Strategy Pick trading pre-draft and mid-draft

[Crow till I die]

Think GC has definitely drawn the short straw here. Don't see how it benefits them.

I think because they are likely to take lukosius at 2, they can take Rozee (or whoever) at 4 because the crows will take Rankine at 3 and he is a player that GC would imo be very very unlikely to take a risk on due to him being a flight risk) and then Caldwell at 8 whom apparently they have shown an interest in as well - he should be there at 6 or 8. They then get a teens pick on top, a late 2018 2nd and a future 2nd and trade out 2 x 2nd rounders this year. As long as the players they want are there at 4 & 8 instead of 3 & 6, they gain another top 20 pick

 

[Peel67skin]

I think because they are likely to take lukosius at 2, they can take Rozee (or whoever) at 4 because the crows will take Rankine at 3 and he is a player that GC would imo be very very unlikely to take a risk on due to him being a flight risk) and then Caldwell at 8 whom apparently they have shown an interest in as well - he should be there at 6 or 8. They then get a teens pick on top, a late 2018 2nd and a future 2nd and trade out 2 x 2nd rounders this year. As long as the players they want are there at 4 & 8 instead of 3 & 6, they gain another top 20 pick

Depend on what teen pick GCS get in return I think Richmond pick 17 is more gettable than Adelaide pick 13 .

 

[Crow till I die]

Depend on what teen pick GCS get in return I think Richmond pick 17 is more gettable than Adelaide pick 13 .

absolutely does

 

[WeedsMullet84]

absolutely does

What do you mean Richmond Pick 17 is more gettable? Under the trade scenario mentioned before, GC would get P16 from the Crows..

 

[Peel67skin]

What do you mean Richmond Pick 17 is more gettable? Under the trade scenario mentioned before, GC would get P16 from the Crows..

GC do less work keeping 2,3,6 and yet get pick 17 and Richmond future second instead of pick 16 and Adelaide future second . Safe time doing less transaction but nearly equal output .

24,29 - Richmond

 

[Crow till I die]

What do you mean Richmond Pick 17 is more gettable? Under the trade scenario mentioned before, GC would get P16 from the Crows..

I think what Peel67skin was thinking is that a straight trade of picks 24 & 29 for Richmonds 17 mighgt be a simpler trade

 

[DrAshy]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...s/news-story/2d8a8dc9165ccbade4809cffc874d6dd

 

[Hotcox]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

Zero chance that eventuates, that's the stupidest trade ever.

 

[AFLOnline]

Lol 1 for 2+6

 

[David C]

Some rumours had already done the rounds after the trading of players/picks that GC/Crows had already come to some sort of arrangement regarding picks, but that they'd been encouraged by the AFL to leave this until Draft night to promote the whole 'live trading' thing. This was backed up by a few journos, including Barrett in his latest IF/THEN article..

Keeping in mind something odd happened between GC & Crows re Josh Francou being appointed..

If GC are willing to pass on Rankine due to being a flight risk, but know the Crows would select him at 3, and if Saints know that Max King will be there at 6, then the below poses zero risk to GC and Saints, and ensures they get the players they originally wanted anyway, whilst also improving their overall draft position..

Adelaide
In: pick 3, 24, 46,future GC - Richmond 3rd pick, keep- pick 13
Out pick 8,16, 21, Future 2nd round
St Kilda
In : pick 6,21,29
Out pick 4, 36,46
GC
In : pick 4,8, 16,36 ,keep pick 2 and Adelaide future second ..
Out : pick 3, edit, 6,24,29 ,GC - Richmond 3rd round .

Adelaide would have to give up more than that to get pick 3. I can't see any high picks changing hands as the price would be too high.

 

[lewdogs]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

A more realistic question would be; would you trade pick 1 for pick 5 and 10?

No club would give up pick 6 to move up one position. The top 3 seems pretty even anyway.

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

Not a snowflakes chance that happens. Just have a look at all the players taken at pick 1 in the last 10 years, compared with those taken at 2&6. Blues fans getting a bit bored with nothing else happening with their P1

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Adelaide would have to give up more than that to get pick 3. I can't see any high picks changing hands as the price would be too high.

You say the price is too high, but again, in this scenario GC and Saints get the players they would have been going for at their previous picks anyway...

Max King will still be there at 6 for Saints, and GC have the chance to grab another SA boy at 8, or live trade a bit further down with Giants

Crows haven't been too subtle in putting P 8 & 13 on the table. If Crows were to do the above deal, and throw in P 13 instead of 16 to GC (and do away with the P21 & 24 pick swap), i think it'd get it done. Would give GC P 2/4/8/13 (Lukosius, Rozee, Hately....)

Adelaide
In: pick 3,46,future GC - Richmond 3rd pick, keep- pick 16, 21
Out pick 8,13, Future 2nd round
St Kilda
In : pick 6,24,29
Out pick 4, 36,46
GC
In : pick 4,8,13,36 ,keep pick 2 and Adelaide future second ..
Out : pick 3,6,24,29 ,GC - Richmond 3rd round .

 

[Windhover]

There are a few problems with looking at prior drafts.

Firstly, starting at 1997 greatly weakens the results. I'd have to actively look for articles, but various general interviews with long-term list managers address their beliefs that the "drafting scene" was mostly guesswork until ~10-15 years ago. Some poorer clubs (like St Kilda, for example) took longer to develop a professional list management team whilst others (like Collingwood) have had it in place for a much longer period of time, but still only 15 or so years, at most. When there is guesswork, it will skew the results; whether that skews towards pick 4 or 8+13 being "better", I cannot say but I can say that any skewing isn't ideal.

The point you make about increased professionalism in recruiting is a fair one, but what is its relevance. The hit-misses revealed by comparing pick 4 with pick 8 and 13 continued to 2012 and 2014 when it is hard to argue your point.

Secondly, there is a lot of variability from draft year X to draft year Y. The general consensus for this 2018 crop is that there is an elite top 6/7 (including an academy pick) with a decent drop off to the next bunch who are all quite equal until the late teen/mid 20's picks. Some draft watchers believe that most (if not all) of this top 6/7 are good enough to be the 1st selection in several of the prior draft years. If each draft year had a fairly equal distribution of talent, then reviewing each draft would provide good information. But the problem is that there is a large degree of variability, and even if there was not, this draft class has been singled out as a significant outlier and so therefore even data that isn't susceptible to issues arising from poor quality (like this data is) wouldn't help since this year would act as an outlier anyway.

The whole point of looking back at drafts past is to see that "general consensus" about which individual drafted players will become elite footballers is sufficiently influenced by a range of factors that have not yet been able to be identified that there must remain a high degree of randomness in the exercise.

The supposed variability from draft year to draft year does nothing to remove that randomness. The best year for picks 4, 8 and 13 was obviously 2013. The worst was probably 2012. Assuming everyone "knew" that 2012 was a dud year and 2013 was a great year who was considered might be elite in 2012 must now be regarded as a joke with Grundy (18), McIntosh (31), Jacobs (37) and Membrey (46) all easily among the best players of that draft year.

When you consider the randomness involved at the individual level stating that a group of draftees might form an "elite top 6/7" cohort such that there will be a drop off in value "to the next bunch" is just pretending. Looking at the value of past picks 8 & 13 compared with pick 4 ably demonstrates that pretence.

Thirdly, this data does not look at the quality of the "fourth best player" compared to a combination of the "eight best and thirteenth best players"; this looks at players taken at these draft selections. Teams may attempt to draft the best available, or they may try to draft for needs which will alter the results. And even if every team drafted the "best available", the way each team rates each player would vary such that there would not be a unanimous "best available"; perhaps you could argue that pick 4 is more likely to be a unanimous "best available" but the further into the draft (i.e pick 8 and 13) the more variability you will see on the draft boards between teams.
For example, when St Kilda traded pick 5 and 25 for Carlisle and pick 14, it was considered a reasonably fair deal. But St Kilda drafted Gresham who has played exceptionally well as one of the better young players in the competition (and St Kilda's only elite youth, at that point) whereas Essendon are left with Aaron Francis and Alex Morgan who have had nowhere near the impact of Gresham alone, let alone Carlisle as well. So a trade goes from seeming fair to being massively lopsided towards St Kilda purely because of who Essendon decided to draft and who St Kilda decided to draft.

I don't understand your point re the Carlisle trade to this discussion (other than that your team did well out of it. Well done.)

Otherwise your third point seems to be that when trying to compare the value of pick 4 to pick 8 and 13 there may be a distortion caused by teams NOT picking the best available but picking the player most needed. That is a fair point, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go anywhere.

Say in 2012 Melbourne picked Toumpas at 4 for "needs" but really rated say Macrae as the best available player. Equally then Brisbane might have picked Mayes at 8 or GC Lonergan at 13 for "needs" but really rating say Vlastuin and Grundy respectively as then best available. In other words the distortion you identify will wash out over the years since it is equally likely to apply to pick 4 as pick 8 or 13.

This isn't to say that the data is irrelevant, just that it needs to be taken with about a cubic metre of salt. A draft pick is worth nothing except for what player it can get to your club. Any team considering a pick swap will not be looking into the data of previous years for even one second; they'd look at their extensive research on this draft class and consider the impact of the player taken at (for this example) pick 4, compared to who they expect to be available at 8 + 13. If one proves to be decidedly more favourable than the other for their own team, then the trade will go ahead; if not, then it won't. Exercises like this are nothing more than a novelty and will have no impact on the consideration these teams will make.

I agree teams considering trading draft picks will consider the player(s) they are likely to (or now possibly know they will) get with the trade against the player(s) likely foregone. Extensive research, the type of player(s) needed by the Club will all be important considerations. But considering the past success and failures of pick 4 versus pick 8 and 13 ought be a very powerful corrective, not one taken with a cubic metre of salt. Applying the corrective should enable the Club to recognise no matter how thorough the research, how exciting the player seems to be and how desperate the Club is for exactly that type of player there are always risks. Unless a Club is sure they have a Bont and don't mind giving up Cripps and McDonald for him you would want to think twice.

 

[stfan]

GC
In : pick 4,8,13,36 ,keep pick 2 and Adelaide future second ..
Out : pick 3,6,24,29 ,GC - Richmond 3rd round .

Poor deal for GC.


PS. I would much rather gain mid than King.

 

[Mr Magic]

Poor deal for GC.


PS. I would much rather gain mid than King.

The other thing that might happen is in live trading RFC might trade its 2019 1st rounder for 24 and 29 this year from Gold Coast depending on who is still available in the draft in 2018 and given GCS have already used 3 and most likely will want top quality in 2019 draft as well higher rated than 24 and 29 which could be closer to pick's 30 by the time the matched selections occur. RFC might even require a future pick back later on in the 2019 draft like a 4th or 5th rounder with a swap of late picks

 

[Crow till I die]

The other thing that might happen is in live trading RFC might trade its 2019 1st rounder for 24 and 29 this year from Gold Coast depending on who is still available in the draft in 2018 and given GCS have already used 3 and most likely will want top quality in 2019 draft as well higher rated than 24 and 29 which could be closer to pick's 30 by the time the matched selections occur. RFC might even require a future pick back later on in the 2019 draft like a 4th or 5th rounder with a swap of late picks

It might be more likely that your 2018 1st rounder for GC picks 24 & 29 happens and it could also be that GC trade pick 3 to the crows for 8 & 13 or 8 & 16 and they would then hit the draft with 2, 6, 8, 13/16 & 18 instead of 2,3,6, 24 & 29. That would mean GC take 3 top 8 picks and have another 2 inside the top 20 which will accelerate their rebuild

 

[boffo]

The point you make about increased professionalism in recruiting is a fair one, but what is its relevance. The hit-misses revealed by comparing pick 4 with pick 8 and 13 continued to 2012 and 2014 when it is hard to argue your point.

Bingo. If clubs are more professional and more likely to make a good selection at pick 4 this equally applies to being able to make good selections at 8 and 13.

 

[Mr Magic]

It might be more likely that your 2018 1st rounder for GC picks 24 & 29 happens and it could also be that GC trade pick 3 to the crows for 8 & 13 or 8 & 16 and they would then hit the draft with 2, 6, 8, 13/16 & 18 instead of 2,3,6, 24 & 29. That would mean GC take 3 top 8 picks and have another 2 inside the top 20 which will accelerate their rebuild

I am not sure who RFC are chasing, I have no contact with the decision makers at all but here is my independent take from my observations.

The draft seems to have a lot of high end talent till about 10 if not earlier. Most commentators seem to form this viewpoint. Gold Coast as a rebuilder obviously wants to tap into that because the problem with their previous rebuilds is not enough high end talent which was reliable. Therefore one would think Gold Coast would be more interested in their top 3 picks than the later two especially when next year more high end picks should be coming in in 2019 as well as 2020 etc...

RFC on the other end do not have the high end picks and probably couldn't trade for them anyway without giving up something they do not wish to give up. RFC on the other hand would be interested in certain players and would be focused on the short term as well as long term. RFC with pick 17 can sit and hope one of their non top end(already gone probably in top 10) but better credentialed draftees slips to 17. If that happens RFC can pick the player and if other players are available trade at picks 24 and maybe 29 later from Gold Coast using the 2019 1st pick if suitable bearing in mind I think Sheehan and Twoomey said clubs only have 5 minutes to okay this so multi club pick trade scenarios would be difficult with preparations beforehand. RFC naturally would only trade a 2019 1st for at least 2 later picks so that of itself limits the options to a Brisbane or a West Coast or a Gold Coast or GWS generally speaking but I am sure there are other sophisticated options that would be more complex. The other thing is RFC would only trade for picks to get certain players because drafting players clubs want is the whole point of the draft so RFC would have to think the players they could get offset giving up a 2019 1st which could actually be high if RFC has a bad 2019. It is less likely RFC trades pick 17 for 24 and 29 because at 17 how does RFC know what will be available at 24 and 29 to make the trade worthwhile?
Having said that if the players RFC wants to slip at 17 does not eventuate because all taken earlier RFC could trade 17 to a Brisbane or West Coast or GWS and for two later picks. Why??? Because at 17 RFC will not know who is available at picks 24 and 29 because there is too much water to go under the bridge before then but RFC would have a better idea at 17 who would be available at 19 and 25 from GWS for example. Obviously 17 for 19 and 25 GWS will want something else coming back but that would be the case to round off a lot of trading for pick scenarios involving future picks etc...

The question is as an Adelaide supporter what can Adelaide offer RFC to want them to give up 17 to help Adelaide in their deals? Frankly I would have thought a 2019 RFC 1st has more currency to Gold Coast than pick 17 which will be later as will 24 and 29 due to matching mechanations

 

[Groater]

You say the price is too high, but again, in this scenario GC and Saints get the players they would have been going for at their previous picks anyway...

Max King will still be there at 6 for Saints, and GC have the chance to grab another SA boy at 8, or live trade a bit further down with Giants

Crows haven't been too subtle in putting P 8 & 13 on the table. If Crows were to do the above deal, and throw in P 13 instead of 16 to GC (and do away with the P21 & 24 pick swap), i think it'd get it done. Would give GC P 2/4/8/13 (Lukosius, Rozee, Hately....)

Adelaide
In: pick 3,46,future GC - Richmond 3rd pick, keep- pick 16, 21
Out pick 8,13, Future 2nd round
St Kilda
In : pick 6,24,29
Out pick 4, 36,46
GC
In : pick 4,8,13,36 ,keep pick 2 and Adelaide future second ..
Out : pick 3,6,24,29 ,GC - Richmond 3rd round .

Nah. There are like 1-3 effective picks between 29 and 36 with all the academy selections. There isn't enough it it for us.

 

[Thetrader15]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

Good luck with that

 

[Peel67skin]

Don’t mind this actually in a strong draft.
Trade 1 for gold coast’s picks 2 & 6
trade 2 for port’s picks 5 & 10
giving us 5-6-10 for pick 1
walsh may well be a star in the making but we could have the other 2 mids in rozee and smith with picks 5 & 6 then another mid/forward type with pick 10 giving us 3 picks in the top ten rather than 1 pick.

Good luck .

 

[Thetrader15]

Adelaide would have to give up more than that to get pick 3. I can't see any high picks changing hands as the price would be too high.

I wouldn't do that if I was Adelaide

 

[DIG]

On the last Lystics podcast they were talking about how Saints should nominate Nick Blakey with pick 4.

Swans have sensibly downgraded their first round pick but it also leaves them exposed with no back up plan to get an alternative gun to Blakey. Quite simply, if Saints nominate Blakey at 4, Swans have to burn those picks in the 30s to pay for him.

Why would Saints do this? To improve their picks 46 and 36, effectively turning them into higher picks.

I see zero risk of Sydney not matching Blakey at 4. There’s no way they don’t grab him and instead use those picks in the 30s, would be mad when he’s such a gun. Saints can effectively upgrade their second/third round picks for free if they’re as certain as I am that Swans would match.