Analysis 2016 List Management Discussion - Part 2

[Raging Blue]

But still. Assuming McGrath gets picked up at 2.

If Setterfield attracts a bid at around 5 (2034 points less 20 percent = 1600 points) this chews up picks 15 and 37 (1600 points) right there.

Picks 39 + 45 = enough points to match a bid at around 17 for a second academy player, and three picks in the 50's (52, 55, 57) let them match a bid in the 20's for a third.

That's McGrath and 3 academy players (bid on at 5, 17, and 25) added to their list. This means they'll need 8 list vacancies going into the draft, for a total of 4 players.

Thats the worst they can go IMO, leaving them space to take 2 rookies and a DFA or two and the list is maxed out again.

They're left with picks 58, 59, 60, 62 left over. For each one of those they take to the draft they'll need another list vacancy. Surely it would have been wiser to trade those picks (58, 59 and 60 in order would have held considerable value) to another club for a future second and a pick upgrade this year.

They got it wrong IMO, and will waste some good picks this year.

Does this mean that our picks 63,66,70,81 come down a number of places? This is great for us if this is the case as the experts suggest this year's draft is fairly deep.

 

[LanceRomance]

Does this mean that our picks 63,66,70,81 come down a number of places? This is great for us if this is the case as the experts suggest this year's draft is fairly deep.

not sure it would be 80 players deep.

 

[El Topo]

Does this mean that our picks 63,66,70,81 come down a number of places? This is great for us if this is the case as the experts suggest this year's draft is fairly deep.

Yep, the our picks move up the order as theirs get swallowed up. They're still some seriously late picks though.

 

[Jimmae]

We didn't use them last year, our last was Jack with 53. Two left over.
I think it's more about the deal with Hawthorn. Maybe keep JOM away from the bombers?

We could have strung them along for more if that were true, but instead we took picks.

We've got to be using 66 at the minimum, and the media are saying clubs are preparing to go very deep into this draft. Even GWS are risking at least 9 picks.

 

[Jimmae]

Does this mean that our picks 63,66,70,81 come down a number of places? This is great for us if this is the case as the experts suggest this year's draft is fairly deep.

Yep, the our picks move up the order as theirs get swallowed up. They're still some seriously late picks though.

They only move up if two or more picks ahead of ours are consumed during them matching the bid.

 

[Blue__Balls]

They only move up if two or more picks ahead of ours are consumed during them matching the bid.

Or if the picks can't be taken into the draft due to available list sizes. Fingers crossed.

 

[Jimmae]

Or if the picks can't be taken into the draft due to available list sizes. Fingers crossed.

GWS are perfectly poised to use 11 picks to pay for McGrath and 6 Academy kids (with some points rolling over to next year).

Then they'll go and sign at least 2 DFAs, probably ones they'll delist. They wouldn't leave hundreds of points on the table unless they were certain they didn't need them, because otherwise they'll write off their entire 2017 draft bar one pick.

Logic reigns supreme here.

 

[lopezz]

We could have strung them along for more if that were true, but instead we took picks.

We've got to be using 66 at the minimum, and the media are saying clubs are preparing to go very deep into this draft. Even GWS are risking at least 9 picks.

I think we ran out of time to string them along.
GWS have to use picks this year. And i don't think the media got much right during the trade period.
I'm just not sure a second pick in the 60's plus two later ones would be any more appealing to us than some of the mentioned DFA's.

 

[Jimmae]

I think we ran out of time to string them along.
GWS have to use picks this year. And i don't think the media got much right during the trade period.
I'm just not sure a second pick in the 60's plus two later ones would be any more appealing to us than some of the mentioned DFA's.

When the professionals around all aspects of the game are in lock step, it might be time to reconsider your opinion, even if only for a moment.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

To be able to use all the points of those 8 picks, they must have 8 list spots. Previously, they would have been able to trade to get lots of late picks to get the points they needed to match bids.
But they could, for example, use the points to take 6 players, then pick up 2 DFA after the draft

Any additional picks they traded in last year wont count for this year though

I know they had additional second or thirds at the start of trade period but I dont know whether they kept them or not

 

[Malifice]

GWS are perfectly poised to use 11 picks to pay for McGrath and 6 Academy kids (with some points rolling over to next year).

Not a chance in hell mate.

It'll take them 8 picks (and 8 list vacancies) to pay for McGrath and 3 academy blokes (assuming bids at 5, 17 and 25). I doubt they'll have the list space and picks to afford 3 more academy selections unless bids dont come in till the late 40's.

 

[lopezz]

When the professionals around all aspects of the game are in lock step, it might be time to reconsider your opinion, even if only for a moment.

Those professionals who said there is no chance Palmer would be at the Blues? Those professionals who had us trading pick 5? Those professionals who knew we'd trade a future 2nd for a bunch of late rounders?
Sorry but i ain't hearing too many professional opinions suggesting we will take 7 picks, just one Hun article suggesting we will. And we know they are the professionals.
Happy to be proven wrong but i still doubt we will take more than 5 picks.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Not a chance in hell mate.

It'll take them 8 picks (and 8 list vacancies) to pay for McGrath and 3 academy blokes (assuming bids at 5, 17 and 25). I doubt they'll have the list space and picks to afford 3 more academy selections unless bids dont come in till the late 40's.

I think Perryman will have a bid higher than 17 for sure as well.

I think theyre going to go into defecit big time for next year

 

[Azul]

It'll take them 8 picks (and 8 list vacancies) to pay for McGrath and 3 academy blokes (assuming bids at 5, 17 and 25). I doubt they'll have the list space and picks to afford 3 more academy selections unless bids dont come in till the late 40's.

GWS still have 4 unsigned players and by my count only 7 list spots.

The rule change earlier in the year allows you only to bid with picks you would otherwise use.

To bid with 57, 58, 59, 60 = bye, bye Dawson Simpson, Barrett, Mohr, Downie. Roughly worth 650 points or pick 29.

Of course if they risk having half a dozen live selections in the 70s if they have 11 live picks!

Q is whether Barrett is worth pick 60 or not - he's still only 20.

 

[Jimmae]

Not a chance in hell mate.

It'll take them 8 picks (and 8 list vacancies) to pay for McGrath and 3 academy blokes (assuming bids at 5, 17 and 25). I doubt they'll have the list space and picks to afford 3 more academy selections unless bids dont come in till the late 40's.

They have 11 picks of significant points value, and they currently have 7 list vacancies.

Add to that these are their 4 uncontracted players: Dawson Simpson (ruck), Barrett (mid), Downie (ruck) and Mohr (KPD).

Their academy crowd is Lynch (ruck), Mutch, Setterfield, Perryman (mids), Macreadie (KPD) and Sproule (KPF/KPD).

They're going to take at least 5 of them, probably all 7. They might then re-sign Dawson Simpson and a few others.

 

[Jimmae]

Those professionals who said there is no chance Palmer would be at the Blues? Those professionals who had us trading pick 5? Those professionals who knew we'd trade a future 2nd for a bunch of late rounders?
Sorry but i ain't hearing too many professional opinions suggesting we will take 7 picks, just one Hun article suggesting we will. And we know they are the professionals.
Happy to be proven wrong but i still doubt we will take more than 5 picks.

I'm talking about the club, the media, the recruiting staff at AFL and around the traps. They're all big on this draft in terms of depth, when the usual line is to be conservative.

 

[lopezz]

I'm talking about the club, the media, the recruiting staff at AFL and around the traps. They're all big on this draft in terms of depth, when the usual line is to be conservative.

I still have not heard anyone from the club say we'll take 7 picks. Just McKay saying we have a pick in every round after the trade period.
Do you honestly believe that if we had a choice between taking pick 70 or taking Barlow we would take 70?

 

[Malifice]

They have 11 picks of significant points value, and they currently have 7 list vacancies.

Add to that these are their 4 uncontracted players: Dawson Simpson (ruck), Barrett (mid), Downie (ruck) and Mohr (KPD).

Their academy crowd is Lynch (ruck), Mutch, Setterfield, Perryman (mids), Macreadie (KPD) and Sproule (KPF/KPD).

They're going to take at least 5 of them, probably all 7. They might then re-sign Dawson Simpson and a few others.

Im not saying they cant clear out 11 list vacancies.

I'm saying I doubt they can add 6 academy blokes plus McGrath to their list with 11 draft picks. Setterfield clears out both picks after pick 2 (assuming a bid around 5). Matching 2 bids in the late teens for 2 more and that cleans out another 6 picks. That makes them 9 picks down for 4 players (with 2 picks in the 60's by now remaining for the remaining 3 players).

I really think they ****ed themselves this year and next.

 

[Soapy V]

Who are possible DFAs??

Xavier Richards, although i reckon Essendon will take him because of the Ted/jobe connection.
Jack Grimes? Was talked about a few weeks ago as an option to replace ZT
Mitch Clark & Chris Dawes.. Both would be an upgrade on Levi but just dont think we would take the risk and would rather back in our youth.

noooooooooooooo

 

[Soapy V]

I still have not heard anyone from the club say we'll take 7 picks. Just McKay saying we have a pick in every round after the trade period.
Do you honestly believe that if we had a choice between taking pick 70 or taking Barlow we would take 70?

damn right we would. barlow is good but is 28 plus. we need young talent and there is always gold late and in the rookie draft

 

[LanceRomance]

I reckon it will be 3 picks plus a rookie upgrade.

not sure we will get Hisham and Kerr though.

Would essendon pip us for hisham at 40?

 

[Jimmae]

I still have not heard anyone from the club say we'll take 7 picks. Just McKay saying we have a pick in every round after the trade period.
Do you honestly believe that if we had a choice between taking pick 70 or taking Barlow we would take 70?

It's more like a choice between Gallucci or DVR, and Barlow.

What's your choice?

Im not saying they cant clear out 11 list vacancies.

I'm saying I doubt they can add 6 academy blokes plus McGrath to their list with 11 draft picks. Setterfield clears out both picks after pick 2 (assuming a bid around 5). Matching 2 bids in the late teens for 2 more and that cleans out another 6 picks. That makes them 9 picks down for 4 players (with 2 picks in the 60's by now remaining for the remaining 3 players).

I really think they stuffed themselves this year and next.

They had a strategy locked into place at the end of the 2015 trade period, and the AFL changed the rules on them mid-year. This was the result.

And they don't need to add the academy kids with just the points from this year, they just need to mitigate the damage of next year's draft by forcing the points deduction to start in the third round, which they are a decent chance to do.

They've talked down Macreadie all year, but they love him, likewise Sproule. If those two and Mutch get second round bids, then the future 2nds they picked up in the trade period will come into play. Otherwise, it moves onto their future 3rd. Picks 40 (last 2nd rounder) & 55 (all bids after are free) are the landmarks for them.

 

[lopezz]

damn right we would. barlow is good but is 28 plus. we need young talent and there is always gold late and in the rookie draft

Sweet, lets clog the list for another round of delistings who never or rarely played for the club. Why not just keep those low picked players we get rid of every year? Give them time!
I would rather protect Cripps and win a little ball for a year or two while we develop the top end rather than discuss pick 70's form in the development side!

 

[Jeremias]

I reckon it will be 3 picks plus a rookie upgrade.

not sure we will get Hisham and Kerr though.

Would essendon pip us for hisham at 40?

We'll definitely be taking more than 3 picks in a draft considered to be a deep one. Why would we have bothered trading for 63, 66 & 70 if we had no intention to use them?

 

[lopezz]

It's more like a choice between Gallucci or DVR, and Barlow.

What's your choice?
Barlow!

They had a strategy locked into place at the end of the 2015 trade period, and the AFL changed the rules on them mid-year. This was the result.

And they don't need to add the academy kids with just the points from this year, they just need to mitigate the damage of next year's draft by forcing the points deduction to start in the third round, which they are a decent chance to do.

They've talked down Macreadie all year, but they love him, likewise Sproule. If those two and Mutch get second round bids, then the future 2nds they picked up in the trade period will come into play. Otherwise, it moves onto their future 3rd. Picks 40 (last 2nd rounder) & 55 (all bids after are free) are the landmarks for them.