Search results for query: *

Perhaps any team with an upcoming Father Son should have their draft picks “locked” in some capacity. For example, Daicos was rated as a consensus first round prospect, if not consensus best player in the draft, from over a year out. In a different system, Collingwood would have been asked if...

Saints traded their 2020 1st for richmond’s, so still “used a first round pick” as far as the AFL’s “use 2 every 4 (rolling) years” policy is concerned. Nevertheless, I believe St Kilda would prefer to trade (next year) a 2022 and 2023 first for Ben King, should a trade happen, rather than...

The Saints would be happy with their 2016 Hawthorn trade. Gave up picks 10 and 68 (ultimately part of O’Meara trade) for pick 23 and 36, plus next year’s 1st. They resulted in Ben Long, Josh Battle, and Hunter Clark; 3 very important young players. Clark, especially.

I wouldn’t be against de-identified data being released, with a list detailing each player’s salary (including bonus payments for performance and any AFL-sanctioned sponsorship payments) but without linking each salary to a specific player.

As others have said, draft points are effectively irrelevant in trade discussions. For example, you could easily assemble an array of late picks that equal the points of any of the top 10 picks, but no team in their right mind would ever give up a valuable pick for a handful of rubbish. One main...

It's not possible as I believe that any given pick trade must include the current selection. For example, if it's Gold Coast's turn with pick 3, St Kilda can't organise a trade with pick 4. So, for your example, a team couldn't try to initiate a trade once their player has been nominated. I'm...

There are a few problems with looking at prior drafts. Firstly, starting at 1997 greatly weakens the results. I'd have to actively look for articles, but various general interviews with long-term list managers address their beliefs that the "drafting scene" was mostly guesswork until ~10-15...

The poster you quoted was answering a request for proof of Lethlean shooting down any suggestion fo 4 for 8+13, and their suspicion that St Kilda is trying to make it seem like Rankine is their number 1 target to make an SA club panic. I assume you think they're talking about Rankine allegedly...

That's the thing, though. A team can't have their cake and eat it - either pay a given price for a chance that you'll get the player you want, or pay a higher price to guarantee that you'll get the player you want. That's why higher picks are valued more - the higher a pick is, the more likely...

Other St Kilda posters might be able to point it our more directly, but I believe he said it on one of his Trade Radio appearances?

So Smith doesn't exist? There are players other than the King brothers; Rankine included (since that is the scenario we're talking about). Not to mention Adelaide's own list manager stated that 8+13 wouldn't be sufficient, so check who's the "delusional" one here. The reality is that Adelaide...

Lethlean already shut down the possibility of 4 for 8+13 in the trade period proper (and he did so rather bluntly, I should add). Adelaide/Port are likely waiting to see what happens in picks 1-3 before considering a trade with St Kilda, but are setting themselves up to pay a massive premium in...

Its a risk, though. Other clubs could see what Sydney is trying to do, and offer a bit of a one sided trade to obtain the Swans’ 2nd round picks. Then there’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to trade back in and could be stuck with a diluted pool of picks.

For obvious reasons, Gold Coast currently hold the strongest draft hand when it comes to leveraging the SA clubs for Lukosius/Rankine/Rozee. If they take the King twins, then that severely harms St Kilda's position since Port (at pick 5) know that no matter which player the Saints take, there...

It’s not that “picks don’t help”. Draft picks have the potential to help - they may well do, or they may not. That poster’s contention is that priority picks WILL equal success for the club which has not been proven to be the case. Granted, if you give a side an infinite number of priority picks...

I’m not saying it did. All I’m pointing out is that your contention, that priority picks will help improve the bottom sides, cannot be made based on the data at hand (to be clear, no conclusion can be made from the data at all). In other words, there is nothing that demonstrates that priority...

So you're saying that that I can't link Carlton's failure to their excessive number of priority picks, but it's okay for you to link successful clubs to their priority picks, as you did in that initial post? Riiiiiight.

Just so I understand you, I want to clarify. Are you saying that the club with the highest concentration of priority picks, who also failed to achieve any success off the back of said abundance of picks, would have performed much better had they been given *more* picks, despite no indication...

A three second google search would answer your question; yes. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/carlton-fronts-the-afl-commission-priority-pick-on-agenda-20180829-p500fh.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, data becomes reliable as the sample size grows so, if you were going to make *any* conclusion from all of this information, it would be that priority picks don't work since the club with the single most priority picks (AKA the biggest sample...

The irony of this situation is that the one club pushing hardest for a priority pick is the same club that proves that priority picks don't work. Carlton have done well to trade out established talent so as to collect as many quality picks as possible, all the while ensuring they'll stay on the...

Hannebery is cooked - has been on a massive decline in the past few seasons and is on a huge contract (around or over $800,000 per year). Sydney are trading him to make space for acquisitions since he and Buddy will be blowing up the cap. The trade will be similar to an NBA salary dump trade...

I don’t know but, in your case, it seems like you can’t help it.

The players want the level of freedom assigned to players in leagues like the NBA, but without the drawbacks. In that competition, you could wake up one day to a message telling you to pack your bags and move across the country since you just got traded (mid-season, too). If players want to keep...

Because they have something that the 17 other clubs don't have..... Access to the best magic mushrooms which results in them mistakenly rating their list.

As mentioned in previous posts, the reason why it works in the NBA is because of multiple factors that the AFL doesn't have in common: You can trade players without their consent, therefore it's a lot easier to get deals done Free Agency is also reached earlier and easier than in the AFL, so...

Do you think Adelaide have any use for a pick in next year's draft? St Kilda don't have a second round in this draft due to trading it for Freeman last year, and I wouldn't mind either offering the 2nd round pick from 2017 (probably mid to late 20s) or somehow getting another second pick on our...

A few questions for yourself and other Adelaide fans: What would you personally value CEY at? What would you like to receive for him, if he decides to leave, given his circumstances that may impact value? As above, what do you actually think you will receive?

Would love for St Kilda to make a play for him. Depending on how the Saints' other trades are going, next year's second round pick would be up to what I'd be happy to pay.

Remember, kids; a meeting with a player does not guarantee anything other than St Kilda flagging their interest and Kelly giving the courtesy/business sensibility to hear them out. It could mean he asks to be traded this year, or the next, or comes via free agency once eligible, or maybe plays...