Pick Swap Completed

[NEGAN]

For fu**'s sake. We didn't 'gain' Mead. We already had exclusive access to him whether we'd made any trades or not. This is like people defending our trades last year by adding Lycett into the gains column.

FFS we didn't lose him either as demonstrated by your 1st comment.

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

For fu**'s sake. We didn't 'gain' Mead. We already had exclusive access to him whether we'd made any trades or not. This is like people defending our trades last year by adding Lycett into the gains column.

You make it sound that we can get Mead without using any picks at all!

 

[PAFCsince1870]

For fu**'s sake. We didn't 'gain' Mead. We already had exclusive access to him whether we'd made any trades or not. This is like people defending our trades last year by adding Lycett into the gains column.

But we don't have to use pick 29 for him so it's a net gain. That particular part of the trade is smart business.

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

But we don't have to use pick 29 for him so it's a net gain. That particular part of the trade is smart business.

We don't get to use pick 29 at all now either. We may not even have had to use 29 for Mead anyway.

 

[GremioPower]

Its always interesting to see it from the other perspective.

Perhaps it will be a genuine win-win for both clubs.

View attachment 780859

This trade has three parts:

I. 2019 Pick 16 v 2020 1st
II. Picks 52/55 v Pick 29
III. Pick 72 v Pick 71

Part III is irrelevant.
Draft points matter only for Part II. If they are equivalent, it is fine as far Port is concerned.

The interesting move is I's. It is the main part of the deal. It is a direct first-round swap: 2019 v 2020. It could be a win-win deal. It all depends on what we get this year.

Overall, it looks like a regular draft deal. There is no reason to melt or to be thrilled about it.

----

Ok. Using the Draft Points Calculator, we have traded out 682 points (29+71) and traded in 472 points (52+55+72), for a net loss of 210 points - which is basically pick 55.

It is the little things. This happens in every trade. There seems to be a "Port fee". Even in trades that are more even, we get slightly unders.

 

[El_Scorcho]

This trade has three parts:

I. 2019 Pick 16 v 2020 1st
II. Picks 52/55 v Pick 29
III. Pick 72 v Pick 71

Part III is irrelevant.
Draft points matter only for Part II. If they are equivalent, it is fine as far Port is concerned.

The interesting move is I's. It is the main part of the deal. It is a direct first-round swap: 2019 v 2020. It could be a win-win deal. It all depends on what we get this year.

Overall, it looks like a regular draft deal. There is no reason to melt or to be thrilled about it.

Agree.

Obviously we think anything that might be on offer with our 2020 1st rounder will be lower quality than what we'll get with 16 this year. I am nowhere near an avid draft follower but all the avid draft followers I listen to have said that the 2020 draft isn't great and is really compromised. I personally think the chance of us absolutely tanking and finishing bottom 4 is quite low. I think we'll likely be on the fringe of the 8.

 

[Granny Duurs is Lovely]

Everyone judging this deal is still looking at the an unfinished result. We're most likely doing this to move up the draft further.

We'll do more pick swaps yet.

 

[x_les_x]

IMO we stuffed this up big time unless we trade up to a top 10 pick. Last year the three picks worked because there was a top 20-25 then you could throw the blanket over the rest. We were guranteed a blue chip player with the rozee pick being so high. 2016 batted pretty deep though the players we selected are still up in the air. This year i feel theres a top 10-15 then it drops off.

Saying the 2020 draft is too heavily compromised so stuff it trade our first away is a cop out to me. Just stinks of laziness to not even try to explore the kids not f/s or nga. The f/s we will take arent guaranteed to be first round talent regardless. For all we know we could pick up a jack silvagni i mean hes okay types. We will have currency in trading out wines and probably an atley or marshall or spp type in 2020 but it shouldnt always come to that. We arent self sufficient and theres no way we have the list to challange right now. Our stars are at the end of their careers those who are starting their careers are shouldering a massive load and will burn out eventually as shown through spp

 

[GremioPower]

Just stinks of laziness to not even try to explore the kids not f/s or nga.

We are going to do precisely that. The point is that people believe to be not much difference in quality after a short number of picks. Hence, for instance, picking #10 or #40 would be more similar than picking #3 or #10.

Besides, we are putting pressure on the team not to sink; which is good.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

If one of Kemp, Stephens or mcasey is likely to be there at 12, why would we trade up to 7/8?

Surely we want 3 first rounders

 

[rumoursofwinter]

What's the point of trading 29 for 52 and 55 if we are losing 200 points? Sure we don't have to use 29 to draft Mead but we have already used it for less points? Usually you trade a higher pick at a premium. Also, we have too many picks now so lose more picks / points.

 

[Nihilus]

If one of Kemp, Stephens or mcasey is likely to be there at 12, why would we trade up to 7/8?

Surely we want 3 first rounders

agreed …

I get the feeling that we had a plan with picks 12 & 16 (with getting one of the above with pick 12 if they are there)

but with Pickett jumping up the draft order via all the news articles and the interest of other clubs - like the cows (some one probably said we cant have a Pickett go to the cows in our 150th year - it would look bad)

So we now see him as someone we want hence another reason for the pick swaps

 

[Nihilus]

What's the point of trading 29 for 52 and 55 if we are losing 200 points? Sure we don't have to use 29 to draft Mead but we have already used it for less points? Usually you trade a higher pick at a premium. Also, we have too many picks now so lose more picks / points.

I suspect it would give us more flexibility later in the draft (as well as giving us a extra first round pick)

 

[Kingfish73]

Ken - "ok, what is our trade strategy for 2020?"
Schoey - "well you have a good record with 1st year players having an immediate impact"
Monts - "yeah, then we watch them in subsequent years play out of position, start getting confused on selections / game plan, drop off in confidence and their natural abilities that got them there in first place."
Thomo - "then they join the comfy crew on long term contracts towing your limp culture and lack of care to make finals"
Ken - "sell the farm for early picks!"

In all honesty I am thinking long term and don't mind injecting another 3 1st rounders. So next coach has a base to work with. Reading all this press on Ollie is concerning. If he thinks last year was tough as a leader, he is going to be 5 times under the pump given trade chatter, consistent drop in form and question marks when times get tough he prefers to bail to the next new shiney club. I would not be banking a high first rounder on his last 2 years. Never even close to make extended All Australian squad

 

[Interstater]

I’m not comparing Rozee & Duursma to pucks in the 20s/30s, I’m wondering whether we could have had Rozee & Duursma + a pick in the 20s/30s.

I'm just wondering why you are speaking with a Kiwi accent

But seriously, I'm unsure whether I'd prefer 3 first round picks as is, or 2 first round picks with one of them being significantly higher.
Would be a great podcast question in the week running up to the draft (hint hint).

Btw, how far into points deficit are you allowed to go?

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Ken - "ok, what is our trade strategy for 2020?"
Schoey - "well you have a good record with 1st year players having an immediate impact"
Monts - "yeah, then we watch them in subsequent years play out of position, start getting confused on selections / game plan, drop off in confidence and their natural abilities that got them there in first place."
Thomo - "then they join the comfy crew on long term contracts towing your limp culture and lack of care to make finals"
Ken - "sell the farm for early picks!"

In all honesty I am thinking long term and don't mind injecting another 3 1st rounders. So next coach has a base to work with. Reading all this press on Ollie is concerning. If he thinks last year was tough as a leader, he is going to be 5 times under the pump given trade chatter, consistent drop in form and question marks when times get tough he prefers to bail to the next new shiney club. I would not be banking a high first rounder on his last 2 years. Never even close to make extended All Australian squad

Not sure he will be more under the pump than 2019.

Won't be captain, generally assumed to be on the way out so nobody cares too much any more.

He basically can focus on his footy and have a free shot to win everyone back, or to increase his contract $ at Carlton

 

[JUSTWORK]

If one of Kemp, Stephens or mcasey is likely to be there at 12, why would we trade up to 7/8?

Surely we want 3 first rounders

Fair chance none of those three are there at 12, exactly why we should of kept 10 not downgraded and tried to do better than 16. We possibly could of secured both of those 2.

 

[JUSTWORK]

This trade has three parts:

I. 2019 Pick 16 v 2020 1st
II. Picks 52/55 v Pick 29
III. Pick 72 v Pick 71

Part III is irrelevant.
Draft points matter only for Part II. If they are equivalent, it is fine as far Port is concerned.

The interesting move is I's. It is the main part of the deal. It is a direct first-round swap: 2019 v 2020. It could be a win-win deal. It all depends on what we get this year.

Overall, it looks like a regular draft deal. There is no reason to melt or to be thrilled about it.

Ok. Using the Draft Points Calculator, we have traded out 682 points (29+71) and traded in 472 points (52+55+72), for a net loss of 210 points - which is basically pick 55.

It is the little things. This happens in every trade. There seems to be a "Port fee". Even in trades that are more even, we get slightly unders.

----


We are going to do precisely that. The point is that people believe to be not much difference in quality after a short number of picks. Hence, for instance, picking #10 or #40 would be more similar than picking #3 or #10.

Besides, we are putting pressure on the team not to sink; which is good.

Thats what doesn't really make sense, whist its hard to compare picks between drafts, particularly a compromised draft, maybe the belief is 16 this year is worth more.

29 and 71 to 52, 55 and 72 is a significant down grade (particularly strange considering we can't take all those picks to the draft) you'd expect that deficit to come back with a swap of firsts but that really isn't the case here. It looks as if we've happily sacrificed our position in the draft order to for the sake of having three first rounders when we should have any way if we'd driven hard deals. We shouldn't of downgraded 10 and should have done better then 16.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Gives us a lot of flexibility come draft day.
Could be plenty of clubs come knocking on our door.
The algorithms would be amazing.

 

[Byrons Firen]

I'm just wondering why you are speaking with a Kiwi accent

Ok guys get me excited about Mead. The blurb is he's the ultimate professional and AFL ready.
My computer has a virus atm that stops me opening links and surfing for info. soooo fill me in pls
His height, kicking style, decision making, reading the play etc. He sounds like a brie ant get

 

[Interstater]

Ok guys get me excited about Mead. The blurb is he's the ultimate professional and AFL ready.
My computer has a virus atm that stops me opening links and surfing for info. soooo fill me in pls
His height, kicking style, decision making, reading the play etc. He sounds like a brie ant get

Have you listened to the Lowdown podcast?
"https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode/461831"

Type that url into your phones browser

I like the sound of him, no nonsense.
I'm ready to make him captain.

Whooshkaa Shows

player.whooshkaa.com

 

[Coobk001]

Ok. Using the Draft Points Calculator, we have traded out 682 points (29+71) and traded in 472 points (52+55+72), for a net loss of 210 points - which is basically pick 55.

It is the little things. This happens in every trade. There seems to be a "Port fee". Even in trades that are more even, we get slightly unders.

You've got to remember though, that getting 3 picks in this draft, for only 1 out, means 2 of our picks are now obsolete. We can't use all their points at the draft as we dont have the vacant list spots. Pick 71 (now 72), was already obsolete. Pick 67 and 68 are also now obsolete.

So whilst we brought in 52 and 55, we only actually improved our draft hand of Mead picks by 325 points. So we gave up our 2ndrounder for a deal that only improved our position by the value of a mid 3rd Round pick.

The other problem is that extra value we gave up in that trade should have also spilled over into the first round draft pick, but instead it didn't and we are looking at what is effectively a very poor 1st round pick for potentially a very good one next year, and the extra value of giving away 29.

The problem with all this isn't the fact we were trying to do these trades, everyone knew we needed to trade out 29, it was that once again we throw around our trade/draft capital and don't really extract the value out of it that we should.

If we aren't aiming to trade out 67, 68 and 72 to sneak further up the draft board, or to get some more points in next year's draft, then our whole strategy over the last couple years of trying to build up capital at the draft will be voided by wasting 3 picks with value. Effectively meaning we gave Pittard and Hombsch away for free, and never needed to secure Pick 72 from the Wingard trade.

 

[bomberclifford]

Potentially that's what we're losing. Notably, there's no equivalent pick that we're gambling on gaining in some other scenario - all we gain is some pick shuffling and slight upgrades.

Our list has very limited scope for improvement in the short term and a lot of scope for dropping off in the short term. I like our 21 and under group but they aren't going to improve us overnight. And there are a bunch of teams that finished below us this year who would be very confident of short term improvement. A 7 win/16th place finish is very possible - and we're taking a big punt to assume this won't happen.

'Potentially'

You seem very certain that we'll drop 6 spots in 2020.
Why not make it 2 more and claim we're losing Pick 1?
Much more dramatic.

Realistically, the pick is around 7-12 before concession picks are applied.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

What's the point of trading 29 for 52 and 55 if we are losing 200 points? Sure we don't have to use 29 to draft Mead but we have already used it for less points? Usually you trade a higher pick at a premium. Also, we have too many picks now so lose more picks / points.

We also need to factor in that 29 will likely drop down and 52 and 55 likely move up due to father sons and NGAs.

So the points will be closer than it seems.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Grave Danger]

Ok guys get me excited about Mead. The blurb is he's the ultimate professional and AFL ready.
My computer has a virus atm that stops me opening links and surfing for info. soooo fill me in pls
His height, kicking style, decision making, reading the play etc. He sounds like a brie ant get

Apparently he can find targets. He could be the final piece of the jigsaw...