Bluemour Discussion Thread VI (cont. in Part VII)

[Jimmae]

Points mean absolutely jack shit to teams without academy or f/s prospects. If sos decided he'd prefer 2 top 10 picks and st. Kilda decide they really want someone who will go higher than 7, a trade might happen.

It won't happen because st.kilda decide we want to turn this 3152 points worth of picks into 3178 because then we are so winning at this trading game.

The point system can be a handy guide to a degree, it does have some merit when discussing trade potential.

Although in the end it doesn't matter, because it depends on the player the club has identified with that pick they want, and how much they're willing to part with to get him. Can't put points on a players worth to a club.

Points aren't really a guide.
How perfect can the points system be and if it was perfect, it would have to change every year, draft dependent.

It may be a guide to some, but common sense and understanding of what's in the draft makes for a lot more sense.

If you have a tier 1 top 3 and tier 2 next 10, then a team may consider trading two tier 2 picks for one tier 1 pick. Really depends on how they grade the talent.

ODN's spot on here: points matter because they reflect how you grade the talent.

The AFL's DVI is a baseline for academy & F/S picks, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think clubs have their own version of the DVI that they cook up for each draft pool.

 

[ferrisb]

Is there any chance we could get Aliir Aliir cheap?

I thought we had enough enough defenders defenders...

 

[slashin_velvet]

ODN's spot on here: points matter because they reflect how you grade the talent.

The AFL's DVI is a baseline for academy & F/S picks, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think clubs have their own version of the DVI that they cook up for each draft pool.

And the AFL has made it more than clear they they use their scale as a way of valuing if trades are fair, and may step in and block unbalanced trades.

I'd be surprised to find a pure pick swap since the points system has been in place that isn't very close to balanced from a points perspective +/- 5% - obviously hard to measure with future pick trading.

 

[Quazza]

points system to be used as a VERY rough guide as a pick 3 can be a lot more valuable from one draft to the next. Just as an example;

in the 1991 NBA draft, it was Billy Owens (ughhh)

in the 84 draft, it nabbed some guy named Michael Jordan

 

[raymagoo]

Why is another key defender a priority?

Can't get in a side and has the skill. Highly underrated and can probably get on the cheap. Yes we have plenty of kpd however it could move someone forward and provide great depth. Happily have him

 

[raymagoo]

The 2009 draft had Martin @ #3 with Sheppard and Butcher @ #7 & #8, respectively.

I wonder how seriously points come into calculation to those that matter...........the recruiters & list managers? Not much, right?

Jack trengove at 2

 

[HARKER]

Jack trengove at 2

It doesn't matter which way you want to go with the points and it may be some sort of guide to us, but means jack to clubs' recruiters and list managers, by far and large.

I can't imagine a situation where a points discussion comes into any possible trade of our #3 for #7 & #8. That would seem very 'junior' to me.
If a club feels they'll be getting a possible champion at #3 for a couple of 'not-so-sures' at 7 & 8, you'd do the deal.

I will change every year though, quality dependent.

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Points mean absolutely jack shit to teams without academy or f/s prospects. If sos decided he'd prefer 2 top 10 picks and st. Kilda decide they really want someone who will go higher than 7, a trade might happen.

It won't happen because st.kilda decide we want to turn this 3152 points worth of picks into 3178 because then we are so winning at this trading game.

Well, after Hawthorn and Saints shenanigans last trade period I think the AFL agrees wholeheartedly

 

[teagueyubeauty]

And the AFL has made it more than clear they they use their scale as a way of valuing if trades are fair, and may step in and block unbalanced trades.

I'd be surprised to find a pure pick swap since the points system has been in place that isn't very close to balanced from a points perspective +/- 5% - obviously hard to measure with future pick trading.

Well, I'll give one...Hawks and Saints last year. Saints made out like bandits even before Hawks were solid bottom 8 team.

AFL didn't care, they ticked it off

 

[StandByyourMan]

I thought we had enough enough defenders defenders...

didn't realise you were a fellow Tasmanian..

 

[HBF]

That kid is going to be a the steal of the draft. Has champion stamped all over him. For mine it's between LDU and Fogarty and considering LDU butchers the kicks I'd be going with Fogarty. Imho Fogarty will grow into a Danger type mid

Speculation around that Fogarty wants to stay in SA and is telling recruiters this.

 

[Espio]

Speculation around that Fogarty wants to stay in SA and is telling recruiters this.

Not a problem as once a South Australian gets to the Blues they never want to go home......................uh wait, did I,

 

[Metalcrusher]

Speculation around that Fogarty wants to stay in SA and is telling recruiters this.

Hope GWS bids on him ... would be interesting if a kid REFUSED to go to where he was drafted. Interesting conundrum for the AFL.

 

[raymagoo]

It doesn't matter which way you want to go with the points and it may be some sort of guide to us, but means jack to clubs' recruiters and list managers, by far and large.

I can't imagine a situation where a points discussion comes into any possible trade of our #3 for #7 & #8. That would seem very 'junior' to me.
If a club feels they'll be getting a possible champion at #3 for a couple of 'not-so-sures' at 7 & 8, you'd do the deal.

I will change every year though, quality dependent.

Of course it does! But if you think you might get the player you want at 7 why wouldn't you

 

[Blue__Balls]

And the AFL has made it more than clear they they use their scale as a way of valuing if trades are fair, and may step in and block unbalanced trades.

I'd be surprised to find a pure pick swap since the points system has been in place that isn't very close to balanced from a points perspective +/- 5% - obviously hard to measure with future pick trading.

Think you'll find the AFL will only consider stepping in if it's clear two clubs are trying to rort the system.

If a club wants/needs a top 3 pick to draft or trade for a particular player they have in mind, they're within their rights to pay "overs" if they choose to do so.

If the deal is as unbalanced as the points suggest, then one side will either pull out or demand something else comes their way. Could be as simple as a swap of future second rounders. As soon as you factor in future picks the points are almost impossible to nail down anyway.

Regardless, all those poo-pooing the idea of a 3 for 7+8 trade because it's "unrealistic" - just keep in mind that any rumour like that we hear is only going to include the core elements of the trade. It could well be 3 and some later picks, or some pick swaps in St Kilda's favour, being discussed.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Well, I'll give one...Hawks and Saints last year. Saints made out like bandits even before Hawks were solid bottom 8 team.

AFL didn't care, they ticked it off

Agree - I did disclaim about future picks making the discussion a lot more testing - and now looking at it in more detail, some trades seem skewed by what teams need an what is available. I think my statement was a little extreme and its probably a little less of a factor than I stated up front.

The trade was 10 + 68 for 23 + 36 + future first (14 would be a proxy). Hawks finished fifth last season after finals, 3rd before finals (AFL would have to assume a finishing position relative to prior year, so call it 5th). Importantly though - even if they won the flag the trade was unbalanced:
10 + 68 = 1395 + 59 = 1454
14 + 23 + 36 = 1161 + 815 + 502 = 2478 (would be 2302 if Hawks won flag this year, but is actually 2,961 due to finishing position).

In terms of other pick only trades last offseason:
Port Adelaide & Sydney = 9, 19 & 49 for 14, 17 & 31 = 2,704 pts for 2,792 pts (3.25% variance)
Brisbane & GWS = 2, 31, 51 & 60 for 3 & 16 = 3,528 for 3,301 (6.9% variance)
Gold Coast & Western Bulldogs = 26 & 80 for 35 & 43 = 729 for 900 (more than 10% variance)
GWS & Sydney = 31 for 39 & 52 = 606 vs 692 (more than 10% variance)
Hawthorn & Carlton = 48, 66 & 70 for future 2nd = 421 < any pick in the second round (hence the suggestion they owe us a favour)

In summary, looks like the AFL don't get in the way of trades, even if unbalanced from a points perspective.

 

[Cripps17]

Agree - I did disclaim about future picks making the discussion a lot more testing - and now looking at it in more detail, some trades seem skewed by what teams need an what is available. I think my statement was a little extreme and its probably a little less of a factor than I stated up front.

The trade was 10 + 68 for 23 + 36 + future first (14 would be a proxy). Hawks finished fifth last season after finals, 3rd before finals (AFL would have to assume a finishing position relative to prior year, so call it 5th). Importantly though - even if they won the flag the trade was unbalanced:
10 + 68 = 1395 + 59 = 1454
14 + 23 + 36 = 1161 + 815 + 502 = 2478 (would be 2302 if Hawks won flag this year, but is actually 2,961 due to finishing position).

In terms of other pick only trades last offseason:
Port Adelaide & Sydney = 9, 19 & 49 for 14, 17 & 31 = 2,704 pts for 2,792 pts (3.25% variance)
Brisbane & GWS = 2, 31, 51 & 60 for 3 & 16 = 3,528 for 3,301 (6.9% variance)
Gold Coast & Western Bulldogs = 26 & 80 for 35 & 43 = 729 for 900 (more than 10% variance)
GWS & Sydney = 31 for 39 & 52 = 606 vs 692 (more than 10% variance)
Hawthorn & Carlton = 48, 66 & 70 for future 2nd = 421 > any pick in the second round (hence the suggestion they owe us a favour)

In summary, looks like the AFL don't get in the way of trades, even if unbalanced from a points perspective.

This post will be the virus we upload when robots take over.

 

[ajb72]

points system to be used as a VERY rough guide as a pick 3 can be a lot more valuable from one draft to the next. Just as an example;

in the 1991 NBA draft, it was Billy Owens (ughhh)

in the 84 draft, it nabbed some guy named Michael Jordan

Can either of them football?

 

[BlueTongue]

This post will be the virus we upload when robots take over.

FMD - That is GOLD!

 

[JuddgementDay]

It doesn't matter which way you want to go with the points and it may be some sort of guide to us, but means jack to clubs' recruiters and list managers, by far and large.

I can't imagine a situation where a points discussion comes into any possible trade of our #3 for #7 & #8. That would seem very 'junior' to me.
If a club feels they'll be getting a possible champion at #3 for a couple of 'not-so-sures' at 7 & 8, you'd do the deal.

I will change every year though, quality dependent.

If any recruiters & list managers use this point system, then they are hopeless at their job
E.g. where do inteviews fit into this scoring system?

 

[ferrisb]

This post will be the virus we upload when robots take over.

As proof that SOS can plan for any contingency, he has already recruited a young John Connor...

 

[Malifice]

View attachment 414630

 

[therubbernub]

Points aren't really a guide.
How perfect can the points system be and if it was perfect, it would have to change every year, draft dependent.

It may be a guide to some, but common sense and understanding of what's in the draft makes for a lot more sense.

"Blind obedience of Fools and for guidance of the wise" Comes to mind

 

[Garth Vader]

As proof that SOS can plan for any contingency, he has already recruited a young John Connor...

View attachment 414629

View attachment 414630

... and the cyborg that will protect him:

 

[ferrisb]

... and the cyborg that will protect him:

Ahhhh.... The (WEI)T-1000!