Traded Collingwood trade #27 to Richmond for #38, #40 and F3

[Taylor]

 

[Suma Magic]

clubs are throwing away entire draft hands for 1 player currently, thats a fair enough trade off for stockpiling late picks IMO

Disagree. I think the points curve should reflect the market value for draft picks.

 

[Mr Magic]

Disagree. I think the points curve should reflect the market value for draft picks.

The market value for picks is interesting.

Some think the goal is to win a premiership and for other teams to finish on the bottom. But that does not work with equalisation,

The true goal is to win premierships and encourage other teams to venture into no mans land. Now obviously all clubs can't be in no mans land because some club has to get the spoon, but if all clubs are level in terms of talent/list capability and your club is clearly levels above that would be the utopia of a specific club even though rarely experienced

 

[Ambrosia]

Certainly needs some tweaking weighted towards the top end but the value of picks relative to one another changes year on year. It’s difficult to get right and COVID disrupting underage footy and therefore the later rounds certainly doesn’t help.

Personally think picks outside the first 2 rounds should be worth zero points. Every team in the league is looking to package 3rd rounders to jump up the order.

 

[Andyy]

I think we overpaid. No need to add F3.

Pies trading a paperclip for a house.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think we overpaid. No need to add F3.

Pies trading a paperclip for a house.

You would have preferred not to do the trade?

 

[LOZWILDA]

Half the trade deal done. Other half of deal done after Daicos bid is completed. Surely there is something happening there? Hopefully.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Prochard123]

Half the trade deal done. Other half of deal done after Daicos bid is completed. Surely there is something happening there? Hopefully.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You mean pick 48 + your future 3rd for your future 2nd? Sure lock it in

 

[Andyy]

You would have preferred not to do the trade?

No, I'm happy the trade is done, just think it was slight overs.

Pies have done very well trading up, hence the paperclip analogy (ie trading step by step for something of significantly higher value).

I had hoped RFC would go for the Dogs #17 weeks ago. I wonder if Tiger had a chance at their #23? I'd rather have traded this lot for that.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

No, I'm happy the trade is done, just think it was slight overs.

Pies have done very well trading up, hence the paperclip analogy (ie trading step by step for something of significantly higher value).

I had hoped RFC would go for the Dogs #17 weeks ago. I wonder if Tiger had a chance at their #23? I'd rather have traded this lot for that.

I think the Dogs can do better for pick 23.
For example:
Geelongs 30, 32 (best) plus other picks that could work.
West Coasts 29, 35
Sydney 31, 39 (worst case)

All of those are better then 38, 40 and future pick 50 especially if you are looking for points in this years draft. I think Sydney would do that deal. Not totally sure about the first 2.

 

[RobJD]

I think the Dogs can do better for pick 23.
For example:
Geelongs 30, 32 (best) plus other picks that could work.
West Coasts 29, 35
Sydney 31, 39 (worst case)

All of those are better then 38, 40 and future pick 50 especially if you are looking for points in this years draft. I think Sydney would do that deal. Not totally sure about the first 2.

I wonder if the Swans will prefer to simply sit back and let it play out - A Cats or West Coast trade for 23 and the subsequent deduction of those picks with a matched bid on Darcy will mean that the Swan's picks will naturally increase in value - especially if the Pies use their 36 and 38 on Daics. In either case (Cats or WCE trades), the Swan's pick 31 will become 30 and 39 could potentially be a Pick 35 or better

 

[master bate]

Shows just how wrong the points index is.

AFL really need to update it to reflect the true value of draft picks relative to each other.

Absolutely needs an update, but the first thing to change is eshould be a limit on how far from a bid the initial pick to match can be.

Any top 20 bid should be matched by a pick within 20 spots of the bid. The Pies shouldn't be able to match Daicos without a pick in the top 21/22. It's insane how far out they've been able to push their picks.

Once a bid comes outside 20 you can let teams shuffle their matching picks back more, maybe 25-35 spots on a sliding scale. But to match any early bids with a combination of trash picks is so stupid.

 

[2006_Eagles]

What did Collingwood get for giving away pick2?

North should bid at one. It looks dumb to not

Only if they seriously rate Daicos as #1.

To do it just to * with with Pies isn't a good reason IMO

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I wonder if the Swans will prefer to simply sit back and let it play out - A Cats or West Coast trade for 23 and the subsequent deduction of those picks with a matched bid on Darcy will mean that the Swan's picks will naturally increase in value - especially if the Pies use their 36 and 38 on Daics. In either case (Cats or WCE trades), the Swan's pick 31 will become 30 and 39 could potentially be a Pick 35 or better

Because there is currently only 1 pick that Collingwood and the Dogs have before pick 31 (this is currently pick 23). When Daicos and Darcy are bid on Sydney's picks will move back 1 spot at least (2 spots if the Dogs use pick 23 and pick up picks after the Swans picks) Pick 31 will be at least pick 32 if not pick 33. Pick 39 I see staying about the same (2 of the Dogs and Pies picks are before it 23 and 36). Later picks in the 50's will be moving up spots but this is because most of the Collingwood and Dogs picks are in the 40's

 

[RobJD]

Because there is currently only 1 pick that Collingwood and the Dogs have before pick 31 (this is currently pick 23). When Daicos and Darcy are bid on Sydney's picks will move back 1 spot at least (2 spots if the Dogs use pick 23 and pick up picks after the Swans picks) Pick 31 will be at least pick 32 if not pick 33. Pick 39 I see staying about the same (2 of the Dogs and Pies picks are before it 23 and 36). Later picks in the 50's will be moving up spots but this is because most of the Collingwood and Dogs picks are in the 40's

As I see it, the picks for Daics and Darcy are already factored in for all bar, potentially, Pick 1. My understanding of the matching process is that a team's highest draft picks are consumed first, so unless the Doggies and the Pies manage to move out their current picks in the 20's and 30's then the Swan's Pick 39 is likely to come into effectively Pick 36 once the Daics and Darcy bids are matched. There's enough points in the 40's to cover bids on both Darcy and Daics (the Pies and the Doggies already have 6 of the 40's picks between them), so Live Trading will be interesting to see if they're going to jostle for these picks. Good thing for the Pies is that a selection of Darcy first will see our Picks 46, 48 and 55 increase in value by more than 200 points.

 

[Suma Magic]

Absolutely needs an update, but the first thing to change is eshould be a limit on how far from a bid the initial pick to match can be.

Any top 20 bid should be matched by a pick within 20 spots of the bid. The Pies shouldn't be able to match Daicos without a pick in the top 21/22. It's insane how far out they've been able to push their picks.

Once a bid comes outside 20 you can let teams shuffle their matching picks back more, maybe 25-35 spots on a sliding scale. But to match any early bids with a combination of trash picks is so stupid.

I disagree. If you fix the points curve then it shouldn’t matter what type of picks are used to match it. Picks that are 30 picks after the bid won’t be worth much under an accurate curve.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

As I see it, the picks for Daics and Darcy are already factored in for all bar, potentially, Pick 1. My understanding of the matching process is that a team's highest draft picks are consumed first, so unless the Doggies and the Pies manage to move out their current picks in the 20's and 30's then the Swan's Pick 39 is likely to come into effectively Pick 36 once the Daics and Darcy bids are matched. There's enough points in the 40's to cover bids on both Darcy and Daics (the Pies and the Doggies already have 6 of the 40's picks between them), so Live Trading will be interesting to see if they're going to jostle for these picks. Good thing for the Pies is that a selection of Darcy first will see our Picks 46, 48 and 55 increase in value by more than 200 points.

Pies have moved on their pick 27 into 38 and 40 and the Dogs will probably do the same with their pick 23. The Swans pick 31 will not move down it will move up. When we pick Daicos all picks more back a spot 3 becomes 4 etc. However any picks that are absorbed lets say pick 38, 40, 46 then reverse this process but only for picks after them. So When Daicos and Darcy are picked at lets say 3 and 4. Then pick 3 becomes pick 5 and pick 6 becomes pick 8. This will probably happen to all picks up until the spots where the picks that the Dogs and Pies have their first pick. Lets say they are picks 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. That means pick 38 will become pick 40 but picks 46 will become pick 42. It can be hard to understand.

 

[RobJD]

Pies have moved on their pick 27 into 38 and 40 and the Dogs will probably do the same with their pick 23. The Swans pick 31 will not move down it will move up. When we pick Daicos all picks more back a spot 3 becomes 4 etc. However any picks that are absorbed lets say pick 38, 40, 46 then reverse this process but only for picks after them. So When Daicos and Darcy are picked at lets say 3 and 4. Then pick 3 becomes pick 5 and pick 6 becomes pick 8. This will probably happen to all picks up until the spots where the picks that the Dogs and Pies have their first pick. Lets say they are picks 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. That means pick 38 will become pick 40 but picks 46 will become pick 42. It can be hard to understand.

The reason I say that the Daics and Darcy bids are already factored is that for most picks, I find it easier to simply assume that the shift will occur, so it becomes relative - call your starting position after the match 2 or 4, it's either 39 or 41, same same - what I proposed was initially based on the Doggies trading 23 with either Gee or WCE (for 32 and 34 or 29 and 35) and the Pies not trading 36 and 38 - after the Darcy and Daicos matched bids, 39 becomes 35 or 37 depending on how you want to look at it - same same as they are relatively the same pick due to 35/37 being the same number of live picks after the matched pick - the example that you responded to assumed that there is no Live trading of picks 23, 36 and 38 - so the number of live picks from the matched bid is 35 selections. Of course all of this ignores the potential for other F/S and NGA picks prior to what is now Pick 39, e.g., Motlop, Windhager, Fahey - given that there's some chance of a F/S/NGA around the Doggies pick 23, there's probably some additional risk/reward.

 

[Mr Magic]

As I see it, the picks for Daics and Darcy are already factored in for all bar, potentially, Pick 1. My understanding of the matching process is that a team's highest draft picks are consumed first, so unless the Doggies and the Pies manage to move out their current picks in the 20's and 30's then the Swan's Pick 39 is likely to come into effectively Pick 36 once the Daics and Darcy bids are matched. There's enough points in the 40's to cover bids on both Darcy and Daics (the Pies and the Doggies already have 6 of the 40's picks between them), so Live Trading will be interesting to see if they're going to jostle for these picks. Good thing for the Pies is that a selection of Darcy first will see our Picks 46, 48 and 55 increase in value by more than 200 points.

The draft picks do not increase in value from the bidding process because the previous picks where actually used but just used for matching instead of selecting a individual live draftee.

But the first picks for Darcy and Daicos will be used regardless whether 23 or 36 etc..

 

[RobJD]

The draft picks do not increase in value from the bidding process because the previous picks where actually used but just used for matching instead of selecting a individual live draftee.

But the first picks for Darcy and Daicos will be used regardless whether 23 or 36 etc..

Ok - I was led to believe that points were adjusted after matching. It was my understand that in the event that say picks 23, 24 and 25 were part of a matched bid then the holder of pick 26 (729 points) would then become Pick 24 (out one place for the matched bid, in 3 places for the points consumed) and that the points allocations for this pick would be 785. From what you are saying, it sounds like point values are frozen at the commencement of the draft and in the example above, the Pick 26 that become selection 24 would have 729 points allocated to it in the event that it was traded. Is that correct?

 

[Mr Magic]

Ok - I was led to believe that points were adjusted after matching. It was my understand that in the event that say picks 23, 24 and 25 were part of a matched bid then the holder of pick 26 (729 points) would then become Pick 24 (out one place for the matched bid, in 3 places for the points consumed) and that the points allocations for this pick would be 785. From what you are saying, it sounds like point values are frozen at the commencement of the draft and in the example above, the Pick 26 that become selection 24 would have 729 points allocated to it in the event that it was traded. Is that correct?

I am not a expert, I am coming from a prescriptive sense. I do not know what they ruling is.

I assume 26 becomes effectively 24 in terms of next selection in the draft picking live draftees but in terms of points it is still 26 in terms of points because the previous picks where used but just not used on live selections, rather used for matching. So even though 26 gets a earlier live selection in the draft the position has not changed, 26 is still 26 because 25 and 24 did not disappear, they where just used in a different way and used by the club holding that position in this example for matching. My understanding is 26 is still 26 but because of matching before it the club having it has the chance to pick up more players in the supply than otherwise would be the case because of matching beforehand. My understanding is based on my interpretation of appropriateness of the objectives not actual dictation from a specific authority like AFL HQ.

 

[Suma Magic]

I’m pretty sure that picks reset after a match.

So if Darcy is bid at 2, the dogs get 2, and some picks disappear. This means all remaining picks either move up or down or stay the same. So 38 may move to say 37 for the pies.

If daicos is then bid at 3 on this example, the pies pay with 37, not 38.

But if daicos is bid at 2, pies use 38 to match

 

[Mr Magic]

I’m pretty sure that picks reset after a match.

So if Darcy is bid at 2, the dogs get 2, and some picks disappear. This means all remaining picks either move up or down or stay the same. So 38 may move to say 37 for the pies.

If daicos is then bid at 3 on this example, the pies pay with 37, not 38.

But if daicos is bid at 2, pies use 38 to match

Why would they??

The Bulldogs or Pies used the picks, they did not go away. Gill or whoever does not call them out because they where used

It also means two picks could be used for the same points which comprising the integrity of the bidding system.

Just say Bulldogs had pick 23 which they do and Pies had pick 24.

Bulldogs bid on earlier selection for Darcy so 23 and its points get used.


Not long after Daicos gets picked and Pies match. Surely Bulldogs and Pies can't use the same points value of 23 for separate bids otherwise the Daicos bid does not recognise the previous Darcy bid. Surely the Daicos bid uses pick 24 points knowing pick 23 points was used on Darcy before and has been used

 

[RobJD]

I’m pretty sure that picks reset after a match.

So if Darcy is bid at 2, the dogs get 2, and some picks disappear. This means all remaining picks either move up or down or stay the same. So 38 may move to say 37 for the pies.

If daicos is then bid at 3 on this example, the pies pay with 37, not 38.

But if daicos is bid at 2, pies use 38 to match

Cheers, thanks for clarifying - the nut of the question is not really what the pick is, it's what the points allocated to the pick are. In your example, is the original pick that is part of the match for the Daicos bid worth 465 points (value of the pick at the time of the start of the draft as selection 38) or is the bid worth 483 points (value of the pick at the time that the pick is consumed as selection 37)?

 

[master bate]

Why would they??

The Bulldogs or Pies used the picks, they did not go away. Gill or whoever does not call them out because they where used

It also means two picks could be used for the same points which comprising the integrity of the bidding system.

Just say Bulldogs had pick 23 which they do and Pies had pick 24.

Bulldogs bid on earlier selection for Darcy so 23 and its points get used.


Not long after Daicos gets picked and Pies match. Surely Bulldogs and Pies can't use the same points value of 23 for separate bids otherwise the Daicos bid does not recognise the previous Darcy bid. Surely the Daicos bid uses pick 24 points knowing pick 23 points was used on Darcy before and has been used

Firstly, there is no integrity of the bidding system, it's all a farce.

But if it's Dogs 23, Pies 24 and Darcy gets picked at pick 2, then pick 23 gets consumed in paying for pick 2. Pick 24 moves back 1 with the addition of pick 2 to the draft pool, then gets moved forward 1 with pick 23 being taken out of the draft pool, ends up right back at 24.

If the Dogs had 22, 23 and Darcy went pick 2 and both picks got consumed, then the Pies pick 24 absolutely would end up back at 23 as well. Yes in that situation two teams would be using pick 23, but the only way it can be done is to value that pick when the Pies go to use it. Otherwise the opposite would be true, you'd have a draft that went pick 22 then pick 24 and no one would be pick 23 in that draft!

The order and the points of the picks are valued at what they are when they are needed. Hence the Saints coming in to this draft with picks in the 60's trying to match academy players who probably go in the 20's or 30's. They know after the Daicos and Darcy bids consume a stack of picks in the 30's and 40's their picks will move in and be valued as picks in the 50's or even late 40's.

 

[Mr Magic]

Firstly, there is no integrity of the bidding system, it's all a farce.

But if it's Dogs 23, Pies 24 and Darcy gets picked at pick 2, then pick 23 gets consumed in paying for pick 2. Pick 24 moves back 1 with the addition of pick 2 to the draft pool, then gets moved forward 1 with pick 23 being taken out of the draft pool, ends up right back at 24.

If the Dogs had 22, 23 and Darcy went pick 2 and both picks got consumed, then the Pies pick 24 absolutely would end up back at 23 as well. Yes in that situation two teams would be using pick 23, but the only way it can be done is to value that pick when the Pies go to use it. Otherwise the opposite would be true, you'd have a draft that went pick 22 then pick 24 and no one would be pick 23 in that draft!

The order and the points of the picks are valued at what they are when they are needed. Hence the Saints coming in to this draft with picks in the 60's trying to match academy players who probably go in the 20's or 30's. They know after the Daicos and Darcy bids consume a stack of picks in the 30's and 40's their picks will move in and be valued as picks in the 50's or even late 40's.

If that was the case, clubs would get behind each other and bid using a higher pick because each is used in the bidding because of the bigger point gap between picks. Why trade back for points at all?