Draft Profile Jamarra Ugle-Hagan

[Pykie]

The Dog's would want to do some trading otherwise he will cost them all of their 2020 picks as well as knock their first rounder in 2021 back based on where they're likely to finish in 2020.

The problem with a top 3 academy or NGA prospect, which Sydney never had to contend with because they changes the rules, is the amount of list spaces they're going to have to fill with back end draft picks to fit him on the list, just to match the pure points.


They might have to clear 4-5 places just for him and then fill them with 60-70+ draft pick selections.


Culling the main list as much as that when you've got a decent VFL side and a strong young list will invariably mean they have to cull some decent players next year, as there's not a whole lot of retirements on the cards for them in 2020?

 

[K_Nine]

The Dog's would want to do some trading otherwise he will cost them all of their 2020 picks as well as knock their first rounder in 2021 back based on where they're likely to finish in 2020.

The problem with a top 3 academy or NGA prospect, which Sydney never had to contend with because they changes the rules, is the amount of list spaces they're going to have to fill with back end draft picks to fit him on the list, just to match the pure points.


They might have to clear 4-5 places just for him and then fill them with 60-70+ draft pick selections.


Culling the main list as much as that when you've got a decent VFL side and a strong young list will invariably mean they have to cull some decent players next year, as there's not a whole lot of retirements on the cards for them in 2020?

What are you talking about? Since when do list spots matter in the context of NGA bidding?

One thing worth noting is that it's naive to believe that trading our 2020 first rounder this October is a good idea. If Ugle-Hagan were to be bid on at #1 next year, that's worth 3000 points, which is already more than all our picks combined this year, and we have 3 third rounders. Yes we can go into deficit, but that could drastically affect our ability to trade in 2021, especially considering we have two more 2020 guns coming through (Nick Stevens (NGA) and Ewan Macpherson (F/S)).

In this year's trade period, we should be looking to stockpile as many future picks as possible. Even in deals for guys like Bruce, we should be looking to get one or two 2020 picks coming in.

 

[Virgin Dog]

The Dog's would want to do some trading otherwise he will cost them all of their 2020 picks as well as knock their first rounder in 2021 back based on where they're likely to finish in 2020.

The problem with a top 3 academy or NGA prospect, which Sydney never had to contend with because they changes the rules, is the amount of list spaces they're going to have to fill with back end draft picks to fit him on the list, just to match the pure points.


They might have to clear 4-5 places just for him and then fill them with 60-70+ draft pick selections.


Culling the main list as much as that when you've got a decent VFL side and a strong young list will invariably mean they have to cull some decent players next year, as there's not a whole lot of retirements on the cards for them in 2020?

Matt Suckling will almost certainly retire next year. Tory Dickson, if he plays on, will likely finish up in 2020 too. There's a few guys who will be out of contract next year or may be given single year extensions this year that could be moved on (Porter, Webb).

I'd say we do need to look at trading for some earlier picks next year to cover for Ugle-Hagan. We also have Stevens (academy) and McPherson (FS) as decent prospects that could go in the top 25 at this rate. We will need some serious points built up, and even then will likely go into deficit.

What are you talking about? Since when do list spots matter in the context of NGA bidding?

You can only bring as many live picks into the draft as list spots available. So we can't just stock up on tons of 3rd and 4th rounders expecting those to pay for the bids. If we have 4 spots, we are only allowed to bring 4 picks to the draft.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

What are you talking about? Since when do list spots matter in the context of NGA bidding?

You can only match bids with as many picks as you have list vacancies. If you want to use a bundle of 5 later picks, you need 5 empty spots to activate them.

 

[K_Nine]

You can only bring as many live picks into the draft as list spots available. So we can't just stock up on tons of 3rd and 4th rounders expecting those to pay for the bids. If we have 4 spots, we are only allowed to bring 4 picks to the draft.

You can only match bids with as many picks as you have list vacancies. If you want to use a bundle of 5 later picks, you need 5 empty spots to activate them.

Oh right, my bad.

 

[Pykie]

What are you talking about? Since when do list spots matter in the context of NGA bidding?

One thing worth noting is that it's naive to believe that trading our 2020 first rounder this October is a good idea. If Ugle-Hagan were to be bid on at #1 next year, that's worth 3000 points, which is already more than all our picks combined this year, and we have 3 third rounders. Yes we can go into deficit, but that could drastically affect our ability to trade in 2021, especially considering we have two more 2020 guns coming through (Nick Stevens (NGA) and Ewan Macpherson (F/S)).

In this year's trade period, we should be looking to stockpile as many future picks as possible. Even in deals for guys like Bruce, we should be looking to get one or two 2020 picks coming in.

List spots completely matter.


You can only take the same amount of draft picks as you have list spaces into the draft.

So when you say "stock pile as many future picks as possible", if you take 5 x 3rd rounders into 2020 ontop of your first you need 6 list spaces going into that draft to use the picks.

So invariably what you will be left with is Ugle-Hagan + 5 late draftee's (essentially early rookies) in that scenario.


The higher the NGA/Academy player is selected the harder it is to aborb their cost with late dog s**t picks.

 

[Pykie]

Matt Suckling will almost certainly retire next year. Tory Dickson, if he plays on, will likely finish up in 2020 too. There's a few guys who will be out of contract next year or may be given single year extensions this year that could be moved on (Porter, Webb).

I'd say we do need to look at trading for some earlier picks next year to cover for Ugle-Hagan. We also have Stevens (academy) and McPherson (FS) as decent prospects that could go in the top 25 at this rate. We will need some serious points built up, and even then will likely go into deficit.

You can only bring as many live picks into the draft as list spots available. So we can't just stock up on tons of 3rd and 4th rounders expecting those to pay for the bids. If we have 4 spots, we are only allowed to bring 4 picks to the draft.

If Ugle-Hagan is bid on in the top #2, there is absolutely no way you will be able to take another reasonably priced Academy or FS, especially not 2, it will be one or the other.

Especially as you are likely finals bound next year.

Unless you trade out the entirity of the 2021 pick allocation and cull about 1/4 of your list, your going to have to trade someone of value to get some more top 20 picks.

The below is essentially 2 years worth of 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks in that scenario.

 

[K_Nine]

List spots completely matter.


You can only take the same amount of draft picks as you have list spaces into the draft.

So when you say "stock pile as many future picks as possible", if you take 5 x 3rd rounders into 2020 ontop of your first you need 6 list spaces going into that draft to use the picks.

So invariably what you will be left with is Ugle-Hagan + 5 late draftee's (essentially early rookies) in that scenario.


The higher the NGA/Academy player is selected the harder it is to aborb their cost with late dog s**t picks.

I already admitted my bad.

Either way, the diminishing returns set in from around pick 40+. There's not too big of a difference in value between someone selected in the 40s/50s and someone selected at the end of the rookie draft.

 

[K_Nine]

If Ugle-Hagan is bid on in the top #2, there is absolutely no way you will be able to take another reasonably priced Academy or FS, especially not 2, it will be one or the other.

Especially as you are likely finals bound next year.

Unless you trade out the entirity of the 2021 pick allocation and cull about 1/4 of your list, your going to have to trade someone of value to get some more top 20 picks.

The below is essentially 2 years worth of 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks in that scenario.

No, we have the option of going into deficit.

 

[Pykie]

No, we have the option of going into deficit.

Yes,

Which hasn't been tested yet.

I'm not sure the AFL would allow going potentially into deficit for 2 drafts, which is what you would be looking at with matching a #1 pick and 2 x top 30 prospects in the same draft with no more picks than standard and being a finals finisher.


Taking an additional player whilst in deficit still hasn't been tested and I think will be barred if attempted. There wont will be an issue going into deficit as you've stated.


North supporters are well versed in this, we were talking about it with Thomas, Scott, Crocker for most of last year.

 

[Virgin Dog]

If Ugle-Hagan is bid on in the top #2, there is absolutely no way you will be able to take another reasonably priced Academy or FS, especially not 2, it will be one or the other.

Especially as you are likely finals bound next year.

Unless you trade out the entirity of the 2021 pick allocation and cull about 1/4 of your list, your going to have to trade someone of value to get some more top 20 picks.

The below is essentially 2 years worth of 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks in that scenario.

View attachment 751502

Yeah I discussed this hypothetical on our board. Copy/pasting some of it:

Assuming Ugle-Hagan is bid on at Pick 3, with Stevens and McPherson around 20 and 25, we would need (after discounts):

Pick 3 - 1,787 points
Pick 20 - 715 points
Pick 25 - 559 points

That's 3,061 points in picks we'll need.

Assuming we finish 6th on the ladder, we'll have:

Pick 13 - 1,212
Pick 31 - 606
Pick 49 - 287
Pick 67 - 69

Total 2,174. So we're short by the equivalent of about Pick 21. Need to shift some picks around to ensure we have enough. We would need to turn the 3rd and 4th round picks into 2nd rounders at minimum, assuming we head in with around 4 list spots.​

This is going to not only require us to trade some of this year's picks into next year, but to also combine picks to ensure we aren't forced to open up list spots just for the sake of having extra picks to match with. I'd imagine we try shift two of the 3rd rounders we hold this year into next. That should give us an extra 800 or so points. Lots of assumptions being made here (position of bids could be higher or lower, as could our ladder finish) but so long as we move a few picks into next year and not trade anything out, we should be fine to match I'd think.

You are right though, we may lose quality to get this done. Almost all the required players on our list are contracted long-ish term (i.e. 2021 or later) so I doubt we lose anyone important willingly. Assuming we don't try go balls deep into the 2019 draft, moving picks into next year might just be enough, but we'll have to wait and see

 

[K_Nine]

Yes,

Which hasn't been tested yet.

I'm not sure the AFL would allow going potentially into defecit for 2 drafts, which is what you would be looking at with matching a #1 pick and 2 x top 30 prospects in the same draft with no more picks than standard.

Ugle-Hagan won't go #1. Clubs like to have the bragging rights of the #1 pick, and bidding on an academy prospect is basically giving that up.

GWS picked up 3 academy prospects in the first round back in 2015, and a couple in 2016 all while trading up to pick 2 which got them Taranto. It can be managed.

 

[Pykie]

Ugle-Hagan won't go #1. Clubs like to have the bragging rights of the #1 pick, and bidding on an academy prospect is basically giving that up.

GWS picked up 3 academy prospects in the first round back in 2016, all while trading up to pick 2 which got them Taranto. It can be managed.

Gold Coast aren't any club, if he's the clear #1, I see no reason why they wouldn't bid on him.

Melbourne bid on Heeney at #2.

You don't have anywhere near the arsenal of draft picks that GWS had at the time in 2016 to achieve that same outcome.

They traded Adam Treloar, Cam McCarthy, Jack Steele, Pat McKenna, Will Hoskin-Elliott, James Stewart, Caleb Marchbank, Jarrod Pickett, Rhys Palmer, Paul Ahern, 51, 64, 3, 31, 7, 34, 72 & a 2017 Future Second to facilitate that offseason.

So good luck.

 

[K_Nine]

Gold Coast aren't any club, if he's the clear #1, I see no reason why they wouldn't bid on him.

Missing the point.

Melbourne bid on Heeney at #2.

So? Big difference between 2 and 1. Also it's completely irrelevant to my point because that was the old bidding system. Heeney didn't actually go pick 2 then.

You don't have anywhere near the arsenal of draft picks that GWS had at the time in 2016 to achieve that same outcome.

GWS gave up pretty much all of their arsenal to upgrade to pick 2 in 2016, and still landed Setterfield and Cumming in the first round without going into deficit. It can be managed.

 

[Pykie]

Missing the point.


So? Big difference between 2 and 1. Also it's completely irrelevant to my point because that was the old bidding system. Heeney didn't actually go pick 2 then.


GWS gave up pretty much all of their arsenal to upgrade to pick 2 in 2016, and still landed Setterfield and Cumming in the first round without going into deficit. It can be managed.

No they didn't.

They took 2, 15, 37, 38, 44, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 a total of 10 picks

And only took 5 players.


The rules are different to 2016 because of exactly the tactics GWS employed to engineer that draft.


There's also a huge difference between even getting Setterfield at #5 vs paying for a #1 or #2 pick and GWS WOULD of gone into deficit under current rules.

 

[Pykie]

Yeah I discussed this hypothetical on our board. Copy/pasting some of it:

Assuming Ugle-Hagan is bid on at Pick 3, with Stevens and McPherson around 20 and 25, we would need (after discounts):

Pick 3 - 1,787 points
Pick 20 - 715 points
Pick 25 - 559 points

That's 3,061 points in picks we'll need.

Assuming we finish 6th on the ladder, we'll have:

Pick 13 - 1,212
Pick 31 - 606
Pick 49 - 287
Pick 67 - 69

Total 2,174. So we're short by the equivalent of about Pick 21. Need to shift some picks around to ensure we have enough. We would need to turn the 3rd and 4th round picks into 2nd rounders at minimum, assuming we head in with around 4 list spots.

This is going to not only require us to trade some of this year's picks into next year, but to also combine picks to ensure we aren't forced to open up list spots just for the sake of having extra picks to match with. I'd imagine we try shift two of the 3rd rounders we hold this year into next. That should give us an extra 800 or so points. Lots of assumptions being made here (position of bids could be higher or lower, as could our ladder finish) but so long as we move a few picks into next year and not trade anything out, we should be fine to match I'd think.

You are right though, we may lose quality to get this done. Almost all the required players on our list are contracted long-ish term (i.e. 2021 or later) so I doubt we lose anyone important willingly. Assuming we don't try go balls deep into the 2019 draft, moving picks into next year might just be enough, but we'll have to wait and see

Exactly,

I'm not laying the boots in or anything, I'm just merely stating it's not just a case of rolling up to the draft and getting a free pass, it's an unprecedented situation under current laws and you will more than likely have to lose some players to gain one of the best prospects in next years draft given your likely ladder position.

Your above example obviously gets exponentially harder if he is taken higher than #3 and you finish higher than 6th....

 

[K_Nine]

No they didn't.

They took 2, 15, 37, 38, 44, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 a total of 10 picks

And only took 5 players.


The rules are different to 2016 because of exactly the tactics GWS employed to engineer that draft.


There's also a huge difference between even getting Setterfield at #5 vs paying for a #1 or #2 pick and GWS WOULD of gone into deficit under current rules.

Again sweetheart, we're not going to have to pay pick #1, as much as it pains you to admit.

Maybe you should actually look at the trades GWS did to acquire pick 2 before you start making assumptions. Yes, a lot of it was on the back of help from the AFL, but boosting points tally is perfectly manageable through pick swapping, particularly in the age of trading future selections, and they GWS even go into deficit.

Under the current laws, we're perfectly entitled to go into deficit, even though it compromises us in 2021. I'm sure when it happens, you'll be having a whinge about it.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Matt Suckling will almost certainly retire next year. Tory Dickson, if he plays on, will likely finish up in 2020 too. There's a few guys who will be out of contract next year or may be given single year extensions this year that could be moved on (Porter, Webb).

I'd say we do need to look at trading for some earlier picks next year to cover for Ugle-Hagan. We also have Stevens (academy) and McPherson (FS) as decent prospects that could go in the top 25 at this rate. We will need some serious points built up, and even then will likely go into deficit.

You can only bring as many live picks into the draft as list spots available. So we can't just stock up on tons of 3rd and 4th rounders expecting those to pay for the bids. If we have 4 spots, we are only allowed to bring 4 picks to the draft.

Add Hayes, Gardner and Gowers to that list too.

 

[Pykie]

Again sweetheart, we're not going to have to pay pick #1, as much as it pains you to admit.

Maybe you should actually look at the trades GWS did to acquire pick 2 before you start making assumptions. Yes, a lot of it was on the back of help from the AFL, but boosting points tally is perfectly manageable in the age of trading future selections, and they didn't even go into deficit.

Under the current laws, we're perfectly entitled to go into deficit, even though it compromises us in 2021. I'm sure when it happens, you'll be having a whinge about it.

God,

Why are you getting so defensive?

My point is you may have to trade some picks in via players.

Have you looked at GWS' trades that year? It only proves my point snowflake.

Like I said, you can't use the below model, because GWS used twice as many picks as you are currently allowed to match those bids.

 

[K_Nine]

My point is you may have to trade some picks in via players.

Except we don't, because we have the option of deficit. As much as it pains you to admit.

 

[Pykie]

Except we don't, because we have the option of deficit. As much as it pains you to admit.

It won't really pain me as much as you on the realisation it could be by as much as 3,000 points.

As I said, nobody knows if you can go into further deficit whilst already in deficit, which is a realistic scenario with your 2020 draft.

One would assume it's the point of the NGA/Academy system, you won't be able to match the bids on Stevens or Macpherson.

 

[K_Nine]

It won't really pain me as much as you on the realisation it could be by as much as 3,000 points.

lol delusional.

As I said, nobody knows if you can go into further deficit whilst already in deficit, which is a realistic scenario with your 2020 draft.

Actually, people who have a clue do. In other words, people who read the laws of how it all works, not you.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Might not be the place but does anyone know the full rules behind rookie upgrades and bid matching. Can you for example go into a draft with 6 list spots but nominate to upgrade two players from your rookie list.

If you went in with picks 5,6,12,40,42 and 50 your picks 42 and 50 would be booked to the rookies. If you then had a player bid on with pick 18 and you matched, this would eat up the next three picks. My understanding is that picks that are bid are not removed, but effectively moved to the back of the draft since you have to fill the list spots.

Your two rookie selections are then upgraded through your last two picks, which are 42 and 50, but at the end of the draft.

Is anyone across the rules enough to confirm

 

[Pykie]

Might not be the place but does anyone know the full rules behind rookie upgrades and bid matching. Can you for example go into a draft with 6 list spots but nominate to upgrade two players from your rookie list.

If you went in with picks 5,6,12,40,42 and 50 your picks 42 and 50 would be booked to the rookies. If you then had a player bid on with pick 18 and you matched, this would eat up the next three picks. My understanding is that picks that are bid are not removed, but effectively moved to the back of the draft since you have to fill the list spots.

Your two rookie selections are then upgraded through your last two picks, which are 42 and 50, but at the end of the draft.

Is anyone across the rules enough to confirm

They removed that a year or so ago.

You no longer have to use picks to upgrade rookies.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

They removed that a year or so ago.

You no longer have to use picks to upgrade rookies.

My genius scheming has been foiled, dang. Just as Freo get good NGAs the whole system gets harder to abuse, classic Freo