2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[rb4x]

Collingwood now has picks 41, 44, 57, 59, 60 and 93. It would seem they are planning on drafting three players, Quaynor, Kelly and one more. By swapping the picks it means that the third player will be taken with pick 60 rather than 93. They must be confident that 41, 44, 57 and 59 will be enough for Quaynor and Kelly. Even if not then 60 will likely slide to somewhere still above 93. With trading right up until a pick is called who knows what more swapping may take place.

[liz]

Collingwood now has picks 41, 44, 57, 59, 60 and 93. It would seem they are planning on drafting three players, Quaynor, Kelly and one more. By swapping the picks it means that the third player will be taken with pick 60 rather than 93. They must be confident that 41, 44, 57 and 59 will be enough for Quaynor and Kelly. Even if not then 60 will likely slide to somewhere still above 93. With trading right up until a pick is called who knows what more swapping may take place.

Maybe. But it looks like they had a senior list of 40 last year (ascertained just by counting the number of players listed on their website under "senior players"). So if they are planning to draft just three players but take five picks into the draft, it means they'll need to enter the draft with 35 players on their list. They are one of the clubs that don't seem to have announced their final pre-draft list cull yet.

On the AFL website, the only player listed as having left is Fasolo, who joined Carlton as a FA (Retirements, delistings & trades - AFL.com.au). And they traded in Beams and Roughead. So that means they'll need to delist six senior listed players ahead of the draft. So far they seem to be just re-signing players. Blair seems likely to be delisted, and I don't know what their options are regarding Murray (or indeed what his current situation is - there's been no news about him at all since the initial report that his 'A' sample tested positive). There was a report a day or so ago that Kirkby may be forced into retirement for health reasons. There aren't that many other players on their list out of contract and de-list possibilities. Josh Smith maybe? Crocker?

There is a period after the draft when clubs can sign DFAs. So if they want to keep their senior list at 40 players next year, they could, in theory, enter the draft with 35 on their list, take three at the National Draft, and then sign two DFAs after the draft. That way they could take five points-bearing picks into the draft to use to match bids. But they'll first need to trim their list back to 35 ahead of the draft.

I am curious about how they're managing their list. It will be mightily amusing if they've forgotten that the number of draft picks they can use to match bids is limited by the number of free spots on their list, and find one of those picks they've traded for is unusable for that purpose.

[Ludwig]

What I don't understand, liz, is that it would seem that they can only use their 1st 4 picks to take their 2 priority selections and they traded down where they have more points in total, but less over their 1st 4 picks, which would mean that they will have to go deeper into deficit next year. I can't figure it out.

[liz]

What I don't understand, liz, is that it would seem that they can only use their 1st 4 picks to take their 2 priority selections and they traded down where they have more points in total, but less over their 1st 4 picks, which would mean that they will have to go deeper into deficit next year. I can't figure it out.

If they go into the draft with five empty spots, they can use five picks-with-points to match. If you use more than one pick to match a bid, you don't actually lose that pick. It just gets downgraded, either to the spot equivalent to the residual point value, or to the back of the draft if its value has been completely exhausted.

Beyond a certain stage of the draft, the picks no longer have any point value attached. Notionally pick 74 is the first one without points attached, but given how picks move up and down according to bidding and matching, that might not be the same as pick 74 at the start of the draft.

As an aside, I think it's completely daft that the value of a club's picks is affected (upwards or downwards) by other bidding and matching activity. I reckon they should just fix the points value according to the nominal position of the picks a club has at the start of that draft.

[liz]

I was just perusing BF's draft forum to see if there was any discussion around how the Pies were going to manage their list. I hadn't appreciated that Josh Thomas is still technically on their rookie list. They've given him a new contract so he'll be upgraded but, for the purposes of working out how many picks they have going into the ND, his spot on the list will be considered to be empty. So they actually had a senior list of 39 last year. (I'd included Thomas in my count of 40.)

To get down to 35 at the start of the draft, that means a net delist of four players, or a gross delist of five players (as they've lost one and gained two during the trade and FA period). Broomhead will be one, as he is apparently to be delisted and put on the rookie list. So they just need to find four more players to delist.

[Ludwig]

I was just perusing BF's draft forum to see if there was any discussion around how the Pies were going to manage their list. I hadn't appreciated that Josh Thomas is still technically on their rookie list. They've given him a new contract so he'll be upgraded but, for the purposes of working out how many picks they have going into the ND, his spot on the list will be considered to be empty. So they actually had a senior list of 39 last year. (I'd included Thomas in my count of 40.)

To get down to 35 at the start of the draft, that means a net delist of four players, or a gross delist of five players (as they've lost one and gained two during the trade and FA period). Broomhead will be one, as he is apparently to be delisted and put on the rookie list. So they just need to find four more players to delist.

So if I understand you correctly, if they go into the draft with 35 senior list players they can take 5 picks to the draft. Their 1st pick is #41. It's nearly certain that their 1st 4 picks will be required to get Quaynor and Kelly, and there should still be points required. They can't use the 5th pick, because it's needed to add the 38th player to the list, whether via the draft or rookie elebation. Let's assume it's Thomas, so that exhausts the 5 picks. Spots 39 and 40 can be used for DFA's if they like, I suppose.

I think the maths have always worked out that the max number of picks a club can take to the draft is 40 minus the senior list size.

That's why I'm confused. They've lowered the points available to use on their priority picks, unless they can take more than 5 picks the draft, even if they only have 5 spots available.

[liz]

I'm not 100% sure how it works, but I think (based on logical ways it can work) is that
- if you use a single pick to match a bid, you lose that pick (irrespective of whether you get the full value of the discount. So if the Swans had held on to pick 13 and Blakey was bid on with pick 12, we'd need to use pick 13 exactly as we would had he been bid upon with pick 11, 10, 9 etc)
- if you need to dip into a second (or third) pick to cover the points required, you don't actually lose those picks. They just get pushed back. If you exhaust all the points from the second or third picks they go somewhere at the back of the draft, beyond the point where picks have any points value. But they are still active picks.
- if you use all the available points on the picks you have and that's still not enough, you dip into next year.

So if the Pies go into the draft with 35 on their list, they can take all the five picks they currently hold that have points attached. Suppose bids are made on Quaynor and Kelly that exactly exhaust the points of all five picks. The Pies will still have three picks left, which can be used to select players or to elevate rookies. They will just be very late picks, which won't matter for Thomas but means they'll be picking two "live" players very late in the draft. They can pass on those two picks if they wish, and either take a 38 strong list into 2019, or take a player in the PSD, or recruit a DFA after the draft.

[Ludwig]

So if the Pies go into the draft with 35 on their list, they can take all the five picks they currently hold that have points attached. Suppose bids are made on Quaynor and Kelly that exactly exhaust the points of all five picks. The Pies will still have three picks left, which can be used to select players or to elevate rookies. They will just be very late picks, which won't matter for Thomas but means they'll be picking two "live" players very late in the draft. They can pass on those two picks if they wish, and either take a 38 strong list into 2019, or take a player in the PSD, or recruit a DFA after the draft.

This scenario seems to result in the Pies picking 5 players using 8 picks to go from a list size of 35 to 40. This doesn't sound like the limit of picks available at the draft.

[ugg]

Mihocek also on the rookie list but I assume will get promoted after his performances this year.

[rb4x]

Not that I really care as to what Collingwood do but I think I saw a report somewhere that they will offer Goldsack a one year contract but delist him and redraft him as a rookie. This strategy has its dangers as another club can jump in and grab the player before they can re rookie them.

[Meg]

This scenario seems to result in the Pies picking 5 players using 8 picks to go from a list size of 35 to 40. This doesn't sound like the limit of picks available at the draft.

This Emma Quayle article from 2016 summarises the key points that Liz has outlined. In particular:

‘Clubs will still have a leeway of two picks, given they are allowed to finish the off-season with a primary list of 38-40 players.

Under the change, clubs that need to use multiple picks to match a bid for one of their players will be given a new pick or picks at the back of the draft.’

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/no-more-hidden-picks-afl-alters-the-draft-bidding-system-20160822-gqyilj.html

[liz]

This scenario seems to result in the Pies picking 5 players using 8 picks to go from a list size of 35 to 40. This doesn't sound like the limit of picks available at the draft.

It's a limit of picks-with-points, rather than a limit with picks, per se. Or another way of looking at it (as I posted above) is that you don't use the second or third picks that you use to match a bid, you just use the points attached to them. The picks still exist and are available to be used to draft another player, but they get pushed back.

[liz]

I've found compelling evidence that Ludwig is not, in fact, Adam Curley.

Boom or bust? We grade your club's 2013 draft and trade haul - AFL.com.au

This article rates how clubs fared in the 2013 free agency, trade and draft period, with the benefit of five years' hindsight. Different writers have contributed for the clubs and I reckon the variation in ratings is, in part, explained by that.

The Crows apparently "knocked it out of the park", and have scored 10/10. The recruitment of Eddie Betts as a FA is a large component of this, though Matt Crouch at 23 in the ND and Charlie Cameron in the rookie draft were also very good gets for them. The rest of their haul was just so-so that year.

West Coast score a 9/10, with the justification being based around Sheed at 11 in the draft and trading for Yeo with pick 28. Sure, with the gloss not yet off the premiership club, those two players look like great pick-ups, though the writer has conveniently ignored the fact that Sheed was languishing in the WAFL for much of this year and probably would have stayed there had Gaff not gaffed. And Yeo was great value, but the Eagles benefitted by being part of the swarm of vultures who circled around the Brisbane Lions that year and picked their team to shreds, offering crumbs in return. Other than Barrass, the rest of their recruits that year gave no value.

In comparison, the Swans score just a 7.5, despite the crown jewels in the recruitment being one Lance Franklin. I acknowledge it was primarily luck and circumstance that delivered him to Sydney, but if they're going to credit Adelaide with recruiting Betts via FA, surely the Swans get the same credit for Franklin? Curley, who wrote the Sydney segment, seems to have downgraded his recruitment based on subsequent salary cap strain, though there's really not much evidence that the Swans' cap has been severely strained since. And the recruitment that appears to have kicked the score up a notch or two was Rampe, despite the fact he was actually recruited in 2012, not 2013 (which is clear from the information they've listed at the top of the piece), so is completely irrelevant to a 2013 rating.

In comparison to the Swans' 7.5, the Hawks scored a 7 (with McEvoy as a FA and Sicily as a latish ND pick the only notable recruits for them that year), as did Melbourne (Salem, Hunt, Harmes, plus Tyson as a trade in - which ignores the fact that they traded pick 2 for Tyson, the pick used by the Giants to draft Kelly).

It's all a bit of fun, not to be taken too seriously, and different perspectives on things give rise to different ratings, I guess. But I'm pretty sure Sydney would have scored a 9/10 at least had Ludwig really written this, based as much as anything else on AA at pick 44.

[Ludwig]

It's a limit of picks-with-points, rather than a limit with picks, per se. Or another way of looking at it (as I posted above) is that you don't use the second or third picks that you use to match a bid, you just use the points attached to them. The picks still exist and are available to be used to draft another player, but they get pushed back.

Thanks for clearing that up. I've got it now. So if Blakey were bid on pick 1 and we matched we would use picks 26+33+38+39 + part of 40. Then we would use the leftover from pick 40 (pick 61 perhaps) for our 2nd pick and then 2 draft more players from the end of the draft. Collingwood will likely use all 5 picks on Quaynor and Kelly and elevate rookies to fill the list with picks at the end without value points. If they fall short on value points, then it comes off their 2nd round pick from 2019, assuming Kelly goes in the 2nd round.

It's not really an issue with the number of picks taken to the draft. You use up all the value point picks until they're finished and if it's not enough you go into deficit and have it taken out of next year's picks. There's no real limit on anything, just point adjusting and pick placemnt. It's a calculation rather than a restriction.

[Ludwig]

I've found compelling evidence that Ludwig is not, in fact, Adam Curley.

Boom or bust? We grade your club's 2013 draft and trade haul - AFL.com.au

This article rates how clubs fared in the 2013 free agency, trade and draft period, with the benefit of five years' hindsight. Different writers have contributed for the clubs and I reckon the variation in ratings is, in part, explained by that.

The Crows apparently "knocked it out of the park", and have scored 10/10. The recruitment of Eddie Betts as a FA is a large component of this, though Matt Crouch at 23 in the ND and Charlie Cameron in the rookie draft were also very good gets for them. The rest of their haul was just so-so that year.

West Coast score a 9/10, with the justification being based around Sheed at 11 in the draft and trading for Yeo with pick 28. Sure, with the gloss not yet off the premiership club, those two players look like great pick-ups, though the writer has conveniently ignored the fact that Sheed was languishing in the WAFL for much of this year and probably would have stayed there had Gaff not gaffed. And Yeo was great value, but the Eagles benefitted by being part of the swarm of vultures who circled around the Brisbane Lions that year and picked their team to shreds, offering crumbs in return. Other than Barrass, the rest of their recruits that year gave no value.

In comparison, the Swans score just a 7.5, despite the crown jewels in the recruitment being one Lance Franklin. I acknowledge it was primarily luck and circumstance that delivered him to Sydney, but if they're going to credit Adelaide with recruiting Betts via FA, surely the Swans get the same credit for Franklin? Curley, who wrote the Sydney segment, seems to have downgraded his recruitment based on subsequent salary cap strain, though there's really not much evidence that the Swans' cap has been severely strained since. And the recruitment that appears to have kicked the score up a notch or two was Rampe, despite the fact he was actually recruited in 2012, not 2013 (which is clear from the information they've listed at the top of the piece), so is completely irrelevant to a 2013 rating.

In comparison to the Swans' 7.5, the Hawks scored a 7 (with McEvoy as a FA and Sicily as a latish ND pick the only notable recruits for them that year), as did Melbourne (Salem, Hunt, Harmes, plus Tyson as a trade in - which ignores the fact that they traded pick 2 for Tyson, the pick used by the Giants to draft Kelly).

It's all a bit of fun, not to be taken too seriously, and different perspectives on things give rise to different ratings, I guess. But I'm pretty sure Sydney would have scored a 9/10 at least had Ludwig really written this, based as much as anything else on AA at pick 44.

What's really funny is that Carlton did so well, rated 8/10 that they rode the back of that draft year all the way up the ladder to ................18th.