List Mgmt. 2020 Draft Thread

[partypie]

He's eliminating himself from being picked by all interstate clubs. How is it not?

Because he's not colluding with a single club and he also knows that an interstate club can still call his bluff and draft him if they are willing to back themselves in with regards to winning him over.

Draft tampering has to involve collusion between two or more parties to achieve a specific (beneficial) outcome for all parties involved and this situation with Perkins doesn't fit that brief.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

How many pickd are we expected to make had no idea we dropped off a cliff after the first two

Hine says up to 6.
From his comments, he clearly rates this draft higher than most other clubs. He reckons the club has tonnes of intel on the Vic boys from prior to 2020.

High risk, high reward draft I think. A lot of uncertainty.

Could get some guns with poor picks.

Could get some absolute muppet holes with great picks.

It will be harder for a lot of these kids to get games in year 1 than usual though., given how much footy they missed.

They'll effectively be playing their 18 year old season at 19, whilst already on a list.

 

[Scodog10]

It's definitely draft tampering and we wouldn't have anything close to enough points to match a bid on Reef at pick 10 anyway so the idea falls over in both ways.

Would this be draft tampering or just exploring a loophole? We trade 14 & 16 to the Roos for, say pick 9 & a future pick. GWS nominate Reef at 10 (which we match with our late picks). We then trade some of our 2021 1st, 2nd &/or 3rd to GWS for 13 &/or 15 & 20.
We get the Reef deal done early, allowing us a free run with some good early picks.

It absolutely isn’t draft tampering and is in all likelihood what we’re planning to do if a bid is expected before 14. The catch is whether both GWS and North would be on board separately with those deals. Think of it this way would those individual deals be blocked if they were done in trade week? If we traded out 14 & 16 (for example) then traded them back in straight after a bid that isn’t allowed.

 

[Moore of the Same]

Its a risky draft for the club, really rolling the dice and backing in 12 month old information for so many picks. I can see the reward side of it too as there's a good chance that some guys you might have rated highly last year could be available lower down the order, but its still a big risk.

I really want Reef though.

 

[partypie]

It absolutely isn’t draft tampering and is in all likelihood what we’re planning to do.

Asking a club to put in a bid on an NGA player where they wouldn't have done so otherwise with the next pick immediately after we've just traded out the first round picks we would have used to match that bid and then subsequently trading with that same club to get back into the first round of the draft as part of the overall "deal" is absolutely draft tampering, no matter which angle you view it from.

It's all moot like I said though - we wouldn't have the points to match a bid for Reef at pick 10 if picks 14 and 16 weren't in our possession at the point where GWS submitted it.

 

[gopies123]

It's win/win for us tonight, if someone bids on Reef and we feel there's a better option available we pass.

Agree. I’m starting to think it’s ok not to get him. But I still hope we use our 2021 in this draft to get 3. For example Stone Perkins and Macrae would be pretty handy. No Reef there but looks awesome. Better maybe???


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[nahnah]

We need to bring in at least 3 first round kids without giving up our 2021 first to remotely justify our off-season moves. To only have 2 firsts in the late teens would show terrible planning or one of 2 firsts being Reef would also be a terrible result. We were given a first via finishing position + knew for a year we had rights to Reef so in my view we would have given away Trelaor/Stephenson for essentially nothing or at best, Reef.

 

[Scodog10]

Asking a club to put in a bid on an NGA player where they wouldn't have done so otherwise with thenext pick immediately after we've just traded out the first round picks we would have used to match that bid with and then subsequently trading with that same club to get back into the draft as part of the overall "deal" is absolutely draft tampering, no matter which angle you view it from.

Where did the post specify that we’re asking GWS to place a bid on Reef? I think you’ve assumed that part of the hypothetical. I’ve read it over a few times now and to me the post reads that GWS place a bid and we then trade for their later picks. That’s all with no agreement on Reef.

I’d agree with you that if we had an arrangement in place with GWS on a Reef bid it would be draft tampering.

 

[unplugged]

All I want for Christmas is Heath Chapman

 

[gopies123]

We need to bring in at least 3 first round kids without giving up our 2021 first to remotely justify our off-season moves. To only have 2 firsts in the late teens would show terrible planning or one of 2 firsts being Reef would also be a terrible result. We were given a first via finishing position + knew for a year we had rights to Reef so in my view we would have given away Trelaor/Stephenson for essentially nothing or at best, Reef.

Then we hold our breath and hope the early bid talk is BS


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[partypie]

Where did the post specify that we’re asking GWS to place a bid on Reef? I think you’ve assumed that part of the hypothetical. I’ve read it over a few times now and to me the post reads that GWS place a bid and we then trade for their later picks. That’s all with no agreement on Reef.

I’d agree with you that if we had an arrangement in place with GWS on a Reef bid it would be draft tampering.

Do you seriously think GWS are going to bid on Reef under their own recognisance with pick 10 (12), given who else will be there at that point?

 

[HFF]

He's eliminating himself from being picked by all interstate clubs. How is it not?

Next year we will have Victorian kids only wanting to play in Vic, SA in SA, WA in WA etc.

No he isn't.
It's no different to being picked up and telling your employer---in 12 months i will seek a move back home.
Better you know this information now to make an informed decision than finding out later.

 

[Jen2310]

Then we hold our breath and hope the early bid talk is BS


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Matt Balmer thinks about 40% chance crows bid.

 

[Matt_352]

All I want for Christmas is Heath Chapman

Too short

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

We need to bring in at least 3 first round kids without giving up our 2021 first to remotely justify our off-season moves. To only have 2 firsts in the late teens would show terrible planning or one of 2 firsts being Reef would also be a terrible result. We were given a first via finishing position + knew for a year we had rights to Reef so in my view we would have given away Trelaor/Stephenson for essentially nothing or at best, Reef.

Our off season moves are not justifiable, regardless of how we go in the draft.

 

[Scodog10]

Do you seriously think GWS are going to bid on Reef under their own recognisance with pick 10 (12), given who else will be there at that point?

Yeah it’s absolutely possible they do. In fact if the cards fall the way that Pies 4 ever hinted at in their post then GWS are the only club likely to place a bid before 14 & 16 based on all the information readily available... I certainly don’t think it’s logical that it only happens if we ask them too.

Getting back to the point which you ever so eloquently changed can you clarify where in that post it said we asked them to place a bid? Which you said we did right here because it’s the crux of Pies 4 ever’s draft tampering question.

Asking a club to put in a bid on an NGA player where they wouldn't have done so otherwise with the next pick immediately after we've just traded out the first round picks we would have used to match that bid and then subsequently trading with that same club to get back into the first round of the draft as part of the overall "deal" is absolutely draft tampering, no matter which angle you view it from.

It's all moot like I said though - we wouldn't have the points to match a bid for Reef at pick 10 if picks 14 and 16 weren't in our possession at the point where GWS submitted it.

 

[swoop42]

I'm hoping my gonads will resemble walnut shells straight after the draft tonight such was the loss of fluids.

 

[Jen2310]

Could this day get any slower? lol

 

[piemad1]

Yeah it’s absolutely possible they do. In fact if the cards fall the way that Pies 4 ever hinted at in their post then GWS are the only club likely to place a bid before 14 & 16 based on all the information readily available... I certainly don’t think it’s logical that it only happens if we ask them too.

Getting back to the point which you ever so eloquently changed can you clarify where in that post it said we asked them to place a bid? Which you said we did right here because it’s the crux of Pies 4 ever’s draft tampering question.

If we get to gws pick without bid we should do deal for 15 and no bid then we get 3 picks before a bid, 14, 15,16

 

[pies 4 ever]

It absolutely isn’t draft tampering and is in all likelihood what we’re planning to do if a bid is expected before 14.

I agree with Party Pie that we would not have enough points to match a reef bid at 10 with only our 65 plus points but if the deal with the Roos was done with 9 & 40, then it would be enough.
The GWS deal would only be draft tampering if we entered into a deal colluding with them to pick Reef. If we approached GWS indicating we would like to deal with them, GWS is under no obligation to tell us their plans or even if they told us they were planning on bidding for Reef at 10, surely we could call their bluff, match the bid and then re-enter negotiations after the event. If we advised the AFL this as it happened then what could the AFL say/do??

 

[Matt_352]

I'm hoping my gonads will resemble walnut shells straight after the draft tonight such was the loss of fluids.

If we somehow managed Nik Cox, Jackson Callow and James Rowe then ill do a Randy Marsh.

 

[Scodog10]

I agree with Party Pie that we would not have enough points to match a reef bid at 10 with only our 65 plus points but if the deal with the Roos was done with 9 & 40, then it would be enough.
The GWS deal would only be draft tampering if we entered into a deal colluding with them to pick Reef. If we approached GWS indicating we would like to deal with them, GWS is under no obligation to tell us their plans or even if they told us they were planning on bidding for Reef at 10, surely we could call their bluff, match the bid and then re-enter negotiations after the event. If we advised the AFL this as it happened then what could the AFL say/do??

Nothing because it’s not draft tampering. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out though because there’s so many variations on what could happen. One things for sure we’d have formulated a strategy for all of them.

I think our goal though is trade into the current top 10, keep 14, match a bid on McInnes around 20 and lastly trade out a future second to get into the 30’s of this draft.

 

[Jen2310]

 

[jefffff34]

Genuinely how I envisage Derek Hine's press conference after tonight.

 

[Kappa]

It's win/win for us tonight, if someone bids on Reef and we feel there's a better option available we pass.

How is missing out on Reef because someone bids early a "win" exactly?