2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[MattW]

Not sure we did good pick swapping so far. But there are 3 days left

Our 13 for 26, 28 and 40 was a good pick swap.

[Legs Akimbo]

Our 13 for 26, 28 and 40 was a good pick swap.

Not so sure about that...

AFL Draft Picks Broken Down by Pick Number - Draftguru

There is a significant drop off in player outcomes after the first round. I guess you could look at the probabilities (lower chance of an A grader per pick but double the picks) but if you look at pick 13 history and see who has been drafted, it's a bit depressing.

[MattW]

Not so sure about that...

AFL Draft Picks Broken Down by Pick Number - Draftguru

There is a significant drop off in player outcomes after the first round. I guess you could look at the probabilities (lower chance of an A grader per pick but double the picks) but if you look at pick 13 history and see who has been drafted, it's a bit depressing.

But the purpose of it was to increase our points aggregate for expenditure on Blakey, which it did to the equivalent of an early 30s pick, if I recall correctly. If we hadn't done the swap we would have spent 13 and more, and ended up in a worse place with the rest of our picks.

[lwjoyner]

we need an explanation for giving sts 28 for hanners. hanners for 39 was bad enough but give them 28 now that Langdon is coming was the worst decision our power brokers have made for ages. To get May will cost us as much as Hanners thought we wanted cap pressure off.

[Legs Akimbo]

But the purpose of it was to increase our points aggregate for expenditure on Blakey, which it did to the equivalent of an early 30s pick, if I recall correctly. If we hadn't done the swap we would have spent 13 and more, and ended up in a worse place with the rest of our picks.

That's what I'm not clear on. I thought it was suggested we could retain pick 13 and use our second rounders for Blakey before we downgraded?

[liz]

That's what I'm not clear on. I thought it was suggested we could retain pick 13 and use our second rounders for Blakey before we downgraded?

Only if no club bid on him before pick 13, something out of the control of the club and somewhat unlikely. You have to use the first pick available to you after the bid comes (and then the next, and then the next, if more point are used). You can't just offer up your later picks.

[Legs Akimbo]

Only if no club bid on him before pick 13, something out of the control of the club and somewhat unlikely. You have to use the first pick available to you after the bid comes (and then the next, and then the next, if more point are used). You can't just offer up your later picks.

Cool. Thanks. The strategy makes more sense now.

[TheMase]

Does anyone know what the rules are around live pick trading?

Collingwood have two players to bid on, Quaynor rated around pick 12 and Kelly rated in the mid 20s. They currently have enough draft points for this with 18, 51, 56 and 57.

As it stands if they matched a bid for Quaynor at 12, they would spend pick 18 as well as pick up selection 71 with points balance giving them 51, 56, 57, 71. This would be enough for them to bid Kelly up to 25 and pick up another pick around 70 as well as their 71 they wouldn’t have used.

If Blakey went at 7, we would use 26 and 33 and would push 38 down slightly so we’d have 39,40,41. That would equate to 1287 points.

Could we live trade 39,40,41 to Collingwood for pick 18 prior to a bid for Quaynor (+302 points to Collingwood).

This would give them a points balance after a discount pick 12 bid of around 273 points getting them pick 50 as well. They would then have picks 50, 51, 56 and 57. They could then match a discount pick 25 with 50, 51 and part of 56 picking up pick around 62 with points balance.

This gets them Quaynor and Kelly and they’ll still have picks 57 and 62.

Swans would get Blakey and another 1st round pick and we’d then upgrade Ronke with our final selection (or take one more national draft pick and then upgrade Ronke, depending on list spots).

Is this allowable under the rules? Not sure I have the calculations exactly right but something to think about that benefits both clubs.

[KSAS]

next years 1st round and 39 for may

We seem to have policy not to trade our future round picks for players. May would be our first exception you'd think for this rumour to have any legs. Newman could potentially be thrown into the deal as a sweetner?

If there's any truth to the May rumour, would we still be pursuing him had we secured Langdon? Harley did recently say we're not chasing any big fish this trade period. May is definitely a big fish.

P.S. We potentially have further cap relief next year with the impending retirements of McVeigh, Grundy & Jack, plus Buddy will only have 3 years remaining on his contract to strategise offering back ended contracts to land a big fish or two?

[Melbourne_Blood]

That's what I'm not clear on. I thought it was suggested we could retain pick 13 and use our second rounders for Blakey before we downgraded?

You’ve got to use your next available pick to match the bid. You can’t bank it and then match the bid with picks further back in the draft. The swap for our pick 13 was a good one for us , mitigated somewhat by giving away pick 28 to the saints ????@??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattW]

That's what I'm not clear on. I thought it was suggested we could retain pick 13 and use our second rounders for Blakey before we downgraded?

See page 8 of this document.

An excerpt:

• In order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club’s [i.e. us] next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required.
• If the points required are greater than the value of the next available pick, the remaining points are subtracted from the Nominating Club’s next selection and so on, until all points are paid.

[Melbourne_Blood]

We seem to have policy not to trade our future round picks for players. May would be our first exception you'd think for this rumour to have any legs. Newman could potentially be thrown into the deal as a sweetner?

If there's any truth to the May rumour, would we still be pursuing him had we secured Langdon? Harley did recently say we're not chasing any big fish this trade period. May is definitely a big fish.

P.S. We potentially have further cap relief next year with the impending retirements of McVeigh, Grundy & Jack, plus Buddy will only have 3 years remaining on his contract to strategise offering back ended contracts to land a big fish or two?

Might to have to revise the strategy if we miss out on all the smaller fish were chasing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MattW]

We seem to have policy not to trade our future round picks for players. May would be our first exception you'd think for this rumour to have any legs. Newman could potentially be thrown into the deal as a sweetner?

If there's any truth to the May rumour, would we still be pursuing him had we secured Langdon? Harley did recently say we're not chasing any big fish this trade period. May is definitely a big fish.

P.S. We potentially have further cap relief next year with the impending retirements of McVeigh, Grundy & Jack, plus Buddy will only have 3 years remaining on his contract to strategise offering back ended contracts to land a big fish or two?

FWIW, Harley was explicitly asked about May by Garry Lyon at the start of the trade period and categorically denied interest. I think it's the interview on 5 October: SEN Breakfast | 1116 SEN.

[rb4x]

The Swans thought that they did well by trading away pick 13 for more points and picks on the assumption that picks would be traded for Vandenberg and Langdon. Now they are not on board we have way to many picks to take to the draft as you cannot take more picks than places you intend to fill. We currently have six picks with points attached and at the most only three positions to fill at the draft and that is assuming that we have cleared Tippett off our list and that one of Fox or Pink will be delisted. We can delist more fringe players to make more places available, trade multiple picks for a player or bundle picks in a trade to a higher pick which would lose points that we gained by trading 13. The neatest deal we could do is offer 26, 33 and Newman to Gold Coast for May but I doubt that would be sufficient for GC and I am not sure we have the cap space to do that deal anyway.

Will be interesting to see how the Swans dig themselves out of this hole they have made. Some of our fringe players yet to be contracted must be now fairly nervous.

[liz]

Does anyone know what the rules are around live pick trading?

Collingwood have two players to bid on, Quaynor rated around pick 12 and Kelly rated in the mid 20s. They currently have enough draft points for this with 18, 51, 56 and 57.

As it stands if they matched a bid for Quaynor at 12, they would spend pick 18 as well as pick up selection 71 with points balance giving them 51, 56, 57, 71. This would be enough for them to bid Kelly up to 25 and pick up another pick around 70 as well as their 71 they wouldn’t have used.

If Blakey went at 7, we would use 26 and 33 and would push 38 down slightly so we’d have 39,40,41. That would equate to 1287 points.

Could we live trade 39,40,41 to Collingwood for pick 18 prior to a bid for Quaynor (+302 points to Collingwood).

This would give them a points balance after a discount pick 12 bid of around 273 points getting them pick 50 as well. They would then have picks 50, 51, 56 and 57. They could then match a discount pick 25 with 50, 51 and part of 56 picking up pick around 62 with points balance.

This gets them Quaynor and Kelly and they’ll still have picks 57 and 62.

Swans would get Blakey and another 1st round pick and we’d then upgrade Ronke with our final selection (or take one more national draft pick and then upgrade Ronke, depending on list spots).

Is this allowable under the rules? Not sure I have the calculations exactly right but something to think about that benefits both clubs.

I haven't worked through exactly what you've posted but there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

If you match a bid with a pick but the points associated with that pick are greater than the number required to match the bid (after the discount), you lose the residual, at least from the initial pick you use. So if the Swans had held on to pick 13 and a bid had come for Blakey at 10, we would have lost part of the value of the discount, not had it translated into a later pick.

There is a limit to how many picks you can bundle towards a player. If you go into a draft with a senior list of 36, you have four live picks. That is the most picks you can apply against the value of a player. If you've already taken your first selection, and then a bid comes for your player, you just have three picks left to offset against the bid. If they are insufficient, any deficit is carried forward into the next round and offset against the pick in the round where the player was bid upon - ie if you have a deficit after taking a player bid upon in the first round, it comes off your first round pick next year. If the bid is in the second round, it is taken off your second round pick next year.

That doesn't actually mean you can't draft more players. If you enter a draft with four spots on your list and all those four picks are used to match a bid, you can still draft three players at the very back end of the draft. I don't know how they decide in what order those picks come if there is more than one club in that position. Presumably they just reinstate the picks you didn't have at the start of the draft due to insufficient spots on the list.

Clubs that run smaller than 40 senior lists (which is a choice) have a little bit more flexibility. If the Swans (who've had a 38 strong senior list for as long as I can remember) go in with a list of 34, intending to fill four spots and retain the list of 38, they nominally have six draft picks that can be used to match bids for a player before any deficit is applied against the following year. And when one or more of the spots is earmarked for a rookie upgrade, you don't really care that you're filling the rest of your spots at the very end of the draft since you just use your last picks for the upgrade (which don't have to be the last picks you nominally hold going into the draft).