Trading of future picks approved

[Adz2332]

So Dangerfield for the Cats first pick take it or leave it is a myth now?

Well no not really. as i said before players cant be forced to go anywhere.
Goes back to, IF Dangerfield chooses Geelong Adelaide cant force him to sign else where. Even if it is a significantly better offer from say Melbourne.
Something else that needs to be fixed

 

[1990crow]

Well no not really. as i said before players cant be forced to go anywhere.
Goes back to, IF Dangerfield chooses Geelong Adelaide cant force him to sign else where. Even if it is a significantly better offer from say Melbourne.
Something else that needs to be fixed

No but we have to agree to a fair trade. Otherwise he can go to the PSD or draft where I'm sure there will be suitors.

 

[Adz2332]

No but we have to agree to a fair trade. Otherwise he can go to the PSD or draft where I'm sure there will be suitors.

the PSD and ND have been played before.
PSD but a price on his head crap which has been done before.

I think its a step in the right direction BUT with more than 1 or 2 things that needs to be addressed as well!

 

[Purple Suit]

Wasn't commenting on the injury, it was moreso why should Hawthorn be able to sign him potentially for starters without giving something significant up in return for an elite young talent, now it makes it even easier for them and gives them a significant advantage.

Since 2009 Hawthorn's significant trading in history
2009: Williams (made redundant by Buddy and Roughy) and pick 9 for Burgoyne (Geelong had to help out to get that deal over the line). Gibson and pick 69 for picks 25 and 41 (2nd and 3rd rounders). Massive win for Hawthorn here.
2010: Hale and pick 52 (3rd rounder) for the Campbell Brown end of 1st round compensation (basically a 2nd rounder that year) and pick 71 (4th rounder)
2011: Gunston and pick downgrades 53 (3rd rounder) and 71 (4th rounder) for Picks 24, 46 and 64 (1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders), Adelaide bottomed out a little in 2011 also and were able to get Crouch in the mini-draft.
2012: Brian Lake and pick 27 (2nd rounder) for 21 and 43 (1st and 2nd rounders), that was a good trade however for both teams as we got Hrovat at 21 and traded for Stevens with 43. Lakes gets a Norm Smith the next year, looks win-win.
2013: McEvoy for Savage and pick 18. Buddy left that year so Hawthorn traded its Buddy compensation (19) to St Kilda for 24 and 59
2014: O'Rourke and 43 (3rd rounder) for 19 and 40 (1st and 2nd rounders)

Only in 2010 Hawthorn took a 1st rounder to the draft in the last 6 years which they absolutely nailed with Isaac Smith at pick 19 in a expansion draft, they always go to the trade table and never have to give anything significant up instead of draft picks, they trade role players out and that is it. Being able to trade future picks will make their trading position stronger regardless of where they finish and won't have to give up an arm and a leg to get more elite talent in.

You forgot the Hawks giving up pick 58 (Lachie Neale) in the 2011 Draft for Jarrad Boumann - Freo won that Trade! Finally...

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So Dangerfield for the Cats first pick take it or leave it is a myth now?

This has been the best news for Adelaide all week. Forces Geelong to be reasonable. A ridiculous compo pick isn't enough. 2 first rounders is about right and even that is unders but it is something.

 

[go you pups]

You forgot the Hawks giving up pick 58 (Lachie Neale) in the 2011 Draft for Jarrad Boumann - Freo won that Trade! Finally...

Boumann?

Didn't realise he got prelisted with GWS.......Bloody GWS they just want to be the Dogs I reckon

 

[Purple Suit]

Boumann?

Didn't realise he got prelisted with GWS.......Bloody GWS they just want to be the Dogs I reckon

All previously listed AFL players or older players were able to be picked up directly by Gold Coast and then GWS in their first draft. Of course they didn't want them all so other clubs traded stuff for them. Mzungu also came that way for Freo, Ahmed Saad for the Saints and a few more. Not sure who's the best out of the lot.

 

[go you pups]

All previously listed AFL players or older players were able to be picked up directly by Gold Coast and then GWS in their first draft. Of course they didn't want them all so other clubs traded stuff for them. Mzungu also came that way for Freo, Ahmed Saad for the Saints and a few more. Not sure who's the best out of the lot.

Peter Faulks also, he never played for you guys IIRC.

We liked him during his Williamstown days, might've rookied him I reckon if GWS didn't get him.

 

[Lach72]

Peter Faulks also, he never played for you guys IIRC.

We liked him during his Williamstown days, might've rookied him I reckon if GWS didn't get him.

He played once or twice...enough time to get a knee in the face and jaw blown to smithereens

 

[Saintt]

Not sure I like it. Pick protection would surely encourage teams to tank.

 

[Redeye Rambler]

All previously listed AFL players or older players were able to be picked up directly by Gold Coast and then GWS in their first draft. Of course they didn't want them all so other clubs traded stuff for them. Mzungu also came that way for Freo, Ahmed Saad for the Saints and a few more. Not sure who's the best out of the lot.

Zorko was a Gold Coast pre-listed player. Lions had to trade to get him. Definitely one of the better players to be pre-listed.

 

[Freomaniac]

Why would they ? We'd have to put in another Croad and McPharlin or similar value.
No ones forcing team to trade their future picks, and when you do so you get more in return.
It's going to be mostly 2nd and 3rd,4th sweeteners to get deals over the line,
We are only going to see 2 1st rounders traded in rare cases for players like Treloar, in which case your actually suring up your future by getting the best young mid in the comp.
Sure some will get it wrong but that mean the other teams are getting it right. With FA there's no need to give up picks for older players.

its a high risk, high reward thing. Imagine Freo traded 2 1st round picks for Hogan or McCarthy then they blow their knees out. makes Freo look bad.

 

[Furn2]

its a high risk, high reward thing. Imagine Freo traded 2 1st round picks for Hogan or McCarthy then they blow their knees out. makes Freo look bad.

No different to picking two first rounders that suck.

Everything is a risk, but you get more for 2 1st rounders than for 1.

People are acting like Teams like Melbourne aren't languishing at the bottom for years already.

No system is going to fix year after year of incompetence.

 

[Furn2]

Which means they won't wanting to be dealing with protected picks - they'll need the pick that year - not the next - to get the F/S (or in our case the academy kid)

It will be between the teams whether a pick is protected, obviously you aren't going to take a top 5 protected pick from Carlton whereas you would from Hawthorn.

 

[Furn2]

We will still have the mess that is uncontracted players not being free agents (restricted or otherwise). Which I think really needs to be sorted out.

Players not under contract shouldn't have to be traded. It's fundamentally unfair for all parties.

Needs to be a system where players are locked in only until they become restricted free agents and eventually then unrestricted. I'm in favour of locking draftees in for 4-5 years until they become restricted free agents then 7-8 years to become unrestricted.

That way we don't have the situation where a player doesn't have a contract, can pick a club to be traded to and then the 2 clubs have to agree to a fair trade when the receiving club really isn't under any obligation to give fair value. The whole thing turns in to a public negotiation battle over which club bends first.

If Treloar picks Collingwood this year then even with the options of trading picks over the next 2 years I don't really see why Collingwood's hand is forced other than the PSD/ND loophole. I think it would be much better to call him a restricted free agent and allow GWS a mechanism to match a contract or sign a 1 year tender offer which then provides Collingwood with the obligation to trade. Young players might lose the ability to just up and select a new club but it balances it by making the trade process fair and as a trade off you could lower the free agency time by a year or two.

How does that balance anything ?

Treloar either goes for nothing or gets traded as per usual

What you need is when a restricted free agent fife is matched its binding.

Eg if Danger accepts a 4 year deal to leave Adelaide and they match it, then he just signed a 4 year deal to stay at Adelaide.

None of this he can then trade or go In the draft BS,

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

Didn't read the whole thread but has protection on the pick been mentioned or answered about?

 

[ppoiter]

So... when poorly run clubs inevitably mortgage the future for a packet of magic beans, do they get special dispensation to avoid five years of a bleak future ?

Can think of one club which will definitely want this and moan to high heaven when they dont get it, lets just call them ******** Lions. Wait hold on, too obvious, make it Brisbane *****

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Another problem/question with pick protection (aside from unfair and definately encourages tanking if its the difference between top 5 pick and no first round pick at all) is what happens if the team you traded with is at the bottom every year??

Do you just have to wait and wait for them to improve until you get the return on your trade?? or can protection only be used once?

i.e. Say Melbourne traded in a gun player from your club in 2006, with their 2007 first round pick coming back in return. Melbourne fell off a cliff in 2007 and have finished bottom 5 every year since. That means, now a decade later, you still haven't gotten your pick back (protected every year), even if the player you gave has played 200 games for Melbourne and since retired. You could potentially wait another decade as well. Surely it can't work like that?

 

[Mixed Results]

Another problem/question with pick protection (aside from unfair and definately encourages tanking if its the difference between top 5 pick and no first round pick at all) is what happens if the team you traded with is at the bottom every year??

Do you just have to wait and wait for them to improve until you get the return on your trade?? or can protection only be used once?

i.e. Say Melbourne traded in a gun player from your club in 2006, with their 2007 first round pick coming back in return. Melbourne fell off a cliff in 2007 and have finished bottom 5 every year since. That means, now a decade later, you still haven't gotten your pick back (protected every year), even if the player you gave has played 200 games for Melbourne and since retired. You could potentially wait another decade as well. Surely it can't work like that?

In the NBA, some protected first round picks become multiple second round picks if they aren't delivered within a certain amount of time.

 

[GPW1]

I reckon the majority of future picks traded will be 2nd/3rd rounders as the steak knives part of the deal, rather than first round picks.

Player X for 1st round pick + future 2nd for example. Less risk for both clubs regarding a team over or underachieving, affecting the pick position.

 

[Cobbler]

He played once or twice...enough time to get a knee in the face and jaw blown to smithereens

Still a very vivid incident for mine. Never seen a player with absolutely no awareness of the impending impact he was about to receive.

It was the equivalent of standing still, letting someone pick up a baseball bat, pull back their swing and then swing and hit you square in the face and all you did was blink.

Still cringe at the thought of it.

Anyone got vision?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Based on round.

So you trade your known pick (say 2nd rounder #25 OVR) and your future (second rounder). That future pick becomes based on your ladder position.
Generally a future pick has a lower level of value due to this unknown.

Or higher if it's from an older club that could decline but involved deep in finals.... When next draft is also better... Maybe Hawks 1st rounder next year more value than current year for example.

 

[MarcusP2]

Still a very vivid incident for mine. Never seen a player with absolutely no awareness of the impending impact he was about to receive.

It was the equivalent of standing still, letting someone pick up a baseball bat, pull back their swing and then swing and hit you square in the face and all you did was blink.

Still cringe at the thought of it.

Anyone got vision?

53 seconds in.

 

[Furn2]

Another problem/question with pick protection (aside from unfair and definately encourages tanking if its the difference between top 5 pick and no first round pick at all) is what happens if the team you traded with is at the bottom every year??

Do you just have to wait and wait for them to improve until you get the return on your trade?? or can protection only be used once?

i.e. Say Melbourne traded in a gun player from your club in 2006, with their 2007 first round pick coming back in return. Melbourne fell off a cliff in 2007 and have finished bottom 5 every year since. That means, now a decade later, you still haven't gotten your pick back (protected every year), even if the player you gave has played 200 games for Melbourne and since retired. You could potentially wait another decade as well. Surely it can't work like that?

You get the next years pick no matter what, it's only protected for the one year. So in that case you get the no1 pick in 2008 and Jack Watts.

 

[NathanMX]

Not sure I like it. Pick protection would surely encourage teams to tank.

Just follow the NBA further and introduce a lottery for the top 8 picks. Think in the NBA the team with the worst record has like 1 in 4 chance of getting the top pick but can fall as low as 3. So protects the bottom team somewhat but also ensures other teams who tried still get a chance at the top slot.