2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[MattW]

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 can't see why not. Do these examples help? This article mentions Blakey (but in the context of us live trading picks to get a first rounder before Blakey).

[liz]

We seem to have policy not to trade our future round picks for players.

I don't think there's enough data to draw that conclusion.

Trading in future picks is a relatively new thing, and since it was introduced, the Swans have traded in very few players, for various reasons. The only two that have come in since the Buddy coup are Sinclair and now Clarke, both of whom have essentially been player for player swaps.

[TheMase]

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).

Thanks for the considered thoughts Liz!

Enjoy your very reasonable posts both here and on the other footy site when you post there

[liz]

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.

As per my response the The Mase, it's actually how many technical list spots you have that determines how many picks you can take to the draft with points attached. So if we have a senior list of 35 going into the draft and intend to fill just three spots, we still have five nominal spots available and hence five picks with points attached. But unless we trade away pick 26, we're highly unlikely to need that many picks to match a Blakey bid.

There's still the opportunity to trade some of this year's picks for future picks, or maybe to bundle a couple up and trade to a club with fewer high picks than list spots it needs to fill that is happy to downgrade a pick for more later picks. You'd need to look for clubs who have a lot of spots to fill and a bit of a gap in their current pick profile around the 3rd or 4th round. I have no idea if any clubs currently are in that situation.

[S.S. Bleeder]

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.

I want an explanation too. Terrible deal. I assume we panicked as we wanted to get the pick swap done.

I don't think we're looking to relieve cap pressure because we were looking at Moore and Langdon. We clearly have the room. I'd love to get May but I believe he wants to go to Victoria (just like everyone else).

[Auntie.Gerald]

What we do know:

1. Jones and mills have been mentioned by Harley to be destined and released into the midfield

2. We wanted to achieve this via bringing in a new 190cmish defender that had the ability to play on smalls talls and loose intercepting defender

3. We were probably needing to use pick 26 or maybe 33 to make this happen if Langdon agreed to come to Sydney and are available still

4. If a player like Steven May joined a key defender then we could probably have Rampe take on the spare man role who goes to smalls and talls and intercept - the big thing with Steven May is what we saw with McGovern in the final.......if it is tight and the opposition start to bomb it out well then a steven may or Jeremy McGovern type defender basically shut that down......McGovern for me stopped the pies getting back in the game and therefore west coast won.......that would be very nice to have and given we went with Ling and Stoddart as lefties as our future fast HBFs then Steve may being left footed promotes a very fast transition to the future talented HBFs of our team - Rampe loose and leftie also only furthers our cause

5. 38,39,40,67 can get us Blakey at pick 6 and if need be and he went at pick 5 we could go a small deficit into next year of 200pts or so which is burning say pick 55 next year. Blakey for me is more a pick 7 and above anyway

6. 26 and or 33 can still be used in trading . To get what we want and Harley did say we have some specific needs and we have been open to discussion with Moore, Langdon, vandenberg etc then I guess we are still looking at another experienceed or emerging mid, tall and or langdon style defender

but we would need to probably encourage someone who is contracted or is about to be contracted ........so that might take our first and or second round picks next year if a gun or our 26,33 this year ?

7. If we go to the draft we use 39,40,67 most likely ie 26 and 33 equal Blakey at pick 7 with discount 20% applied andhave to be used first - this is not a particularly compelling option for our team to improve in 2019

[ernie koala]

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.

Love this idea.

That would allow us to pick up Blakey and another draftie late 1st round.... like Liam Stocker...Who IMO, a big bodied inside mid, would be a fantastic pick up for us

[S.S. Bleeder]

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.

I'm pretty sure that you can take as many picks to the draft as you want. You just pass on the picks you won't use.

[liz]

I want an explanation too. Terrible deal. I assume we panicked as we wanted to get the pick swap done.

I don't think we're looking to relieve cap pressure because we were looking at Moore and Langdon. We clearly have the room. I'd love to get May but I believe he wants to go to Victoria (just like everyone else).

I think the best interpretation is that the Swans were ultra-keen to move Hanners on and had already agreed an inprincple deal with the Saints weeks, or even months ago. The post a few pages back that suggested he was essentially traded for pick 39 (plus a shift of a current highish second round pick for a 2019 highish second round pick, depending on where the Saints finish).

Clearly there must be cap room now given, as you observe, we were trying to trade a couple of players in on decent wages. But that cap space can be utilised going forward by pulling some 2020 cap payments forward into 2019. I agree it would be better to secure a good player to improve us next year but it's hard to persuade players to move clubs. That's not just a Swans thing - it applies to most players, especially those already at decent clubs.

[liz]

I'm pretty sure that you can take as many picks to the draft as you want. You just pass on the picks you won't use.

You can take as many picks as you want to the draft, but you can't use as many as you want to match bids for academy or FS players. You are limited by the number of spots you have to fill, a change made for last year's draft.

[Auntie.Gerald]

It feels unlikely re steven May

But we all know he would make a significant difference to our team

Quite significant given that teams have to make quite an adjustment when kicking into their forward line knowing Maybis sitting ready to poach and or locking down a key forward / owning a key forward should I say

Steven May: a new breed of enforcer - AFL.com.au

[AB Swannie]

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 think this is exactly how the live pick trading will work and two clubs will definitely game the system like this which will cause all other clubs to complain about it. I just hope the Swans are one of the clubs that do it.

[KSAS]

I don't think there's enough data to draw that conclusion.

Trading in future picks is a relatively new thing, and since it was introduced, the Swans have traded in very few players, for various reasons. The only two that have come in since the Buddy coup are Sinclair and now Clarke, both of whom have essentially been player for player swaps.

I hazard to guess we'd be one of the few clubs who haven't traded a future pick for players as yet? GC & GWS come to mind as well?

[KSAS]

Still three days to go but if you’re looking for a positive, this year’s underwhelming trade period so far mirrors West Coast’s last year. Their only player brought in was Brendan Ah Chee for a future 3rd round. They also did some very good pick swap trading with Gold Coast.

And Robert Walls had tipped WC for wooden spoon at beginning of season!

[liz]

I hazard to guess we'd be one of the few clubs who haven't traded a future pick for players as yet? GC & GWS come to mind as well?

True, but we've barely traded any players in, whether by choice or because we haven't been able to persuade the target players that they want to join. So there's no evidence of a policy of not trading future picks for players.