2020 Trade & List Management discussion

[skittlebrew]

Don’t forget Betts and JJ.

I acknowledge we have some residual expenses lmao but everything is about to open up in a big way.

 

[Red mist]

I acknowledge we have some residual expenses lmao but everything is about to open up in a big way.

Running at 105% balls to the wall and last. Great fine tuning.

 

[rabidcrow]

I feel like Newchurch is looking like a rookie spot if he falls that far and Borlase will take the last spot on the main list, despite what Vader thinks above.

Do Port have room on their list for Borlase? Wouldn’t be surprised if they took him at 50 plus.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[huludicidal]

Why would we want the best undrafted player if we can get someone better in the actual ND?

because we can pay them less, and it’s likely that this late in the draft we can get the same player that we want in the rookie draft instead of filling another senior spot.

 

[Big Dub]

Why would we want the best undrafted player if we can get someone better in the actual ND?

There are always bolters that rise right up the draft boards because of their play in their draft year. Vic kids (60% of the draft) didn't play this year, so the best undrafted player could have been a first round pick, had they played this year.

There will be some good players available early next year.

 

[Mong]

There are always bolters that rise right up the draft boards because of their play in their draft year. Vic kids (60% of the draft) didn't play this year, so the best undrafted player could have been a first round pick, had they played this year.

There will be some good players available early next year.

I understand the benefit in leaving a spot to the following season and making a midseason draft selection, and I hope we do that. But I was questioning the suggestion we wouldn't use pick 40 so that we could have pick 1 in the preseason draft, which is literally held within hours of the national draft, with the same group of players.

 

[Mutineer]

Do Port have room on their list for Borlase? Wouldn’t be surprised if they took him at 50 plus.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

They've also committed to father/son Taj Schofield as well as their NGA Lachie Jones

 

[Mismatched]

I think there is still room to try and be cheeky - if on the night we get close to pick 40 and no bid for Borlace, then see if we can live trade for a clubs 4th rounder and a future 3rd or 4th. Make sure we have points later to cover off a cheeky bid on Borlace and get some extra 2021 collateral...if a club is prepared to bight on such a deal?

Quite frankly, I think it will depend on who's available at 40. I think the club 1st and foremost will be on the lookout for a slider at that pick, with the hope that both Borlase and Newchurch slip through. If there's not much available at 40, with borlase still on the board, I suspect we look to push back and see if we can get some value for 40.

The other option is we may continue to trade picks and things look completely different by draft night anyway.

 

[Crow till I die]

Quite frankly, I think it will depend on who's available at 40. I think the club 1st and foremost will be on the lookout for a slider at that pick, with the hope that both Borlase and Newchurch slip through. If there's not much available at 40, with borlase still on the board, I suspect we look to push back and see if we can get some value for 40.

The other option is we may continue to trade picks and things look completely different by draft night anyway.

Watch for port and how many list spots they have as i can see them putting in a late bid on borlace. It will force us to use a main list spot...which i am not against anyway but that might not fit with what the club wants

 

[Crow Envy]

Watch for port and how many list spots they have as i can see them putting in a late bid on borlace. It will force us to use a main list spot...which i am not against anyway but that might not fit with what the club wants

There is no way Port will not get a pick to snap up Borlase if he’s available.

 

[zippity doedee]

There is no way Port will not get a pick to snap up Borlase if he’s available.

Port have already traded out their 2021 2nd & 3rd round picks and I'd imagine all of their 2nd & 3rd round picks will be used up in getting Jones & Schofield.
If they bid on him in 4th round surely we'd match it with pick 80.

 

[Vader]

Look - I think there's CLEARLY a version where we take 1 and 9, then when a bid comes in at 15 for McInnes, we trade 22 and 40 (though it would already be earlier) to Collingwood for 16.

They use the points and we pick at 16 and 23, then we just ride out the rest of the draft.

If a bid comes in for Borlase, he's draftee 5.

If not, there ISN'T a draftee 5. We place both Borlase and Newchurch on the Cat B list.

We probably DO move someone back to the main list who has a 2 year contract (for argument's sake, Keays) so we can take two folks on one year deals onto the rookie list; one in the supplementary list period and one in the first midyear draft.

The possibility exists - but it makes no sense, given the decision to trade 56 & 63.

All indicators point to a bid coming in on Borlase, with Adelaide using 40 to either match it (if it comes earlier), or selecting Borlase with that pick anyway. Newchurch is clearly Cat B or nothing, as far as the AFC is concerned.

They wouldn't have moved 2 players from the senior list to the rookie list if they had any intentions whatsoever of moving a player back the other way. This just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Mego Red]

The possibility exists - but it makes no sense, given the decision to trade 56 & 63.

All indicators point to a bid coming in on Borlase, with Adelaide using 40 to either match it (if it comes earlier), or selecting Borlase with that pick anyway. Newchurch is clearly Cat B or nothing, as far as the AFC is concerned.

They wouldn't have moved 2 players from the senior list to the rookie list if they had any intentions whatsoever of moving a player back the other way. This just makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course it does.

It gives them OPTIONS.

Their number 1 choice would be adding both as Cat B's and taking two rookies, through the multiple rookie list opportunities that are coming up.

That gives them flexibility to have as many as possible on one year deals, while we keep exploring the best mix in our list build.

The next best would be taking Borlase late, and putting him on the main list - but that's substantially worse than the 'use it or lose it' of the Cat B list.

We have people on our Cat A rookie list who already have two year deals - if it's clear we didn't have to draft Borlase in the main draft, we absolutely should move one of them up.

I'm not convinced Borlase goes in the top 50. Maybe it's better than 50/50, but it's not a certainty, so we need flexibility to respond to whatever happens.

Besides - they've publicly said they may move players back, so clearly that's one option they're planning for. And the 56 and 63 trade makes a lot of sense. You want to take them off the table, as Scorpus said.

 

[Golumless]

I feel like Newchurch is looking like a rookie spot if he falls that far and Borlase will take the last spot on the main list, despite what Vader thinks above.

I reckon if Borlase was guaranteed to take the last spot on the main list, it would have been announced. It's quite likely James does, but there are certainly situations where he'll be plying his trade elsewhere in 2021.

Pedlar might be a decent shout for that last spot, tbh.

 

[Vader]

Of course it does.

It gives them OPTIONS.

Their number 1 choice would be adding both as Cat B's and taking two rookies, through the multiple rookie list opportunities that are coming up.

That gives them flexibility to have as many as possible on one year deals, while we keep exploring the best mix in our list build.

Agreed - but the other clubs have a vote here as well, by virtue of their ability to bid on Borlase & Newchurch. While having both on the Cat B rookie list is/was a strong first preference, the club now appears resigned to having to take Borlase in the ND.

The next best would be taking Borlase late, and putting him on the main list - but that's substantially worse than the 'use it or lose it' of the Cat B list.

It's not just "next best", this now appears to be the "most likely" (read nearly certain) scenario.

We have people on our Cat A rookie list who already have two year deals - if it's clear we didn't have to draft Borlase in the main draft, we absolutely should move one of them up.

Two year deals are completely irrelevant. We put players on the rookie list because the first $80k of every rookie's salary is excluded from the salary cap.

We moved Mackay & Davis onto the rookie list in the sure & certain knowledge that we'd be taking 5 players in the ND.

I'm not convinced Borlase goes in the top 50. Maybe it's better than 50/50, but it's not a certainty, so we need flexibility to respond to whatever happens.

Besides - they've publicly said they may move players back, so clearly that's one option they're planning for. And the 56 and 63 trade makes a lot of sense. You want to take them off the table, as Scorpus said.

They've said that they can, they've never given any indication that they are/were likely to do so. How many times have I said "they can... but they won't"?

I guess it's a worst case fallback option, but it's about plan ZZC in Binuk's list of preferred plans.

 

[Mego Red]

I'm calling a truce.

Just before I respond, though - I do respect most of what you post.

As a heads-up, the fact you speak with such certainty about things that are only your opinion is why some of your posts rub people up the wrong way.

Speaking of certainties that you can't possibly know has an air of smugness that doesn't improve your posts.

Agreed - but the other clubs have a vote here as well, by virtue of their ability to bid on Borlase & Newchurch. While having both on the Cat B rookie list is/was a strong first preference, the club now appears resigned to having to take Borlase in the ND.

Borlase falls outside of many top 50 projections - he's small and could struggle for a role in a professional AFL program.

Many clubs wouldn't have him on their draft board at all.

But you're right - there has to be a strong chance that at least one club will have Borlase as their next best pick somewhere late in the draft.

Two year deals are completely irrelevant. We put players on the rookie list because the first $80k of every rookie's salary is excluded from the salary cap.

The $80k is very important, absolutely.

But, it simply isn't the only reason.

Obviously, in a rebuild, not having too many players on multi year contracts is essential - we need to have ongoing flexibility and the rookie list and single year contracts is an essential part of that.

Other football commenters have also said that is a factor in clubs wanting to maximise rookie numbers.

We moved Mackay & Davis onto the rookie list in the sure & certain knowledge that we'd be taking 5 players in the ND.

There is no certain knowledge of that.

We trade pick 40, and take four picks and wait to see if there's a bid on Borlase. If there's not then obviously we're not taking another late pick in the national draft.

They've said that they can, they've never given any indication that they are/were likely to do so. How many times have I said "they can... but they won't"?

I guess it's a worst case fallback option, but it's about plan ZZC in Binuk's list of preferred plans.

Taking four picks and Borlase going Cat B is probably plan A1 for Binuk.

The only downside is - why are we giving up a pick 38 for a player that doesn't seem to be in the top 50 mix? We could be drafting a better player than Borlase.

But I'm going to withhold all opinions on that until we see what they do.

Probably the only thing I'd be very disappointed in would be drafting Borlase at 40, unless for some reason we genuinely think he holds that value.

 

[Caputo]

Taking four picks and Borlase going Cat B is probably plan A1 for Binuk.

The only downside is - why are we giving up a pick 38 for a player that doesn't seem to be in the top 50 mix? We could be drafting a better player than Borlase.

But I'm going to withhold all opinions on that until we see what they do.

Probably the only thing I'd be very disappointed in would be drafting Borlase at 40, unless for some reason we genuinely think he holds that value.

What would the reaction be if Port Power takes him late and we do not bid. Ridicule how they look after their own.

 

[Mego Red]

What would the reaction be if Port Power takes him late and we do not bid. Ridicule how they look after their own.

Reaction be from who?

They got someone late in the draft who was rated late in the draft.

 

[Go the Guts]

I'm calling a truce.

Just before I respond, though - I do respect most of what you post.

As a heads-up, the fact you speak with such certainty about things that are only your opinion is why some of your posts rub people up the wrong way.

Speaking of certainties that you can't possibly know has an air of smugness that doesn't improve your posts.

Spot on.

 

[Apsaalooke]

If we take 5 other players including someone else with pick 40 then Borlase is called by anyone from 41 on, I presume we can't match because our main list is already full.
Is that right?

 

[Johnny Rutten]

If we take 5 other players including someone else with pick 40 then Borlase is called by anyone from 41 on, I presume we can't match because our main list is already full.
Is that right?

Yeah, I think so. We can only add 5 more players to our Primary + Cat A Rookie lists, during the National and Rookie Drafts.

Our primary list is currently 30 + Hately = 31
Our Cat A rookie list is full = 6 (includes Gibbs, but his spot will be come available for us during the Supplementary Player period, after he is made inactive).
Primary List + Cat A Rookie List can only have a maximum of 42 players. So, the 36/6 combo is the way we seem to be going.

So, what we have is 5 National Draft Picks = 1,9,22,23,40 (80 only to be used if we, for example, bunch up 22/23 for something better). Pick 80, remember, will end up being around 55-60 on the night.

The club will have a pretty fair idea whether Borlase will be bid on at the ND, or not. If they think he will be, then (assuming we rate him as a primary list player), then we'll either use pick 40 or currently pick 80 (if we bundle up, for example 22/23) to select him. Our preference, of course, is for both him and Newchurch to not be bid on, and end up on our Cat B list.

If I was to predict what will happen on draft night, it would be this...

We use picks 1 & 9, bundle up 22/23 for a pick in the mid-to-low teens, use pick 40, and then use pick 80 (which will come down to around 55-60) on Borlase, if there is a bid on him. Newchurch, if bid on, will likely end up at another club, as we probably won't match.

We could alternatively trade out pick 40 for a 2021 pick, and go with 1,9,22,23,80 (for Borlase).

Anyway, this is just my read on things. The fact is, this could play out in many ways.

 

[Caputo]

For the SSP (Gibbs Spot) who do we pick up Luke Edwards or James Rowe

 

[Dudersaurus]

For the SSP (Gibbs Spot) who do we pick up Luke Edwards or James Rowe

Leave it for mid year draft.

 

[Thetrader15]

I know there's discussion we can't pick at 40 then match Borlase as our list is full, but there's a list lodgement after the draft. To my knowledge, we can then delist a player after the draft to make space for Borlase.

Question is if we have someone OOC or if we can delist a contracted player this year.

 

[dogs105]

I know there's discussion we can't pick at 40 then match Borlase as our list is full, but there's a list lodgement after the draft. To my knowledge, we can then delist a player after the draft to make space for Borlase.

Question is if we have someone OOC or if we can delist a contracted player this year.

If we did the delisting before the PSD, where we get Hately, there would be a spot.