Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency IX

[Lore]

Spoiler: 2021 Key Dates

AFL TRADE, DRAFT AND FREE AGENCY DATES 2021

Grand Final
Saturday September 25

Draft Combine – Vic Country
Friday October 1

Restricted and Unrestricted Free Agency Window
Friday October 1 – Friday October 8

Delisted Free Agency Window 1
Wednesday October 3 - Monday October 15

Trade Period (picks and players)
Monday October 4 (9am) – Wednesday October 13 (7.30pm)

Draft Combines (States and Regions)
VM: Saturday October 9 (tbc)
Qld: Sunday October 10
Tas: Monday October 11
SA: Saturday October 16
WA: Sunday October 17
NSW&ACT: tbc
NT: will join SA or Qld

Trade Period (picks only)
Monday October 18 – Monday November 15

List Lodgement 1
Friday October 29

Delisted Free Agency Window 1
Wednesday November 3 (9am) – Tuesday November 9 (5pm)

List Lodgement 2 (Final date for primary list delistings)
Wednesday November 10 (2pm)

Delisted Free Agency Window 2
Thursday November 11 (9am) – Monday November 15 (5pm)

Draft Nominations Due
Wednesday November 17 (3pm)

Pre-Season Commences (First to fourth year players)
Monday November 22

National Draft
Round 1: Wednesday November 24 (7pm)
Round 2–end: Thursday November 25 (7pm)

Rookie Upgrade Period
Thursday November 25 (10pm) - Thursday November 25 (11pm)

Delisted Free Agency Window 3
Thursday November 25 (10pm) - Thursday November 25 (11pm)

Pre-Selected Rookie Nominations Due (Includes Academy, Father/Son)
Friday November 26 (12pm) - Friday November 26 (12.30pm)

Preseason Draft
Friday November 26 (3pm)

Pre-Selected Rookie Notification
Friday November 26 (3.15pm)

Rookie Draft
Friday November 26 (3.20pm)

Final List Lodgement
Monday November 29 (4pm)

Pre-Season Commences (All other players)
Monday December 6

Pre-Season Supplemental Selection Period (SSP)
December - March (tbc)

Current Contract Status
2021 Draft Watch
Father/Son and NGA
Adrian Dodoro

 

[Prochard123]

Thats what the picks end up after bids

As i said Fahey, Windhager, Owens are irrelevant because they impact each pick the same if all inside and incl. pick 41

I proposed this
F2 (~28) + Pick 48 + Pick 52 for 36 + 38 + F3 (Tied to Richmond) ?

Which maybe is similar to what you originally had, cant remember?

On face value that is close, but we don't need 48 and 52, we'd only be a tiny bit off matching Daicos after trading 36 and 38.

I think ultimately 36 + 38 for F2 + 56 is ideal.

Isn't that a better deal for you guys than the one you suggested?

 

[Keystone agony]

On face value that is close, but we don't need 48 and 52, we'd only be a tiny bit off matching Daicos after trading 36 and 38.

I think ultimately 36 + 38 for F2 + 56 is ideal.

Isn't that a better deal for you guys than the one you suggested?

No, because we wouldn't be using pick 48 (51) then and we need points for 2-3 father sons next year thus the Richmond Future 3rd would be very handy. Would end up mid ~40s which is where you want the picks to match players

Pick 40, 43, 45, 52(56), 54(58) = 1620 (Would leave you 7 points short which would mean a slide back a spot for your F1) - No way Collingwood goes in like that. Thus pick 48(51) which would be extremely unlikely to be used by Essendon and would be valuable for pies points this year and the F3 (Tied Tigers) valuable to us for points next year

Would also mean instead of having
Pick 4 - Daicos
Pick 59 - ~ 2nd last pick
Pick 60 - ~ Last pick

Instead you get

pick 4 - Daicos
pick 50 (58)
pick 60 - ~ last pick

 

[Prochard123]

No, because we wouldn't be using pick 48 (51) then and we need points for 2-3 father sons next year thus the Richmond Future 3rd would be very handy. Would end up mid ~40s which is where you want the picks to match players

Pick 40, 43, 45, 52(56), 54(58) = 1620 (Would leave you 7 points short which would mean a slide back a spot for your F1) - No way Collingwood goes in like that. Thus pick 48(51) which would be extremely unlikely to be used by Essendon and would be valuable for pies points this year and the F3 (Tied Tigers) valuable to us for points next year

Would also mean instead of having
Pick 4 - Daicos
Pick 59 - ~ 2nd last pick
Pick 60 - ~ Last pick

Instead you get

pick 4 - Daicos
pick 50 (58)
pick 60 - ~ last pick

Ok well then your above suggestion should be acceptable then.

We'd probably package 39 (40) + your future 2nd (28) + Brisbane future 3rd (50) + Hawthorn future 3rd (41) to move up the ladder and you guys seem to get what you want too.

 

[Keystone agony]

Ok well then your above suggestion should be acceptable then.

We'd probably package 39 (40) + your future 2nd (28) + Brisbane future 3rd (50) + Hawthorn future 3rd (41) to move up the ladder and you guys seem to get what you want too.

40 will be gone into the Daicos bid mate unless your happy to go into a ~134 point deficit and move back at least 1 spot in the draft for next years F1

Brisbane would probably be the only club willing to look at those 4 picks and that would be for pick 16 or 20

But trading those 4 picks + a drop of pick 4 to 5 or 7 (due to deficit) to for next year probably isnt worth it

 

[Prochard123]

40 will be gone into the Daicos bid mate unless your happy to go into a ~134 point deficit and move back at least 1 spot in the draft for next years F1

Brisbane would probably be the only club willing to look at those 4 picks and that would be for pick 16 or 20

But trading those 4 picks + a drop of pick 4 to 5 or 7 (due to deficit) to for next year probably isnt worth it

Yeah shouldn't be a problem tho, 134 points = pick 61 roughly.

Think we can trade Brisbane's future 3rd to someone for a pick in that range to unlock 40 (pretty much giving up 50 to gain 40).

 

[Keystone agony]

Geel Out: Pick 32(34) + Pick 34 (36)
Geel In: Pick 23(25) (WBD)

WBD Out: Pick 23(25)
WBD In: Pick 42 (North), Pick 47 (North), F3 (North)

North Out: Pick 42, Pick 47, F3
North In: Pick 32(34) + Pick 34(36)

What i predict for Darcy bid at 2

 

[Keystone agony]

I wonder if we got 36 + 38 from Pies

If we could on trade 36 or 38 to saints in between M.Owens and Windhager bid for there F2 assuming both parties are happy to do so

 

[boncer34]

Geel Out: Pick 32(34) + Pick 34 (36)
Geel In: Pick 23(25) (WBD)

WBD Out: Pick 23(25)
WBD In: Pick 42 (North), Pick 47 (North), F3 (North)

North Out: Pick 42, Pick 47, F3
North In: Pick 32(34) + Pick 34(36)

What i predict for Darcy bid at 2

Isn't that less points for the Dogs tonight?

 

[Keystone agony]

Isn't that less points for the Dogs tonight?

Yes

 

[BrunoV]

Would anyone trade 11 for 21 and 24?

As a deal in isolation, yes. Particularly for Essendon with a stack of spots available. If a side is only taking a few picks to a draft than maybe not. Maybe I need the player I'm targeting more than I need the spread of talent, particularly if the other picks I have are in a similar range. This can also work in reverse as I suspect Geelong is going to do what it can to take Knivitt and that ruckman.

It's difficult to ever be precise but I'd say the ordering of as much as half of the top 30 is recruiter preference completely divorced from any objective ranking of quality. Who likes athleticism, work rate, size, flair? All of these things make objective ordering impossible. In any given draft there are players some clubs would probably take in the top 10 who would otherwise survive to 30. We condition ourselves to think of the draft as an order of players based on quality, initially because of the phantom drafts and then because of the draft itself but no actual order exists.

I suspect that a lot of the obsession with the range of picks at the trade table is a little 'forest from the trees' in the sense that clubs are chasing the players they like. In reality there are almost always players between 20 and 30 and even later history will show as belonging in the top 10 and the top 10 frequently produces disappointments. If you can't find the players who have a career to mount that case you're not looking hard enough.

I think if the top 30 was recognised for what it actually is, there would be much more trading.

 

[boncer34]

Yes

So why would they do it?

Bid comes at 2 they need 2014 points. That trade leaves them at 2044 but do they have 5 or 6 list spots open because they can only use as many picks as they have spots yeah?

So if it's 5 does that mean 52 drops off? Coz that's 246 points down the drain too if it does.

 

[Keystone agony]

So why would they do it?

Bid comes at 2 they need 2014 points. That trade leaves them at 2044 but do they have 5 or 6 list spots open because they can only use as many picks as they have spots yeah?

So if it's 5 does that mean 52 drops off? Coz that's 246 points down the drain too if it does.

Because they want a Futures pick and have too many points

Shadow from geelong had a very similar deal which is less favourable for roos and more favourable for cats which makes more sense potentially

 

[boncer34]

Because they want a Futures pick and have too many points

Shadow from geelong had a very similar deal which is less favourable for roos and more favourable for cats which makes more sense potentially

But I just explained why they potentially wont have enough points if they do it.

 

[Keystone agony]

But I just explained why they potentially wont have enough points if they do it.

I believe they must have enough spots for 52 to be used

42,43,44,45,47 and 52 takes them about 10-20 points over the bid at pick 2 (Only assuming they have another list spot for it)

 

[boncer34]

I believe they must have enough spots for 52 to be used

42,43,44,45,47 and 52 takes them about 10-20 points over the bid at pick 2 (Only assuming they have another list spot for it)

They have 5 spots on their list.

 

[Keystone agony]

They have 5 spots on their list.

Hmm well maybe Cal was wrong on radio seemed to indicate dogs were getting Norths 42,47 and Future for 23

 

[boncer34]

Hmm well maybe Cal was wrong on radio seemed to indicate dogs were getting Norths 42,47 and Future for 23

Maybe you can trade for as many picks as you like. Seems like a loop hole the AFL would leave open.

 

[staaation]

the other teams should just trade us their first rounders for our late picks because we're swell guys and it would mean a lot to us

 

[BrunoV]

Hobbs and Lord fill clear areas of need.

I find the selection of McDonagh a bit meh but whatever, it's not a big deal.

I have to say, though, it's not easy for me to understand not taking Long. The kid's an absolute brute and very much something we need. Hope this is shades of 2019 all over again, and we end up with him as we did Hibberd (just when it seemed we looked a gift horse in the mouth). I also then look forward to Long playing as a small defender.

 

[Zach Package]

Hobbs and Lord fill clear areas of need.

I find the selection of McDonagh a bit meh but whatever, it's not a big deal.

I have to say, though, it's not easy for me to understand not taking Long. The kid's an absolute brute and very much something we need. Hope this is shades of 2019 all over again, and we end up with him as we did Hibberd (just when it seemed we looked a gift horse in the mouth). I also then look forward to Long playing as a small defender.

The gift horse is our specialty.

Drafting McDonagh feels a bit like trading for Hind and Wright last year. Identified a need and went out and tried to fill it with someone that can immediately impact as quickly as possible.

Whether that is the right way to go about it is a different story but for the most part the strategy in the last 18 months has been bring in as many genuinely selectable players as possible in lieu of longer term projects.

I am personally very happy with Hobbs and Lord. Lord doesn’t have the exposure of someone like Wilmot or Brown but I don’t think the gap is that great and Lord may well be the better kick.

I am also wrapped we didn’t blow our stack on trying to move into the second round and now have a full deck of picks for next year.

 

[TheGrizz]

I am also wrapped we didn’t blow our stack on trying to move into the second round and now have a full deck of picks for next year.

This can't be underestimated.

If the last two years of drafting and Melbourne's overall recruiting shows, 2nd rounders are increasingly valuable.

Even if because of the Davey bids we have to trade it away, we will get far more value next year for it then we would this year as shown by the value the Dogs got for 23.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Hobbs and Lord fill clear areas of need.

I find the selection of McDonagh a bit meh but whatever, it's not a big deal.

I have to say, though, it's not easy for me to understand not taking Long. The kid's an absolute brute and very much something we need. Hope this is shades of 2019 all over again, and we end up with him as we did Hibberd (just when it seemed we looked a gift horse in the mouth). I also then look forward to Long playing as a small defender.

Given there's queries on Long's kicking maybe it's not so surprising we didn't go down that path and went with the unknown VFL player with the elite left foot instead.

 

[BrunoV]

Given there's queries on Long's kicking maybe it's not so surprising we didn't go down that path and went with the unknown VFL player with the elite left foot instead.

It's a philosophical issue for me with picks like this.

I struggle to see McDonagh translating to AFL for us because the position is pretty well covered for the balance of his career (at 26).

I prefer to take the raw products, unfished sets of attributes to mould into the sorts of players you need. Players are always going to have weaknesses once they fall into the 50. At that point it's pieces of puzzle. Long dishing the ball to our dynamic clearance players works all day for me.

 

[BrunoV]

The gift horse is our specialty.

Drafting McDonagh feels a bit like trading for Hind and Wright last year. Identified a need and went out and tried to fill it with someone that can immediately impact as quickly as possible.

Whether that is the right way to go about it is a different story but for the most part the strategy in the last 18 months has been bring in as many genuinely selectable players as possible in lieu of longer term projects.

I am personally very happy with Hobbs and Lord. Lord doesn’t have the exposure of someone like Wilmot or Brown but I don’t think the gap is that great and Lord may well be the better kick.

I am also wrapped we didn’t blow our stack on trying to move into the second round and now have a full deck of picks for next year.

We got out man, in the end.

Voss is 192cm, 84kg utility who according to Twomey played as a key defender and mid. Supposedly a booming kick.

 

[Steve94]

It's a philosophical issue for me with picks like this.

I struggle to see McDonagh translating to AFL for us because the position is pretty well covered for the balance of his career (at 26).

I prefer to take the raw products, unfished sets of attributes to mould into the sorts of players you need. Players are always going to have weaknesses once they fall into the 50. At that point it's pieces of puzzle. Long dishing the ball to our dynamic clearance players works all day for me.

If ever there was a year to go for the raw products it would be this year too, given the lack of football played by most of the Vic's there's potential that a very god player who hasn't had the opportunity to prove themselves went very late or not at all.

Instead we went with the 25 year old largely proven commodity.