List Mgmt. 2022 Trade and Free Agency Thread

[Jivlain]

 

[Maverick]

Updated points position post Gunston trade:

Current points: 3319
Assume pick 21 (with 2023 1st rd) is traded to the Bulldogs. P21 is worth: (878)
Net: 2441

Assuming Ashcroft did go pick 1, this costs (3000 less 20% discount): (2400)
Net: 41

Needing points for Fletcher, this is why we are keen on Bulldogs pick 30 and 39. Otherwise looking to go into deficit using 2023 picks.

Bidding for Fletcher:
Surplus calculated above: 41
If Fletcher went pick 15 (Don’t think he’ll go this high but assume Cal Twomey in the ball park): (1112)
Net (deficit): (1071)

The deficit reduced or eliminated if we can get 1 or 2 picks back:
30 worth: 629
39 worth: 446
Combined value 1075. (These picks would cover the 1071 deficit).

We still have cats 2023 R2.

Key considerations:
1. If lions don’t get pick/s back (30 or 39):
The hypothetical 1071 odd deficit would pretty much decimate our 2023 draft.
I know some feel that give what we bring in this year is great even if it impacts our 2023 draft, but I reckon the Lions hierarchy would be keen to go into next year’s draft with 1-2 R2 picks (rather than these both being used to pay for a deficit).
2. If Freo does get involved in the deal, this does open up some more possibilities: lions keen on Bulldogs P 30 and 39; but maybe Dogs keep 39 and we take Freos P44 instead; netting Lions P30 and 44. Clearly there are a number of combinations.
3. Given Bulldogs currently have P 11, 30, 39, 69; I do understand their reluctance to give up Both 30 and 39; even if they get our P 21.

 

[Jivlain]

Great analysis! But this assumes we have (at least) 6 available list spots at the start of the draft, right?

For this we need to carry in list spots for 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 55 & 56, so, 7 of them.

Of course, we may end up giving one of the 50s to the Dogs as a sweetener, in which case, we only need 6.
Increases the risk of a deficit but that's fine imo.

 

[briztoon]

I’m no professional sportsman, surprisingly, but I wouldn’t care less if I was picked 2nd after a bid.

Do you think these guys care that much about going 1st?

Some do.

Daicos did.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Updated points position post Gunston trade:

Current points: 3319
Assume pick 21 (with 2023 1st rd) is traded to the Bulldogs. P21 is worth: (878)
Net: 2441

Assuming Ashcroft did go pick 1, this costs (3000 less 20% discount): (2400)
Net: 41

Needing points for Fletcher, this is why we are keen on Bulldogs pick 30 and 39. Otherwise looking to go into deficit using 2023 picks.

Bidding for Fletcher:
Surplus calculated above: 41
If Fletcher went pick 15 (Don’t think he’ll go this high but assume Cal Twomey in the ball park): (1112)
Net (deficit): (1071)

The deficit reduced or eliminated if we can get 1 or 2 picks back:
30 worth: 629
39 worth: 446
Combined value 1075. (These picks would cover the 1071 deficit).

We still have cats 2023 R2.

Key considerations:
1. If lions don’t get pick/s back (30 or 39):
The hypothetical 1071 odd deficit would pretty much decimate our 2023 draft.
I know some feel that give what we bring in this year is great even if it impacts our 2023 draft, but I reckon the Lions hierarchy would be keen to go into next year’s draft with 1-2 R2 picks (rather than these both being used to pay for a deficit).
2. If Freo does get involved in the deal, this does open up some more possibilities: lions keen on Bulldogs P 30 and 39; but maybe Dogs keep 39 and we take Freos P44 instead; netting Lions P30 and 44. Clearly there are a number of combinations.
3. Given Bulldogs currently have P 11, 30, 39, 69; I do understand their reluctance to give up Both 30 and 39; even if they get our P 21.

You may have started this post before Jivlain posted his analysis above. There's a bit of a discrepancy. I prefer Jivlain's because it gives us a smaller deficit

 

[briztoon]

Assuming Ashcroft goes at 1 and Davey goes at 14:
Matching pick one takes picks 34, 35, 36, 38 & 39, getting Ashcroft and pick 50 in change.
Picks before 33 move down one, pick 37 moves up 2, picks from 40-49 move up 4, and from 50 onwards move up 3.
Essendon uses picks 23 (nee 22) and 38 (nee 42), getting Davey and pick 46 in change. No overall impact on our picks.
We now have picks 50 (change from 39), 52 (nee 55) and 53 (nee 56), allowing us to match up to pick 19 without deficit.

Assuming Ashcroft goes at 3 and Davey at 14:
Matching pick three takes picks 34, 35, 36 & 38, getting Ashcroft and pick 53 in change.
Picks before 33 move down one, pick 37 moves up 2, picks from 39-55 move up 3, and from 56 onwards move up 2.
Essendon uses picks 23 (nee 22) and 39 (nee 42), matching Davey and getting pick 46 in change.
Our pick 36 (nee 39) becomes 35.
We now have picks 35 (nee 39), 52 (nee 55), 53 (change from 38), 54 (nee 56), allowing us to match up to pick 9 without deficit.
(obviously in this scenario I've assumed that Davey goes before Fletcher but that change doesn't actually matter - we can match pick 9 without the post-Davey shuffle as well).


Those will be needed for Fletcher (unless we take a deficit).

We'll need 7 available list spots to take 7 picks to the draft.

 

[Billy Lokan]

Who the hell are the bears? Had a look at the Foots Cray Imperialists' big footy forum and they are obsessed with Dunkley and the bears! I think they are suffering from PSD.

 

[Fatcat08]

Geez I'd love to have both future seconds next year. Gc will be trading back for points hard next year and in a draft with a fair few talls if we could grab a kpd in the first round that would be a very good get

 

[pod17]

Some do.

Daicos did.

Definitely. Most players are competitive beasts. I’d assume they’d want the recognition of being deemed the best in their draft year.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I reckon there is extra bonus marketing/sponsorship/promotional value at going at pick 1 in the vicinity of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Warwick]

It’s an interesting place on the WB board. They’re not sure what their argument is anymore. Even if we get Dunkley, they’ve rated their trade period, in terms of improving their list, over ours.

 

[Brizzys Squizzy]

Reckon Lachie Neale would be saying get him in please. This is the guy we need in the guts to help neale out. As long as it doesn't compromise our father sons bids. A guy like this who is saying i want to come to Brisbane. PLEASE MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Yes agree that's why I referenced the bit about really want him at the club.

 

[Hollow Knight]

It’s an interesting place on the WB board. They’re not sure what their argument is anymore. Even if we get Dunkley, they’ve rated their trade period, in terms of improving their list, over ours.

It’s becoming a death cult. I’ve even seen some of them suggest that if Dunkley goes in the National Draft that the Dogs should take him at pick 11.

I.e. not only do some of them want to pass up a early second round and future first rounder for a player that doesn’t want to be there, but they also want to spend another first rounder forcing him to stay.

They want to basically blow themselves up to teach us a lesson somehow.

 

[Brizzys Squizzy]

Disagree, 21 this year will get eaten up in a bid anyways, our future first is unlikely to be anything too significant. Dunkley is a very good player in a position of need and in the perfect age bracket. This year in particular we should just make sure the deal gets done without compromising our ability to match the two bids. 99% sure a deal goes through tomorrow.

I referenced the fact NOT AT ANY OLD EXPENSE...but you disagree, then said as long as it doesn't compromise the 2 bids. Which is it do you agree or disagree.

 

[Warwick]

The argument that the Dogs have a pick before Brisbane in the PSD so our likelihood of getting him there is nonexistent, must be the most confusing piece of logic I’ve seen round these parts in years.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The argument that the Dogs have a pick before Brisbane in the PSD so our likelihood of getting him there is nonexistent, must be the most confusing piece of logic I’ve seen round these parts in years.

I’m more blown away by the Dogs fans that say they would re-pick him with pick 11 if he went in the national draft.

That would be one of the most ridiculously self-destructive and illogical acts imaginable.

 

[Scubaveg]

View attachment 1533334
According to Michael Gleeson of the AGE there’s still a hold up on the Dunkley trade

So why don’t we just do F1st and 21, this is right in the middle.

Then we take one of the two F2nds we have and trade that into this year for points on draft night if we need to.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[jfn]

Is there the possibili of a last minute surprise or two tomorrow?
Another mega swap? Brisbane, Bulldogs, Freo, Geelong, Port, Collingwood, and others, shuffling everything to get what they want?
Any chance of Brisbane offering a fringe player as currency?

 

[Scubaveg]

Is there the possibili of a last minute surprise or two tomorrow?
Another mega swap? Brisbane, Bulldogs, Freo, Geelong, Port, Collingwood, and others, shuffling everything to get what they want?
Any chance of Brisbane offering a fringe player as currency?

We already did, Maffo. No one wants him.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[briztoon]

We have been adamant about getting at the very least, pick 39 back from the dogs. That to me, suggests we really would prefer to take 5 picks to the draft, and be able to match the bid at pick one on Ashcroft.

If we're not trading any of our remaining future picks, we currently have enough future points to match a bid on Fletcher at pick 9.

The only second round picks that I see as possibly attainable are GWS's 31 (606), and maybe Sydney's pick 37. But it's only really worth trading for Sydney's pick if we see both Geelong and us in the GF next year, and it's only really worth trading for pick 31, if we see both us and Geelong finishing top 4.

34 - 542
35 - 522
36 - 502
38 - 465
55 - 207
56 - 194

F2 (36) - 502
F2 (37) - 483
F3 (56) - 194
F4 (74) - 0

 

[Thomasno]

Lucked into a premiership courtesy of the umpires, otherwise the Dogs would be up there for all-time poorly ran clubs. It's not a surprise really.

Just the fact that Bevo is still at the helm says it all. I don't dislike the Dogs, I think they have every right to play hard ball for a star player wanting out but they're not a well run club and speaks volumes as to why Dunkley wants out in the first place.

100% agreed on Bevo. I maintain the 2016 premiership will end up hurting the dogs quite badly in the long run because it’s essentially given Bevo a free pass for as long as he wants - and we’re already starting to see the effects of what happens when you give free reign to a Joe Rogan-like man child.

 

[AB09]

We'll need 7 available list spots to take 7 picks to the draft.​

I might be wrong but I don't think the number of draft picks you can take into the draft is limited to the number of list spots.

I think it's the number of draft picks you can use is limited to the number of list spots.

There is a difference.

We can take the 7 picks to the draft but at the time we have to match the Ashcroft bid, we can only use the number of picks to match that we have list spots available (likely to be 5).

After we match the Ashcroft bid, we would have 3 draft picks and 4 list spots available, so would be fine.

I'm sure clubs regularly have more draft picks assigned going into the draft than what they use on draft night.

 

[AB09]

We have been adamant about getting at the very least, pick 39 back from the dogs. That to me, suggests we really would prefer to take 5 picks to the draft, and be able to match the bid at pick one on Ashcroft.

If we're not trading any of our remaining future picks, we currently have enough future points to match a bid on Fletcher at pick 9.

The only second round picks that I see as possibly attainable are GWS's 31 (606), and maybe Sydney's pick 37. But it's only really worth trading for Sydney's pick if we see both Geelong and us in the GF next year, and it's only really worth trading for pick 31, if we see both us and Geelong finishing top 4.

34 - 542
35 - 522
36 - 502
38 - 465
55 - 207
56 - 194

F2 (36) - 502
F2 (37) - 483
F3 (56) - 194
F4 (74) - 0

At the moment those top 5 picks 34, 35, 36, 38 and 55 are not enough points to be able to match an Ashcroft bid at no. 1 that needs 2,400 points.

If we got pick 39 in from the Dogs, then that would do it. 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39 would equal just over 2,400 points hence why we are pushing for pick 39 to be included.

 

[JasRulz63]

I might be wrong but I don't think the number of draft picks you can take into the draft is limited to the number of list spots.

I think it's the number of draft picks you can use is limited to the number of list spots.

There is a difference.

We can take the 7 picks to the draft but at the time we have to match the Ashcroft bid, we can only use the number of picks to match that we have list spots available (likely to be 5).

After we match the Ashcroft bid, we would have 3 draft picks and 4 list spots available, so would be fine.

I'm sure clubs regularly have more draft picks assigned going into the draft than what they use on draft night.

My understanding is that's the old rules before the AFL changed them so you no longer have "hidden picks" like you suggest.

The rules were changed so now if you go into the draft with 5 list spots then you can take 5 picks into the draft. The picks that you don't have list spots for now disappear before the draft commences, so you can't 'unhide' them like you could previously.

The reason you regularly see teams go into the draft with more picks than they use on draft night, is that the you're allowed to have 36-38 players on your senior list.

 

[briztoon]

Geez I'd love to have both future seconds next year. Gc will be trading back for points hard next year and in a draft with a fair few talls if we could grab a kpd in the first round that would be a very good get

I'm not sure how I see that as being attainable.

Maybe if we take all current 7 picks to the draft and Ashcroft is bid on at pick 2. We're going to have to delist some contracted players, and then redraft them at the back end of the draft. Three from Sharp, Cockatoo, ???, ???. Anyone we place in that scenario, we open up to the risk of another team drafting them ahead of us in that national draft.

Currently West Coast is in the box seat to trade up for GC's first round pick, with Melbourne also holding two future second round picks that potentially project as better than the two we currently hold.

 

[Viceregal]

I don’t think this is actually true. There are exceptions (Dodo) but with the constant turnover of list managers and staff, plus the fact I get the feeling they are all pretty pragmatic about the process, I doubt many grudges are held.

True but in terms of a player's willingness to trust Agent A or Club B it can have an effect eg who would go to Collingwood on any deal that includes an intangible element right now (you would absolutely get everything nailed down and go for front ended over back ended etc) ... likewise some Clubs are known for helping their players get where they want to go when the time is right.