AFL (non-Swans) off-season moves - 2022 edition

[liz]

We actually had a reputation for being a great club to move to.

The list of players who came to the Swans and thrived is a pretty illustrious one including our newly retired former captain JPK.

And our success was built on judicious trading … maybe this time next year

My guess is that our 2023 salary cap position is somewhat different to that they expected this time last year. There might have been a vague idea of Buddy going around for another season but just that, a vague thought. Reid was given a contract for 2022 almost as an afterthought, some insurance. They probably reckoned on him retiring at the end of 2022. Fox and Clarke may have been seen as more likely to depart than stay at the end of 2023. I doubt either is on big money but it will be more than new draftees.

It's also possible that the speed of Warner's improvement added a bit to his renewed contract, sooner than expected.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I know, I know. it’s about building the best list

There’s a false logic among the punditry that the more you trade the more you improve your list.

They were all talking about how the Saints were big “winners” a few years back when they went beserk.

This doesn’t stop part of me having a little bit of FOMO it is a bit like being a kid in a toy shop, this time of year.

Everyone looks so exciting … until you get them home and out of the packaging

The Saints one was my fave of the genre. They supposedly ‘won trade week’ by bringing in average talent in Hill, Howard, Zac Jones, Dan Butler and Ryder (yes, Ryder’s best was very good). It was going to rocket them to the top. All they did was throw away two years of draft picks for B to C grade talent.

I wish I could find my post from the time, but it was along the lines of they’ve recruited to maybe play finals every other year.

It was bizarre self-sabotage on their part and while I think they recruited well last year, they have a long way to go to build a side needed to support a rare talent like King.

[Ludwig]

In totality, trading just shifts around the talent and salary cap space among the clubs. I suppose, as a general rule, GWS and GC end up perennial losers to the benefit of other clubs,excluding the Swans, who don't seem to participate in raiding those clubs.

The compensation picks distributed by the AFL shifts the loss of player talent among the clubs to the benefit of the club losing the player, by lowering the value of their existing draft picks.

Overall, it's a zero sum game, because the totality of players and salary is the same at the end of trade as it is at the beginning. Non-participants in trading end up being small losers, as their draft positions are eroded.

Some clubs, like Geelong, are at an advantage because they start out with effectively more relative draft and recruiting capital, for reasons extensively discussed in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

The Saints one was my fave of the genre. They supposedly ‘won trade week’ by bringing in average talent in Hill, Howard, Zac Jones, Dan Butler and Ryder (yes, Ryder’s best was very good). It was going to rocket them to the top. All they did was throw away two years of draft picks for B to C grade talent.

I wish I could find my post from the time, but it was along the lines of they’ve recruited to maybe play finals every other year.

It was bizarre self-sabotage on their part and while I think they recruited well last year, they have a long way to go to build a side needed to support a rare talent like King.

I also called the Saints big losers in that trade period. They obviously overpaid for some of those recruits, especially Brad Hill.

[The Big Cat]

The Saints one was my fave of the genre. They supposedly ‘won trade week’ by bringing in average talent in Hill, Howard, Zac Jones, Dan Butler and Ryder (yes, Ryder’s best was very good). It was going to rocket them to the top. All they did was throw away two years of draft picks for B to C grade talent.

Yeah, and another year they brought in three mediocre recruits (one was Michael Voss's brother) and that went belly-up. The press was raving about a recruiting masterclass. Geelong did a similar thing a few years ago when they brought in Zac Smith, Scott Selwood and someone else. One again the scribes were salivating about another recruiting coup. Non of the group even got regular games.

[707]

My guess is that our 2023 salary cap position is somewhat different to that they expected this time last year. There might have been a vague idea of Buddy going around for another season but just that, a vague thought. Reid was given a contract for 2022 almost as an afterthought, some insurance. They probably reckoned on him retiring at the end of 2022. Fox and Clarke may have been seen as more likely to depart than stay at the end of 2023. I doubt either is on big money but it will be more than new draftees.

It's also possible that the speed of Warner's improvement added a bit to his renewed contract, sooner than expected.

Good post Liz, salary caps and forward predictions of same is a bit science and a bit art. As you say it doesn't take much to change to run into difficulties, unless you are Geelong, Carlton or Richmond!

With a finite amount of talent in the pool, every team can't be a winner and sometimes just doing nothing puts you ahead of those that were active. How much are picks worth? Depends on who you can draft with them. Some teams won't have many picks this year and/or next year.

I trust the club to make mostly correct decisions, they know far more than any of us or the media. We do have one of the absolute top list management and recruitment teams.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I’m pleasantly surprised that the AFL blocked this and so they should. Every time a club sabotages itself, other clubs end up getting punished by whatever concessions or handouts follow.

Mega deal hits roadblock after AFL ruling on future selections

[liz]

Changing the rules part way through the trade process would hardly be fair anyway, regardless of whether the proposed change has any merit.

For instance, Brisbane seem to have already traded in a second future second round pick, which means they can now trade one of them (as well as their future first) in their challenging attempts to get Dunkley. Maybe they would have done that anyway, but maybe not.

I think Port are going to soon realise that they can't get JHF AND Junior Rioli AND Ratugolea unless they are prepared to lose a pretty decent player.

[The Great One]

I don’t profess to be an expert on Trading and Drafting. Can anyone see a way that the Lions can get Dunkley and Gunston as well as bank enough points to bring in the two father/son players in this Trade Period.

To me something has to give, either by letting one of the above lapse, or by involving one of their listed players in the Trade.

Anyone share my view.

[Thunder Shaker]

The compensation picks distributed by the AFL shifts the loss of player talent among the clubs to the benefit of the club losing the player, by lowering the value of their existing draft picks.

Overall, it's a zero sum game, because the totality of players and salary is the same at the end of trade as it is at the beginning. Non-participants in trading end up being small losers, as their draft positions are eroded.

I have remarked on the flaws with free agency before. A club with some cap space can fill up their list with free agents from other clubs, at no cost to themselves other than cap space. The club losing players gets a compensation pick, but the other clubs lose their position in the draft. It's a small price per club but it can add up quickly.

If the free agency system was fair, the points value for the compensation pick would be taken from the destination club's picks, perhaps at a 20% discount. If this was implemented, the AFL would no longer need the rule where compensation picks were lost for free agency going both ways. This would simplify trading because a club receiving a compensation pick is assured of keeping it.

Another flaw with free agency is the end-of-round compensation picks. These are ridiculous for top and bottom clubs because there is almost no difference between an end-of-first-round pick and a second-round pick for the wooden spooners, and similar for first-round and end of first round for the premiers. These picks should be replaced by mid-round picks separated by nine draft places. (For example, a bottom club holding pick 1 would have their end-of-first-round compensation pick at pick 10, not pick 19.) If this is done in conjunction with the destination club paying for the compensation draft picks, this would discourage top clubs from raiding bottom clubs for players because paying for the compensation picks for a bottom club would become very expensive.

[barry]

I don’t profess to be an expert on Trading and Drafting. Can anyone see a way that the Lions can get Dunkley and Gunston as well as bank enough points to bring in the two father/son players in this Trade Period.

To me something has to give, either by letting one of the above lapse, or by involving one of their listed players in the Trade.

Anyone share my view.

They can go into points deficit this year and therefore use some of next year's points.
But I think a player will be involved in the dunkley deal.

[The Great One]

They can go into points deficit this year and therefore use some of next year's points.
But I think a player will be involved in the dunkley deal.

Makes sense Barry. Thanks for your response.

[707]

I don’t profess to be an expert on Trading and Drafting. Can anyone see a way that the Lions can get Dunkley and Gunston as well as bank enough points to bring in the two father/son players in this Trade Period.

To me something has to give, either by letting one of the above lapse, or by involving one of their listed players in the Trade.

Anyone share my view.

Brisbane now have plenty of points to pay for the two F/S but in accumulating those points they have traded away picks that could have been used for Dunkley.

AS it now sits, Brisbane are hoping the Dogs will accept under value for Dunkley. Risky stuff but they prioritised the two F/S before Dunkley.

[Markwebbos]

Brisbane now have plenty of points to pay for the two F/S but in accumulating those points they have traded away picks that could have been used for Dunkley.

AS it now sits, Brisbane are hoping the Dogs will accept under value for Dunkley. Risky stuff but they prioritised the two F/S before Dunkley.

I can see a player like Robertson being traded to give them more draft capital.

I really hope that the Lions blink first. I'm really not a fan of clubs bullying the donor club in trades, as seems to be all the rage these days (exhibit A = Jordan Dawson)

[The Great One]

Brisbane now have plenty of points to pay for the two F/S but in accumulating those points they have traded away picks that could have been used for Dunkley.

AS it now sits, Brisbane are hoping the Dogs will accept under value for Dunkley. Risky stuff but they prioritised the two F/S before Dunkley.

Yeah it is a risky strategy, but something has to give. If the Lions have prioritised the two father sons, and the Bulldogs don’t budge then a sacrifice has to be made. Either Dunkley or a listed player. Be interesting to see how it pans out.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see a player like Robertson being traded to give them more draft capital.

I really hope that the Lions blink first. I'm really not a fan of clubs bullying the donor club in trades, as seems to be all the rage these days (exhibit A = Jordan Dawson)

Yes I don’t like the bullying tactic either Mark.

[Markwebbos]

As it stands Dogs have a choice to accept unders OR walk him to the PSD and get nothing, but the satisfaction that he's unlikely to get to the Lions. If they do that I imagine clubs won't mess with them again.

He did just win their B&F.

If I was another club I'd be making a better offer than the Lions, although I know the Suns have ruled themselves out.

I know that the Weagles are keen on Robertson, and the Lions have said he's a "required player". In my experience that means they'll let him go if the price is right.