List Mgmt. 2019 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Giant Pete

Premiership Player
Jan 17, 2013
4,180
3,556
AFL Club
GWS
Taranto shouldn’t be playing wing. Won a B&F playing inside mid

Needs to stay there

But I love ward at half back

Shaw in for one of Caldwell/Hately
Sorry. I put Taranto there not to suggest he is a pure winger. It’s just we have DeBoer, Hopper etc. so Taranto would be part of the midfield brigade.
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
Looking at the DFAs, I would think that we won't look at any of these until after the machinations of the national draft play out. Nick Robertson - who GWS was linked to during the trade period - has now been cut. However, while he'd probably fill that wing/endurance runner role that Tommo had, I don't think that would be the best use of a list spot. Connor Menadue is another who might fill that role, and while he hasn't yet been cut, it's still possible that he will be. Jack Newnes at St Kilda is another possibility in a similar mould, although seems likely to go to Carlton. Still, I'd take none of these.

I wouldn't mind Josh Walker if Brisbane end up delisting him. In my opinion, we're 2 KPFs and 1 KPD short of my ideal list balance, and while I wouldn't say getting 3 is a 'must do', 1 or 2 should be (and especially a KPF). Walker can play both forward and back, and ruck in a pinch, so given that the backup forwards are Sproule & Jack Buckley (the latter of whom I don't rate at all) I think he'd be a good get at his age/experience. If we got another 1 or 2 talls then I'd go for youth.

I'm still of a view that our position is in no-man's land, with a bid on Tom Green likely to come at 4 or 5, killing off pick #6 and leaving us well back for our second pick. Getting in ahead I think is likely to cost us too much, with clubs (Melbourne & Adelaide) asking too much of a premium to swap #3 or #4 with #6 and then we we'd still have to pay for Green. However, if the club has assessed next year's crop as wore than this year, that may think the premium is worth it.

  • Melbourne #3 for GWS #6 + 2020 1st round pick: that's a huge premium to get ahead, then presuming Adelaide bid on Green @ #4, we'd use all of this year's picks, plus next year's second & third round and still owe on him!
  • Melbourne #3 for GWS #6 + 2020 2nd round pick: a smaller premium, and hence reduced incentive for Melbourne to do us essentially a favour, but at least we'd mostly pay off the leftover points from the first round.
  • Adelaide #4 with similar trades - again there's no incentive for Adelaide to do us a favour.
The alternative (apart from simply not taking Green) would be to recognise our position, accept the bid on Green, and aim for the best subsequent picks. This would align with the view that we keep getting too many superstars/early picks that (a) cost too much and (b) want instant first grade time, and that having some more second round picks or 'role players' would be better. There's a couple of examples that we could look at:
  • Geelong will be looking to get a better quality draftee than their current draft position allows, and with very few open list positions, might be willing to sacrifice mid-first round picks for an early position with a premium. e.g. GWS #6, #40 & #59 for Cats' #14, #17 & #24 (that almost reverses our swap with Saints with a touch more premium). Cats end up with #s 6, 36 & 40 for likely 3 list spots - swapping multiple first round picks for a really high quality first round pick.
  • We could also then look for someone else in the second round looking to consolidate for better quality - an example would be swapping pick #s 17 & 60 for North Melbourne's #s 26 & 27, giving them back a first round pick this year when they're likely only going to take 2 live picks.
  • That would leave us with pick #s: 14, 24, 26 & 27. A bid on Green at #4 would wipe out 14 & send back 24 into the 40s, but give us two picks in the mid-20s. That could net a couple of players out of Mitch O'Neill, Jeremy Sharp, Sam de Koning, Miles Bergman for example.
The final option is of course a live trade along the lines of the Freo posters earlier. The impediment would be trading out of this year's early draft, exhausting our later picks for points & leaving a bill for next year, then trading back in to claim a first round pick (but missing Ash or Young our likely targets anyway). I'm sure the other clubs would be up in arms at that - and probably not without cause (albeit legal, unless the AFL actually provide any rules or guidelines otherwise!).

As always, not advocating a particular course of action, just looking at the options available. An interesting draft night coming up possibly.
 

TryAnHit

Team Captain
Mar 1, 2012
331
348
AFL Club
Adelaide
Feels like melb will make you pay out of your skin to get to pick 3.. especially when they miss a player they want in the inbetween picks.

Seems strange trade when could of had 12 + 18 if you are not able to move up to the pick 3...

Will be interesting times on draft night
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
You can only trade with clubs that are willing. Saints offered an opportunity - the club has said it was talking to other clubs to try and move up further but to no avail during the rade period. There's still time to trade picks before the national draft - and an opportunity to alternatively trade backwards if we can't move up too (as posted previously). Not strange - it was nothing ventured, nothing gained.
 

Tig017

Debutant
Sep 3, 2019
68
151
AFL Club
Richmond
I think the club may have an idea that somebody of high trade value may wish to move on end of next year which gives us less to worry about with the defecit.
That would help wipe the deficit, true.
But it's not you who has to worry about the deficit, it's Melbourne if they accept your future first and pick 6 in a deal for pick 3. This is precisely why I doubt your club will get any deal done with Melbourne.

If we went into the draft today and GWS had pick 3 and Melbourne had pick 6, lets say you take Flanders at #3, then Adelaide bid on Tom Green at pick #4. Pick #4 is worth 2034 points.

2034 - 20% = 1627 points
1627 - Picks 40, 59 & 60 = 894 points (this number will increase for every academy/FS selection prior)

That leaves you with a 894+ point deficit for your first rounder next year. If you were to finish 2020 the same way you did this year (runner up) your first rounder is worth 1025 points - 894 points = 131 points, which is pick 62 (subject to increase)

Taking all this into account, if Melbourne traded pick 3 for pick 6 and your club's future first, they would effectively end up with pick 6 + 2020 pick 62. Would Melbourne do that? I highly doubt it.
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
But it's not you who has to worry about the deficit, it's Melbourne if they accept your future first and pick 6 in a deal for pick 3. This is precisely why I doubt your club will get any deal done with Melbourne.

Taking all this into account, if Melbourne traded pick 3 for pick 6 and your club's future first, they would effectively end up with pick 6 + 2020 pick 62. Would Melbourne do that? I highly doubt it.
You're quite wrong. If Melbourne was traded GWS' 2020 first rounder, it's Melbourne's unencumbered. The only thing that will change it are NGA, academy & rather/son bids, which will similarly affect their own pick. GWS is carrying the can on the points - if we've traded the first round pick, they come from the second round pick, and if insufficient, then the third round pick and so on. So Melourne carries no risk whatsoever.

Having said that, Melbourne has no particular reason to help GWS except for whatever premium they get from doing the pick swap. I think they'll ask for more than it's worth to GWS so is unlikely to be done. But not for the scenario you've postulated, which is incorrect.
 

Tig017

Debutant
Sep 3, 2019
68
151
AFL Club
Richmond
You're quite wrong. If Melbourne was traded GWS' 2020 first rounder, it's Melbourne's unencumbered. The only thing that will change it are NGA, academy & rather/son bids, which will similarly affect their own pick. GWS is carrying the can on the points - if we've traded the first round pick, they come from the second round pick, and if insufficient, then the thrird round pick and so on. So Melourne carries no risk whatsoever.

Having said that, Melbourne has no particular reason to help GWS except for whatever premium they get from doing the pick swap. I think they'll ask for more than it's worth to GWS so is unlikely to be done. But not for the scenario you've postulated, which is incorrect.
You got a source on the rule?
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
You got a source on the rule?
Lore's thread https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/resources-rules-and-regulations-a-guide-to-the-draft-trading-and-free-agency-in-the-afl.1229400/ has a lot of stuff, but I'm not sure it states it there because it's such a fundamental principle - if we trade that pick it goes to Melbourne and is nothing to us. Check out Lore's future pick thread https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2020-future-pick-tracker.1229399/page-2#post-63393044 which shows a future traded pick has moved once it is traded.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Andre the Giant

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2012
5,370
6,357
Melbourne, VIC
AFL Club
GWS

This is Kysaiah Pickett, he will probably be a 40’s selection. I think he is the type of player we should look to bring in as he would compliment the list and has some nice speed/skill and a good leap.

Obviously the Green selection and bid will shape our draft but if we can bring in a guy like this I think it would be valuable.
 

dlanod

Moderator
Sep 14, 2006
41,627
54,833
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
You got a source on the rule?
You can't take points off someone else's pick. It's a bit of a no brainer, and there's been plenty examples of teams matching bids and it not taking points off the traded picks despite them being higher than the team's next picks. Do you have a source that says it can?
 

captainMyCaptain

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 30, 2011
7,105
5,092
Wollongong
AFL Club
GWS
Feels like melb will make you pay out of your skin to get to pick 3.. especially when they miss a player they want in the inbetween picks.

Seems strange trade when could of had 12 + 18 if you are not able to move up to the pick 3...

Will be interesting times on draft night
Only Strange if our number one objective is to get Green but if our main focus is getting someone we rate higher then Green but also hoping to workout a deal where we can get Green as well as our number one target then its not so strange.
 

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 13, 2011
8,336
11,635
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies
Because we don't get a 20% discount. Why pay full price if you don't have to?
Well, if the bid comes before 6 that point is moot.

If he’s there at 6 why choose to go into massive deficit next year - thus paying more than full price because our first round pick next year won’t be where it should be (let alone losing a truckload of picks this year as well) Saving 20% now loses a truckload more than that by dropping us down the order next year.
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
Oh, I thought you were intimating he's a cert to go before 6 and we should just pay that. (I do think that happens, and the cost to get ahead of a bid is the problem for us.)

But if we got to 6 without a bid, I could live with taking someone else and subsequently matching a bid for Green. if he went the next pick at #7, we'd match with our remaining 2019 picks & carry a 582 point deficit into 2020, which would come off our first round pick (pushing it back into the second round, dependent on exactly where we finish). I can live with that - essentially we would have gotten a kid in the top 10 a year early. In fact, I'd opine that's the best scenario for us.

The issue is trying to get ahead of the bid, we pay a premium to the club we trade with (essentially they get to bend us over) - and on top of that we have to pay next year's points, which could end up costing us first, second and third round picks next year. Neither Green nor Ash/Young are worth that IMHO.
 

TryAnHit

Team Captain
Mar 1, 2012
331
348
AFL Club
Adelaide
Well, if the bid comes before 6 that point is moot.

If he’s there at 6 why choose to go into massive deficit next year - thus paying more than full price because our first round pick next year won’t be where it should be (let alone losing a truckload of picks this year as well) Saving 20% now loses a truckload more than that by dropping us down the order next year.
He wont be there at 6..
Thats what makes it interesting.
 

Gysberts2Bate

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2013
16,918
20,040
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
From what I understand there are two possibilities here:

Bid comes at 4, 1627 points required to match. 6 is worth 1751 points. GWS get Green, their remaining 2019 picks, all of their 2020 picks and whatever pick is worth 124 points (pick 62 - will be pushed out by other academy selections etc)

GWS trade up to 4. They take a player there (we'll call him Flanders for now, assuming Dees take Young at 3). Bid comes for Green at 5. 1502 points required to match. If you keep all of your 2019 picks after the trade you wipe off 733 of these points, and enter 2020 without 769 point debt. You've probably lost your 2020 first at this stage. It'll take your 2020 second and probably some of North's 2020 third to wipe off the debt. GWS get Flanders, Green, pick 80 (2019 - probably a rookie upgrade?), and your 2020 third pick and beyond + whatever the balance from North's 2020 third is.

It's a question of whether Flanders (etc) is worth picks 40, 59, 60, 62, your 2020 first, 2020 second and a chunk of North's 2020 third. At this stage I'm gonna say probably not. I reckon GWS should just match with 6. Maybe you can pray that Adelaide and Sydney don't bid, and so the bid for Green comes after 7, but I don't think that's at all likely. IMO the only way this would have been worth doing is if GWS had a player who actively wanted out to Melbourne and was worth us giving up pick 3 in some way (3 and our 2020 first for Whitfield, 3 for Daniels and 6, etc).
 

Giant Strides

Moderator
Nov 23, 2015
3,866
4,857
AFL Club
GWS
IMHO a lot of people are pretty simplistic and superficial in their assessment of this situation.

As I've previously posted, I agree that we are in no-man's-land in regards the current pick and possible cost to grab Green + someone else (as repeated in the example in the preceding post). But what the move up has given us are options - and that's what people's superficial assessments don't get.

Do we need Green as a strong stoppage player? With Ward, Cogs, Hopper & Taranto - no, not at the moment. Green also needs to build his tank, so not likely to break into the GWS team in the short term due to that.

Do we need a running player? Sure do. So, the likely candidates for the few positions after Rowell/Anderson are Serong, Flanders, Young, Ash (depending on which expert you prefer, but that's my take). If one of Melbourne, Adelaide or Sydney grab Green, then at least one of Flanders, Young & Ash will be available - they are the players that would better suit our list strategy. So I think that there is definite potential that we don't match an early bid on Green (shock & horror!) - but I've always said that we need to ensure we don't get sucked into just matching for all of our kids just because they're highly rated. (As an aside, I think that Kennedy was a guy who was picked well above his true value, and whom we should have passed on.) It is an option we have at present.

Yes, we can still just match a bid on Green, and although we've gone backwards with our second pick, it's the price of flexibility.

If Green happened to slide through to 6 - and I agree it's extremely unlikely - then we can take a 2020 deficit and pick up both Green & someone else.

We also have the ongoing option to seek a trade up the order - but we need to be careful not to be stupid about the price we pay (as my previous posts and the preceding example demonstrate in regards the cost).

As per other posters, we could replicate Sydney's tactic from last year and live trade out and back in to pick up Green and someone else (though potentially not our original target) for the cost of some 2020 deficit. (A Freo trade being mutually beneficial so we don't get bent over as Melbourne and Adelaide want to do.)

Finally, as per my previous posts, if we can't engineer a trade ahead of the Green bid, we can now trade backwards to someone who wants the early pick of 6 and end up with at least one and possibly two mid-second round picks as well as Green. That has come with the changes to trading rules to allow pick trading up to draft night and then of course live trading at the draft.

As I've said previously - clubs can only trade with other clubs who are willing - Saints were so we did the trade and it gave us options. We've tried to do other trades that haven't come off - because those clubs want to bend us over whereas Saints was win-win. Nevertheless, WE HAVE OPTIONS! Watch this space.
 
Last edited:

dlanod

Moderator
Sep 14, 2006
41,627
54,833
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
If he’s there at 6 why choose to go into massive deficit next year - thus paying more than full price because our first round pick next year won’t be where it should be (let alone losing a truckload of picks this year as well) Saving 20% now loses a truckload more than that by dropping us down the order next year.
It's not a massive deficit - it's 582 points barring any other trades. We can't pay "more than full price". If Green gets bid on with pick 7 we're basically trading in pick 7 for our (likely) late first round pick next year.

We'd lose:
  • our end of second round pick (cancelled out by the pick we'd get back next year),
  • a couple of fourth rounders (which AFL clubs don't value given they give them out like candy) and
  • next year's first
but we'd get Green (pick 7). That's a win in my book.
 

Andre the Giant

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 20, 2012
5,370
6,357
Melbourne, VIC
AFL Club
GWS
IMHO a lot of people are pretty simplistic and superficial in their assessment of this situation.

As I've previously posted, I agree that we are in no-man's-land in regards the current pick and possible cost to grab Green + someone else (as repeated in the example in the preceding post). But what the move up has given us are options - and that's what people's superficial assessments don't get.

Do we need Green as a strong stoppage player? With Ward, Cogs, Hopper & Taranto - no, not at the moment. Green also needs to build his tank, so not likely to break into the GWS team in the short term due to that.

Do we need a running player? Sure do. So, the likely candidates for the few positions after Rowell/Anderson are Serong, Flanders, Young, Ash (depending on which expert you prefer, but that's my take). If one of Melbourne, Adelaide or Sydney grab Green, then at least one of Flanders, Young & Ash will be available - they are the players that would better suit our list strategy. So I think that there is definite potential that we don't match an early bid on Green (shock & horror!) - but I've always said that we need to ensure we don't get sucked into just matching for all of our kids just because they're highly rated. (As an aside, I think that Kennedy was a guy who was picked well above his true value, and whom we should have passed on.) It is an option we have at present.

Yes, we can still just match a bid on Green, and although we've gone backwards with our second pick, it's the price of flexibility.

If Green happened to slide through to 6 - and I agree it's extremely unlikely - then we can take a 2020 deficit and pick up both Green & someone else.

We also have the ongoing option to seek a trade up the order - but we need to be careful not to be stupid about the price we pay (as my previous posts and the preceding example demonstrate in regards the cost).

As per other posters, we could replicate Sydney's tactic from last year and live trade out and back in to pick up Green and someone else (though potentially not our original target) for the cost of some 2020 deficit. (A Freo trade being mutually beneficial so we don't get bent over as Melbourne and Adelaide want to do.)

Finally, as per my previous posts, if we can't engineer a trade ahead of the Green bid, we can now trade backwards to someone who wants the early pick of 6 and end up with at least one and possibly two mid-second round picks as well as Green. That has come with the changes to trading rules to allow pick trading up to draft night and then of course live trading at the draft.

As I've said previously - clubs can only trade with other clubs who are willing - Saints were so we did the trade and it gave us options. We've tried to do other trades that haven't come off - because those clubs want to bend us over whereas Saints was win-win. Nevertheless, WE HAVE OPTIONS! Watch this space.
I think people are getting worked up over nothing. We have flexibility to go forward or back and none of the above posts allow for a more complex trade netting us additional selections this year. It’s all in hand.
 

Jebus18

Debutant
May 1, 2016
65
130
AFL Club
Fremantle
What would be a better return for 6 and your future 1st, pick 3 or pick 10 and 2 future 2nds?
Rekn freo and gws can work out trades that help both get green and henry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom