did get traded to a Melbourne club.

From 2004 to 2013:

* 73 players from WA were drafted in the Top 40 (quite impressive I thought but a quick glance show that the TAC Cup is the engine roo for the draft)
* 22 were drafted to West Coast or Fremantle
* 51 were drafted to Interstate Clubs
* Of those 51 players, only NINE returned to a WA club

Now of those nine Mummy's Boys who held a gun to the head of their clubs, lets have a quick look

* Kennedy from Carlton back to WCE but that was to facilitate the Judd trade (a Vic boy going home...)
* Gumbleton who was crocked and never played a game
* Cale Morton who went back to West Coast and played 3 games
* Two indigenous kids in Jetta and Bennell, one who was very very high risk and basically kicked out of his club, the other who facilitated a fair trade
* In the 2011 draft we had three kids but one was getting out of a basketcase club (Yeo), one went with his club's blessing (Hill) and one player was depth at best (Kersten)
* One very ill young man who needed to be with his family for health reasons (McCarthy)

None of these players are stars, in fact you could say most were duds.

I'm sure you'll come back with some justification why you are right but the facts are clear. There is no systemic go home issue with WA boys but from time to time a WA boy drafted interstate will go home. Then again don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant

You make a lot of good points, although I didn't see this as being a problem during the period you examined. And it's kind of you to feel sympathy for these poor heartbroken men who can only go home for around 8 weeks a year.

I am not solely picking on WA either, and I've said that many times. They produce a lot of players as you have noted, it's a long way back home, so you would expect they would be involved in a fair number of homesick cases.

The problem has escalated in the last couple of years. There's nothing wrong with a fair trade being done which results in a player going back to his home state, like with Kersten. It's when players request to go home or to a specific club that riles me. This year we have Pickett, Hill, Joel Hamling and Cam McCarthy, plus Marcus Adams requested a trade home and will likely go next year. Bryce Gibbs wanted a to trade Adelaide, but he was under contract and it didn't get done.

If players have family issues or they want to be close to home they should forego a career in the AFL instead of taking the risk of being drafted by an out of state club and then requesting a trade back home. It's deceptive and undermines the integrity of the competition. Once several players get away with this tactic it spreads like wildfire and everyone thinks it's a viable option. I'm not the only one saying that contracts are hardly worth much these days.

I'm most annoyed at the AFL for not recognising this issue and doing something about it. I hardly care what the something is, but just do something, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

[bloodspirit]

Your argument simply is just not supported by the facts and stats.

Here's the figures from players drafted in the top 40 for the 10 years from 2004 to 2013 - feel free to check them. No WA players drafted in 2014 wished to be traded back home but one (Pickett) did get traded to a Melbourne club.

From 2004 to 2013:

* 73 players from WA were drafted in the Top 40 (quite impressive I thought but a quick glance show that the TAC Cup is the engine roo for the draft)
* 22 were drafted to West Coast or Fremantle
* 51 were drafted to Interstate Clubs
* Of those 51 players, only NINE returned to a WA club

Now of those nine Mummy's Boys who held a gun to the head of their clubs, lets have a quick look

* Kennedy from Carlton back to WCE but that was to facilitate the Judd trade (a Vic boy going home...)
* Gumbleton who was crocked and never played a game
* Cale Morton who went back to West Coast and played 3 games
* Two indigenous kids in Jetta and Bennell, one who was very very high risk and basically kicked out of his club, the other who facilitated a fair trade
* In the 2011 draft we had three kids but one was getting out of a basketcase club (Yeo), one went with his club's blessing (Hill) and one player was depth at best (Kersten)
* One very ill young man who needed to be with his family for health reasons (McCarthy)

None of these players are stars, in fact you could say most were duds.

I'm sure you'll come back with some justification why you are right but the facts are clear. There is no systemic go home issue with WA boys but from time to time a WA boy drafted interstate will go home. Then again don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, I know I never do

Excellent, well researched post, MP. Seems like the greatest risk with drafting from WA is with Indigenous talent, perhaps because of the great emphasis on family and kinship in Indigenous culture.

As regards GWS, I agree the penalties imposed by the AFL tend to feel arbitrary and determined by private agendas. However in this instance, unlike, say, with Essendon, the individuals seem primarily to be at fault rather than the club and so I can live with the mooted penalty for the club, who nonetheless probably should be held to account to some degree when 3 of their staff, one very senior, collaborate in such a nefarious little scheme. Luckily for them (and due to their own good management ) GWS can probably afford the price.

I certainly am not concerned about the harm to Collingwood who knew what they were buying when they hired Gubby, much as we did when we recruited Tippo. Still seems the Collywobbles made a poor choice when they chose to recruit him, especially because they then lost Balme. Might spell the end for Chins McGuire.

Liz, thanks for clarifying about the picks. this means the table is wrong.