Future Picks - What was it really worth?

[Lore]

Some pretty mind boggling trades went through last year based on estimates of what 2017 future picks would be worth. Now that the draft order is pretty much settled, I thought it would be interesting to go back and find out what those picks and players ended up being worth in 2016 trades involving future picks.


Trade #7: Hawthorn-St Kilda pick swap

Hawthorn's 2017 first round pick (7) valued at 137 points, or about pick 61.​

Trade #9: Hanley trade (three-way trade between Gold Coast/Brisbane Lions/Port Adelaide)

Port's 2017 first round pick (12) valued at 1502 points, or about pick 8.5.​

Trade #13: Prestia trade (Richmond and Gold Coast)

Prestia was valued at either 1488 or 1508 points, or about pick 9. Gold Coast received Richmond's 2017 second round pick in this trade, which will be either pick 34 or 35 depending on the result of the grand final. If Gold Coast rated Prestia as being worth more than the equivalent of pick 9, then they have under-estimated Richmond's 2017 ladder position.^​

Trade #17: Hrovat trade (North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs)

Hrovat valued at 140 points, or about pick 61* This trade involved North Melbourne and the Bulldogs' 2017 3rd and 4th round picks. The Bulldogs must have assumed that they would finish higher on the ladder than North Melbourne, in order to have netted any sort of value for Hrovat.^
​

Trade #19: Tuohy-Smedts trade (Geelong and Carlton)

Smedts is valued at 312 points more than Tuohy, which is about pick 47. This trade also involved Geelong's 2017 first round pick, and Carlton's 2017 second round pick. If Geelong had finished lower on the ladder, or Carlton higher, then there would be a greater difference between the value of the two players. From what I've read most supporters on both sides are happy with the trade, so assuming this is also the opinion of the clubs, they must have assumed that their finishing positions are roughly as anticipated at the time of the trade.^
​

Trade #29: Frost trade (Brisbane Lions and Collingwood)

Frost valued at 310 points, or about pick 47. This trade involved Brisbane's 2017 3rd and 4th round picks, and Collingwood's 2017 3rd rounder. If Frost was valued lower than that, then they must have expected Collingwood to finish higher on the ladder.^​

Trade #32: Marchbank/Pickett trade (Carlton and Greater Western Sydney)

Marchbank + Pickett = 1045 points, or about pick 16.5. Carlton traded Geelong's 2017 first round pick to GWS as part of this trade, and received GWS's 2017 2nd round pick. Given Geelong and GWS finished within a few positions of where they might have been anticipated to finish, the value of the picks is probably what both clubs expected. If Geelong had finished lower on the ladder or GWS higher, GWS would have received more for Marchbank and Pickett.^​

Trade #34: Carlton-Hawthorn pick swap

GWS's 2017 second round pick (32) valued at 382 points, or about pick 42.5​

Trade #35: O'Meara trade (Hawthorn and Gold Coast)

O'Meara valued at 2180 points, or about pick 3.5. Had Hawthorn finished higher on the ladder, their second round pick would have been lower and worth slightly less points to Gold Coast. Given the relative value of second round picks, this wouldn't have made a lot of overall difference to how O'Meara was valued by Gold Coast (although the cost to Hawthorn of acquiring those picks is another argument, probably done to death elsewhere).^​

Trade #36: Gold Coast-Fremantle pick swap

Gold Coast's 2017 fourth round pick (55) valued at 303 points, or about pick 48​

Trade #37: Deledio trade (Richmond and Greater Western Sydney)

Deledio valued at 1385 points, or about pick 10.5. This trade involved Geelong's 2017 first round pick and GWS's 2017 third round pick. Had they finished lower on the ladder, the picks would have been worth more Richmond. If they had expected Geelong and GWS to finish lower on the ladder, then they must have valued Deledio higher than pick 10.^​

Trade #39: Stevens trade (St Kilda and Western Bulldogs)

Stevens valued at -44 points, or about pick 69. In other words, the Bulldogs basically paid St Kilda to take him. This trade involved the Bulldogs on-trading North Melbourne's 2017 fourth round pick, as well as St Kilda's 2017 fifth round pick. If they valued Stevens higher (which they almost certainly did) then they either expected North to finish higher on the ladder, St Kilda to finish lower on the ladder, or both teams finishing higher with North Melbourne's pick improving in value by more than St Kilda's.^​

The calculations are rough, but should be around the mark. Where the resulting point value falls almost exactly halfway between two picks I've noted it as a half-pick e.g. pick '8.5'. Such picks do not actually exist, of course.

So, are you happy with what your club got in 2016 trades involving 2017 future picks?


Sources:

2016 trade details and numbering: http://www.afl.com.au/news/trade/trade-tracker
2017 pick finishing positions: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-order-picks-based-on-current-ladder.1160828/​

* Thanks to Heaps of fun for catching the error there.
^ Thanks to Messenger for helping me clarify the purpose of this OP. Marked discussion has been reworked and additional detail and clarification added as a result.

 

[adammania9]

Hoskin-Elliott gives class and efficiency we were missing in the forward half - happy to have parted with pick 23 this year

 

[Messenger]

I understand the points system is used for FS and Academy bidding but does it mean much in this context?

I think the more relevant comparison to the value of the pick is how does the team receiving the pick use it? What does Pick 7 become to St Kilda? Used in another trade, a player picked?

 

[tigerwill]

I'm confused with some of what you wrote with these trades

7, 13, 19, 32, 37

 

[Lore]

I understand the points system is used for FS and Academy bidding but does it mean much in this context?

I think the more relevant comparison to the value of the pick is how does the team receiving the pick use it? What does Pick 7 become to St Kilda? Used in another trade, a player picked?

I figure people will know what pick they used for who, and can go from there i.e. adammania's reply. It's similar to the question I asked in the nominal draft order thread when I noticed Geelong's first and Carlton's second were swapped, as whoever they got for it ended up being worth a four pick upgrade/downgrade. Turns out that would be the Smedts-Tuohy trade.

On the other side of it, anyone doing hypothetical trades involving future picks might have a better idea of what future picks are worth with the above information. Future picks appear to be worth less than current picks to some clubs, and seem to be thrown in as a sweetener to get trades done, for example the Stevens and Mitchell trades. On the other hand, Port traded their first round pick for close to it's actual value, as did Gold Coast with their fourth rounder.

We were originally told when the points system came in that the checks and balances that the AFL do when approving a trade would now use the point value of picks as a basis, and all trades would have to be within 200 points (for example, you can't trade pick 5 for pick 40 because there is too great of a difference between the value of the two picks). That clearly doesn't hold much water where future picks are concerned though.

I'm confused with some of what you wrote with these trades

7, 13, 19, 32, 37

Not 100% sure which part of it is confusing you, so I've just tried to explain as clearly as I can below. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Trade #7: When Hawthorn traded their first round pick to St Kilda, they treated it as if it would eventually be worth pick 61 (wouldn't have known that at the time of course). In other words they gave it away for sfa. That trade eventually meant they landed Tom Mitchell from Sydney.
Trade #13: Richmond paid the equivalent of pick 9 to get Prestia. Seems like fair value.
Trade #19: Carlton got Smedts from Geelong in return for Tuohy and the equivalent of pick 47. I imagine both sets of fans would be happy enough with that?
Trade #32: Carlton traded the equivalent of pick 16 to get Marchbank and Pickett
Trade #37: Richmond got the equivalent of pick 10 for Deledio

 

[TheLastCall]

Trade #36: Gold Coast-Fremantle pick swap

Gold Coast's 2017 fourth round pick (55) valued at 303 points, or about pick 48​

[/URL][/INDENT]

Future picks swaps can be dependant on what you need and think a player is worth.

Freo ended up picking Luck Darcey and Lyam Ryan.

In this case it was a great trade for Freo. Sun have another second round this year, which has great potential.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Hrovat cost pick 61, not 44. I'm not a fan but a good price for a depth player. A win-win trade.

 

[Lore]

View attachment 419900
Hrovat cost pick 61, not 44. I'm not a fan but a good price for a depth player. A win-win trade.

Yep, that's my bad maths. Must've hit - instead of + somewhere along the way. I will edit it in the OP, thanks for catching it!

 

[Heaps of fun]

Yep, that's my bad maths. Must've hit - instead of + somewhere along the way. I will edit it in the OP, thanks for catching it!

No worries. Was only possible with your great tables. Loved your work throughout the year.

 

[Messenger]

I figure people will know what pick they used for who, and can go from there i.e. adammania's reply. It's similar to the question I asked in the nominal draft order thread when I noticed Geelong's first and Carlton's second were swapped, as whoever they got for it ended up being worth a four pick upgrade/downgrade. Turns out that would be the Smedts-Tuohy trade.

On the other side of it, anyone doing hypothetical trades involving future picks might have a better idea of what future picks are worth with the above information. Future picks appear to be worth less than current picks to some clubs, and seem to be thrown in as a sweetener to get trades done, for example the Stevens and Mitchell trades. On the other hand, Port traded their first round pick for close to it's actual value, as did Gold Coast with their fourth rounder.

In a point systems it may look like they are being thrown away (and ultimately we have to see how some of these trades pan out to know) but I think it's more useful to treat them as individual assets. Academy teams cottoned on pretty quickly that three picks in the 50's had the same accounting value as a pick in the 20's but shedding those picks didn't have the same opportunity cost to them as shedding one higher pick.

If a club came to Essendon and offered three picks in the 50's (50,52, and 54) for a player instead of an early 2nd (points equivalent to 25) is that the same deal because the points match?

We were originally told when the points system came in that the checks and balances that the AFL do when approving a trade would now use the point value of picks as a basis, and all trades would have to be within 200 points (for example, you can't trade pick 5 for pick 40 because there is too great of a difference between the value of the two picks). That clearly doesn't hold much water where future picks are concerned though.

I understand this; it's the AFL's form of accounting.

Not 100% sure which part of it is confusing you, so I've just tried to explain as clearly as I can below. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Trade #7: When Hawthorn traded their first round pick to St Kilda, they treated it as if it would eventually be worth pick 61 (wouldn't have known that at the time of course). In other words they gave it away for sfa. That trade eventually meant they landed Tom Mitchell from Sydney.
Trade #13: Richmond paid the equivalent of pick 9 to get Prestia. Seems like fair value.
Trade #19: Carlton got Smedts from Geelong in return for Tuohy and the equivalent of pick 47. I imagine both sets of fans would be happy enough with that?
Trade #32: Carlton traded the equivalent of pick 16 to get Marchbank and Pickett
Trade #37: Richmond got the equivalent of pick 10 for Deledio

It's not that I don't understand, its that I don't accept the premise of the argument. Hawthorn traded a '17 first for a '16 first and on-traded that first (and other assets) for O'Meara. Putting aside O'Meara's future value as a player (which has a high ceiling and low floor) the pick doesn't appear to have been thrown away. Can you breakdown the full maths for me?

 

[Groin guru]

Good stuff Lore . Some very interesting outcomes. Injuries having a big say in the hanley and o'meara trades.

 

[briztoon]

Some pretty mind boggling trades went through last year based on estimates of what 2017 future picks would be worth. Now that the draft order is pretty much settled, I thought it would be interesting to go back and find out what those picks and players ended up being worth in 2016 trades involving future picks.


Trade #7: Hawthorn-St Kilda pick swap

Hawthorn's 2017 first round pick (7) valued at 137 points, or about pick 61.​

Trade #9: Hanley trade (three-way trade between Gold Coast/Brisbane Lions/Port Adelaide)

Port's 2017 first round pick (12) valued at 1502 points, or about pick 8.5.
Hanley valued at 1405 points, or about pick 9.5​

Trade #13: Prestia trade (Richmond and Gold Coast)

Prestia valued at either 1488 or 1508 points, or about pick 9​

Trade #17: Hrovat trade (North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs)

Hrovat valued at 140 points, or about pick 61*
​

Trade #19: Tuohy-Smedts trade (Geelong and Carlton)

Smedts is valued at 312 points more than Tuohy, which is about pick 47
​

Trade #29: Frost trade (Brisbane Lions and Collingwood)

Frost valued at 310 points, or about pick 47​

Trade #32: Marchbank/Pickett trade (Carlton and Greater Western Sydney)

Marchbank + Pickett = 1045 points, or about pick 16.5​

Trade #34: Carlton-Hawthorn pick swap

GWS's 2017 second round pick (32) valued at 382 points, or about pick 42.5​

Trade #35: O'Meara trade (Hawthorn and Gold Coast)

O'Meara valued at 2180 points, or about pick 3.5​

Trade #36: Gold Coast-Fremantle pick swap

Gold Coast's 2017 fourth round pick (55) valued at 303 points, or about pick 48​

Trade #37: Deledio trade (Richmond and Greater Western Sydney)

Deledio valued at 1358 points, or about pick 10.5​

Trade #39: Stevens trade (St Kilda and Western Bulldogs)

Stevens valued at -44 points, or about pick 69. In other words, the Bulldogs basically paid St Kilda to take him.​

The calculations are rough, but should be around the mark. Where the resulting point value falls almost exactly halfway between two picks I've noted it as a half-pick e.g. pick '8.5'. Such picks do not actually exist, of course.

So, are you happy with what your club got in 2016 trades involving 2017 future picks?


Sources:

2016 trade details and numbering: http://www.afl.com.au/news/trade/trade-tracker
2017 pick finishing positions: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-order-picks-based-on-current-ladder.1160828/​

*Thanks to Heaps of fun for catching the error there.

​

There were quite a lot of picks involved in the Brisbane, Gold Coast and Port trade that you haven't listed.

Brisbane traded out Hanley and our Priority Pick 19, not sure if there were later picks.

We got back pick 22 from the Gold Coast, which eventually netted us Cedric Cox, who we are pretty happy with.

Port used the Priority Pick 19 in a further multiple pick swap with Sydney.

The PP we traded out eventually was used by Sydney to draft Will Haywood.

Yet to see what happens with 2017's pick 12 we got back from Port.

 

[Lore]

If a club came to Essendon and offered three picks in the 50's (50,52, and 54) for a player instead of an early 2nd (points equivalent to 25) is that the same deal because the points match?

Depends if we need points for a father/son pick or if we're planning to take it to the draft.

It's not that I don't understand, its that I don't accept the premise of the argument. Hawthorn traded a '17 first for a '16 first and on-traded that first (and other assets) for O'Meara. Putting aside O'Meara's future value as a player (which has a high ceiling and low floor) the pick doesn't appear to have been thrown away. Can you breakdown the full maths for me?

The bit you quoted was in reply to tigerwill, who expressed confusion with regard to that specific trade in his post above.

As far as O'Meara is concerned, I am of the understanding that Essendon was right into him as well, so whatever he is worth and whatever you spent on him, Essendon probably would've paid the same if given the opportunity (most likely involving pick 1). Likewise with the Mitchell trade, he's pretty much exactly the sort of player we're in the market for this year. We might not have gone after him particularly (I don't know exactly), but I imagine if given the chance to get that sort of player for that sort of price, we'd probably take it.

This is the maths that I wrote down for trade #7:
Hawthorn traded their 2017 1st round pick (pick 7), pick 23 and pick 36 for St Kilda's pick 10 and pick 68
(Hawthorn's 2017 1st) + 23 + 36 = 10 + 68 (in picks)
(Hawthorn's 2017 1st) + 815 + 502 = 1395 + 59 (in points)
(Hawthorn's 2017 1st) + 1317 = 1454
(Hawthorn's 2017 1st) = 1454 - 1317
(Hawthorn's 2017 1st) = 137 points

Pick 61 is worth 135 points, so Hawthorn's 2017 1st = ~pick 61

That gives a rough understanding of what St Kilda got in return for their picks, and therefore a rough valuation of the first round pick from a trade perspective.

If you're trying to evaluate the success of the actual trade overall, it's way too early to really establish what they will be worth to you as players. If you win a premiership with them it's all worth it. If they improve your side significantly more than the players you might've had with those picks (either through trade or drafting) then it's worth it. That's a really subjective hypothetical thing to go into though, you never know who you might've picked, and who you actually would've used those picks on would not necessarily be the best player available at that point with the benefit of hindsight.

There were quite a lot of picks involved in the Brisbane, Gold Coast and Port trade that you haven't listed.

Brisbane traded out Hanley and our Priority Pick 19, not sure if there were later picks.

We got back pick 22 from the Gold Coast, which eventually netted us Cedric Cox, who we are pretty happy with.

Port used the Priority Pick 19 in a further multiple pick swap with Sydney.

The PP we traded out eventually was used by Sydney to draft Will Haywood.

Yet to see what happens with 2017's pick 12 we got back from Port.

Yep. My aim was to discover the value of the future picks, and the value of Hanley at the trade table (which we could not have figured out at the time because we didn't know what Port's pick would be).

The actual trade was;
GC receive Hanley and 67 for 22 and 30
Port receive 19 and 30 for their 2017 1st (12) and 67
BL get Port's 2017 1st (12) and 22 for Hanley and 19

 

[Messenger]

Lore, I appreciate you taking the time with your explanation. My view is that while pick for pick trades stand up to the points system, we're trying to tie a quantitative method to a very subjective and qualitative process.

 

[Lore]

Lore, I appreciate you taking the time with your explanation. My view is that while pick for pick trades stand up to the points system, we're trying to tie a quantitative method to a very subjective and qualitative process.

Ahhhhh I've just realised. It wasn't my intention to figure out how much a player was worth by attributing a number value (as if that number proves anything). Ask any regular on the Essendon board, I'm consistently harsh on rating systems and the use of stats without any intelligent analysis of what the numbers actually mean.

Certainly I don't think the mathematical result of a trade that results in valuing a player at -44 points is in any way a reflection on that player's worth. If anything, I think it's interesting to see if a club has got a steal based on what they paid, or maybe their club's finishing position was underestimated by their opponent, for example Gold Coast probably didn't anticipate Richmond playing in the grand final when they agreed to trade Prestia, although in that particular instance it doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference to them.

What I am trying to do with this thread is provide the tools with which to approach the 2017 trade period, to better understand what it means when you consider trading a future pick. The points that these picks are worth will become more relevant as next generation academies become more prominent and more clubs start to use the bidding process.

I've edited the OP to clarify and add more discussion.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Some pretty mind boggling trades went through last year based on estimates of what 2017 future picks would be worth. Now that the draft order is pretty much settled, I thought it would be interesting to go back and find out what those picks and players ended up being worth in 2016 trades involving future picks.


Trade #7: Hawthorn-St Kilda pick swap

Hawthorn's 2017 first round pick (7) valued at 137 points, or about pick 61.​

Trade #9: Hanley trade (three-way trade between Gold Coast/Brisbane Lions/Port Adelaide)

Port's 2017 first round pick (12) valued at 1502 points, or about pick 8.5.​

Trade #13: Prestia trade (Richmond and Gold Coast)

Prestia was valued at either 1488 or 1508 points, or about pick 9. Gold Coast received Richmond's 2017 second round pick in this trade, which will be either pick 34 or 35 depending on the result of the grand final. If Gold Coast rated Prestia as being worth more than the equivalent of pick 9, then they have under-estimated Richmond's 2017 ladder position.^​

Trade #17: Hrovat trade (North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs)

Hrovat valued at 140 points, or about pick 61* This trade involved North Melbourne and the Bulldogs' 2017 3rd and 4th round picks. The Bulldogs must have assumed that they would finish higher on the ladder than North Melbourne, in order to have netted any sort of value for Hrovat.^​

​

Trade #19: Tuohy-Smedts trade (Geelong and Carlton)

Smedts is valued at 312 points more than Tuohy, which is about pick 47. This trade also involved Geelong's 2017 first round pick, and Carlton's 2017 second round pick. If Geelong had finished lower on the ladder, or Carlton higher, then there would be a greater difference between the value of the two players. From what I've read most supporters on both sides are happy with the trade, so assuming this is also the opinion of the clubs, they must have assumed that their finishing positions are roughly as anticipated at the time of the trade.^​

​

Trade #29: Frost trade (Brisbane Lions and Collingwood)

Frost valued at 310 points, or about pick 47. This trade involved Brisbane's 2017 3rd and 4th round picks, and Collingwood's 2017 3rd rounder. If Frost was valued lower than that, then they must have expected Collingwood to finish higher on the ladder.^​

Trade #32: Marchbank/Pickett trade (Carlton and Greater Western Sydney)

Marchbank + Pickett = 1045 points, or about pick 16.5. Carlton traded Geelong's 2017 first round pick to GWS as part of this trade, and received GWS's 2017 2nd round pick. Given Geelong and GWS finished within a few positions of where they might have been anticipated to finish, the value of the picks is probably what both clubs expected. If Geelong had finished lower on the ladder or GWS higher, GWS would have received more for Marchbank and Pickett.^​

Trade #34: Carlton-Hawthorn pick swap

GWS's 2017 second round pick (32) valued at 382 points, or about pick 42.5​

Trade #35: O'Meara trade (Hawthorn and Gold Coast)

O'Meara valued at 2180 points, or about pick 3.5. Had Hawthorn finished higher on the ladder, their second round pick would have been lower and worth slightly less points to Gold Coast. Given the relative value of second round picks, this wouldn't have made a lot of overall difference to how O'Meara was valued by Gold Coast (although the cost to Hawthorn of acquiring those picks is another argument, probably done to death elsewhere).^​

Trade #36: Gold Coast-Fremantle pick swap

Gold Coast's 2017 fourth round pick (55) valued at 303 points, or about pick 48​

Trade #37: Deledio trade (Richmond and Greater Western Sydney)

Deledio valued at 1385 points, or about pick 10.5. This trade involved Geelong's 2017 first round pick and GWS's 2017 third round pick. Had they finished lower on the ladder, the picks would have been worth more Richmond. If they had expected Geelong and GWS to finish lower on the ladder, then they must have valued Deledio higher than pick 10.^​

Trade #39: Stevens trade (St Kilda and Western Bulldogs)

Stevens valued at -44 points, or about pick 69. In other words, the Bulldogs basically paid St Kilda to take him. This trade involved the Bulldogs on-trading North Melbourne's 2017 fourth round pick, as well as St Kilda's 2017 fifth round pick. If they valued Stevens higher (which they almost certainly did) then they either expected North to finish higher on the ladder, St Kilda to finish lower on the ladder, or both teams finishing higher with North Melbourne's pick improving in value by more than St Kilda's.^​

The calculations are rough, but should be around the mark. Where the resulting point value falls almost exactly halfway between two picks I've noted it as a half-pick e.g. pick '8.5'. Such picks do not actually exist, of course.

So, are you happy with what your club got in 2016 trades involving 2017 future picks?


Sources:

2016 trade details and numbering: http://www.afl.com.au/news/trade/trade-tracker​

2017 pick finishing positions: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-order-picks-based-on-current-ladder.1160828/​

* Thanks to Heaps of fun for catching the error there.
^ Thanks to Messenger for helping me clarify the purpose of this OP. Marked discussion has been reworked and additional detail and clarification added as a result.

I'm very happy with my clubs trades and picks and smarts!
But I am one of those footy followers who does not ever think the draft of young possibles and a couple of probables , is the be all and end all of picking for success.
The draft is a gamble. Of course I'm not stupid enough to say we don't have to have a draft, we do, but luck and knowing the value of the stock in the stalls for sale is most of the battle, and picking a well credentialed older bull than a fancy kid that may get there or may not is very very hard. but some clubs are good judges and the balance works out .
You have to be prepared to work a strict regime following of a plan to gather a few years together where you are looking invincible.
Some teams get that but it never lasts like Hawthorn they are in the remaking mode, but they know how to do it, Clarko a great coach but he is not alone he'll tell you that.
Planning and never deviating is the way you need to keep up the standard or develop it.
It is by drafting and trading well. Mostly its good the form of the recruiting panels in clubs .
Like I said before its like Bart Cummings and horse flesh.
Me, I love the way my club goes patiently about it.
And also they do have a little luck with players individually , BUT, its mostly about how you teach and train your new players over time is what makes dynasties!
So I couldn't care less about the draft, I just want it over so we can look forward to next season, and I don't care what the AFL reason for this weekend off,
BUT I HATE IT LIKE YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE! This is a crappy weekend.

 

[Lore]

I'm very happy with my clubs trades and picks and smarts!
But I am one of those footy followers who does not ever think the draft of young possibles and a couple of probables , is the be all and end all of picking for success.
The draft is a gamble. Of course I'm not stupid enough to say we don't have to have a draft, we do, but luck and knowing the value of the stock in the stalls for sale is most of the battle, and picking a well credentialed older bull than a fancy kid that may get there or may not is very very hard. but some clubs are good judges and the balance works out .
You have to be prepared to work a strict regime following of a plan to gather a few years together where you are looking invincible.
Some teams get that but it never lasts like Hawthorn they are in the remaking mode, but they know how to do it, Clarko a great coach but he is not alone he'll tell you that.
Planning and never deviating is the way you need to keep up the standard or develop it.
It is by drafting and trading well. Mostly its good the form of the recruiting panels in clubs .
Like I said before its like Bart Cummings and horse flesh.
Me, I love the way my club goes patiently about it.
And also they do have a little luck with players individually , BUT, its mostly about how you teach and train your new players over time is what makes dynasties!
So I couldn't care less about the draft, I just want it over so we can look forward to next season, and I don't care what the AFL reason for this weekend off,
BUT I HATE IT LIKE YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE! This is a crappy weekend.

Wow, that's a blast from the past. I'd forgotten I ever made this thread..