Analysis 2016 List Management Discussion - Part 2

[Malifice]

Picks 58, 59 and 60 are worth 470 points.

Pick 38 is worth 465 points (and is slightly less likely to be reduced further due to any bids from 39-57).

I'd do it. (Swap 38 for 58, 59 and 60). With three picks in a row you have a lot of room to move.

 

[Jimmae]

We're still one team, and there'd be reasons behind it. Perhaps Hawks do us a favour. Perhaps we have our eye on someone at 48 that may not make it past the teams before 52.

I think it's more to do with 66 & 70 than 48. That was simply replacing what we gave up to GWS to get Hawthorn's deal over the line.

 

[Cripps17]

You put too much value in an arbitrary points system. At this point they'd be talking names and who's likely to be available where. Points are irrelevant.

 

[MightyMighties]

I think we ran out of time to string them along.
GWS have to use picks this year. And i don't think the media got much right during the trade period.
I'm just not sure a second pick in the 60's plus two later ones would be any more appealing to us than some of the mentioned DFA's.

Now I don't want to alarm you, but it appears you have a Geelong player as your profile pic ...

 

[lopezz]

Now I don't want to alarm you, but it appears you have a Geelong player as your profile pic ...

Hahaha, yes i do. I haven't been near mycomputer to make the change just yet but i'm on it!

 

[Jimmae]

Surely trading (2-3) of those picks in the late 50s down for similar points but a single pick in the 20's was a better way to go?



Points dedcution starts in the round the bid is made, not in the round the points are paid I thought?

They'd need a willing club to get it done though, otherwise yeah I assume they would have made (though they might be eyeing off some mature age recruits).

Yeah it does start in the round the bid is made, I'm suggesting that Sproule, Mutch and Macreadie are in the 15-45 range, so it'll be interesting to see how that goes down. They have two 2nd round picks in 2017 (St Kilda & Collingwood's).

So lets take a whole bunch of players in the 60's?

It is spin by the club.

Last time we took heaps of players later on in the 60s it worked out OK.

 

[Dramoth]

Then why even grab picks 66 & 70? We intend to use at least one of them, probably both. That's 6 picks there, and a DFA makes 7 list spots.

Cover just in case some other team decides that they want to earn our enmity by bidding on Jake Bradley.

ATM, I can think of two teams that would possibly think of doing that. Adelaide because we cost them Gibbs by not bending over and letting them **** us. And Essendon... but I think that it might be a half hearted attempt really. Just another "keeping them honest" bid rather than an obnoxious type bid.

 

[Jimmae]

Cover just in case some other team decides that they want to earn our enmity by bidding on Jake Bradley.

ATM, I can think of two teams that would possibly think of doing that. Adelaide because we cost them Gibbs by not bending over and letting them **** us. And Essendon... but I think that it might be a half hearted attempt really. Just another "keeping them honest" bid rather than an obnoxious type bid.

Let's see what a few full phantoms look like before we chalk it up to mind games and favours.

 

[LanceRomance]

Cover just in case some other team decides that they want to earn our enmity by bidding on Jake Bradley.

ATM, I can think of two teams that would possibly think of doing that. Adelaide because we cost them Gibbs by not bending over and letting them **** us. And Essendon... but I think that it might be a half hearted attempt really. Just another "keeping them honest" bid rather than an obnoxious type bid.

Bradley will be a very very late pick or a rookie pick. If another club wants to waste a bid on him they will end up drafting him.

 

[Old navy]

Heard somewhere Trigg said we could use as many as 7/8 pick in the up coming national draft.
Also heard Brett Anderson saying that he thinks that in this draft 70-80 selections could be made, showing how much depth clubs believe this draft has.
This is a great draft for us to bring in 6/8 young players, will be some real value in the later rounds this year.

 

[DangerousD]

Of those OOC players, Buckley would appear to have the most upside and the one worth keeping around for at least another year or two IMO.

Tutt, Whiley, Everett, Graham, dvr all cut imo with dvr and Graham getting re drafted as rookies

 

[mediumsizered]

Bradley will be a very very late pick or a rookie pick. If another club wants to waste a bid on him they will end up drafting him.

I would be extremely surprised if we drafted Bradley at all.

 

[Michael Jezz]

I get your point, but which club swaps their future second for 3 picks in the 50s this year? Sure it makes sense for GWS but it's got to also make sense for another team.

Its not as bad as it looks. GWS second rounder will end up in the mid 30s. We swapped for pick 48, 66 and 70. Not great but if Hawthorn repay the favour we could be well ahead. Maybe next years draft doesnt run deep or we have our eye on a speculative player this year or a delisted player who nominates

 

[Dramoth]

Barlow delisted. Cripps assistant

Bring him in for 2 years and allow whoever we take at pick 5 to develop over the next couple of pre-seasons and be ready to roll in 2018.

 

[Dramoth]

Bradley will be a very very late pick or a rookie pick. If another club wants to waste a bid on him they will end up drafting him.

I know... but we never know what SOS is thinking He could have seen something in Jake that tells him that he is going to be a very good young footballer and just wants some late coverage just in case.

 

[Dramoth]

Heard somewhere Trigg said we could use as many as 7/8 pick in the up coming national draft.
Also heard Brett Anderson saying that he thinks that in this draft 70-80 selections could be made, showing how much depth clubs believe this draft has.
This is a great draft for us to bring in 6/8 young players, will be some real value in the later rounds this year.

The last 3 picks will all be by Hawthorn

 

[Chalky Blues]

Bring him in for 2 years and allow whoever we take at pick 5 to develop over the next couple of pre-seasons and be ready to roll in 2018.

If you can bring in a Barlow for nothing to help out our mids I can only see that as a good thing, I'd rather him then Palmer

 

[The Bighouse]

If you can bring in a Barlow for nothing to help out our mids I can only see that as a good thing, I'd rather him then Palmer

Yep, but that horse has bolted unfort., late trade that didn't make sense on a few fronts and pressure on the delist numbers.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Bring him in for 2 years and allow whoever we take at pick 5 to develop over the next couple of pre-seasons and be ready to roll in 2018.

I'm not against Barlow

But Pick #5 should play Round 1 and never come out.

Look at Judd, played one reserves game in his life. Look at Weitering will likely never play a reserves game. **** playing gun kids in the VFL. Get them in the seniors and leave them there.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Anyone else not sold on the "we want a pick in every round" version of events for the Hawks trade? I love the idea we'll find some gold at 48, 63, et al.... but we have a sickening track record of not finding anything after about pick 20. The guys we're delisting this year that were drafted just two years ago... whilst we're all fawning over a Mitch McGovern (pick 40-odd) of the same vintage. I know it's been done/asked 8 billion times, but can we just not SPOT talent or not DEVELOP the talent? Smith, Foster, DVR, all these guys were apparently steals with upside etc when we picked them, and we've got maybe.... 3 AFL games from them combined? IN a shocking side!

Anyway. Don't mind me. Just having a moment. Maybe it'll all be better.

The difference is I believe that SOS has a better eye for players that will make it than Rogers and Hughes. Will be his first year with low picks (not counting Jack).

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Can someone please shed some light on this.

Half way through the season the AFL changed the academy bidding and drafting rules to state you could only take the number of picks to the draft as you had spots. Or something to that effect.

But the Giants have 8 picks in the first 4 rounds. Does this mean they have to take 8 players?

Can the smart people explain.

If GWS has 8 picks then they cannot have say 12 draft picks where 4 of them are just for the points. If GWS goes up the draft to match an academy pick with say it's second pick, it's third pick will likely go down the order, and so on.
Collingwood if facing higher matching draft picks for Daicos and Brown father sons might find its third pick at very end of the draft.
So if a club benefits from going up the order to match a pick, all things being equal the rule change will force one or more of that club's picks down the order.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

It's more like a choice between Gallucci or DVR, and Barlow.

What's your choice?


They had a strategy locked into place at the end of the 2015 trade period, and the AFL changed the rules on them mid-year. This was the result.

And they don't need to add the academy kids with just the points from this year, they just need to mitigate the damage of next year's draft by forcing the points deduction to start in the third round, which they are a decent chance to do.

They've talked down Macreadie all year, but they love him, likewise Sproule. If those two and Mutch get second round bids, then the future 2nds they picked up in the trade period will come into play. Otherwise, it moves onto their future 3rd. Picks 40 (last 2nd rounder) & 55 (all bids after are free) are the landmarks for them.

No worries, but surely if GWS, Sydney, whoever goes up the draft to match an academy pick or to match a father son, then other picks should correspondingly go down the order. The rule change makes sure this happens.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Heard somewhere Trigg said we could use as many as 7/8 pick in the up coming national draft.
Also heard Brett Anderson saying that he thinks that in this draft 70-80 selections could be made, showing how much depth clubs believe this draft has.
This is a great draft for us to bring in 6/8 young players, will be some real value in the later rounds this year.

If you are correct that we will draft 6-8 players, then we need to delist 4-6 players. If Buckley is to be delisted, we may well be drafting 7-8 and delisting 5-6.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Going to drop one of those long posts. Read as you like:

Ok so list management can be roughly divided into three time frames

Short Term - Next Year (we'll call it Year 1)
Medium Term - Year 2-3
Long Term - Year 3-5

When you make a short term decision you are looking for an immediate effect. A player who comes in and elevates the team, or a stop-gap to replace a lost asset. When you make a medium term decision it's more risk orientated. You are aware it might not be a success, but you are taking a risk that in 2-3 years your move pays off, say moving along a senior player for a draft pick, or bringing in one who hasn't yet made his mark. When you make a long-term decision you are trying to lay down the foundations of the team's trajectory. These are inherently risky deals, so they are only done with premium assets.

If we were to frame them as draft picks:

Short-Term: A mature rookie
Medium-Term: A player selected at 25+
Long-Term: A player taken within the first 25 picks.

There is a trend in AFL list management to make large deals which involve a lot of picks moving, and I think what this reflects is an increase in the evaluation of medium term risks. Clubs are starting to value building a diverse portfolio of medium term risks, so that they increase their chance of an outright success. That's why trading a pick in the higher bands for several in the lower bands makes some sense. You are less likely to pick up a good player with any one of those picks, but you are more likely overall.

Picks in the top tier are aimed at players who demonstrate some exceptional capability (think Yarran or Rohan) or an almost unimpeachable expected output (think Scully or Cunningham). These players are often considered long-term investments and stay in the AFL system for at least 5 or so years.

Picks in the next step down are some mix of exceptional talent with big questions (Darling, Ben Brown) and consistent performers without a huge differentiation (Parker, Clarke).

Even further down are picks which basically become even more extreme version of the above (Dayle Garlett, Michael Barlow).

So where is Carlton at?

Short-Term: We need leadership and protection for developing talent
Medium-Term: We need players who can fill roles and play to the gameplan
Long-Term: We need players who will be exceptional

And how is our progress:

Short-Term: Retaining Gibbs, bringing in Palmer keeps our experience about where it was last year. Could stand to add another experienced AFL body
Medium-Term: Palmer and Smedts most likely will fill a role for 2-3 years, no other acquisitions. It seems likely that we will be satiating this requirement through the draft
Long-Term: Pick 5 and to a lesser extent Pick 25 ought to be dedicated to acquiring players we project to be exceptional.

As to how this effects who we should delist. Well looking at the candidates on the main list:

D. Buckley
D. Viojo-Rainbow
J. Tutt
M. Whiley
N. Graham
A. Everitt

I would think that of that list 4 names stand out as not adequately filling any requirements:

Viojo-Rainbow: Has not been able to make an impact at VFL or AFL, struggled with the pace. Seems unlikely to be able to make the grade
Tutt: Can play at VFL, cannot adequately play at AFL.
Whiley: Same as Tutt
Graham: Demonstrates more potential then the above, BUT seems to have significant problems with speed.

None of these players are better than a medium term investment in a draft pick.

Buckley might be a player who is successful over the medium term, Everitt is likely to be of benefit in the short-term.

These players are probably as useful as a later draft pick

 

[Jimmae]

I'm not against Barlow

But Pick #5 should play Round 1 and never come out.

Look at Judd, played one reserves game in his life. Look at Weitering will likely never play a reserves game. **** playing gun kids in the VFL. Get them in the seniors and leave them there.

I think that comes down to their ability to slot into things as well, so just how well they wind up executing in their roles. A top 5 pick will usually do that these days, but we shouldn't just drop them in for the sake of it.

No worries, but surely if GWS, Sydney, whoever goes up the draft to match an academy pick or to match a father son, then other picks should correspondingly go down the order. The rule change makes sure this happens.

It's all relative to the number of picks being removed from the order and inserted into the order, but in the case of GWS' bids, it seems likely that after the first academy bid, all subsequent bids will definitely consume more than one pick, meaning the rest of the order will start to slide up.

I think Collingwood's bids will do the same, whereas GC's will likely increase the order.