List Mgmt. 2018 Draft, Free Agency & Trade Hypotheticals thread, Part II: Nothing happened!

[TheMase]

We can trade picks now and on draft night too. However, once a bid is made we have to match it with the picks we have on hand at the time the bid is made, there is no trading of picks in between the bid being made and our decision to match it or not.

I thought this was the case too...but...

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-20/historic-live-trades-not-expected-until-after-first-round

Meanwhile, AFL.com.au has confirmed clubs with rights to father-son and academy prospects will be able to trade their next available selection after a rival bid is received and match that bid's points value with later picks.

For instance, if Adelaide bids on Greater Western Sydney Academy member Kieren Briggs with pick No.16, the Giants would still be free to trade their next pick, No.19, and then match the Crows' bid with subsequent selections No.25 and 52.

 

[RobbieK]

It’s not screwing us because they wouldn’t be doing it to screw us. They’d be doing it because they rate Blakey more than King, which is a fair perspective and they have every right to go with what’s best for them.

Every team knows that Nick Blakey is going to be on the Swans list next year. There is no bid that will come that we will not match. So even if Gold Coast rate Blake ahead of the Kings, they know they aren't going to get him. To that

I thought this was the case too...but...

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-20/historic-live-trades-not-expected-until-after-first-round

Meanwhile, AFL.com.au has confirmed clubs with rights to father-son and academy prospects will be able to trade their next available selection after a rival bid is received and match that bid's points value with later picks.

For instance, if Adelaide bids on Greater Western Sydney Academy member Kieren Briggs with pick No.16, the Giants would still be free to trade their next pick, No.19, and then match the Crows' bid with subsequent selections No.25 and 52.

I could have sworn I read that had been ruled out. I don't see us doing it, though, the bus will come early enough to demand we use 26.

 

[TheMase]

Every team knows that Nick Blakey is going to be on the Swans list next year. There is no bid that will come that we will not match. So even if Gold Coast rate Blake ahead of the Kings, they know they aren't going to get him. To that

I could have sworn I read that had been ruled out. I don't see us doing it, though, the bus will come early enough to demand we use 26.

I thought so too but like always they seem to be changing things on the run!

And I agree unless Blakey slides and we have changed our preference to only taking three draftees (*was four before Menzel as we have discussed, no confirmation whether that position post his acquisition has changed or not).

If Blakey was to go at 12, and we were only going to use another two draft picks, we would be able to cover that bid with 33 and 38 leaving us 39 and 40 for our final two selections (*if we go 3 picks only as above). In that case I could see some value in trying to trade 26 into a future pick.

 

[mikey_san]

If the GC see these boys as the best options for them, they should pick them anyway and call the bluff.

Cause that's worked so well for them in the past getting in guys that don't want to be there.

 

[Caj]

Draft talk ! I have it from a close source that St Scum have paid for Max Kings ACL op, against the rules .
Further to the Kings , the family were wined and dined by Dewy and Co on the Coast and were told thank you , wonderful hospitality , but over my dead body that the boys will play up here . That backs up my call that the Blues will trade to get 2 picks and GC will get Walsh.

None of the media has GC showing much interest in either of the Kings (at pick 2 or 3 anyway), they appear to be targeting a couple of the SA boys

Having said that it could all be smoke and mirrors

 

[bedford]

None of the media has GC showing much interest in either of the Kings (at pick 2 or 3 anyway), they appear to be targeting a couple of the SA boys

Having said that it could all be smoke and mirrors

This isn't from the media , it comes from someone very very close to the family.

 

[Caj]

I think they’ll go tall with both their picks. Lukosius then Blakey. Don’t forget they lost the key pillars of their spine this trade period.

This isn't from the media , it comes from someone very very close to the family.

Fair enough

Although if GC did select them both it would be quite the conundrum for them as it would be the only way they could play together at AFL level. Its highly improbable that a Melbourne team would be able to acquire them both in the future

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Fair enough

Although if GC did select them both it would be quite the conundrum for them as it would be the only way they could play together at AFL level. Its highly improbable that a Melbourne team would be able to acquire them both in the future

Geebers... they are not Siamese twins ... hope the GoCo select one and say stick it to the King family if the Bedders tale (see above) is correct.

I am pleased we are not recruiting either of these privileged giraffes. Besides we already have the original Mr The King.

 

[Gun Island]

Geebers... they are not Siamese twins ... hope the GoCo select one and say stick it to the King family if the Bedders tale (see above) is correct.

I am pleased we are not recruiting either of these privileged giraffes. Besides we already have the original Mr The King.

Who is that you refer to , as I find your riddles and butchering of English hard to decipher at times .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Tedeski]

This isn't from the media , it comes from someone very very close to the family.

"Nothing to see here" as far as the AFL are concerned. This draft tampering & outside of the cap payments has become a rort & the AFL will never hold anyone to account for it until we get a Tippett & Crows scenario where they were picked up for the outside cap payments that every other team in Victoria have been getting away with for years. It seems that if you rub the AFL up the wrong way, then they'll enforce their 'law'.

Again we go back to the Dunkley situation where he would have come to us as the only interstate option but wanted to stay in Vic. That is draft tampering every day of the week & both the Bulldogs & to a lesser extent, the Swans, should have been penalised /warned accordingly to straighten this bullshit out.

I mean, do we have draft tampering rules or not? Especially with their franchise GC floundering, the AFL have a responsibility for the good of drafting going forward, to hold this family & the Saints etc to account.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong just think that’s what GC will do.

Then they are beyond nuts. Downgrade pick 3 then to pick 7-8.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Who is that you refer to , as I find your riddles and butchering of English hard to decipher at times .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Poster The King!

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

"Nothing to see here" as far as the AFL are concerned. This draft tampering & outside of the cap payments has become a rort & the AFL will never hold anyone to account for it until we get a Tippett & Crows scenario where they were picked up for the outside cap payments that every other team in Victoria have been getting away with for years. It seems that if you rub the AFL up the wrong way, then they'll enforce their 'law'.

Again we go back to the Dunkley situation where he would have come to us as the only interstate option but wanted to stay in Vic. That is draft tampering every day of the week & both the Bulldogs & to a lesser extent, the Swans, should have been penalised /warned accordingly to straighten this bullshit out.

I mean, do we have draft tampering rules or not? Especially with their franchise GC floundering, the AFL have a responsibility for the good of drafting going forward, to hold this family & the Saints etc to account.

I'm not sure the Dunkley case would meet the case for draft tampering. From memory Dunkley did not opt to be drafted as a father son. That was his right.

Nick Blakey opted to not nominate as a father/son with Norf or Brisbane, instead opting to be selected by us as an Academy player. That is hardly draft tampering.

 

[BloodySwan]

"Nothing to see here" as far as the AFL are concerned. This draft tampering & outside of the cap payments has become a rort & the AFL will never hold anyone to account for it until we get a Tippett & Crows scenario where they were picked up for the outside cap payments that every other team in Victoria have been getting away with for years. It seems that if you rub the AFL up the wrong way, then they'll enforce their 'law'.

Again we go back to the Dunkley situation where he would have come to us as the only interstate option but wanted to stay in Vic. That is draft tampering every day of the week & both the Bulldogs & to a lesser extent, the Swans, should have been penalised /warned accordingly to straighten this bullshit out.

I mean, do we have draft tampering rules or not? Especially with their franchise GC floundering, the AFL have a responsibility for the good of drafting going forward, to hold this family & the Saints etc to account.

I have no doubt the AFL turns a blind eye to a lot of things until the media gets a hold of it. Drugs, draft tampering, out of cap salary payments, they all seem pretty rampart but very rarely does a team get punished for any of these things

 

[RobbieK]

I'm not sure the Dunkley case would meet the case for draft tampering. From memory Dunkley did not opt to be drafted as a father son. That was his right.

Nick Blakey opted to not nominate as a father/son with Norf or Brisbane, instead opting to be selected by us as an Academy player. That is hardly draft tampering.

Dunkley was definitely a case of tampering. We did nominate him as a father/son and so were able to match the bid from the Bulldogs. We didn't, as an agreement had been made that if a Victorian team bid on him we would pass. If a team from another state had bid we would have matched it and Dunkley would be a Swan (or at least would have been a Swan for a couple of seasons, maybe he would have demanded a trade back to Victoria by now if we did draft him?).

Nothing wrong with the Blakey situation, I don't think anyone has suggested it is an example of draft tampering.

 

[caesar88]

Then they are beyond nuts. Downgrade pick 3 then to pick 7-8.

Not really. I rate Blakey above the Kings and others I’ve seen do as well...

 

[caesar88]

Every team knows that Nick Blakey is going to be on the Swans list next year. There is no bid that will come that we will not match. So even if Gold Coast rate Blake ahead of the Kings, they know they aren't going to get him. To that

I could have sworn I read that had been ruled out. I don't see us doing it, though, the bus will come early enough to demand we use 26.

But they should still call our bluff if they want him badly enough! Clubs should go after anyone they want and worry about us matching it later.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Not really. I rate Blakey above the Kings and others I’ve seen do as well...

Max would be easily ahead IF he is fine after his knee. Either way they aren't going tall at both those selections. In fact the strong rumour today is that Carlton will take Issak Rankine at pick 1, with Walsh and Lukosis at 2 and 3 for the Suns. GC will go best available at 6, probably Connor Rozee if he's there or Jye Caldwell. If Max King lasts till 6 they will be tempted.

 

[caesar88]

Max would be easily ahead IF he is fine after his knee. Either way they aren't going tall at both those selections. In fact the strong rumour today is that Carlton will take Issak Rankine at pick 1, with Walsh and Lukosis at 2 and 3 for the Suns. GC will go best available at 6, probably Connor Rozee if he's there or Jye Caldwell. If Max King lasts till 6 they will be tempted.

Ahh yes, the “strong rumour.” I give all of the strong rumour floating around as much credibility as my gut feeling that the Suns will nominate Blakey at pick 3.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ahh yes, the “strong rumour.” I give all of the strong rumour floating around as much credibility as my gut feeling that the Suns will nominate Blakey at pick 3.

Well it's not better than "we'd land a big fish"..nek minute we land no-one.

To be fair there have been rumours for a while that Carlton have loved Rankine and Walsh, ideally they'd want both. Maybe GC have refused a pick swap (rightly so).

Blakey won't go before pick 7.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Dunkley was definitely a case of tampering. We did nominate him as a father/son and so were able to match the bid from the Bulldogs. We didn't, as an agreement had been made that if a Victorian team bid on him we would pass. If a team from another state had bid we would have matched it and Dunkley would be a Swan (or at least would have been a Swan for a couple of seasons, maybe he would have demanded a trade back to Victoria by now if we did draft him?).

Nothing wrong with the Blakey situation, I don't think anyone has suggested it is an example of draft tampering.

Yeah I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what the rules are around draft tampering. I know a player can't overtly say he won't go to a particular club in advance of the draft but beyond that who knows. I reckon a club could make a good cost benefit argument around player welfare in the Dunkley case. Put a negative valuation on flight risk for instance. In Dunkley's case, the flight risk may devalue him by (for instance) 900 draft points meaning we would match a bid coming some time after (was it?) 22 from a Victorian club but different if it came from an interstate club. It would be a very difficult thing for the AFL to prosecute and really a quite foolish thing too. A club declined to match a bid in the best interests of the player? Should be more of it.

 

[Gun Island]

Not really. I rate Blakey above the Kings and others I’ve seen do as well...

Your rating , have you actually seen the King brothers play ?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[swansfan51]

Yeah I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what the rules are around draft tampering. I know a player can't overtly say he won't go to a particular club in advance of the draft but beyond that who knows. I reckon a club could make a good cost benefit argument around player welfare in the Dunkley case. Put a negative valuation on flight risk for instance. In Dunkley's case, the flight risk may devalue him by (for instance) 900 draft points meaning we would match a bid coming some time after (was it?) 22 from a Victorian club but different if it came from an interstate club. It would be a very difficult thing for the AFL to prosecute and really a quite foolish thing too. A club declined to match a bid in the best interests of the player? Should be more of it.

Should factor in the alternative as well. If we didn't select Dunkley our next available pick was pick 51, used on Tyrone "Adam Goodes for flog of the year" Leonardis

 

[6yearsold]

We can trade picks now and on draft night too. However, once a bid is made we have to match it with the picks we have on hand at the time the bid is made, there is no trading of picks in between the bid being made and our decision to match it or not.

"Meanwhile, AFL.com.au has confirmed clubs with rights to father-son and academy prospects will be able to trade their next available selection after a rival bid is received and match that bid's points value with later picks.

For instance, if Adelaide bids on Greater Western Sydney Academy member Kieren Briggs with pick No.16, the Giants would still be free to trade their next pick, No.19, and then match the Crows' bid with subsequent selections No.25 and 52."

 

[Tedeski]

How about some balls from the AFL just as they did with this Brett Chalmers scenario.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/01/09/the-tamper-affair-how-pies-lost-a-young-star/

"When the Tigers made him their last pick in the ’89 draft, they set off a chain of events that would change the football landscape, and consign the 196cm ruckman/key position player to three years in limbo.“When we drafted him in 1989 (then-Collingwood recruiting manager) ‘Gubby’ Allan said, ‘Why did you draft him?’” Vickers told Inside Football. According to Vickers, this was the first indication that the Magpies, too, had their sharp eyes on the promising tall.
As it turned out, Vickers’ gut feel was right. Chalmers was keen to play for Collingwood and the Pies were desperate to have him.
“We flew him over in 1990 or ’91 and he kept on developing and kept on getting better,” Vickers said.
“Through that period of three years that we had him we knew that Collingwood was blowing wind up his backside, which wasn’t in accordance of the rules.”

Why don't the AFL just let it be open slather & let players go where they want?
Because they know that within 5 years, the 6 non viable Vic clubs & 2 or 3 non viable interstate clubs will be gone in an instant. So they would rathet keep a foot in each camp & apply the rules only when it seems a club needs punishment.
Refer to our trade ban for playing by the rules.
Just my thoughts which are related to trading in order to stay on topic.