2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Swanny79]

Don’t see that happening, clear top 4 in the draft

JUH, McDonald, Thilthorpe, Hollands

DGB, Phillips and Bruhn also rate ahead of Campbell. I expect a bid to come between picks 7-10

[Kafka's Ghost]

This whole strategy is going to implode if a bid comes for Campbell before ours. Not out of the question.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Tapatalk

I think that’s the idea behind banking the extra points; circumventing implosion.

[longmile]

Any chance of putting Fox on the rookie list? His delisting is a shocker.

[The Big Cat]

I like the idea of waiting to see if Hawks pick Campbell then if not, doing a live swap of next year’s first rounder for the Suns pick 5. That would give us two picks before Campbell. Suns may be happy to bank picks for next year since they’ve got two academy kids automatically listed this year.

Is there any rule against us doing this swap if we’ve already traded our third pick for next year?

[bloodspirit]

Yep, we've traded pick 31 for picks 37 & 48. Carlton took our pick 31 and gave pick 48 plus future third; then we on-traded Carlton's future third for pick 37. Clear win.

We now have picks 34, 37, 43, 48, 60, 82. I wonder if any of the 30s picks is good enough to attract any other club to trade for them so we can further increase our points.

I think this diminishes whatever uncertainty lingers about whether we'll draft Gulden if the bids for him and Campbell come high. It's almost a sure thing, we'll draft them both. By trading far back there is no practical alternative for what to do with the points.

Interestingly, this is one of the issues Kinnear Beatson raised is his recent interview on the 'Road to the Draft' podcast when he was interviewed by Cal Twomey and Nat Edwards. He was saying that he would like it if another club bids on an Academy player that we have the right to not match the bid and instead take the next bid after their bid. The point would be to keep other clubs honest in their bidding for Academy players and so it wouldn't distort the market where the other club can compel the Academy club to overpay for their player.

While KB's argument is logical, I can see why it has flown with the AFL (let alone the other clubs). It gives the appearance (and largely the effect too) of allowing an Academy club to vault up the draft order, flying in the face of equalisation. I think the priority on Academy players gives us advantage enough: we get the certainty of knowing we can draft them, we get the 20% discount, and we get to indulge in shenanigans to boost our points to match a bid that we know is going to come. These cancel out any market distorting effect. Besides which, I think overall Academy players have tended to be bid on later than their market value (maybe other clubs don't bother putting the same time and work into them because they know they won't get them) rather than ahead of their market value. The only exception that comes to mind is SOS's bids at picks 9 & 10 last year, which mind have been a tad early.

[707]

179 for us, so it says on AFL

Will be more because both of those picks move in two or three places once Dogs match JUH. I'll work it out later but that could change if the Dogs swap 25 for a bag of late junk picks from a club like Brisbane

Interesting that we are the first club to strike a pick swap after Trade Week, good clear action by the club, we may well trade one or more of those 30s picks for more points in junk picks.

- - - Updated - - -

This whole strategy is going to implode if a bid comes for Campbell before ours. Not out of the question.

Why would Crows or Norf bid on Campbell 4-8 places before he is generally rated, would be seen as a vexatious bid by everyone.

Crows bid on JUH at pick 1, no problems, he is after all THE best player in the draft, Campbell isn't.

[Markwebbos]

Why would Crows or Norf bid on Campbell 4-8 places before he is generally rated, would be seen as a vexatious bid by everyone.

Crows bid on JUH at pick 1, no problems, he is after all THE best player in the draft, Campbell isn't.

There is talk that GW$ might make "vexatious" bids on Crows academy players as payback for the way they handled the Jackson Hately negotiations. I also heard that clubs (I presume GW$ was one) complained to the AFL about how two clubs conducted themselves during the trade period. One I believe is the Bombers/Dodoro, the other the Crows.

[Legs Akimbo]

Fox is a very good average player and club man. I'm surprised they cut him. When injuries hit me winter and we need a reliable and flexible fill in, we'll regret this.

[waswan]

Fox is a very good average player and club man. I'm surprised they cut him. When injuries hit me winter and we need a reliable and flexible fill in, we'll regret this.

It will all make sense if they can get more than 5 games out of Gould Ling Brand

Thurlow, Fox and Alir is a few games to cover

[S.S. Bleeder]

Mitch Cleary's delisted 22
B: Marty Gleeson (Ess), Oscar McDonald (Melb), Matt Scharenberg (Coll)
HB: Shane Savage (STK), Majak Daw (NM), Lewis Jetta (WC)
C: Jordan Gallucci (Adel), Matt Kennedy (Carl), Ed Phillips (STK)
HF: Riley Knight (Adel), Jonathon Marsh (STK), Mason Wood (NM)
F: Jacob Townsend (Ess), Sam Skinner (Bris), Matthew Parker (STK)
R: Jackson Trengove (WB), James Parsons (Geel), Dylan Clarke (Ess)
I: Kyle Dunkley (Melb), Jackson Thurlow (Syd), Heath Shaw (GWS), Jasper Pittard (NM)

Emerg: Matt Suckling (WB), Tim Broomhead (Coll), Billy Gowers (WB), Wylie Buzza (PA)

I think thatMcDonald would be a great fit for us. AFAIK he’s a good defender and in a good age demographic for us.

On another issue; WTF happened with Galluci? He made a great start in his first season for the Crows. Is he prone to injury?

[Ludwig]

Picks 31 and 34 can be split and cashed in for around 300 extra points. That should be enough to cover an early Campbell bid from Hawthorn, if it should happen.

Yep, we've traded pick 31 for picks 37 & 48. Carlton took our pick 31 and gave pick 48 plus future third; then we on-traded Carlton's future third for pick 37. Clear win.

We now have picks 34, 37, 43, 48, 60, 82. I wonder if any of the 30s picks is good enough to attract any other club to trade for them so we can further increase our points.

I think this diminishes whatever uncertainty lingers about whether we'll draft Gulden if the bids for him and Campbell come high. It's almost a sure thing, we'll draft them both. By trading far back there is no practical alternative for what to do with the points.

We banked 179 of the 300 points I projected and we still have picks that can be cashed in to get us to the 300 if we want. Even if we stay with this, we should be fine.

I would look into trading pick 34 to Adelaide for picks 40, 56 and 66, netting another 147 points. That would leave Adelaide with 5 picks in the first 2 rounds: 1, 9, 22, 23 and 34. I can't see then using more than 5 picks.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I think we are a fair chance to take a punt on Mccartin now . He did play a lot of junior footy as a key defender


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. He would be less likely to suffer concussions as a defender and his brother could move back into the forward line.

[Melbourne_Blood]

I think thatMcDonald would be a great fit for us. AFAIK he’s a good defender and in a good age demographic for us.

On another issue; WTF happened with Galluci? He made a great start in his first season for the Crows. Is he prone to injury?

Re: McDonald, surely not. Other than the fact he’s not very good, we seem to be getting rid of defenders at the moment. Better ones than McDonald.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

Good point. He would be less likely to suffer concussions as a defender and his brother could move back into the forward line.

That, and the original post by Gloveski, make no sense to me.

(1) We aren't short of tall(ish) defenders, we just offloaded some.
(2) After his performance at the end of the season, Tom will be played in defense.
(3) So it makes more sense to play Paddy as a forward, but
(4) If Paddy's still prone to concussion and in danger of a life-altering injury, or CTE, the AFL should block him from playing. And we shouldn't pick him up.

I am extremely nervous about Paddy as I can't believe he's not going to get seriously hurt.

But I do think we should pick up someone to bolster our forward line. I've got my eye on Mason Wood.

[Syd76]

Fox is very unlucky. Seems a really good teammate from the outside. Thurlow, Gray and Foot not so unlucky.

Next year's draft is likely to be deep and on balance better quality than this year's. It is a wise move for us to trade down this years so as to avoid a points deficit. A friend of mine who is an AFL recruiter in Melbourne says that players of the same quality who are likely to be picked in this years draft from positions 9 - 15, will likely be still on the table in the 50's in next year's draft, not to mention players who have totally slid.

I expect, much like all here on RWO, that ET will be delisted if the case goes against him, which would be bad timing as a verdict is likely to be handed down after the 2020 draft. However, in light of a mid season draft next year, having an open list spot is a very shrewd move as we potentially can pick someone up (who was passed at this year's draft) without paying a high price in next year's forthcoming end of year draft. If this is indeed the case, KB and SD are working their magic. Having one player less would also alleviate any pressure on our salary cap, allow us to forward pay some of our established players and then go hell for leather in obtaining a high quality RFA/FA in the next few years. Fair play to the recruitment team.