Traded 2018 Live Trade: Carlton trade #4 (2019) to Adelaide for #19 (2018) and #9 (2019)

[briztoon]

One element of the 22 to 20 trade that everyone seems to overlook is that there is a benefit to picking in the first round vs the first pick of the second round.

The AFL future pick rule changes state clubs must take 2 first round selections every 4 years. By turning 22 into 20 by using a pick they weren't going to use, they bought themselves an extra first rounder which frees up options in upcoming years.

So who have Carlton lined up to trade in next year?

 

[Jeremias]

So who have Carlton lined up to trade in next year?

We'll find out as the year progresses, but I think we'll be very keen on Papley again. Still very much fills a need.

We may hear more about Wines too.

 

[briztoon]

We'll find out as the year progresses, but I think we'll be very keen on Papley again. Still very much fills a need.

We may hear more about Wines too.

Yeah Wines is the interesting one.

He fits Essendon to a T.

Hawks, Bulldogs and Demons don’t need him. Collingwood don’t have the $$$. Not sure about North. Don’t think he suits Richmond.

St Kilda and Essendon desperately need him.

My view on Carlton is they need a skilled mid to go with Walsh, more than another bull.

 

[slashin_velvet]

So who have Carlton lined up to trade in next year?

Not important to know who it is if you can buy that flexibility at literally zero real cost.

 

[Monkey King]

My mistake then. I thought we were talking about Carlton trading up from 22 to 20, where Cal said they made the move to get ahead of the Tigers. Then the next day it was reported by Cleary the Tigers had no interest in Philp.

I was discussing that Carlton missed out on getting extra value by not staying at 22, and then followed up with a comment that they may have been bluffed. At which point you quoted me again, saying nah.

Yes, not what I was referring to, which came after all that.

Explain how Carlton missed out by using a dead pick to skip up the order? What did they miss out on? You’ve made the statement, but given no explanation. Seems to me they took full advantage of the situation.

Where a player is drafted isn’t always a good indication of where they may have been rated

Which is why I do put a bit of stock in AFL Draft Central, Twomey’s and Balmer’s rankings, as they’re usually rating players on talent, rather than being influenced by needs.

Sure. A club could have pick 15 and rank a player at 9 on their draft board, but the 6th ranked player is also available at pick 15 and gets taken. One thing we do know, is that a player taken at 20 was ranked at least 20th by one club.

Interesting you put stock in those sources, who ranked Kerr ahead of McAsey despite the ACL, and yet you’ve claimed there’s questions over Kerr’s ability to realise his potential that don’t apply to McAsey.

 

[Monkey King]

One element of the 22 to 20 trade that everyone seems to overlook is that there is a benefit to picking in the first round vs the first pick of the second round.

The AFL future pick rule changes state clubs must take 2 first round selections every 4 years. By turning 22 into 20 by using a pick they weren't going to use, they bought themselves an extra first rounder which frees up options in upcoming years.

That is for pointing that out mate. I hadn’t even considered that.

 

[briztoon]

Yes, not what I was referring to, which came after all that.

Explain how Carlton missed out by using a dead pick to skip up the order? What did they miss out on? You’ve made the statement, but given no explanation. Seems to me they took full advantage of the situation.



Sure. A club could have pick 15 and rank a player at 9 on their draft board, but the 6th ranked player is also available at pick 15 and gets taken. One thing we do know, is that a player taken at 20 was ranked at least 20th by one club.

Interesting you put stock in those sources, who ranked Kerr ahead of McAsey despite the ACL, and yet you’ve claimed there’s questions over Kerr’s ability to realise his potential that don’t apply to McAsey.

Post 2890 on the page before covers what you might have been able to do.

I hope it’s you’re auto correct that keeps changing Kemp to Kerr.

 

[Monkey King]

Post 2890 on the page before covers what you might have been able to do.

I hope it’s you’re auto correct that keeps changing Kemp to Kerr.

Not sure GCS would've even offered pick 11 to Carlton at that point; giving picks 17 and a future 11 to Carlton for the pick they missed out on as part of the Martin trade would've been pretty bad optics for them. Cochrane would've had a fit. Do you have a source that this was ever an option?

I don't think the Blues have much interest in trading for futures. Their actions have been geared around advancing the rebuild, not delaying it; trading futures for recently drafted first rounders, and using live trading to try and trade into, rather than out of, drafts. Last year the ideal outcome would've been to not even have those picks and instead got 23yo Papley who fills in a position we're short in.

So basically the value lost was delaying a pick to next years draft at around the same position after academy picks. The value gained was getting a player they rated into their system a year earlier, and getting to bank the use of an extra first rounder for the ongoing focus of adding established talent through trading.

I really don't get your point. Seems they went with the better deal to me.

Yeah idk with Kemp. I'd like to blame it on autocorrect but probably just me being absent minded. Doesn't change the point made.

 

[La Dispute]

It also needs to be clarified that Philp was not a needs-based pick. We have a plethora of developing tall inside mids developing (Setterfield, Dow, Kemp; JSOS and Kennedy to rotate) to add to Cripps.

Philp presents as a high-ceiling footballer with a reasonable football brain, but a ridiculous athletic profile that few have. Add in all the extras; draft watchers have noted his rapid improvement towards the end of the year and then the intangibles in his leadership qualities and work-rate which have been the central tenets of any ND Silvagni Pick during his time at Carlton and you can see why they prioritised getting him in the club.

You can look at consensus draft orders, but it’s always going to be flawed trying to predict how players will pan out at draftee age.

Philp has certainly got some competition to get a game, but the club would see his quick progression at TAC Cup level as a good indicator he’s a guy who’s coachable and responds well to feedback, and will get the absolute best out of himself.

 

[briztoon]

Not sure GCS would've even offered pick 11 to Carlton at that point; giving picks 17 and a future 11 to Carlton for the pick they missed out on as part of the Martin trade would've been pretty bad optics for them. Cochrane would've had a fit. Do you have a source that this was ever an option?

I don't think the Blues have much interest in trading for futures. Their actions have been geared around advancing the rebuild, not delaying it; trading futures for recently drafted first rounders, and using live trading to try and trade into, rather than out of, drafts. Last year the ideal outcome would've been to not even have those picks and instead got 23yo Papley who fills in a position we're short in.

So basically the value lost was delaying a pick to next years draft at around the same position after academy picks. The value gained was getting a player they rated into their system a year earlier, and getting to bank the use of an extra first rounder for the ongoing focus of adding established talent through trading.

I really don't get your point. Seems they went with the better deal to me.

Yeah idk with Kemp. I'd like to blame it on autocorrect but probably just me being absent minded. Doesn't change the point made.

Just in regards to GC offering pick 11. It was either Twomey or Cleary who reported after the draft that GC were offering pick 11 to trade back in to the first round to draft Sharp. And then they offered it to teams in the second round until they had a taker.

Much the same as Brisbane were trying to trade in to the first round when Robertson was sliding.

 

[Monkey King]

Just in regards to GC offering pick 11. It was either Twomey or Cleary who reported after the draft that GC were offering pick 11 to trade back in to the first round to draft Sharp. And then they offered it to teams in the second round until they had a taker.

Much the same as Brisbane were trying to trade in to the first round when Robertson was sliding.

Yeah I'm not sure I buy this line. Cochrane would have gone mental if they did that deal with Carlton. And even if they did, what's pick 11 going to be next year? Pick 15-20? So waiting an extra year to select a kid at around the same draft range is the extra value you've claimed Carlton missed out on? Naahhh!

Delaying the recruitment of players doesn't really seem to offer much value given Carlton have been basically trying to do the opposite of that.

 

[branedotorg]

I don't really know why you're all so triggered by a different opinion

 

[briztoon]

Yeah I'm not sure I buy this line. Cochrane would have gone mental if they did that deal with Carlton. And even if they did, what's pick 11 going to be next year? Pick 15-20? So waiting an extra year to select a kid at around the same draft range is the extra value you've claimed Carlton missed out on? Naahhh!

Delaying the recruitment of players doesn't really seem to offer much value given Carlton have been basically trying to do the opposite of that.

GC wasn’t just offering it to Carlton in the first round. It was on offer to all the teams with late first round picks.

I’m not sure what’s hard to believe about that.

As for pick 11, not including possible compensation picks handed out (Daniher), I’d be surprised if it moves back more than 3 positions.

 

[Monkey King]

GC wasn’t just offering it to Carlton in the first round. It was on offer to all the teams with late first round picks.

I’m not sure what’s hard to believe about that.

As for pick 11, not including possible compensation picks handed out (Daniher), I’d be surprised if it moves back more than 3 positions.

Why didn't GCS just offer the future pick 11 along with pick 17 from the get go? Cochrane would've had a heart attack. Doesn't make sense. Without some genuine confirmation that Carlton had this offer tabled to them, I don't accept the story mate … "what's hard to believe about that" just isn't compelling.

Easy more than 5 seems to have been the assessment around draft time. It's why no one was jumping at pick 11 until late in the 20's.

Rather than demonstrate the extra value Carlton missed out on, I actually think your suggestions sap value from what Carlton have been trying to do over the past few years. All I can say is I'm glad we had who we had running the show. Wish we still had him.