Strategy Pick trading pre-draft and mid-draft

[exile]

got a bit of a draft trade concept. seen a few trades put together from the saints and adelaide with us separately, so thought why not combine them and see how it could benefit all sides. draft pick values before and after (with differential after trade) shown in brackets.

gold coast suns
current draft picks: 2, 3, 6, 24, 29

trade out: 6, 24, 29 (-3189)
trade in: 8, 21, 36, 46 (+3262)(+73)

proposed draft picks: 2, 3, 8, 21, 36, 46

trades down to 8 and up to 21, if we're more keen on someone like hately instead of rozee this could be a better move, as hately more likely late top 10 compared to rozee who likely wont make it past top 6 anyway. gaining 8 spots to pick 21 could get us more of a chance to nab someone like mclennan or o'halloran at 21, with pick 36 & 46 possibly to be used on academy talent?

---

st kilda saints
current draft picks: 4, 36, 46, 67

trade out: 4, 36, 46, 67 (-2936)
trade in: 13, 16, 29 (+2932)(-4)

proposed draft picks: 13, 16, 29

trades out early pick to get two top 20 selections, plus a mid-2nd round selection. down one draft selection compared to previously, so not sure if that suits the saints list management.

---

adelaide crows
current draft picks: 8, 13, 16, 21, 73

trade out: 8, 13, 16, 21 (-4708)
trade in: 4, 6, 24, 67 (+4639)(-69)

proposed draft picks: 4, 6, 24, 67

picks 8, 13, 16 & 21 are very good picks, and they'll get some great players with those, but trading up to pick 4 allows them to get ahead of port to perhaps try to get rozee and one of the king twins? pick 24 allows them a mid second round selection so they're not too top ended in the draft and can still get a decent player at that pick.

---

thoughts? obviously a bit of a stretch, some people might prefer to have a crack at one or two really good players rather than a more even spread of picks a bit further into the draft. not really sure if these trades would suit the crows or saints with the direction people think the club should take with their draft, but just a thought i guess haha.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Maybe on Blakey. I wouldn't be bidding pick 1 on the other 2, might get stuck with them.

The clubs have no choice but to match because their picks are junk. Is Collingwood going to turn down Quaynor just for the sake of a couple of picks in the 50s? Of course not!

I think there's no chance of it happening but it would be a good strategy and pretty amusing if it were to happen.

 

[liz]

The clubs have no choice but to match because their picks are junk. Is Collingwood going to turn down Quaynor just for the sake of a couple of picks in the 50s? Of course not!

I think there's no chance of it happening but it would be a good strategy and pretty amusing if it were to happen.

It wouldn't just be "for the sake of a couple of picks in the 50s". It would wipe out a good part of their draft currency for next year.

There is zero chance that Collingwood would match a bid at pick 1 for Quaynor and an almost zero chance that North would match a bid at pick 1 for Thomas. Both have a second player they are looking to match a bid on. They'd keep their points for that, and then hope to pick up another decent player or two late in the draft.

 

[Groater]

got a bit of a draft trade concept. seen a few trades put together from the saints and adelaide with us separately, so thought why not combine them and see how it could benefit all sides. draft pick values before and after (with differential after trade) shown in brackets.

gold coast suns
current draft picks: 2, 3, 6, 24, 29

trade out: 6, 24, 29 (-3189)
trade in: 8, 21, 36, 46 (+3262)(+73)

proposed draft picks: 2, 3, 8, 21, 36, 46

trades down to 8 and up to 21, if we're more keen on someone like hately instead of rozee this could be a better move, as hately more likely late top 10 compared to rozee who likely wont make it past top 6 anyway. gaining 8 spots to pick 21 could get us more of a chance to nab someone like mclennan or o'halloran at 21, with pick 36 & 46 possibly to be used on academy talent?

---

st kilda saints
current draft picks: 4, 36, 46, 67

trade out: 4, 36, 46, 67 (-2936)
trade in: 13, 16, 29 (+2932)(-4)

proposed draft picks: 13, 16, 29

trades out early pick to get two top 20 selections, plus a mid-2nd round selection. down one draft selection compared to previously, so not sure if that suits the saints list management.

---

adelaide crows
current draft picks: 8, 13, 16, 21, 73

trade out: 8, 13, 16, 21 (-4708)
trade in: 4, 6, 24, 67 (+4639)(-69)

proposed draft picks: 4, 6, 24, 67

picks 8, 13, 16 & 21 are very good picks, and they'll get some great players with those, but trading up to pick 4 allows them to get ahead of port to perhaps try to get rozee and one of the king twins? pick 24 allows them a mid second round selection so they're not too top ended in the draft and can still get a decent player at that pick.

---

thoughts? obviously a bit of a stretch, some people might prefer to have a crack at one or two really good players rather than a more even spread of picks a bit further into the draft. not really sure if these trades would suit the crows or saints with the direction people think the club should take with their draft, but just a thought i guess haha.

Draft points mean zero. We aren't giving up our top selection for that - hell, we aren't even interested in 8 and 13.

 

[Strahany]

got a bit of a draft trade concept. seen a few trades put together from the saints and adelaide with us separately, so thought why not combine them and see how it could benefit all sides. draft pick values before and after (with differential after trade) shown in brackets.

gold coast suns
current draft picks: 2, 3, 6, 24, 29

trade out: 6, 24, 29 (-3189)
trade in: 8, 21, 36, 46 (+3262)(+73)

proposed draft picks: 2, 3, 8, 21, 36, 46

trades down to 8 and up to 21, if we're more keen on someone like hately instead of rozee this could be a better move, as hately more likely late top 10 compared to rozee who likely wont make it past top 6 anyway. gaining 8 spots to pick 21 could get us more of a chance to nab someone like mclennan or o'halloran at 21, with pick 36 & 46 possibly to be used on academy talent?

---

st kilda saints
current draft picks: 4, 36, 46, 67

trade out: 4, 36, 46, 67 (-2936)
trade in: 13, 16, 29 (+2932)(-4)

proposed draft picks: 13, 16, 29

trades out early pick to get two top 20 selections, plus a mid-2nd round selection. down one draft selection compared to previously, so not sure if that suits the saints list management.

---

adelaide crows
current draft picks: 8, 13, 16, 21, 73

trade out: 8, 13, 16, 21 (-4708)
trade in: 4, 6, 24, 67 (+4639)(-69)

proposed draft picks: 4, 6, 24, 67

picks 8, 13, 16 & 21 are very good picks, and they'll get some great players with those, but trading up to pick 4 allows them to get ahead of port to perhaps try to get rozee and one of the king twins? pick 24 allows them a mid second round selection so they're not too top ended in the draft and can still get a decent player at that pick.

---

thoughts? obviously a bit of a stretch, some people might prefer to have a crack at one or two really good players rather than a more even spread of picks a bit further into the draft. not really sure if these trades would suit the crows or saints with the direction people think the club should take with their draft, but just a thought i guess haha.

As others have said, draft points are effectively irrelevant in trade discussions. For example, you could easily assemble an array of late picks that equal the points of any of the top 10 picks, but no team in their right mind would ever give up a valuable pick for a handful of rubbish.
One main reason is that you can only field a certain number of players, so you want to concentrate as much talent into the 22 that play - diluting a top 10 pick doesn’t do that. Another reason is that late picks often fail, such that I believe you’re more likely to walk away with one 200 gamer with one top 10 pick, than you are with four or five picks in the 3rd round or beyond. So the concept of “quantity over quality” doesn’t apply when they’ll be getting delisted within a few years.

Having said all that, you proposed a more reasonable “drop” in picks (4, 36, 46, 67 to 13, 16, 29 in the case of the Saints) which works on draft points, but the problem is that draft points do not take into consideration the quality of any given draft year. Some draft classes might have a very even top 25-30 kids, such that a team might prefer a few picks in the 20’s over a top 3 pick, whilst other classes (such as this one) have a heavy concentration of top end talent with a noticeable drop off, so trading out of the elite top end would need to be overpaid. On this point, St Kilda already shot down 8+13 for pick 4 alone, so you can imagine what that says about the likelihood of your proposal being realised come draft night.

There are only 3 scenarios in which I expect to see a top ~6 pick traded:

1) Another top 6 pick is received in return (e.g St Kilda’s 4 down to Gold Coasts’s 6 with extras, or Carlton’s 1 down to Gold Coast’s 2/3 with extras). I suspect that St Kilda’s public interest in Rozee might be an attempt to make Gold Coast sweat with pick 6, such that they take Lukosius with 2, Rankine with 3, and then have the threat of both St Kilda and Port Adelaide targeting Rozee, rather than slipping to 6 (or only being targeted by Port).

2) Significant overs if no top 6 pick is included (e.g Adelaide’s 8+13+16 for one of the top 3 + a late pick(s))

3) Trading for a future first to spread talent (only really applies to Gold Coast, as they might look to draft with 2+3 and strengthen next year by trading out 6 for an early 2019 1st. I only expect this to happen if they opt for the King twins over the SA boys, since 2,3,6 could get Lukosius, Rankine, and Rozee to lessen the go home factor, whereas there’s no real need to add another VIC boy like Smith or Caldwell to the King twins since they’d be enough to keep each other up there).

 

[Peel67skin]

Cheers. That's pretty clear.

It's odd wording though, I don't quite understand the second sentence.

"Once an academy or father-son player is bid on, that player will essentially count as being 'drafted'. It means a club can't attempt to jump in front of a rival team by swapping draft picks after their academy or father-son prospect has already been bid on."

So this could mean that if a bid comes at 20, and the club whose player it is had 21, that they can't trade for pick 20 as it is locked in as being that academy selection player. But it doesn't say specifically that trading of later selections isn't allowed.

You are right , club can still trade their pick after bidding .

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-20/historic-live-trades-not-expected-until-after-first-round

For instance, if Adelaide bids on Greater Western Sydney Academy member Kieren Briggs with pick No.16, the Giants would still be free to trade their next pick, No.19, and then match the Crows' bid with subsequent selections No.25 and 52.

 

[Suma Magic]

You are right , club can still trade their pick after bidding .

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-20/historic-live-trades-not-expected-until-after-first-round

For instance, if Adelaide bids on Greater Western Sydney Academy member Kieren Briggs with pick No.16, the Giants would still be free to trade their next pick, No.19, and then match the Crows' bid with subsequent selections No.25 and 52.

I was only right in that it was ambiguous. I didn't really have any clue what the rule would turn out to be.

This makes things very interesting.

GWS could trade 19 for a future first from someone, on the agreement that they trade it pick for a slightly better return. So they match a bid at 16 using 25 and 52, and then still use pick 19... This probably won't happen, but interesting that it can.

 

[Footy Smarts]

It wouldn't just be "for the sake of a couple of picks in the 50s". It would wipe out a good part of their draft currency for next year.

There is zero chance that Collingwood would match a bid at pick 1 for Quaynor and an almost zero chance that North would match a bid at pick 1 for Thomas. Both have a second player they are looking to match a bid on. They'd keep their points for that, and then hope to pick up another decent player or two late in the draft.

That's not quite true. Sydney and North would absolutely match and most likely Collingwood too.

If Carlton bid for Blakey at #1 the swans would definitely match since they wouldn't go into defecit at all. Blakey's a lot better than anyone they'd be getting in the 30s and the only difference between him being bid on at 1 or 7 is giving up a pick around 30. No way they turn down Blakey for the sake of pick 30.

If Carlton then bid on Thomas at #2, North need 2014 points to match. They've got 1677 points so would only go into deficit by 337 points. That's only about 4 places in the draft. So would they give up a bunch of picks in the 40s and a slight downgrade of their first rounder for TT? They'd prefer they didn't have to do that but absolutely they'd match!

On the face of it you'd think Collingwood wouldn't match because they'd go significantly into deficit. But they don't have a round 1 pick next year anyway. The worst that can happen is they're giving up a bunch of picks outside the top 40 this year and outside the top 30 next year. For a player some have rated top 10 in a super draft again that's a no brainer decision to match unless Collingwood really don't rate him highly.

Quaynor carries a bit of risk so I wouldn't bid on him but a team later in the top 10 definitely should. But bidding on Blakey and Thomas are a no risk way to make opponents pay full price and have their late draft picks push up the order.

 

[anotherletdown]

That's not quite true. Sydney and North would absolutely match and most likely Collingwood too.

If Carlton bid for Blakey at #1 the swans would definitely match since they wouldn't go into defecit at all. Blakey's a lot better than anyone they'd be getting in the 30s and the only difference between him being bid on at 1 or 7 is giving up a pick around 30. No way they turn down Blakey for the sake of pick 30.

If Carlton then bid on Thomas at #2, North need 2014 points to match. They've got 1677 points so would only go into deficit by 337 points. That's only about 4 places in the draft. So would they give up a bunch of picks in the 40s and a slight downgrade of their first rounder for TT? They'd prefer they didn't have to do that but absolutely they'd match!

On the face of it you'd think Collingwood wouldn't match because they'd go significantly into deficit. But they don't have a round 1 pick next year anyway. The worst that can happen is they're giving up a bunch of picks outside the top 40 this year and outside the top 30 next year. For a player some have rated top 10 in a super draft again that's a no brainer decision to match unless Collingwood really don't rate him highly.

Quaynor carries a bit of risk so I wouldn't bid on him but a team later in the top 10 definitely should. But bidding on Blakey and Thomas are a no risk way to make opponents pay full price and have their late draft picks push up the order.

You wouldn’t be saying that if it was your clubs pick.

 

[anotherletdown]

That's not quite true. Sydney and North would absolutely match and most likely Collingwood too.

If Carlton bid for Blakey at #1 the swans would definitely match since they wouldn't go into defecit at all. Blakey's a lot better than anyone they'd be getting in the 30s and the only difference between him being bid on at 1 or 7 is giving up a pick around 30. No way they turn down Blakey for the sake of pick 30.

If Carlton then bid on Thomas at #2, North need 2014 points to match. They've got 1677 points so would only go into deficit by 337 points. That's only about 4 places in the draft. So would they give up a bunch of picks in the 40s and a slight downgrade of their first rounder for TT? They'd prefer they didn't have to do that but absolutely they'd match!

On the face of it you'd think Collingwood wouldn't match because they'd go significantly into deficit. But they don't have a round 1 pick next year anyway. The worst that can happen is they're giving up a bunch of picks outside the top 40 this year and outside the top 30 next year. For a player some have rated top 10 in a super draft again that's a no brainer decision to match unless Collingwood really don't rate him highly.

Quaynor carries a bit of risk so I wouldn't bid on him but a team later in the top 10 definitely should. But bidding on Blakey and Thomas are a no risk way to make opponents pay full price and have their late draft picks push up the order.

You wouldn’t be saying that if it was your clubs pick.