2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Captain]

Can someone help with my understanding of Cal's ordering here that I dont understand.

Given Essendon have 3 consecutive picks (7,8, and 9), and assuming they truly value Braeden at #9, i.e ahead of Oliver Henry, why on earth would they bid on him at his true value of #9 and not overs at #7.

As if they did the latter, they would either:
- secure Braeden, Brauhn and Ried; or
- secure Brauhn, Ried and Henry, and force the Swans to give up extra point/picks, further elevating the Dons latter picks.

Either of those outcomes seem to me to be better for Essendon??

Am I right?

EDIT: gramma and spellling ;-)

You make a good point. I don't think Cal has thought it through commercially but more on a who is a better player basis.

If Essendon are going to bid on Campbell then they should do it at pick 7.

[Thunder Shaker]

No opinion of DGB or LMcD but half a game is a pretty small sample size.

Yes it is, but it shows that DGB can play.

It is very unusual for the club to recruit the best KPD in the draft pool, so unusual that it is without precedent so far as I know. Someone listed Paul Roos as being one of the very few star defenders we have acquired in the past 30 years. He was recruited from Fitzroy, he started his career before the draft era, and he played with Sydney for four seasons (87 games).

With pick 3 (which will be pick 4 by the time we get to use it), we should recruit the best available player. If KB's opinion suggests that player is DGB, I would be fine with that. If it turns out to be another player, I would be fine with that too.

[Thunder Shaker]

You make a good point. I don't think Cal has thought it through commercially but more on a who is a better player basis.

If Essendon are going to bid on Campbell then they should do it at pick 7.

If Essendon were to try that, it would be abusing the draft rules somewhat. The AFL would consider amending the draft rules so a club holding consecutive picks would be deemed to be bidding on players with the last of those picks for the purpose of pick matching.

Another consequence would be to create a point of contention between Essendon's recruiting team and Sydney's that would make it harder for Essendon to work with Sydney in future drafts. Essendon won't want to do this.

So I expect Essendon will not bid on Campbell with the first of their picks. They may use their second, their third, or not bid at all.

Twomey's phantom draft had Archie Perkins being drafted at pick 16. I think Essendon will draft him. Essendon's draftees may be Bruhn, either Reid or Cox and Perkins - and they may not bid on Campbell at all. However, I expect Essendon's draft could be Bruhn, either Reid or Cox, bid on Campbell and then draft Perkins.

[707]

Worrying article in this mornings Age suggesting North and Hawks may swap picks on trade night if the Crows don't take McDonald, who the Hawks covet but Norf want Hollands so are happy to move back.

If they do swap picks, Hawks would be before us and could muck up our draft strategy by bidding on Campbell at pick 2 (3 after JUH).

It wouldn't be the points that would hurt us but the fact we'd either burn pick 3(4) in matching or have to trade that pick with someone like the Pies for their pick 16 and next years first.

We'd then only get Campbell, Gulden and a selection in the 40s. All the hot air we've expended on this thread about who we want at pick 3 will have been wasted LOL

[The Big Cat]

There is no way Hawks would risk naming Campbell at that high pick if really covet LCM. They would run the risk that we would let him go then pick LMD ourselves.

[Captain]

If Essendon were to try that, it would be abusing the draft rules somewhat. The AFL would consider amending the draft rules so a club holding consecutive picks would be deemed to be bidding on players with the last of those picks for the purpose of pick matching.

Another consequence would be to create a point of contention between Essendon's recruiting team and Sydney's that would make it harder for Essendon to work with Sydney in future drafts. Essendon won't want to do this.

So I expect Essendon will not bid on Campbell with the first of their picks. They may use their second, their third, or not bid at all.

Twomey's phantom draft had Archie Perkins being drafted at pick 16. I think Essendon will draft him. Essendon's draftees may be Bruhn, either Reid or Cox and Perkins - and they may not bid on Campbell at all. However, I expect Essendon's draft could be Bruhn, either Reid or Cox, bid on Campbell and then draft Perkins.

Not really. They can just claim that they rate him as the 7th best player and are picking him accordingly.

Too late for the AFL to change the rules and impossible to prove.

[Thunder Shaker]

There is no way Hawks would risk naming Campbell at that high pick. They would run the risk that we would let him go then pick LMD

If they bid on Campbell and we did not match, Hawthorn would end up with Campbell instead of one of the few better players, they would have significant issues for them in future drafts, they would have a player who doesn't want to play for them and would be seeking a trade to Sydney after two years and free agency after seven, they would be handing over one of the best five players in the open draft pool to Essendon for free, Sydney would end up with a huge pile of draft picks that would be traded to Collingwood to match an early bid on their Academy prospect. Other clubs could also get involved in a flurry of pick swaps. Hawthorn would be shooting themselves in the foot with a bazooka. Sydney would lose Campbell but gain one or two first-round picks from Collingwood and other clubs would benefit too.

Hawthorn will not be risking this. If they were bidding on Campbell at pick 2, that would be because they thought he was the second-best player in the draft, not because they want to gimp Sydney's draft. They know Sydney is not guaranteed to match - Josh Dunkley is a precedent.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. They can just claim that they rate him as the 7th best player and are picking him accordingly.

Too late for the AFL to change the rules and impossible to prove.

Too late this year, but the AFL may look at it. If it was a non-Victorian club doing this, the AFL would surely change the rules for next year's draft. But because it's a Victorian club, the AFL would probably just say "meh".

[Auntie.Gerald]

Im sure the Hawks will be just as considerate with Campbell as we were with Josh Dunks

interestingly i havent noticed any media reports saying the Hawks met with Campbell ? yet plenty of media with others they have met with.

[Ludwig]

I find it hard to separate the top 4 possible picks we could choose from. If it comes down to LMD and RBG, I'm leaning toward RBG,



although I think she'll need to put on some muscle if she's going up against the likes of Tom Hawkins.

I'm also worried about the hand injury,



and whether that's Travis Cloke's glove. Has that been approved by the AFL?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Hawthorn will not be moving up to 2 to bid on Campbell.

I could easily, and justifiably, see them doing so at 5. The kicking, vision and versatility is exactly the type of player they prized at their peak; plus, it's consistent with his draft range.

But 2 - no. And if they do genuinely view him as second best in the draft, go for it. We'll take the next best tall in the meantime, bundle up some of our spare picks to get back up higher in the draft, and see him back home in two years.

[Steve]

Worrying article in this mornings Age suggesting North and Hawks may swap picks on trade night if the Crows don't take McDonald, who the Hawks covet but Norf want Hollands so are happy to move back.

If they do swap picks, Hawks would be before us and could muck up our draft strategy by bidding on Campbell at pick 2 (3 after JUH).

I can't see them bidding on Campbell at pick 2 - clearly the consensus is he's not the second best player in the draft.

The bidding system is badly flawed though - only in the last couple of days the Adelaide recruiting manager openly admitted that one of the considerations for bidding on a player is to make a team burn through more points, if you thought you might be competing with them for a player later in the draft, just so they drop back and past your other picks.

If that trade between North and Hawthorn is legitimate, I assume we've already decided either a) we won't take McDonald even if available, or b) think Adelaide will take him with their first pick. Otherwise you'd think we would have feigned greater interest in Hollands just to prevent North from thinking they would get him at pick 5/6 anyway.

[Mark26]

This is an interesting article on the 'go home' factor. Thought I'd post it here as it has to be a significant factor in deciding who to draft by our recruiting team.

The AFL Draft: How Afraid Should Clubs Be Of The 'Go-Home' Factor?

[AnnieH]

I noticed via socials that the boys are back training... albeit with their shirts on.

[Auntie.Gerald]

so nominal but detectable concern unless you are GWS ?

[The Runner]

There is no world where Hawthorn would give up a pick up move up to #2, to then use that to bid on Campbell, who they could pick at 6. There's zero logic to that fear.