Hot Topic 2016 DRAFT

[FlowersByIrene]

3 will be taken, leaving two. Likely one of SPS/ Marshall and Ainsworth.



Nope. He's an academy player.

If (for example) he gets bid on at 3 (and GCS choose to match that bid, which they would) they pay for him with their next pick (wherever that pick may be) with a 20 percent discount applied on top. Doesnt matter if their next pick is pick 5 or pick 30.

He'll get bid on before 5 comes around (we can make sure of that), and if he hasnt been by the time pick 5 comes around, they'll select a different player with 5 (and use their next pick to pay for him).

How do you think we'll get 5?

Send Cas to Brisbane and Touhy to Sydney and send those picks with Everitt to GC for Pick #5 and a we wont nominate Bowes nod?

 

[1981]

3 will be taken, leaving two. Likely one of SPS/ Marshall and Ainsworth.



Nope. He's an academy player.

If (for example) he gets bid on at 3 (and GCS choose to match that bid, which they would) they pay for him with their next pick (wherever that pick may be) with a 20 percent discount applied on top. Doesnt matter if their next pick is pick 5 or pick 30.

He'll get bid on before 5 comes around (we can make sure of that), and if he hasnt been by the time pick 5 comes around, they'll select a different player with 5 (and use their next pick to pay for him).

I have never been bothered to get my head around this stuff.

So, what happens if we bid on Bowes and they match it?
They get him with a 20% discount.

So, what if 5 is overpaying, but 30 is underpaying?

How do they get him then?

 

[1981]

I just realised Tuohy is 27 this Dec. That sort of changes my view on him, in so far as whether to keep or trade.
I'd trade him if the return was good enough.

I don't want to lose experienced, quality, hardened mids/flankers because I don't think we have many, and we risk becoming a rabble if we lose the ones we have, but, 27 is a bit long in the tooth.

There's a time to buy and sell.

But, I don't think Carlton will trade Zac. Though I could well be wrong.

 

[HARKER]

I have never been bothered to get my head around this stuff.

So, what happens if we bid on Bowes and they match it?
They get him with a 20% discount.

So, what if 5 is overpaying, but 30 is underpaying?

How do they get him then?

All relaltive to the points attributed to the pick.
#30 doesn't cover it, even with the discount and then it has to take their next pick into account and so on....until the points required are matched.

Any spill-off of points gets attached to your selection thereafter, may push you up a few spots in advance of where you were.

Can't be bothered putting up an example, but I'm sure Mal will.

 

[1981]

All relaltive to the points attributed to the pick.
#30 doesn't cover it, even with the discount and then it has to take their next pick into account and so on....until the points required are matched.

Any spill off of points gets attached to your next selection, which may drag you a few spots in advance of where you were.

Can't be bothered putting up an example, but I'm sure Mal will.

So if 5 is overs they eat into their 2nd and 3rd picks etc?

 

[HARKER]

So if 5 is overs they eat into their 2nd and 3rd picks etc?

Have a look at the points table for all the picks.
The scale will immediately give you a feel for how it all works.

If GC took someone else at #5 and Bowes was nominated at #6, GC are better off but then have to find the points to match the requirement for that #6 (less the discount) and that just rolls on until the points are found. Can even run into the following year.

 

[1981]

Have a look at the points table for all the picks.
The scale will immediately give you a feel for how it all works.

If GC took someone else at #5 and Bowes was nominated at #6, GC are better off but then have to find the points to match the requirement for that #6 (less the discount) and that just rolls on until the points are found. Can even run into the following year.

So same could happen in 2018 with Ben Silvagni?

No need to talk exact numbers, but vaguely.

Say we finish 10th, and have pick 9, and someone bids for Ben at

Have a look at the points table for all the picks.
The scale will immediately give you a feel for how it all works.

If GC took someone else at #5 and Bowes was nominated at #6, GC are better off but then have to find the points to match the requirement for that #6 (less the discount) and that just rolls on until the points are found. Can even run into the following year.

What happens in 2018 if we finish 10th and have pick 9 (I think?) and Ben Silvagni is seen as being a top 3 prospect, and some bids for him at 3?

We then have to use pick 10+ a later pick?

 

[HARKER]

What happens in 2018 if we finish 10th and have pick 9 (I think?) and Ben Silvagni is seen as being a top 3 prospect, and some bids for him at 3?

We then have to use pick 10+ a later pick?

Correct. We'd have to use that 9 and then some of our second rounder as well.

#3 = 2234 points. Less 20% for the FS = 1787
#9 = 1469 points hence we need an additional 318 points from our next selection.

So 318 points comes off and the remaining points come back to you on your next selection.

It is open to manipulation to advantage as things stand and which is why I thought we may swap 2018's first rounder for one in 2017, giving us potentially 3 first rounders and not just 2.

 

[1981]

Correct. We'd have to use that 9 and then some of our second rounder as well.

#3 = 2234 points. Less 20% for the FS = 1787
#9 = 1469 points hence we need an additional 318 points from our next selection.

So 318 points comes off and the remaining points come back to you on your next selection.

It is open to manipulation to advantage as things stand and which is why I thought we may swap 2018's first rounder for one in 2017, giving us potentially 3 first rounders and not just 2.

It is criminal that GC can get Bowes using later picks, and not having to use their pick 5.
Rule should be amended, so that you have to use a pick within x% +/- range of the value of the player bid for.
So in this case they would have to us pick 5, and they get a discount for any later such deal.
Jut my view.

For Ben Silvagni, we should engineer a trade where we effectively swap our 2017 1st for our 2018 1st, so that we have a lower 1st pick in 2018 (assuming we finish higher in 2018), in case Ben is seen as very high value. Or get another as you say.,

 

[Blue and Silver]

It is criminal that GC can get Bowes using later picks, and not having to use their pick 5.
Rule should be amended, so that you have to use a pick within x% +/- range of the value of the player bid for.
So in this case they would have to us pick 5, and they get a discount for any later such deal.
Jut my view.

For Ben Silvagni, we should engineer a trade where we effectively swap our 2017 1st for our 2018 1st, so that we have a lower 1st pick in 2018 (assuming we finish higher in 2018), in case Ben is seen as very high value. Or get another as you say.,

Rule is you pay your next selection then take points from the one afterwards as necessary

If Bowes bid comes at 6 they would pay 9 and whatever other points from their next selection to get him

 

[HARKER]

It is criminal that GC can get Bowes using later picks, and not having to use their pick 5.
Rule should be amended, so that you have to use a pick within x% +/- range of the value of the player bid for.
So in this case they would have to us pick 5, and they get a discount for any later such deal.
Jut my view.

For Ben Silvagni, we should engineer a trade where we effectively swap our 2017 1st for our 2018 1st, so that we have a lower 1st pick in 2018 (assuming we finish higher in 2018), in case Ben is seen as very high value. Or get another as you say.,

Someone has to bid on Bowes and we don't know what may happen.
Last year had Hopper going at #7 when many had him top 4 or 5

Just the way it works for now but I can see changes in the future....probably just in time for us to have to pay more for Ben Silvagni.

 

[1981]

If, as the prophecy states, Ben is the next messiah, then he will be worth the points we have to cough up for him

 

[Blue__Balls]

It is criminal that GC can get Bowes using later picks, and not having to use their pick 5.
Rule should be amended, so that you have to use a pick within x% +/- range of the value of the player bid for.
So in this case they would have to us pick 5, and they get a discount for any later such deal.
Jut my view.

For Ben Silvagni, we should engineer a trade where we effectively swap our 2017 1st for our 2018 1st, so that we have a lower 1st pick in 2018 (assuming we finish higher in 2018), in case Ben is seen as very high value. Or get another as you say.,

They would have to use pick 5, if he was bid on before then.

The other way to look at it is that if the bid comes particularly close to their next pick, they may get less than a 20% discount.

Eg.
Carlton have Pick 4 (2034pts) and bid on Bowes.
GC choose to match, and only need 1628pts, but their pick at 5 is worth 1878pts.
They have to use Pick 5 to get Bowes, and nothing else.

Whereas if they trade Pick 5 (1878pts) for Picks 19 and 20 (1860pts combined) the scenario becomes:

Carlton have Pick 4 (2034pts) and bid on Bowes.
GC choose to match, and only need 1628pts, they use Pick 19 (948pts), and still owe 680pts.
Those 680 points come off their next pick (20 = 912pts), moving it back to Pick 54 (912pts - 680pts = 232pts = Pick 54).
Net gain is Bowes and Pick 54 for what was original Pick 5.

 

[Malifice]

I have never been bothered to get my head around this stuff.

So, what happens if we bid on Bowes and they match it?
They get him with a 20% discount.

Exactly.

Assume GCS enter the draft with pick 10, 20, 30.

Now assume on draft day at selection 4 we enter a bid on Jack Bowes (GCS Academy player). As an academy player, GCS have the right to match our bid. If they choose to do so, they must match our bid (pick 4 in this case) with enough points. Pick 4 is worth 2,034 points. They get a 20 percent discount (because he's an Academy pick) meaning they need to cough up around 1600 points (starting with their next pick and working down the order).

Pick 10 is worth 1395 points, so that gets gobbled up, and we move onto their next pick (Pick 20) which is worth 912 points. The remaining 600 points of that gets gobbled up (Bowes/ Pick 3 is now paid for), leaving 300 exess points (which is the value of pick 48).

GCS get handed pick 3 (they use Bowes) lose pick 10, and gain pick 48 (leaving them picks 30 and 48).

So, what if 5 is overpaying, but 30 is underpaying?

The trick is, if GCS reach pick 5 and no-one has bid on Bowes, they dont select him with 5, and instead just take best available. If a bid is then made on Bowes with pick 6 (and they match it) they pay for that pick with their next selection. (and get a free hit at pick 5, and take Bowes at 6).

GCS have no need for 'pick 5' they only need points. Pick 5 is worth 1,878 points. If we (say) offer to trade them enough picks (points) that add up to 1900 points or more (in exchange for pick 5) they'll jump at it.

As an example, picks 22, 40, and 49 (that we currently hold) are worth 1,550 points (combined). Pick 8 is worth 1,550 points on its own (pick 9 is worth 1,469 and pick 10 is worth 1,395). We could swap picks [22, 40 and 49] to an expansion club (in need of points) for a single pick in the [9-10] range.

We improve our position in the draft for the cost of a few third rounders; they get more points to pay for academy kids in the first round.

 

[Malifice]

How do you think we'll get 5?

Pick 5 is worth 1,878 points.

I'd send one of each of the following pairs off to new homes:

1) (Gibbs/ Touhy) to (Adelaide/ Sydney) for a 1st round pick (also an exchange of 2nds/ 3rd for Gibbs).
2) (Casboult/ Kruezer) for a second rounder (early second for MK).
3) (Graham/ Everitt) for a third rounder.

We'd have 2 firsts (4 and 16), 3 seconds (21, 22, 34) and 2 thirds (45, and 49).

You then bundle up (49) with (21, 22) = total points 1,987. Swap that to GCS for pick 5 (1,878). We also agree not to bid on Bowes as part of the deal. GCS wind up with 100 bonus points, and a wink and a nod we wont bid on Bowes.

We now have 4, 5, 16, 34, 45, 58.

Bundle (34, 45, 58) to GWS (1,050 points) along with our 2017 2nd rounder (845 points) for Steele, Marchbank, Stewart and Tomlinson (combined value = to pick 5).

Add picks 4 and 5 (Two from whomever hasnt yet been selected at 1-3 from Brodie, Ainsworth, SPS, Marshall, Mclugagge) and pick 16 (One of Venebles, Battle, Kerr should still be available) + (Steele, Marchbank, Stewart and Tomlinson)

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Pick 5 is worth 1,878 points.

I'd send one of each of the following pairs off to new homes:

1) (Gibbs/ Touhy) to (Adelaide/ Sydney) for a 1st round pick (also an exchange of 2nds/ 3rd for Gibbs).
2) (Casboult/ Kruezer) for a second rounder (early second for MK).
3) (Graham/ Everitt) for a third rounder.

We'd have 2 firsts (4 and 16), 3 seconds (21, 22, 34) and 2 thirds (45, and 49).

You then bundle up (49) with (21, 22) = total points 1,987. Swap that to GCS for pick 5 (1,878). We also agree not to bid on Bowes as part of the deal. GCS wind up with 100 bonus points, and a wink and a nod we wont bid on Bowes.

We now have 4, 5, 16, 34, 45, 58.

Bundle (34, 45, 58) to GWS (1,050 points) along with our 2017 2nd rounder (845 points) for Steele, Marchbank, Stewart and Tomlinson (combined value = to pick 5).

Add picks 4 and 5 (Two from whomever hasnt yet been selected at 1-3 from Brodie, Ainsworth, SPS, Marshall, Mclugagge) and pick 16 (One of Venebles, Battle, Kerr should still be available) + (Steele, Marchbank, Stewart and Tomlinson)

Knock out Gibbs from that equation and i'd do that in a heart beat.

I'd actually probably melt into goo with excitement if we could land;

Two of McLuggage/Brodie/SPS/Ainsworth/Marshall
Say a Scrimshaw at 16
Steele, Marchbank, Thommo and Stewart.

At the cost of all our picks, Cas, Everitr, Graham and Touhy

 

[Malifice]

Knock out Gibbs from that equation and i'd do that in a heart beat.

I'd actually probably melt into goo with excitement if we could land;

Two of McLuggage/Brodie/SPS/Ainsworth/Marshall
Say a Scrimshaw at 16
Steele, Marchbank, Thommo and Stewart.

At the cost of all our picks, Cas, Everitr, Graham and Touhy

Theyre all fair deals too.

Its just whether we have the balls to do what needs to be done to remedy the deficit of young talent in the side.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Theyre all fair deals too.

Its just whether we have the balls to do what needs to be done to remedy the deficit of young talent in the side.

We'd have a best 22 with about 15 kids under 24 if that deal went through

 

[Malifice]

We'd have a best 22 with about 15 kids under 24 if that deal went through

We then repeat the same process next year, trading out the other member of the (Gibbs/ Touhy) (Casboult/ Kruezer) and (Graham/ Everitt) pairs in 2017.

Considering a bottom 3 finish is all but assured next year, we would be able to hit 2018 with a list that is balanced and in the black for young talent (instead of miles in the red where it is at present).

From there we can selectively look at F/A and trades to target specific needs.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

We then repeat the same process next year, trading out the other member of the (Gibbs/ Touhy) (Casboult/ Kruezer) and (Graham/ Everitt) pairs in 2017.

Considering a bottom 3 finish is all but assured next year, we would be able to hit 2018 with a list that is balanced and in the black for young talent (instead of miles in the red where it is at present).

From there we can selectively look at F/A and trades to target specific needs.

Mate we're playing finals next year.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Haha but yes, we need to keep bringing in 3-5 elite talent kids over the next two years.

Last year.

Elite - Weitering, Curnow, McKay, Cuningham, Silvagni, Plowman

Capable - Phillips, Sumner

With your deal next year;

Elite - SPS, Marshall, Scrimshaw, Marchbank, Steele

Capable - Tomlinson, Stewart

That's 11 elite kids and 15 total likely best 22 players in two seasons

 

[Malifice]

Mate we're playing finals next year.

No we're not, and I wish you would stop saying it.

We've blown a decade of drafting. You can add 2014 to the list. That is a decades worth of talent, missing. We have at least 25 players on the list that are not up to it, and only probably about 3 proven gun players under 23 (Docherty, Cripps, Weitering).

Thems the facts.

GCS will improve next year (they were crippled by injuries this year, and will be adding several new players to the list this year, including Bowes and several other 1st round picks in exchancge for Prestia and JOM, neither of whom played a game this year). Essendon will improve (they get their players back, plus the number 1 pick of Will Brodie this year to add to Merrett, Parish, Laverde and Francis). Even Brisbane will improve (they look to be getting a priority pick this year - so likely Mcluggage and one more top 3 player, plus a few decent academy boys). Melbourne are already on the way up, as are the Saints and Demons. The Swans, Hawks, Dogs, Cats, Crows, Geelong, and Giants arent going anywhere next year (although North will almost certainly drop out of the 8).

We will finish bottom 3 with around 5-6 wins (mostly due to a favorable draw).

No offence, but if you think our list is anywhere else at present you're deluded and arguably part of the problem (false hope and a denial of reality) that got us here.

 

[Malifice]

Haha but yes, we need to keep bringing in 3-5 elite talent kids over the next two years.

Last year.

Elite - Weitering, Curnow, McKay, Cuningham, Silvagni, Plowman

None of them are Elite based on exposed form.

Cripps is elite. Weitering looks like he will be.

Capable - Phillips, Sumner

When you're rating your clubs young talent and you're already mentioning names like 'Phillips and Sumner' so soon you know youre in trouble.

With your deal next year;

Elite - SPS, Marshall, Scrimshaw, Marchbank, Steele

Capable - Tomlinson, Stewart

That's 11 elite kids and 15 total likely best 22 players in two seasons

Even if we land all those players, they need at least 40 games in the system to start producing. Remember GWS? They were chock full of young talent and it took them 3 years (and around 40+ games) to start to swing into gear.

Your optimism is commendable, but you're living in Bizzaro world if you think we're anywhere near it, or will be any time soon mate.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

None of them are Elite based on exposed form.

Cripps is elite. Weitering looks like he will be.



When you're rating your clubs young talent and you're already mentioning names like 'Phillips and Sumner' so soon you know youre in trouble.



Even if we land all those players, they need at least 40 games in the system to start producing. Remember GWS? They were chock full of young talent and it took them 3 years (and around 40+ games) to start to swing into gear.

Your optimism is commendable, but you're living in Bizzaro world if you think we're anywhere near it, or will be any time soon mate.

Elite talent is different to elite performance currently.

And personally I have high hopes for Sumner even if some pessimists dont.

As for the Bizzaro part, lets just see how it all develops.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Imo pretty sure gws are not giving up those 4 for a 2nd rounder and a bunch of later picks . Dont care what the points add up to .