2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[AB Swannie]

It is an interesting point regarding the definition of “first round” and how the variability of this can affect points deficits in different years. In a traditional draft, the first round would be the first 18 players selected. With compensation, as 707 correctly states, it could be somewhere around the first 25 players selected. It is significant because this is the range where Gulden is likely to fall. This year he may get selected at pick 24 and be considered a first rounder meaning any deficit comes off our first round next year. In other years he may still get selected at pick 24 but be comfortably within the second round.

It’s an inconsistency that I think the AFL should tighten and define the first round as the first 18 players selected.

I also think points should remain static once the draft starts. Clubs are gaining and losing points on a random basis whenever there is an academy, FS, or NGA bid.

[AB Swannie]

It’s definitely a big chance that we go into a point deficit situation . But to have 2 great quality academy prospects come along this year I think it’s important they both end up on our list no matter what the risk . If we can grab a quality young gun before Campbell and Gulden happy days for me . There’s a bit of interest in Ronke so I would t mind betting we trade him out for a draft pick just for some added points


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. I’m sure the club has a number of contingencies in place to minimise the deficit. Pick 22 will definitely be traded for more points. Something like 22 to Collingwood for 34 & 38. I also agree that Ronke may net a couple of hundred points with a pick in the 50s coming our way.

The one thing for sure though is we won’t really know anything for some time. One thing our club is very good at is keeping their cards close to their chest.

[Nico]

It is an interesting point regarding the definition of “first round” and how the variability of this can affect points deficits in different years. In a traditional draft, the first round would be the first 18 players selected. With compensation, as 707 correctly states, it could be somewhere around the first 25 players selected. It is significant because this is the range where Gulden is likely to fall. This year he may get selected at pick 24 and be considered a first rounder meaning any deficit comes off our first round next year. In other years he may still get selected at pick 24 but be comfortably within the second round.

It’s an inconsistency that I think the AFL should tighten and define the first round as the first 18 players selected.

I also think points should remain static once the draft starts. Clubs are gaining and losing points on a random basis whenever there is an academy, FS, or NGA bid.

The AFL brought in the FA system to give flexibility for players to extend their careers etc.etc. If clubs can't negotiate a swap/trade then the player nominates for the draft. Frankly, I think this compensation pick is garbage. It waters down the equalisation theory in that clubs who finish down the ladder can be gazumped by a top club that has a lost a "rated" player. Yet these top clubs have been allowed to strip clubs such as GWS and Gold Coast of quality players. Let the market prevail.

Why should other clubs suffer a drop down the list for a club such as Essendon that has had a poor culture for a number of years. Daniher has played a few games over 2 seasons so how can he possibly be rated on his form 3 or more years ago. At best they should be given a round 3 pick that doesn't compromise the draft.

[MattW]

The AFL brought in the FA system to give flexibility for players to extend their careers etc.etc. If clubs can't negotiate a swap/trade then the player nominates for the draft. Frankly, I think this compensation pick is garbage. It waters down the equalisation theory in that clubs who finish down the ladder can be gazumped by a top club that has a lost a "rated" player. Yet these top clubs have been allowed to strip clubs such as GWS and Gold Coast of quality players. Let the market prevail.

Why should other clubs suffer a drop down the list for a club such as Essendon that has had a poor culture for a number of years. Daniher has played a few games over 2 seasons so how can he possibly be rated on his form 3 or more years ago. At best they should be given a round 3 pick that doesn't compromise the draft.

Agree - if the player's contract ends and he doesn't want to re-sign, why should the club be compensated?

[Auntie.Gerald]

picks 12 and 18 are approx the same points as pick 3

having say picks 12 / 18 / 22 / 54 / 56 may work better for us depending on what we want vs what another team wants with pick 3? The top 5 to 10 players are all interstate accept maybe Campbell?

Obviously we went the complete opposite with Stephens last year using pick5 but we might have other players in mind that make our list better with greater certainty via a few off seasons following them.........Stephens didnt just come in via year1 and blow away the competition like a Sam Walsh or a Rowell or a Bont etc. No doubt we expect Stephens to prosper but there are plenty of top 10 picks who dont.

what can we agree on? I am guessing that we all see enough class in Campbell and Gulden and being sydney stay at home boys we will no doubt draft them

1. Campbell
2. Gulden

What is up in the air is how much we want a pick in the top3 of the draft ??

ie is there a player that we really really really really want with the pick3 vs what we can achieve via a trade and or a later pick ?

Maybe there is a player between the age of 20-22yrs.... on a list that we seriously want to trade for ie with say a pick12 ? we may see this player as a much more convincing trajectory in peak performance and more ready for AFL 2021 after a few pre seasons of development? Swannie was a great example at the Pie of a later pick but by season 3 looked chalk and cheese to his draft.......or a Nat Fyfe pick 20 being a player that Freeo so wanted.

Then we pick up Campbell and Gulden with picks 18/22 and use the picks 54/56 to balance out a deficit if Campbell was picked up at say a pick 5?

Another club could also so desperately want pick 3 they may give up a pick 10 and 17 and or a serious player that is on the move as a trade?

[Thunder Shaker]

It is an interesting point regarding the definition of “first round” and how the variability of this can affect points deficits in different years. In a traditional draft, the first round would be the first 18 players selected. With compensation, as 707 correctly states, it could be somewhere around the first 25 players selected. It is significant because this is the range where Gulden is likely to fall. This year he may get selected at pick 24 and be considered a first rounder meaning any deficit comes off our first round next year. In other years he may still get selected at pick 24 but be comfortably within the second round.

I’m sure the club has a number of contingencies in place to minimise the deficit. Pick 22 will definitely be traded for more points. Something like 22 to Collingwood for 34 & 38. I also agree that Ronke may net a couple of hundred points with a pick in the 50s coming our way.

Assuming we used pick 3 and matched bids on Campbell (10) and Gulden (25), I calculated earlier that such a deficit would be on the order of 500 points (but it could be larger). As you correctly pointed out, the first round of the draft could go deep this year and it is plausible that Gulden could be recruited at the end of the first round. A first-round deficit would cost us roughly one draft place for every 100 points, something to avoid with 2021 predicted to be a strong draft.

Pick 36 is 502 points, so that should give an idea of what we need to get to ensure both players are drafted along with using pick 3 and avoiding a deficit.

The one thing for sure though is we won’t really know anything for some time. One thing our club is very good at is keeping their cards close to their chest.

Agreed - and I expect there would be side deals done, including contingencies involving live pick trading.

We haven't delisted anyone yet. To me that suggests we're going to try offering fringe players for late draft picks, with delisting to take place later in the trading period. We will need to free up about five list spots, maybe more depending on the list sizes.

We'll see how things unfold in time, but my personal preferences are:
1. Take pick 3 to the draft, possibly to draft a KPF.
2. Draft Campbell and Gulden.
3. Avoid a first-round points deficit for 2021.
4. Recruit a ruckman via trading.

[AB Swannie]

I could be wrong but from memory we don’t release details of delistings until after the Bob Skilton Medal so I wouldn’t read into that too much.

[Ralph Dawg]

One thing that hasn't been discussed here is the go home factor. Surely the club would assess for this when they interview potential draftees (and their families) and be pretty well honed in making an accurate assessment (process might have missed the mark with Elijah ).

This might in part explain the selection of Stephens over Serong, Flanders et al. Country Vic, boarding school in SA, very mature, supportive parents etc. I remember seeing an interview with Ollie and his mum and got a similar vibe.

So my point regarding 2020 draft with this in mind is what if the much talked about KPF's or highly rated mids are assessed as flight risks or not coping well away from home? What if the best player who is assessed as being the best overall fit looks to go in the middle / late first round? In that context, the club may elect to split pick 3. No point picking up a player who leaves in 2 years or is so unsettled by the move that they play like a busted.

[Scottee]

One thing that hasn't been discussed here is the go home factor. Surely the club would assess for this when they interview potential draftees (and their families) and be pretty well honed in making an accurate assessment (process might have missed the mark with Elijah ).

This might in part explain the selection of Stephens over Serong, Flanders et al. Country Vic, boarding school in SA, very mature, supportive parents etc. I remember seeing an interview with Ollie and his mum and got a similar vibe.

So my point regarding 2020 draft with this in mind is what if the much talked about KPF's or highly rated mids are assessed as flight risks or not coping well away from home? What if the best player who is assessed as being the best overall fit looks to go in the middle / late first round? In that context, the club may elect to split pick 3. No point picking up a player who leaves in 2 years or is so unsettled by the move that they play like a busted.

Spot on Ralph. The ghf is the big one.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

picks 12 and 18 are approx the same points as pick 3

having say picks 12 / 18 / 22 / 54 / 56 may work better for us depending on what we want vs what another team wants with pick 3? The top 5 to 10 players are all interstate accept maybe Campbell?

Obviously we went the complete opposite with Stephens last year using pick5 but we might have other players in mind that make our list better with greater certainty via a few off seasons following them.........Stephens didnt just come in via year1 and blow away the competition like a Sam Walsh or a Rowell or a Bont etc. No doubt we expect Stephens to prosper but there are plenty of top 10 picks who dont.

what can we agree on? I am guessing that we all see enough class in Campbell and Gulden and being sydney stay at home boys we will no doubt draft them

1. Campbell
2. Gulden

What is up in the air is how much we want a pick in the top3 of the draft ??

ie is there a player that we really really really really want with the pick3 vs what we can achieve via a trade and or a later pick ?

Maybe there is a player between the age of 20-22yrs.... on a list that we seriously want to trade for ie with say a pick12 ? we may see this player as a much more convincing trajectory in peak performance and more ready for AFL 2021 after a few pre seasons of development? Swannie was a great example at the Pie of a later pick but by season 3 looked chalk and cheese to his draft.......or a Nat Fyfe pick 20 being a player that Freeo so wanted.

Then we pick up Campbell and Gulden with picks 18/22 and use the picks 54/56 to balance out a deficit if Campbell was picked up at say a pick 5?

Another club could also so desperately want pick 3 they may give up a pick 10 and 17 and or a serious player that is on the move as a trade?

There are a lot of good points in this post.

We shouldn't take pick 3 to the draft just because it's a historically rare event for us to get such a high draft pick. The history is irrelevant. If there's another formula that works better for us, given our needs, then we should try to go down that path. That might involve trading pick 3 for players and or lower picks.

If it's looking as though McDonald and Thilthorpe will be gone by pick 3, then there's a real incentive to trade down, get a lower rated KPP and extra points for bid matching. There have been some good KPPs taken in the late teens through the 30s in recent years, like Oscar Allen, Noah Balta and our own Tim McCartin.

There are many possible combinations that may work for us. A lot will depend on who we pick up before the draft.

[Melbourne_Blood]

There are a lot of good points in this post.

We shouldn't take pick 3 to the draft just because it's a historically rare event for us to get such a high draft pick. The history is irrelevant. If there's another formula that works better for us, given our needs, then we should try to go down that path. That might involve trading pick 3 for players and or lower picks.

If it's looking as though McDonald and Thilthorpe will be gone by pick 3, then there's a real incentive to trade down, get a lower rated KPP and extra points for bid matching. There have been some good KPPs taken in the late teens through the 30s in recent years, like Oscar Allen, Noah Balta and our own Tim McCartin.

There are many possible combinations that may work for us. A lot will depend on who we pick up before the draft.

If it’s for the purposes of trade then I wouldn’t mind us splitting pick 3, but I would prefer to keep and use it otherwise. There are quite a few bid matches to fall in the first round, a later first round pick is likely to be diluted a lot more then the pick 3 (4 after JUH ) you would think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AB Swannie]

If it’s for the purposes of trade then I wouldn’t mind us splitting pick 3, but I would prefer to keep and use it otherwise. There are quite a few bid matches to fall in the first round, a later first round pick is likely to be diluted a lot more then the pick 3 (4 after JUH ) you would think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. Pick 3 needs to net us a good player. My preference is to keep it and use it in the draft but if it allows us to grab an A grade player from another team then I’d be all for that too. However, if we are splitting it just to gain points then there is little point to that.

[Markwebbos]

Agree. Pick 3 needs to net us a good player. My preference is to keep it and use it in the draft but if it allows us to grab an A grade player from another team then I’d be all for that too. However, if we are splitting it just to gain points then there is little point to that.

+1

[Melbourne_Blood]

This article sums up our trade needs fairly well. I don’t see how bolstering our midfield through trade is a bad thing, even with the youngsters we have / will get. Not all are guaranteed to be the players they are touted to be. Some could also flourish in other positions. Stephens for example could become a Whitfield type half back I believe. Pace, endurance and lovely kick.

Trade wishlists: The ideal off-season targets for every AFL club


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

If it’s for the purposes of trade then I wouldn’t mind us splitting pick 3, but I would prefer to keep and use it otherwise. There are quite a few bid matches to fall in the first round, a later first round pick is likely to be diluted a lot more then the pick 3 (4 after JUH ) you would think.

The dilution of later picks can always be factored in when calculating the value of a trade and suspect this will be the case. So it's not really an issue.

I agree with you that the prime purpose of trading pick 3 should be primarily for the purpose of recruiting a player from another club. I don't think at this point of the post-season, we need be too dogmatic about what we should do in the draft. Right now, all options are on the table. As the trade season progresses, those options will narrow.