2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[bloodspirit]

I would love to pick up Green. Just what we need! I hope your theories are right, gang.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

We haven't suggested many theories. The best was the rather lame, "maybe Giants won't match" and hopefully it won't be Adelaide that make the bid in that case. I think the Giants are destined to match, their strategy of trading up to pick 6 (at great expense) only makes sense if they move ahead of the bid for Green with their first pick. Anything else winds up being a disaster for them. So they have put themselves over a barrel and will have to do a deal, even a fairly unfavourable one, which is why one of Melbourne, Adelaide or us is likely to profit out of the situation, but not by getting Green.

[Mr Magoo]

We haven't suggested many theories. The best was the rather lame, "maybe Giants won't match" and hopefully it won't be Adelaide that make the bid in that case. I think the Giants are destined to match, their strategy of trading up to pick 6 (at great expense) only makes sense if they move ahead of the bid for Green with their first pick. Anything else winds up being a disaster for them. So they have put themselves over a barrel and will have to do a deal, even a fairly unfavourable one, which is why one of Melbourne, Adelaide or us is likely to profit out of the situation, but not by getting Green.

Lets say no one offers for green before 6 and they dont take Green at 6?. Can they then match someone elses bid after that with enough points from lower order picks?

[Ludwig]

Lets say no one offers for green before 6 and they dont take Green at 6?. Can they then match someone elses bid after that with enough points from lower order picks?

Yes, but they will have to go into deficit and lose points next year. I believe this has been analysed in several earlier posts.

I don't think GWS handled this situation well. They are just giving up too much to try to get 2 high draft picks this year and now find themselves in a position of uncertainty about executing the strategy as it still involves trading up once again, and probably at a very high cost.

Imagine if GSW trade up to pick 3 and GC bid on Green, leaving GWS with the choice of taking Green or Noah Anderson.

[bloodspirit]

Imagine if GSW trade up to pick 3 and GC bid on Green, leaving GWS with the choice of taking Green or Noah Anderson.

That would be uncomfortable for GWS (and unlikely) but they could probably live with Noah Anderson.

[barry]

GWS traded up to pick 6, on the belief that we would use pick 5 in a daniher trade.

I think Green is a pick 5 or 6 player, so if they got Sydney out of the way, he could easily slip to 6th allowing them to pick someone else with their 6th and then match any bid for green in the 7th, 8th or 9th pick.
I cant see Melbourne or any non-NSW team bidding on Green earlier than pick 5. He's not a top 5 player.

You would think there would be a gentlemans agreement between GWS and Sydney regarding academy players. No doubt the reverse situation will happen to us soon enough.

[bloodspirit]

AFL Draft Central have also published their latest draft power rankings: Draft Central Power Rankings: October 2019 - Aussie Rules Draft Central. They rank in order: Rowell, Anderson, Serong, Young, Ash, Flanders, Green, Dylan Stephens, Kemp, McAsey, Jackson, Gould.

Cooper Stephens is another we may be interested in around our second pick. Or if any of Robertson, Rivers or Gould should slip through (unlikely but possible). But more likely our draft gurus are 10 steps ahead and have identified someone we won't see coming. Nobody picked Rowbottom, let alone McInerney, last draft.

[bloodspirit]

GWS traded up to pick 6, on the belief that we would use pick 5 in a daniher trade.

I think Green is a pick 5 or 6 player, so if they got Sydney out of the way, he could easily slip to 6th allowing them to pick someone else with their 6th and then match any bid for green in the 7th, 8th or 9th pick.
I cant see Melbourne or any non-NSW team bidding on Green earlier than pick 5. He's not a top 5 player.

You would think there would be a gentlemans agreement between GWS and Sydney regarding academy players. No doubt the reverse situation will happen to us soon enough.

I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).

[liz]

I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).

This.

But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.

[barry]

I doubt it on all counts. Don't think GWS are dumb enough to count on us trading out pick 5. Nor do I think they would rule out any other team bidding for Green. Nor do I think that there is any gentleman's agreement or that there should be. The system keeps us honest already. If we put in a 'dummy' bid then we risk getting the player, especially if we overvalue them. And if we don't put in a dummy bid then it's fair enough and I have no hard feelings if GWS do the same to us. We have bid on their players before (Isaac Cummings) and Gold Coast's (Jack Bowes).

It would be poor management on our behalf if we didnt protect our Academy prospects with a bit of quid-pro-quo with GWS. It will never be disclosed, but common sense should prevail.

GWS obviously have a player they are targetting other than Green. I could see them passing on a top 4 pick on Green. and hope to get him as a "go home" trade in few years.
They have already "spent" their 20% point discount by trading up to pick 6. Diminishing returns to blow more pick points.

GWS will know which way the wind is blowing by draft day, so we will see if they do a regarding trades.

[barry]

This.

But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.

I think this forum is getting a little obsessed on trying to block GWS's play rather than the value of Green as a player.
Green as a pick 5 could well be a wasted pick 5 for us, (if GWS dont match) if he's only a pick 10+ player.

We very rarely get a top 5 pick. Lets not waste it playing silly games.

[liz]

I think this forum is getting a little obsessed on trying to block GWS's play rather than the value of Green as a player.
Green as a pick 5 could well be a wasted pick 5 for us, (if GWS dont match) if he's only a pick 10+ player.

We very rarely get a top 5 pick. Lets not waste it playing silly games.

I can't speak for "this forum", only myself. But nothing in my post you quoted is relevant to your response.

I specifically said that the Swans should only bid on Green if they genuinely want him, not for the sake of scuppering GWS. He is certainly in the mix of many draft pundits with a pick in the top 5. He fills a genuine list need for the Swans. And the Swans are reported to have visited his home and to have come away impressed. It is therefore highly likely he will be in their sights come draft night, if he is still on the board. As a draft option in his own right (notwithstanding the fact he'll likely land up at GWS), not for any other reason. And if he's best available in the eyes of Dalrymple and Beatson (and were to land up on our list), that's hardly wasting a top 5 pick.

[Ludwig]

This.

But if the draft does get to pick 5 with Green still on the table, I don't really see why the Swans would accommodate GWS by then trading pick 5 to them, thus enabling them to draft someone else. I don't believe they should bid on Green just for the sake of bidding on him (ie if they don't genuinely prefer him) but nor do I think they are obliged to help the Giants recruit yet another top 5 player as well as Green. Or if they did (because the value GWS offered was compelling), they'd need to have a pretty good idea of who GWS were about to draft. While people may described the draft (below the top 2) as relatively even, by the time draft night comes along, the Swans will have a pretty good idea on who they ideally want with that first pick. The players touted as the next few likely picked may be seen as even in talent, but they are all different kinds of player. They will be prepared for the idea that Melbourne or Adelaide might have their eye on the same player, but imagine they swap pick 5 with the Giants' pick 6, and then the Giants draft the very player that the Swans have their eye on.

If there aren't any pick swaps until it's our turn on draft night and Green is the player we want, then we make a bid, if not, we don't, and take the player we want, which is the same point you make. But say that besides Green we find it hard to split the 2 next best players in the pool, say Serong and Flander for instance, and GWS come with an offer for pick 5 that has good value, then why not trade down. We aren't there to hurt the Giants, but rather get the best deal for the Swans. If the Giants then go on and take Serong, for example, we bid on Greeen at 6, the Giants match, and then we take Flanders. It shouldn't matter that the Giants benefit, so long as we benefit as well.

[liz]

If there aren't any pick swaps until it's our turn on draft night and Green is the player we want, then we make a bid, if not, we don't, and take the player we want, which is the same point you make. But say that besides Green we find it hard to split the 2 next best players in the pool, say Serong and Flander for instance, and GWS come with an offer for pick 5 that has good value, then why not trade down. We aren't there to hurt the Giants, but rather get the best deal for the Swans. If the Giants then go on and take Serong, for example, we bid on Greeen at 6, the Giants match, and then we take Flanders. It shouldn't matter that the Giants benefit, so long as we benefit as well.

If the club is genuinely indifferent between two players, I don't see an issue with that. I just think it unlikely that that would be the case. Even if at some stage the club has had difficulty splitting a couple of players, by the time the draft comes around, they'll have grown attached to their tentative decision (even while knowing that they might have that player snatched from under them by Adelaide or Melbourne - or by GWS if they trade up above pick 5).

I think it's human nature to rationalise things that are taken away from you through no action of your own than by things you contributed to. So if the Swans weren't able to draft the player they wanted due to a club with a higher pick taking them first, that would be easy to get over. It would be harder if they pick swapped with GWS and they then took that player.

Another possible way it could play out is for GWS and the Swans to be aware of which (non-Green) player each was keen on. Assuming it wasn't the same player, the Giants may then be able to persuade the Swans to swap down, if they gave away something of sufficient value. Of course, if the Giants were being deceitful, and then proceeded to draft the very player the Swans wanted, the Swans would likely never accommodate them again. But I very much doubt clubs would revert to such tactics. It won't do them any good in the long run, and recruiting managers rely on positive and constructive relationships with each other.

On the whole, though, if the Swans think Green is the best fit for them at that pick, I think they should bid on him. The academy system does distort the draft. In the case of the northern academies the benefits justify that. Even putting aside the fact it's murkier for the NGA academies, for the system to work, I think all clubs need to bid on players where they would take them if they weren't tied to clubs, and based on genuine need. Side deals, silent nods, agreements to look after other clubs etc etc just corrupt the system further and undermine the premises on which it is based.

[Ludwig]

I think we are all on the same page regarding bidding or drafting players based on merit. After listening to a number of list managers discuss how they go about the draft, it seems most, if not all, go into the draft ranking the list of players that might be available. Otherwise, it would seem pretty hard to make a decision in the short space of time allotted. I'm finding it pretty hard ranking the part of the draft around pick 5, especially since Kemp seems the best fit for our requirements, but now carries some added risk because of ht ACL injury. I wouldn't be surprised if there was plenty of internal debate at the Swans about the pick 3-10 ranking of players, as there has been on this forum.

The Giants, having come this far, would likely be willing to part with a fair bit of value to get that 2nd top 6 pick, and if the opportunity is there for us, then why not take advantage of it. If there is a specific player that we are really hot on is there at pick 5 and there is a risk the Giants would take him, then yes, we shouldn't trade down. But as you conjectured, there probably is a way to see if that's the case or not.

[707]

No point Giants moving up 1 or 2 picks, the only way they guarantee Green plus another to 5 pick is to get pick 3 which is the first live pick as it's 100% Gold Coast are taking the twins as that was the AFLs anti gio home thinking.

So GWS will give up plenty to the Dees for pick 3, take the player they apparently desperately need there, then match Crows or us for Green. It should be noted that as of a couple of weeks ago, other than GWS of course, only us and the Crows had visited Green's home. You can bet the Dees have been there now to ratchet up the pressure on GWS.

Not sold on Flanders, don't think he's top 5 material.