Analysis 2023 Draft Watch

[macky99]

Where are those two picks coming from?

Our Future 1st & Current 1st in the upcoming draft.
Our F1st is our primary leverage to improve our draft hand in the upcoming draft.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

As Stamos says a few posts back, we can always ask. But it's unlikely. Our first pick this year is going to be at least 16 and if we go deep into September could be in the early 20s (due to academy and father/sons). Other sides will be looking at our finish to this year, and rating our next year's first similarly, and again there are a few father/sons early next year - so around pick 20. What do you think is a reasonable trade for say a pick 16 and 20? Be very fortunate to get into the top 10 this year I'd think.

I agree with ferris - keep next year's first and live trade it if a bid comes in before it. Bank a bunch of 3rd/4th round picks for points (we can trade out our 4ths from this year into next). Consider trading our future 2nd into a 2nd round pick this year. See if we have any player trades that might get an extra pick (or help with trading up).

The only qualifier may be if there's a kid still on the board on draft nite we're very keen on, and may look to move up a few notches to secure him - similar to what Hawthorn did last year.

Personally, I'd be looking to trade our future 1st for a player of some quality, on the proviso we get something in return.

I'll get shot down for this - I've mentioned it before, but I still wouldn't mind us going after Elijah Hollands. Fits our list profile and out of favour at GCS....offer our future 1st for Hollands with their future 2nd coming back. Gives us a quality young half forward and points for the Campo boys next year. If they don't accept the offer, we just move on.

List spots are going to be tight this year and next, so I can see us potentially only bringing in 1 FA/trade and 1 pick in the ND the end of this year - especially after contracting Cinc, HO'K and the 2 Irish lads onto our rookie list during the year.

 

[Bletch]

Our Future 1st & Current 1st in the upcoming draft.
Our F1st is our primary leverage to improve our draft hand in the upcoming draft.

Our current first is probably going to fall between 18-21.
No-one is paying 13-15 for our future first - it's probably in that same range. Either a very late first, or early 2nd round pick for it.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Our current first is probably going to fall between 18-21.
No-one is paying 13-15 for our future first - it's probably in that same range. Either a very late first, or early 2nd round pick for it.

I'm all for our recent resurgence, but our first is not "probably" going to fall between 18-21. It's more likely to be 12 than 18, and realistically I'm hoping it gets up to 15-16.

 

[Bletch]

I'm all for our recent resurgence, but our first is not "probably" going to fall between 18-21. It's more likely to be 12 than 18, and realistically I'm hoping it gets up to 15-16.

3 x GCS academy kids
2 x Father/sons (Haw/Dogs)
Potentially either a handout or band 1 compo to Norf.

Add 5 or 6 to whatever natural pick we get.

 

[Blue__Balls]

3 x GCS academy kids
2 x Father/sons (Haw/Dogs)
Potentially either a handout or band 1 compo to Norf.

Add 5 or 6 to whatever natural pick we get.

But if we're talking about trading the pick to GC.....then it doesn't move back before they use it matching the first bid. They get the full value of the original pick - the only change is going to be a possible NM compo pick for McKay, but I'm not sure the AFL are going to be able to "secret herbs and spices" their way to the first two picks in the draft.

 

[Bletch]

But if we're talking about trading the pick to GC.....then it doesn't move back before they use it matching the first bid.

Oh, they'll trade it - just not to us (or at least not for just our 1st and F1st)

 

[macky99]

Our current first is probably going to fall between 18-21.
No-one is paying 13-15 for our future first - it's probably in that same range. Either a very late first, or early 2nd round pick for it.

Highly unlikely our 1st is going to be 18-21 unless we play off much more likely 12-16.

 

[Bletch]

Oh, they'll trade it - just not to us (or at least not for just our 1st and F1st)

fwiw, here's what I think may happen with GC's pick - it gets traded to Richmond as part of the deal to get Dustin Martin up to join Dimma. Prob with Richmond's future 1st coming back. Gives Richmond a pick this year.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Oh, they'll trade it - just not to us (or at least not for just our 1st and F1st)

You're moving away from the argument here, though.

Can't say that our first will slide out to 18-21 and therefore holds no interest or value to GC, because it doesn't slide until after they've gotten the value from it for matching a bid on their Academy kid.

Now - they may get better offers elsewhere, who knows. But say we get knocked out in the first week of finals (a genuine possibility), and NM get Band 2 compo for McKay (or force a trade to get a better return), then we could be offering GC Pick 12 plus our future first (10-18, big variable range there). That's not an awful deal.

And realistically, GC may trade with someone else and then trade with us.

4 to GWS for 7 and 11-14.
7 to Carlton for 12 and future first.

They get two early teens picks to match bids, plus bank a future first.

 

[TimeFor17]

fwiw, here's what I think may happen with GC's pick - it gets traded to Richmond as part of the deal to get Dustin Martin up to join Dimma. Prob with Richmond's future 1st coming back. Gives Richmond a pick this year.

I find it hard to believe that Richmond will give up a top 3-4 pick next year. Tigers will be going into full rebuild mode from here IMO.

 

[Bletch]

I find it hard to believe that Richmond will give up a top 3-4 pick next year. Tigers will be going into full rebuild mode from here IMO.

Precisely for that reason - they don't have a first round pick this year. Getting pick 4 this year (in reality, prob pick 5 or 6) is likely better than waiting till next year.

 

[ray8182]

I think fans (and maybe some clubs) have their head on backwards re trading future picks - especially around future father-son selections.

Here are my thoughts

1) Picks this year are almost always worth more than picks next year. This is the big one*
2) You get better value helping out another team with their needs than you do solving your own
3) The team taking on the future pick takes on the uncertainty. You generally get paid a premium to do so.
4) Guessing father-son players' value a year out is folly - rankings change drastically in underage year (superstars aside)
5) Father-son draftees regular get bid on later than expected (and later than 'fair value')
6) You are allowed live trading. Even AFTER a father-son/NGA/Academy bid. Why 2nd guess where the kid might get bid a year out, when you can wait until they are actually bid (you would need to have some handshake deals sorted ahead of draft night if this was your strategy)
7) Teams will have to assume our next year's 1st will be 15-18 and will pay accordingly (poorly). There's little upside for us by doing well, but downside for us by doing badly next year

Conclusion: Don't trade out next year's first for something this year in order to prepare for Campo's boys. We will get a bad deal trying to make that happen. I expect we'd be MUCH better off waiting til next year and then trading out into 2025 draft. Or for a stack of points in 2024 draft (which should see us generously compensated).

* There's half a dozen reasons why I think this is the case. I can bore you with the details if you really want.
** All of the above arguments (excl #7) are presented in a vacuum, rules that apply generally every year. They do not take into account specific draft strengths nor are players/needs not taken into account. Eg if next year was a superdraft. Or if there was a super WA talent coming in next year, WCE might try and roll its early pick to next year (imagine if Curtin was underage).

I really like point 4. It’s been a gripe of mine the assumptions about where father sons will go in a draft a year out.

If the camporeale sons have average years next year they could both not make the top 30. Would not take much for this to happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TimeFor17]

Precisely for that reason - they don't have a first round pick this year. Getting pick 4 this year (in reality, prob pick 5 or 6) is likely better than waiting till next year.

I agree that they will want to get their hands on that pick and probably will in one way or another. But not at the expense of next years.
They will be dropping a lot of salary from their cap this year from Cotchin and Riewoldt. They would be more likely to send Dusty to GC and pay $500k of his salary for that early pick. At the most send a later pick to GC to help with points for their academy players.
But that is just my perspective. Happy to admit I’m wrong later.

 

[Bletch]

I agree that they will want to get their hands on that pick and probably will in one way or another. But not at the expense of next years.
They will be dropping a lot of salary from their cap this year from Cotchin and Riewoldt. They would be more likely to send Dusty to GC and pay $500k of his salary for that early pick. At the most send a later pick to GC to help with points for their academy players.
But that is just my perspective. Happy to admit I’m wrong later.

Fair call. Still puts them in a better position to grab that pick than we are. Our lack of 2nd and 3rd round picks hurts us in that regard.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

I agree that they will want to get their hands on that pick and probably will in one way or another. But not at the expense of next years.
They will be dropping a lot of salary from their cap this year from Cotchin and Riewoldt. They would be more likely to send Dusty to GC and pay $500k of his salary for that early pick. At the most send a later pick to GC to help with points for their academy players.
But that is just my perspective. Happy to admit I’m wrong later. [emoji16]

They would have banked and spent Riewoldt and Cotchins money already for next year, no way they were going on. It’s a moot point


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Stamos]

They would be more likely to send Dusty to GC and pay $500k of his salary for that early pick. At the most send a later pick to GC to help with points for their academy players.
But that is just my perspective. Happy to admit I’m wrong later.

Aside from both Richmond and Gold Coast saying there won't be a trade for Dusty, it doesn't make sense for any of them to do it.

And no way is Dusty worth #4 this year to the Suns. Next year he would be free.

 

[TimeFor17]

They would have banked and spent Riewoldt and Cotchins money already for next year, no way they were going on. It’s a moot point


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

So looking at their list next year you think they are using all their cap? Even with Martin’s salary which could be as high as $1.4M? I personally don’t think so. Send him to GC and you could take on some of that. They are going into a minimum 3 year rebuild hard from here IMO.
Definitely not a moot point IMO.

 

[TimeFor17]

Aside from both Richmond and Gold Coast saying there won't be a trade for Dusty, it doesn't make sense for any of them to do it.

And no way is Dusty worth #4 this year to the Suns. Next year he would be free.

Yeah he probably isn’t worth it but they need to offload pick 4 and if they get points back in return for academy boys then it makes some sense. Dusty wanted out last year too.
I am not saying it happens but there is some sense to it.
But GC will more likely get other offers for multiple picks to load up on points for academy boys.

 

[Bletch]

You're moving away from the argument here, though.

Perhaps we're at cross-purposes, as yes, I don't really get the point you're trying to make.

Maybe an example of what I'm getting at will help?

Using Cal Twomey's latest guide:

Draft Selection Order	Draftee	Club Selection
1	H Reid	1
2	Walter
3	Duursma	2
4	McKercher	3
5	Watson	4
6	Curtin	5
7	Sanders	6
8	Caddy	7
9	Read
10	O'Sullivan	8
11	Croft
12	Rogers
13	Murphy	9
14	Wilson	10
15	McCabe
16	Roberts	11
17	Leake	12	week 1
18	Hardeman	13	week 2
19	Windsor	14	week 2
20	Edwards	15	prelim
21	A Reid	16	prelim
22	DeMattia	17	gf
23	Tholstrup	18	gf
24	Green	19
25	Moir	20

And this is without considering anything Norf may get.

Gold Coast have a pick that will likely be end up at 5. They want to get rid of it, to avoid it being swallowed up by a bid on Walter. Our pick is at best 17, with a reasonable chance of being a few lower.

The 2024 draft is shaping as similar, with a few early F/S picks. Whilst we may crash and burn next year, Gold Coast will be bargaining based on worst case for them - that our pick will be a natural 17-18 (real 20-21ish).

Does that represent value to Gold Coast, to trade that pick 5 for a 17 and 20? I'd say they'll likely get better offers.

Even if they did the GWS trade (and I don't think they will), it's effectively pick 8 for a 17 and 20 - still a dubious trade.

There's still a lot to play out. Where we finally finish up; draft pick ratings may (will) change; players requesting a trade, will all have a bearing on our final draft hand and needs. But as it stands now, I wouldn't be trading out next year's first. ymmv.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Perhaps we're at cross-purposes, as yes, I don't really get the point you're trying to make.

Maybe an example of what I'm getting at will help?

Using Cal Twomey's latest guide:

Draft Selection Order	Draftee	Club Selection
1	H Reid	1
2	Walter
3	Duursma	2
4	McKercher	3
5	Watson	4
6	Curtin	5
7	Sanders	6
8	Caddy	7
9	Read
10	O'Sullivan	8
11	Croft
12	Rogers
13	Murphy	9
14	Wilson	10
15	McCabe
16	Roberts	11
17	Leake	12	week 1
18	Hardeman	13	week 2
19	Windsor	14	week 2
20	Edwards	15	prelim
21	A Reid	16	prelim
22	DeMattia	17	gf
23	Tholstrup	18	gf
24	Green	19
25	Moir	20

And this is without considering anything Norf may get.

Gold Coast have a pick that will likely be end up at 5. They want to get rid of it, to avoid it being swallowed up by a bid on Walter. Our pick is at best 17, with a reasonable chance of being a few lower.

The 2024 draft is shaping as similar, with a few early F/S picks. Whilst we may crash and burn next year, Gold Coast will be bargaining based on worst case for them - that our pick will be a natural 17-18 (real 20-21ish).

Does that represent value to Gold Coast, to trade that pick 5 for a 17 and 20? I'd say they'll likely get better offers.

Even if they did the GWS trade (and I don't think they will), it's effectively pick 8 for a 17 and 20 - still a dubious trade.

There's still a lot to play out. Where we finally finish up; draft pick ratings may (will) change; players requesting a trade, will all have a bearing on our final draft hand and needs. But as it stands now, I wouldn't be trading out next year's first. ymmv.

But our pick isn't Pick 17 for them. Our pick is whatever it is before any academy/father-son bids.

Hypothetically, we win our first elimination final, and lose our second. We hold Pick 14. We also have a future first that could rightfully be anywhere from 10 to 18 depending on where we finish. Conservatively, call it 16.

GC trade 4 to GWS for 7 and 12.
GC then trade 7 to us for 14 and the future first.

When Walter gets a bid at Pick 2, GC still have Picks 12 and 14 from those trades, as well as Picks 25, 30 and 42 from their original draft hand.

Pick 2 = 2517pts
Less the discount = 2014pts for GC to match.
Picks 12 and 14 equate to 2429pts ($415pts spare) - so Pick 12 moves to Pick 2 for Walter, and Pick 14 slides back to Pick 41 (412pts).

Their later picks come in one spot, so they've got Picks 24, 29, 41 and 42 = 2245pts. That 2245pts is likely enough to match bids for their other two academy kids. Twomey has them at Picks 9 and 12 - that'd be 2737pts, with the discount taking it down to 2190pts, sneak it home with room to spare.

So by doing those two trades, hypothetically, GC get themselves a free future first rounder from us. And once they've got their Academy kids sewn up, they even have the flexibility to live-trade our future first out for another pick this year if they see a kid they like.

 

[Bletch]

But our pick isn't Pick 17 for them. Our pick is whatever it is before any academy/father-son bids.

Hypothetically, we win our first elimination final, and lose our second. We hold Pick 14. We also have a future first that could rightfully be anywhere from 10 to 18 depending on where we finish. Conservatively, call it 16.

GC trade 4 to GWS for 7 and 12.
GC then trade 7 to us for 14 and the future first.

When Walter gets a bid at Pick 2, GC still have Picks 12 and 14 from those trades, as well as Picks 25, 30 and 42 from their original draft hand.

Pick 2 = 2517pts
Less the discount = 2014pts for GC to match.
Picks 12 and 14 equate to 2429pts ($415pts spare) - so Pick 12 moves to Pick 2 for Walter, and Pick 14 slides back to Pick 41 (412pts).

Their later picks come in one spot, so they've got Picks 24, 29, 41 and 42 = 2245pts. That 2245pts is likely enough to match bids for their other two academy kids. Twomey has them at Picks 9 and 12 - that'd be 2737pts, with the discount taking it down to 2190pts, sneak it home with room to spare.

So by doing those two trades, hypothetically, GC get themselves a free future first rounder from us. And once they've got their Academy kids sewn up, they even have the flexibility to live-trade our future first out for another pick this year if they see a kid they like.

Ok, get what you're saying now, sorry, comprehension error.

I was assuming that they'd be looking to match the trades with lower picks, but I can see the sense in what you're saying here. It wouldn't require freeing up so many slots on their list pre-draft.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Ok, get what you're saying now, sorry, comprehension error.

I was assuming that they'd be looking to match the trades with lower picks, but I can see the sense in what you're saying here. It wouldn't require freeing up so many slots on their list pre-draft.

Yeah, spot on - they can't horde third rounders to match the bids, as they're only allowed to come into the draft with as many picks as they have open list spots. Means the soundest strategy is to bank a few points-efficient mid/late first rounders and a few second rounders to cover their three draftees, then they just populate the last few spots with rookie upgrades from their inflated rookie list.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I do like the ability to always trade away future selections each year, to maintain a positive selection each year.

Having a number of second round picks and early third round picks are great to package up to those clubs with high end F/S and Academy players, for their points.

 

[LemmingMaster]

Yeah, spot on - they can't horde third rounders to match the bids, as they're only allowed to come into the draft with as many picks as they have open list spots. Means the soundest strategy is to bank a few points-efficient mid/late first rounders and a few second rounders to cover their three draftees, then they just populate the last few spots with rookie upgrades from their inflated rookie list.

I do think clubs have the loophole of having say 6 list spots free, but they only draft to 38 players, so two of those spots are free for draft pick hording.