Which podcast?
List Mgmt. 2022 List Management: Draft, Trade and FA Pt2: Electric Boogaloo
- Thread starter Cobbler
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The podcast (hardball gets) he does through the West and they did one in the aftermath of the trade period.
Last edited:
- Jan 23, 2011
- 2,372
- 2,328
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I have a feeling that we might be a back up option to the Bombers if Davey gets a bid before their pick 24ish. Long shot, but good to be ready. If we swap 39 and 40 for Essendons (24ish) then can we upgrade Shultz, an NGA kid as our last pick, as will have an extra pick the remaining 2 NGA’s as Cat B? Not sure if possible but any draft gurus could help me out if this logic works?
I wonder if it was part of the Logue deal but we wanted to do it later so Melbourne wouldn’t ask for it? Or if it was so it looked better for North from a PR point of view & no one even notices this one sided trade weeks later.
Not sure why, but Lemmey is giving me vibes of being a BF favourite bargain on most club boards but will probably get passed a lot and might even go undrafted. Seems to happen every year to somebody & I still want him too.
What I will say here is that North Melbourne have four spots available on the senior list and have picks 2, 3, 23 and 40. I know most people don’t rate picks in the 40s that much but it’s a good pick to simply not extract any value from whatsoever. Would’ve simply ceased to exist if North Melbourne didn’t trade it.
I think that’s why the trade was done now rather than later tbh.
There is a reported pick swap to happen as soon as the draft starts where Brisbane end up getting pick 40 from North.
The five picks 34,35,36,38,40 provides enough points for pick 1 and to get pick 68 at the back end. They will go into points deficit - prob around 300-400 points for Jasper Fletcher who is prob around late teens.
Davy is right on the cusp of going close to 22. I would expect they trade with a club to drop a few places but get another pick. Our pick 30 which will be 32 is not enough alone to match bid at 20. Pick 26 would give enough points to match 20, so a deal like 23 > 27 and 3rd round pick.
Our picks 43,44 will move up to 39,40 but then after Jasper Fletcher move back to 40,41. Those two picks are equivalent to pick 23 so essentially no point.
I think if a club wants to move up 3-5 spots and give up a third round pick in the process then that is a chance or Essendon could pocket a F3 for their trouble. But 23 > 40,41 won’t be on Essendon’s radar.
- Dec 6, 2020
- 2,691
- 5,556
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
You’re right, if we want to snag Essendon’s pick 22(24) after fletcher and Ashcroft bid match it will cost us 30 (32) and 44 (41). Leaving us 43 (40). We’d need to have someone we really like still in the board when the Bid for Davey comes to pull the trigger on that trade.
Why would essendon trade pick 24 for two worse picks 32 and 41? They can't match the bid so they just downgrading picks at that point.
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,972
- 74,900
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
The Sharp thing is kinda hilarious to me, think they saw an opportunity to get a a good deal on a player for once (which is their right as a contracted player) and we just flat out said "nah, standard Freo/GC trading terms or he can stay."
Dont blame them for being peeved a little bit but it's still funny
There will be a heap of interest in trading in future picks in the third round. Next year's draft has a heap of Academy and Father Son prospects. We can't trade the North 2nd without bringing in another second rounder in the trade. We can trade the North 3rd rounder or Carlton 3rd rounder and one of our 4th rounder. So if we used the pick 30 and one or two futures pick we could move up the draft quite a bit if there was a player we rated very highly that slipped.
That was the point I was trying to make.
A pick that will match the bid number after discount and a club to pay a price for moving up the draft list a few spots. Port paid a second to move up up a few spots in the first round. Personally because Essendon don’t have great bargaining power and it is the second round the best outcome personally would be securing a decent F3 or current third.
Collingwood, Hawks and West Coast who will have picks around 26-28 come to mind if they want to secure a player and move up a couple of spots. Our pick 32 or combination of 40/41 won’t cut the mustard.
We may have a fiddle around with our late picks. Bell likes a late bargain. Some of the clubs matching bids will have a bunch of picks late in the draft and may have some interest in moving up some spots. Our pick 67 by the time the fourth round starts is a good chance to be late 50’s. Someone might buy for a F4 and we have the very late current 4th up our sleeve to match any late academy bids.
I think we have done our bit and will go to draft with our early thirty and two early 40’s picks.
There is a lot to like about having two in a row and right at the start of 40’s. Ensures we get the two picks in before any academy bids. I honestly can’t see any of our academy boys going between 1-40, then we have two picks and what happens thereafter is in our hands
It'd be interesting, given the evenness (and likely out-of-the-ordinary unpredictable development arcs) in this draft, whether there isn't a lot of difference between say having pick 20 and pick 40. So having multiple picks in that range is better than a singular, if nominally higher, pick.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #4,514
I don't see that pick slide being all that valuable for Essendon if that pick is just as burned up and the change is given as a later pick from the AFL after the matched bid and that's only the three picks in the second round before their choice - first round matched bids don't give any surplus points back as a pick later.
What I'm about to say will probably end up exactly how you suggest but the means to get there will be more complicated.
I think it's more possible that Essendon seek to hide the pick like Sydney did a few years ago. The bid comes in at #17 (GWS) the Bombers need to find 820 points - pick #23 will cover it.
Purpellian Anchor
Purple Admiralty
A bit of useless trivia, or not so, to pass the time. Looking at success and longevity of pick selection. There may be a few errors but pretty close.
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
I'm not so adverse to us using our picks on good prospects that may take a little longer to develop rather than trying to trade further up the order. Trading several picks to get to an earlier pick does'nt necessarily stack up given these stats (chances given up for a single greater chance).
What was it about the 2013 crop that have been so successful, 33 out of 80 have played over 110 games
150 games or more since selection in 2010 draft
1-10 =8 (2 at 148)
11-20=4
21-30=5
31-40=2
41-50=1
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2011 130 games +
1-10 =5
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=1 (L Neale)
51-60=1
61-70 =2
2012 120 games
1-10 =8
11-20=2
21-30=2
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70
2013 110 games
1-10 =6
11-20=5
21-30=9
31-40=2
41-50=3
51-60=4
61-70 =2 (Karl Amon pick 68 Taberner pick 70)
71-80=2
2014 =100 games
1-10 =5
11-20=5
21-30=3
31-40=1
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70=3
2015 85 games
1-10 =6
11-20=6
21-30=3
31-40=0
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =2
2016 70 games
1-10 =6
11-20=7
21-30=7
31-40=4
41-50=2
51-60=3
61-70 =1
71-80=2
Glaucus
Debutant
Interesting that 31-40 is regularly under performing.
"Slider" territory maybe.
Sounds like a plasible theory. Every now and then you get one like Warner who turns into an absolute gun from pick 39.
- Dec 6, 2020
- 2,691
- 5,556
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Do you think the relative “success” of picks in the 51+ categories is because teams go for slightly older “fills a need” players in that range rather than speculative potential? We certainly have with the likes of Ryan, Schultz, Bewley and Frederick recently.
Purpellian Anchor
Purple Admiralty
Yes something like that. Clubs probably have a focus initially on the young talent and where that stops and a focus begins on more mature performing talent begins indicates a trough some where between 25 to 45. But too when sides kick in to begin selecting the "talls" who may need development time and come with a bit more risk but big upside if successful perhaps points to those lower 30 to 40 group.
Seems funny to think, that on the averages, say 6 in the first ten will say play 150 games after being picked and 2 in the 31-40. Brisbane may well have to use four picks in the 30's to get their man. Stats suggest they would get their 150 gamer either way.
Last edited:
Considering there looks likely to be a quite a few academy and father/son prospects going in the first round next year the Bulldogs only have to finish in the top six for there to only be around 6 positions draft difference between the pick we take this year and the Bulldogs pick traded to Hawthorn that's used in 2023 as a result of our trade with Hawthorn.
That's exactly what they do. Best talent early, then needs start to become more of a factor the later the draft goes.
Last edited:
- Jun 30, 2011
- 6,407
- 12,816
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Did you remove all the rookie upgrades and 2nd round on academy picks? If not it'll artificially make 3rd, 4th and later picks look more attractive.
How
Upgrade Shultz??? Cant be done
Don’t forget several of those early drafts were compromised. Especially 2011 and 2012. Players like o’meara, hogan, jezza cameron, Treloar, Jack Martin, Brad crouch, Dylan Shiel, Jamie Elliott and a few others should have been in the top 10 of those drafts but were made available to GWS and GC in various ways that diluted the pool for everyone else.
The same thing is actually going to happen when tas comes in so it would be a good time not to be at the bottom of the ladder.
We have good success late. Walters and Neale being prime examples
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
