List Mgmt. 2019 Draft and Trade Hypotheticals Thread - Part II

[Bandicoot]

So what your saying is ACL injuries make no difference to recruiters’ thinking whatsoever

I think you may have replied to the wrong post. I haven't mentioned an ACL.

 

[Bandicoot]

If we did a pick swap with GWS this year I think it would have to include their 2020 first pick. The pick swap will allow them to get an additional first round pick (5 & Green) so they really need to give us a first round in return, albeit a late first round pick. We would of course need to certain that they aren't going to use pick 5 on the player we want.

You apparently didn't quite read my post correctly. I'm suggesting that we keep our pick 5 but guarantee to GWS that we won't place a bid on Green. For that, they give us their first round pick next year in exchange for our current pick of 44. As a result they can then pick anyone other than Green at pick 6 and then wait for a team to make a bid on him (probably whoever is at pick 7).
My concern with this is that their first round pick next year will be probably between 15 - 18. So we gain a 15 - 18 pick next year, lose pick 44 this year and grant GWS an additional top ten pick this year.
Don't think it's worth it.

 

[Bandicoot]

GWS offloaded Bonar so they could bring in Green. They moved up the order to pick 6 so they can match a bid between 3-5. They seem to be all over it.

The only pickles are those reading between the lines.

They didn't need to upgrade to pick 6. The picks they gave up in order to get to 6 were worth more points than 6 itself. So, in effect, they have done themselves a dis service as it currently stands.

 

[Bandicoot]

This makes no sense.

GWS traded picks 12 and 18 (2253 points) to St Kilda for 6 and 59 (1909 points).

GWS lost points on the trade. After the trade they had less points to match a high bid for Green. That means that their next pick, pick 40, will get pushed further back.

So... they are worse off matching a top 5 bid then the were before. Doesn't look like they are "all over it" to me.

Their pick 40 won't get pushed back as the points they need to take Green has a 20% discount applied.

 

[Bandicoot]

I think we would ask for more..
future 1st - absolutely + we would want to be better off in this draft, so p40 as well
and agree we would have to be confidant they wouldn't pick the player we want.

I doubt the AFL integrity unit would allow such a swap.

 

[WillHayward]

Green could get a bid as early as 3

 

[Olian]

They didn't need to upgrade to pick 6. The picks they gave up in order to get to 6 were worth more points than 6 itself. So, in effect, they have done themselves a dis service as it currently stands.

They moved up in the draft order that’s a good thing isn’t it? Swapping picks 12 and 18 for 6 is a win. Pick 6 is more likely to be a star than 12 or 18.
Points are the only way the AFL can scale the draft and is meaningless other to place a notional value.

 

[mikey_san]

So what your saying is ACL injuries make no difference to recruiters’ thinking whatsoever

Deserves an award this.

 

[Kapers]

They moved up in the draft order that’s a good thing isn’t it? Swapping picks 12 and 18 for 6 is a win. Pick 6 is more likely to be a star than 12 or 18.
Points are the only way the AFL can scale the draft and is meaningless other to place a notional value.

That's if they aren't going to bid on green, otherwise keeping 12 and 18 is better if they ARE going to bid on green.
That's why everyone is wondering if it's a good move. If they get 2 top 5 picks, it's a good move, if they only get green then it was a blunder.

 

[RobbieK]

They moved up in the draft order that’s a good thing isn’t it? Swapping picks 12 and 18 for 6 is a win. Pick 6 is more likely to be a star than 12 or 18.
Points are the only way the AFL can scale the draft and is meaningless other to place a notional value.

It isn't a good thing when you aren't getting a free pick in the draft but are having to use those picks to match a bid for a player from your academy. And they will have to do that, Green will be bid on he in the top 5 without a doubt.

12 and 18 is a few hundred points better than pick 6. So, once a bid has been matched, the remaining draft position for GWS will be worse because either they will have to move on to their next pick to make up the difference, pushing that pick back, or will have less points left over from matching, which again means their next pick would not be as high as it would have been if they had kept 12 and 18.

The GWS draft position IS worse as a result of the trade.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Green could get a bid as early as 3

Of all clubs, Melbourne are the last to need yet another inside midfielder.

 

[SGBeach]

I doubt the AFL integrity unit would allow such a swap.

Why not?
I would assume if both clubs agree, and theres no draft tampering involved, then there is no problem.
Do you know of any examples of pick swaps that the AFL integrity unit have denied?

 

[Opts]

You apparently didn't quite read my post correctly. I'm suggesting that we keep our pick 5 but guarantee to GWS that we won't place a bid on Green. For that, they give us their first round pick next year in exchange for our current pick of 44. As a result they can then pick anyone other than Green at pick 6 and then wait for a team to make a bid on him (probably whoever is at pick 7).
My concern with this is that their first round pick next year will be probably between 15 - 18. So we gain a 15 - 18 pick next year, lose pick 44 this year and grant GWS an additional top ten pick this year.
Don't think it's worth it.

Gotcha now. That makes a lot of sense. Not sure if it breaches the draft tampering rules but I'm sure this sort of stuff is already happening.

 

[mikey_san]

Green could get a bid as early as 3

The Dees very likely to bid on Green to improve their second pick by forcing GWS to take Green at 3 (allowing GWS only Green instead of Green + Jackson). Any possible deal for a pick swap would have to be very favourable for the Dees for them not to do that and miss out on Young. Even 6 + future first for 3 isn't that great given GWS pick will be at 18 next year.

Can GWS trade picks after they have been made? That would open up a whole lot of scenarios.
GWS/MEL swap 6 -3
GWS select Young at 3
Swans bid on Green at 5 - matched by GWS pick with 40 and deficit etc
GWS trade selection 3 (ie Young) and a future first for pick 6

Dees get Young + future first
GWS get Green at 5 and someone else at 6, probably Jackson

 

[Opts]

They moved up in the draft order that’s a good thing isn’t it? Swapping picks 12 and 18 for 6 is a win. Pick 6 is more likely to be a star than 12 or 18.
Points are the only way the AFL can scale the draft and is meaningless other to place a notional value.

Moving up isn't a good thing when the pick is wasted matching a bid. It's the points that matter in that situation.

 

[6yearsold]

The Dees very likely to bid on Green to improve their second pick by forcing GWS to take Green at 3 (allowing GWS only Green instead of Green + Jackson). Any possible deal for a pick swap would have to be very favourable for the Dees for them not to do that and miss out on Young. Even 6 + future first for 3 isn't that great given GWS pick will be at 18 next year.

Can GWS trade picks after they have been made? That would open up a whole lot of scenarios.
GWS/MEL swap 6 -3
GWS select Young at 3
Swans bid on Green at 5 - matched by GWS pick with 40 and deficit etc
GWS trade selection 3 (ie Young) and a future first for pick 6

Dees get Young + future first
GWS get Green at 5 and someone else at 6, probably Jackson

They won't bid on Green unless they are willing to take him with 3 and I don't think they are. It is a myth that teams make false bids.

 

[Wayne Swan]

GWS offloaded Bonar so they could bring in Green. They moved up the order to pick 6 so they can match a bid between 3-5. They seem to be all over it.

The only pickles are those reading between the lines.

Incorrect Olian, they lost a lot of points swapping 12 & 18 for 6 so it was not done to match for Green who they already had comfortably covered, it was done to get a pick before the Green bid. Given they are swimming in midfielders, they obviously want either Jackson or McAsey first before matching for Green.

If they are still trying to do this then Melbourne and Crows, particularly Melbourne can drive a very hard deal. Still lots to play out here.

EDIT: just read similar replies posted before this one but all point out that 6 for 12 & 18 is a fail if it's used to match on Green.

 

[mikey_san]

They won't bid on Green unless they are willing to take him with 3 and I don't think they are. It is a myth that teams make false bids.

It would be a smart bid either way. They either get a one pick upgrade to land a player they want (Jackson, or the outside kid from South Aust at 8) AND stop GWS getting even stronger. If they end up with Green then he comes in at the perfect time to replace Jones.
A tactical bid shouldn't be seen as a false bid. And teams absolutely make tactical bids - you think anyone thought we were actually going to pass on Heeney or Mills?

 

[mikey_san]

Incorrect Olian, they lost a lot of points swapping 12 & 18 for 6 so it was not done to match for Green who they already had comfortably covered, it was done to get a pick before the Green bid. Given they are swimming in midfielders, they obviously want either Jackson or McAsey first before matching for Green.

If they are still trying to do this then Melbourne and Crows, particularly Melbourne can drive a very hard deal. Still lots to play out here.

They got rid of Bonar cause he was on 500k and not close to playing in the team. Freed up money they are giving to Kelly, Coniglio and soon Green and Cameron. Nought to do with Green bid IMHO.

 

[tombomb]

I hope you're all correct an GWS are in a pickle.. They're not dummies, wouldn't be surprised if they've already organised to trade up on draft night

You could be right.

However, I sense that they expected 6 to become 3 or 4 before the end of the trade period. Like what they did in 2016 to go from pick 7, to pick 3, and then to pick 2.

And it is worth noting that right now, and right up until 22 November, clubs could still be trading picks. Nothing has happened though.

 

[Olian]

Moving up isn't a good thing when the pick is wasted matching a bid. It's the points that matter in that situation.

Hypothetical speaking you don’t know if Green will be bid on or that the Giants will match the bid so there the points that matter in the situation.

 

[RobbieK]

Hypothetical speaking you don’t know if Green will be bid on or that the Giants will match the bid so there the points that matter in the situation.

He will get bid on and the bid will get matched. He is in the top 3 players in this draft class.

 

[6yearsold]

It would be a smart bid either way. They either get a one pick upgrade to land a player they want (Jackson, or the outside kid from South Aust at 8) AND stop GWS getting even stronger. If they end up with Green then he comes in at the perfect time to replace Jones.
A tactical bid shouldn't be seen as a false bid. And teams absolutely make tactical bids - you think anyone thought we were actually going to pass on Heeney or Mills?

Sorry, but every recruiter says it's garbage (false bids) and I believe them. Melbourne don't need Green, IMO. If they think he is the best player available and bid it is because they want him at their club. Further, I don't see Green as a replacement for Jones. They have already replaced Jones internally. That is why he played last season on the wing.

 

[Keyter]

..... are swimming in midfielders, they obviously want either Jackson or McAsey first before matching for Green.

jackson....they are after Jackson....imo kemp and Jackson have the best upside in the 1st 15 or so. I wonder if the swans can trade their way into that....if they thought kemp might fall to 10 or so...every club would be winding up their smoke screens and heat as we move closer....

 

[6yearsold]

He will get bid on and the bid will get matched. He is in the top 3 players in this draft class.

That's your opinion. I have seen power rankings that have him outside the top 3. Personally, I wouldn't have such a one dimensional player in the top 3.