2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[liz]

You have to use a pick to select a player. So if you just use a single pick to match a bid, that pick has to be exhausted. It can't just be reassigned to later in the draft.

That said, I read a comment on another forum from someone who suggested that if there is excess points value from matching with a single bid, that difference isn't entirely lost. However, they were vague about what happens with it.

In practice, I don't think this has happened, and probably won't happen now that picks can be traded on draft night. If GWS go into the draft with pick 6 and a bid comes at 4 or 5, they can just trade backwards. Clubs have shown they value very high draft picks more than the value assigned by the AFL points table, so they won't have difficulty finding a buyer for it who will give them more than the points value for pick 6. They will then exhaust the earliest of the picks they receive on matching a Green bid, and any residual value from the later picks required will still have picks to which to attach the value.

[dazedjosh]

I would be inclined to agree with you in that the pick should be exhausted, but the AFL doesn't explicitly state that in the guidebooks I could find, all they say is the next available pick moves backwards if there is a surplus of points, and the AFL provided examples that back up that theory.

[Mr Magoo]

Now I understand better I think Liz and Bloodspirit are correct.

If you are using your pick to take the player then you are giving up that pick but when you use multiple picks the residual value allows you to keep it but it pushes that last pick down the order and other picks that have all of their points used up go the end of the draft order as they have no value .

In essence you still maintain the number of picks in the draft , its just where you get them that changes.

The Hiscox example was interesting. I guess they only gave up picks 62 and 69 but may have been a harder decision if they were giving up say Pick 36

[Markwebbos]

You have to use a pick to select a player. So if you just use a single pick to match a bid, that pick has to be exhausted. It can't just be reassigned to later in the draft.

That said, I read a comment on another forum from someone who suggested that if there is excess points value from matching with a single bid, that difference isn't entirely lost. However, they were vague about what happens with it.

In practice, I don't think this has happened, and probably won't happen now that picks can be traded on draft night. If GWS go into the draft with pick 6 and a bid comes at 4 or 5, they can just trade backwards. Clubs have shown they value very high draft picks more than the value assigned by the AFL points table, so they won't have difficulty finding a buyer for it who will give them more than the points value for pick 6. They will then exhaust the earliest of the picks they receive on matching a Green bid, and any residual value from the later picks required will still have picks to which to attach the value.

I saw Cal Twomey's article about this. So in theory the Swans could (if we had the right draft picks) both (1) make a bid on Green at pick 5 and (2) trade lower picks to lay our hands on GWS' pick 6 which they'd then use to match our bid at 5, so we'd end up with picks 6 and 7 in the draft!

[barry]

I saw Cal Twomey's article about this. So in theory the Swans could (if we had the right draft picks) both (1) make a bid on Green at pick 5 and (2) trade lower picks to lay our hands on GWS' pick 6 which they'd then use to match our bid at 5, so we'd end up with picks 6 and 7 in the draft!

That's right. We are in a perfect position to benefit from the GWS plan. We may not get pick 7, but we should get a very good pick.

Mad if we don't do this.

[Markwebbos]

Barry I think we have different plans. I'm not sure either of them are as great as we think!

Yours is to swap our 5 for GWS' 6 plus a sweetener (but their next pick is in the 40s so wouldn't materially improve our draft position unless we can package it with others to move up). I think the only way it would work is if GWS include a future pick for 2020. So say our 5 becomes 6 plus a future second rounder

Mine is to keep our 5, bid on Green with it (assuming that Melbourne / Adelaide don't beat us to it), and then let GWS swap their pick 6 for our lower picks with a higher points value (which they then use to match the bid). The problem with that plan is that our other picks (25, 32 + 44) add up to less points than pick 6, so we'd have to get a 2020 future pick involved. But if GWS would do the deal with us, then we'd end up with picks 6 and 7 in the draft. This would mean our 25, 32 and a future second rounder become pick 7

[Auntie.Gerald]

How Richmond built a dynasty

Good read

“Out of the 28 premiership players 11 of them were taken in the first or second round of the draft by Richmond. Another five were acquired via trade, 12 were value picks late in the regular, preseason, rookie or midseason drafts and of course there was one free agent signing that the club made”

[dazedjosh]

A really interesting part of that article I thought was "The 2014 draft for Richmond produced five premiership players, but strangely enough four of them were from the Rookie Draft and the other was Dan Butler who went with pick 67 in the National Draft. The other four players were Jayden Short, Jason Castagna, Kane Lambert and Ivan Soldo – another big tick for the Richmond recruitment team to get such value from their rookie selections."

Nailing later national selections and rookie draft selections can be so important in providing depth for a successful team. Every now and again you might find a Lachie Neale in the 50's, and that is always a special achievement, but it seems to me that most teams that could be counted as dynasties have been successful finding 100-150 game players with later picks that do a good job of supporting the stars.

[bloodspirit]

You have to use a pick to select a player. So if you just use a single pick to match a bid, that pick has to be exhausted. It can't just be reassigned to later in the draft.

That said, I read a comment on another forum from someone who suggested that if there is excess points value from matching with a single bid, that difference isn't entirely lost. However, they were vague about what happens with it.

In practice, I don't think this has happened, and probably won't happen now that picks can be traded on draft night. If GWS go into the draft with pick 6 and a bid comes at 4 or 5, they can just trade backwards. Clubs have shown they value very high draft picks more than the value assigned by the AFL points table, so they won't have difficulty finding a buyer for it who will give them more than the points value for pick 6. They will then exhaust the earliest of the picks they receive on matching a Green bid, and any residual value from the later picks required will still have picks to which to attach the value.

This is a superbly lucid post that I can't improve upon. To be honest, I was probably a bit glib when I said 'it doesn't work like that' and I hadn't looked into it so deeply as you, dj, it is just my understanding of how the system works. Liz has explained it better than I had even conceived of it. The Byzantine construction, publication and application of the AFL's "Laws" also doesn't help.

[bloodspirit]

Nice preview of the upcoming draft and some tasty players by Cal Twomey and Matthew Lloyd: On The Clock: A great draft launches them into the top four - AFL.com.au.

[Markwebbos]

Cal Twomey and Kevin Sheehan's mock top 30 draft (not a phantom draft) has us:

LISTEN: Top 30 mock draft, who Cats should target to replace Selwood - AFL.com.au

Bidding on Green at pick 5
Taking Lachie Ash at pick 6
Taking Dylan Stephens at pick 26
n.b. they had Will Gould sliding to Geelong at pick 25, and Caleb Serong to pick 10

[S.S. Bleeder]

Southern clubs would already be talking to those players ready to prise them out of GWS next trade period. Remember that to their GF midfield GWS will be adding Cogs & Ward as well.

GWS did not burn points trading up to pick 6 just to grab yet another potential go home through lack of senior opportunities midfielder, it is fairly clear that their target before Green is ruckman Jackson or KPD McAsey, plus Green of course matching with later picks.

If their wanted target is Jackson then the late interest by Melbourne in him and the possibility we may consider it has thrown a spanner in GWS trading up. The only way they can be assured of getting their target is to get pick 3 off Melbourne for who ever it is they want then matching almost immediately for Green.

Problem GWS now have in getting pick 3 is that pick 6 will become pick 7 and adding next years first into the deal is not that enticing as another high finish and bid matching early could see the GWS first in the early 20s. GWS may have been a bit too too clever this time if Melbourne hold onto pick 3.

Agreed. Clearly GWS trading up to pick 6 is to get someone other than Green. They wouldn't sacrifice the points when it's not necessary. They have a ton of midfield depth and small to mid sized players at either end of the ground so can only assume it's someone like Jackson or McAsey. There are no other talls worth trading up for.

They really don't need a player like Green but can't see them passing of him as he's so good and his flight risk is minimal. The only conclusion I can come to is that they'll trade up to a pre-Green selection with Melbourne or Adelaide and then use up late picks to pay for Green. This won't leave them many other available picks in the draft. I'd love to know how many vacancies they have on their list. Does anyone know?

It's going to be very interesting to see what trading of picks occurs. Could be extremely active.

[dazedjosh]

Cal Twomey and Kevin Sheehan's mock top 30 draft (not a phantom draft) has us:

LISTEN: Top 30 mock draft, who Cats should target to replace Selwood - AFL.com.au

Bidding on Green at pick 5
Taking Lachie Ash at pick 6
Taking Dylan Stephens at pick 26
n.b. they had Will Gould sliding to Geelong at pick 25, and Caleb Serong to pick 10

Yeah apparently Will Gould's endurance numbers in the combine were pretty poor and a fair few people have him sliding as a result. His skills are supposed to be good, but the word is that most teams view him as needing at least a full season in the 2's before he is fit enough for an AFL match so he might slide to the 2nd round as a result.

[AB Swannie]

Cal Twomey and Kevin Sheehan's mock top 30 draft (not a phantom draft) has us:

LISTEN: Top 30 mock draft, who Cats should target to replace Selwood - AFL.com.au

Bidding on Green at pick 5
Taking Lachie Ash at pick 6
Taking Dylan Stephens at pick 26
n.b. they had Will Gould sliding to Geelong at pick 25, and Caleb Serong to pick 10

That would be nice but they actually selected Cooper Stephens at 26.

[Markwebbos]

That would be nice but they actually selected Cooper Stephens at 26.

Oops. Yes they had Dylan much higher than that. Apologies,