The Trade Points Table Thread

[Rourke]

Hi all, had some success with last year's thread so I'll give it a go again. I've had some interest from the US pro sports so touring there in a few months talking about the formula approach; should get some valuable feedback and hopefully contracts.

Free agency determinations to get warmed up:

• Goddard 1441 points
• Pearce 883, Chaplin 860. Port get a total of 1743, worth about pick #8 which is coincidentally exactly where they would have been with a combined first round evaluation. I wonder, would the AFL or the club rate this pair of picks higher than #8?
• Moloney plus Rivers = 541 points
• Lynch 373 points
• Young 328 points, Murphy zero. I think the AFL has made a mistake by pinning alternate bands of compensation to ladder position, then forcing clubs to use them that year - not like previous compensation that they could bank. Hawthorn get a triply poor deal out of this due to (a) deliberate under-market valuation, (b) absolutely nothing for Murphy, (c) worth even less due to second-last position in draft

Trade numbers are from the AFL's website, but I have moved the pick numbers to account for the compensation picks that have since been inserted.

• Trade #1: Jack Martin and end-round-1 compo pick (GWS) for picks 2 & 69 and end-round-1 compo pick (GCS)
  • After ignoring the extra year of being able to exercise the compo pick, the right to the first mini-draft choice is valued at a whopping 2894 points, short of the 3000 points for the first regular pick
• Trade #2: A.Monfries (ESS) for pick 52 (PORT)
  • 499 points in the straight swap
• Trade #3: T.Lee, picks 25 & 46 (GWS) for pick 12 (STK)
  • The Saints game the draft as they did last year, valuing Tom Lee at minus 100 points. I.e., GWS effectively paid St Kilda the #90 draft pick to take Lee off their hands. WTF?!
  • The clue here is that pick 46 would have been GWS's sixth, and perhaps last (I couldn't find a definitive answer here), so they don't rate it like the Saints do. Now the Giants have six of the first 29 and five of the first 14. The lesson for other clubs: get in early and exploit the inequities, although there won't be as many chances from now on
• Trade #4: B.Lake & pick 28 (WB) for picks 22 & 44 (HAW)
  • 781 points for Lake = pick 35 approx
• Trade #5: Dominic Barry, Jesse Hoganand pick 21 (GWS) for picks 3 & 14 (MELB)
  • The pair of teenagers add up to 2626 points. If Hogan might have gone fifth in a regular draft, that makes Barry about a third-round pick
• Trade #6: S.Wellingham (COLL) for pick 18 (WCE)
  • A respectable 1228 points
• Trade #7: C.Dawes (COLL) and pick 63 for picks 21 & 48 (MELB)
  • Dawes somehow rates slightly higher than his teammate at 1319 points = pick 16
• Trade #8: H.McIntosh (NM) for pick 39 (GEEL)
  • A win-win at 701 points
• Trade #9: J.Caddy (GCS) for first-round (tied to Geelong) compo pick and pick 60 (GEEL)
  • A little harder to judge these tied compo picks, with Gold Coast having to guess when Geelong bottoms out. Assuming they can turn it into about pick 9-12 in the next two years, this values Caddy at pick 5 to 7 (about 1800-2000 points), at least as good as his original draft number. Win for Gold Coast unless Geelong can improve on this year's finish

• Trade #10: A.Graham and pick 54 (RICH) for pick 43 (ADEL)
  • Angus is worth 161 points on this deal, or about pick 83.
• Trade #11: J.Hombsch & J.Neade (GWS) for pick 29 (PORT)
  • 906 points for the pair, something like picks 45 & 68 if you break it down. Serves GWS's purpose of moving late picks up the order - without this one they would lose any advantage from the St Kilda deal
• Trade #12: T.Hickey and picks 26 & 47 (GCS) for picks 13, 37 & 57 (STK)
  • The deal with the most draft picks changing hands again hints that the Saints have a mathematician in the back room. The double-swap drags Hickey's price down to 1062 points, or pick 23 in total. The Suns turned down pick 25 so they have improved slightly, but the Saints now hold the first two picks in each of the second and third rounds
• Trade #13: K.Stevens (WCE) for pick 44 (WB)
  • 617 points
• Trade #14: G.Broughton and pick 60 (FRE) for pick 37 (GCS)
  • only 342 points here (~ pick 65), surprised Fremantle couldn't get more from somewhere. Mind you, it's still more than Hawthorn was 'awarded' for Young!
• Trade #15: T.Young (COLL) for pick 71 (WB)
  • 275 points

 

[Slattery_20]

Interesting.
I'd say the Tom Lee thing is only really a quirk, because of how darned many picks GWS have. Pick 46 being a last pick is irrelevant to 99% of clubs' recruiting.


Out of interest... Daniher & Viney? Surely big boons to their respective clubs.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

It's a very interesting system. I guess the one quirk is clubs sometimes have picks that will not use that they throw in, which slants it in the other teams favour. Tom Lee deal is a good example, or the Magpies trading 39 for 42 and 48 when they weren't going to use the 48.

Is the points system based mostly on games played, or does it include awards such as AA and B&F finishes?

 

[Slattery_20]

Rourke... can you put together a total points, for each side, going into the drafts (which of course will ignore the delisted player free agency)?

 

[AlibiMonday]

This is brilliant Rourke. I've often contemplated evaluating the geometric series of the draft and low and behold you've already done it. I somehow missed this thread last year. Awesome work. Will look at it little more deeply and feedback.

 

[dlanod]

One suggestion would've been to copy and paste the blurb and points table across from last year's thread. I didn't quite get this concept until reading that.

 

[Slattery_20]

Like this?

Hello,

Here is this year's Points Table for Draft Picks. It's similar to the NFL's trade chart but based on AFL conditions (assuming roughly five active rounds or 102 picks). I'll be updating this post to show you what teams really paid for their picks. For more of a background, please check out my article in the Footy Record.

Top Ten:

1    3,000
2    2,598
3    2,356
4    2,182
5    2,044
6    1,931
7    1,834
8    1,750
9    1,675
10    1,608
...
101    7
102    0

 

[dlanod]

Like this?

Yes, but the suggestion was to get it edited into the OP.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Very interesting that the Hickey trade values him at pick 23 (or that pick 23 is effectively what it cost us). So much for all those who reckon we paid through the nose for him and kept on arguing that we "traded Hickey for 13", when that was only a part of the puzzle. I'd have had no problem at all with trading 23 for him. What also needs to be taken into account in that trade was that we had no interest at all in keeping any picks above 45 for the draft and in that trade we were able to upgrade pick 57 to 47, which we then on-traded for Trent Dennis-Lane (who was effectively a "freebie", as we got him with a pick we didn't want to keep for the draft).

Very interesting what you said about Tom Lee, too!

 

[Chrizzt]

Nice work again. Just wondering if you would be able to put up speculative number for the possibility of the Ben Jacobs trade. I still think Port did right by holding back from a pick after our current 2nd rounders (>31) as we wouldn't use it, but just wondering if despite what picks we would use in the upcoming draft, if value-wise he is worth more than the pick the Roos were offering (38, I believe).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I guess its interesting that we've never seen clubs simply trade picks though. ( are they allowed to )?
Would it be at all appealing for a club to trade picks 13, 37 and 57 for pick 23, 26, and 47?

I guess you could envision a situation where a club is desperate for a player and they need pick ten or something to get him.
So they trade their best three picks for pick 10.

 

[Chrizzt]

I guess its interesting that we've never seen clubs simply trade picks though. ( are they allowed to )?
Would it be at all appealing for a club to trade picks 13, 37 and 57 for pick 23, 26, and 47?

I guess you could envision a situation where a club is desperate for a player and they need pick ten or something to get him.
So they trade their best three picks for pick 10.

NM swapped 39 for Collingwood's pick 42 and 48 as they needed an extra spot on the list. Pretty sure that was an isolated trade of just picks.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Great thread. Fascinating work. Well done.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I guess its interesting that we've never seen clubs simply trade picks though. ( are they allowed to )?

The last few years have seen clubs swap regular picks for banked compensation picks, and you might remember Port unsuccessfully offering picks 8 and 9 for the Richmond's 3. This formula would suggest that was overs, but I'm not sure with hindsight you'd take Butcher and Moore over Martin.

 

[dlanod]

I guess its interesting that we've never seen clubs simply trade picks though. ( are they allowed to )?
Would it be at all appealing for a club to trade picks 13, 37 and 57 for pick 23, 26, and 47?

I guess you could envision a situation where a club is desperate for a player and they need pick ten or something to get him.
So they trade their best three picks for pick 10.

It's happened a number of times. Ignoring the several that were done for compo picks, Collingwood and NM did one this trade period as Chrizzt mentioned. Gold Coast did two last year with Geelong and Adelaide as did Fremantle with Hawthorn. It used to be illegal but no longer the case. Generally a club will trade away their last pick that they'd use plus one or two later picks to get an upgrade on their last pick.

 

[L_W_P]

The last few years have seen clubs swap regular picks for banked compensation picks, and you might remember Port unsuccessfully offering picks 8 and 9 for the Richmond's 3. This formula would suggest that was overs, but I'm not sure with hindsight you'd take Butcher and Moore over Martin.

I thought it was 8+9 for Melbourne's pick 2 so that they could get SA native Trengove?

Either way, awesome thread and it shows the values that the Saints got out of their deals with the expansion clubs

 

[YearOfTheCotch10]

The last few years have seen clubs swap regular picks for banked compensation picks, and you might remember Port unsuccessfully offering picks 8 and 9 for the Richmond's 3. This formula would suggest that was overs, but I'm not sure with hindsight you'd take Butcher and Moore over Martin.

I think it was actually Sydney who offered pick 6 and 14 for pick 3 (Jetta and Rohan v Martin)

 

[Lana]

your system is not without flaws... you dont have a large enough rate of decline of value between picks and thus your later picks have too much value. Under rating system your pick 35 and 52 would get pick 18. pick 16 and pick 18 would worth more than pick 3 and almost get pick 2. This why the tom lee trade gave him negative value.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

your system is not without flaws... you dont have a large enough rate of decline of value between picks and thus your later picks have too much value. Under rating system your pick 35 and 52 would get pick 18. pick 16 and pick 18 would worth more than pick 3 and almost get pick 2. This why the tom lee trade gave him negative value.

Its even harder than that, because picks are worth different amounts to different clubs.
You look at the number of spots on Melbourne's list for example, and its well worth them trying to upgrade 5th round picks to 4th round picks.
You look at Other teams who won't want to draft more than 4 players, and the late picks are worth nothing.

But then , just because the club isn't using the pick is it still worthless?
In 2006 Essendon Passed at pick 68 and Port took Westhoff at 71. So what was 68 worth?

I believe the late picks have value even though not all clubs use them.

Do the actual numbers equate?
Farren Ray obviously has value, but how many Farren Ray's equate's to a Garry Ablett? If you pick up 10 Farren Ray's in the draft the team that picks up 1 Garry Ablett has done better, because they will be able to fill the remaining holes relatively easily.

So do you value the pick based on the chances of getting a Farren Ray, or on the Chances of getting a Garry Ablett?

 

[Lana]

Its even harder than that, because picks are worth different amounts to different clubs.

You look at the number of spots on Melbourne's list for example, and its well worth them trying to upgrade 5th round picks to 4th round picks.
You look at Other teams who won't want to draft more than 4 players, and the late picks are worth nothing.

But then , just because the club isn't using the pick is it still worthless?
In 2006 Essendon Passed at pick 68 and Port took Westhoff at 71. So what was 68 worth?

I believe the late picks have value even though not all clubs use them.

Do the actual numbers equate?
Farren Ray obviously has value, but how many Farren Ray's equate's to a Garry Ablett? If you pick up 10 Farren Ray's in the draft the team that picks up 1 Garry Ablett has done better, because they will be able to fill the remaining holes relatively easily.

So do you value the pick based on the chances of getting a Farren Ray, or on the Chances of getting a Garry Ablett?

I agree there is a level of subjective value as club have different requirements. Thats why you can't say how many Farren Rays equal Garry Ablett until at trade is made.

However i think your mixed up to what this system is trying to do. Since draft picks are the closest thing clubs can use as currency when trading players.

Because of undividable nature of picks, unlike money they can't be divided into sub units; this is why trade week is often held up, a club might value a player at pick 25 when the offering team has pick 17 and pick 37 hence the reluctance to trade. The whole point of this is to find the relative value between picks.

They have value for a few reasons(spelling out the obvious), first they dictate the order of which a club can choose a player from the talent pool as such thus even though picks like pick 20 have bad histories they have value because at that point the a team can pick from the entire draft pool remaining. This is also why there is the drop off in value. The longer a team waits the less talent left available. The second value is that they can be on traded.

The problem with the current system is that relative to the first pick latter pick have too much value. A club isn't going to trade pick 1 for pick 10 and 11 or pick 18 for pick 43 and 44.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I agree there is a level of subjective value as club have different requirements. Thats why you can't say how many Farren Rays equal Garry Ablett until at trade is made.

However i think your mixed up to what this system is trying to do. Since draft picks are the closest thing clubs can use as currency when trading players.

Because of undividable nature of picks, unlike money they can't be divided into sub units; this is why trade week is often held up, a club might value a player at pick 25 when the offering team has pick 17 and pick 37 hence the reluctance to trade. The whole point of this is to find the relative value between picks.

They have value for a few reasons(spelling out the obvious), first they dictate the order of which a club can choose a player from the talent pool as such thus even though picks like pick 20 have bad histories they have value because at that point the a team can pick from the entire draft pool remaining. This is also why there is the drop off in value. The longer a team waits the less talent left available. The second value is that they can be on traded.

The problem with the current system is that relative to the first pick latter pick have too much value. A club isn't going to trade pick 1 for pick 10 and 11 or pick 18 for pick 43 and 44.

Its why some Saints supporters were upset at giving up pick 12 for Lee. Even though the exchanged picks balanced in StKilda's favour they may provide little or no chance of netting a Garry Ablett, or even a Trent Cotchin.

 

[saintsrfreak]

Its why some Saints supporters were upset at giving up pick 12 for Lee. Even though the exchanged picks balanced in StKilda's favour they may provide little or no chance of netting a Garry Ablett, or even a Trent Cotchin.

What about a James Hird?

 

[Rookie]

What about a James Hird?

there will always be outliers but your chances of getting a superstar are much higher with pick 1 than 80.

 

[Rookie]

What about a James Hird?

there will always be outliers but your chances of getting a superstar are much higher with pick 1 than 80.

 

[saintsrfreak]

there will always be outliers but your chances of getting a superstar are much higher with pick 1 than 80.

Obviously, just saying that not having a high pick doesn't mean you don't have a chance of landing an A grader