Strategy Pick trading pre-draft and mid-draft

[Obeanie1]

We have West and a NGA kid (Khumis) that we will need to match bids on between about pick 20 to 60, plus more next year. I suspect we may be open/not open to deals based on where we expect these to fall...

Dogs will lose that pick 27 in the West bid so it would be the one to trade for later picks / points this year and a 2nd rounder next year.

Swans will lose three of those 2nd rounders on Blakey so similar situation.

What will be interesting is if a club like Sydney trade out a couple of 2nds pre draft, use the remainder to land Blakey and then trade back into the lower 2nd round after paying for Blakey.

It will be a very interesting two days IMO.

 

[Obeanie1]

Delusional

Such a succinct post!

 

[old55]

Dogs will lose that pick 27 in the West bid so it would be the one to trade for later picks / points this year and a @nd rounder next year.

Swans will lose three of those 2nd rounders on Blakey so similar situation.

What will be interesting is if a club like Sydney trade out a couple of 2nds pre draft, use the remainder to land Blakey and then trade back into the lower 2nd round after paying for Blakey.

It will be a very interesting two days IMO.

That should be against the rules IMO

 

[Obeanie1]

That should be against the rules IMO

I agree.

But what exactly are the rules here?

I have no doubt loopholes will be found and exploited.

 

[Suma Magic]

I agree.

But what exactly are the rules here?

I have no doubt loopholes will be found and exploited.

Twomey explained what he knew on the latest podcast.

Live picks are limited to list spots pre-draft.

Mid-draft, clubs can trade for as many picks as they want but the picks with points values will be limited to the number of live picks. He didn’t specify how they would determine whugh picks that would be (lowest or most recently brought in).

So based on that, sydney could absolutely do that. Which is ridiculous, but adding more rules to prevent it creates issues and then just pushes the system towards farce.

 

[Strahany]

That should be against the rules IMO

Its a risk, though. Other clubs could see what Sydney is trying to do, and offer a bit of a one sided trade to obtain the Swans’ 2nd round picks. Then there’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to trade back in and could be stuck with a diluted pool of picks.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Dogs will lose that pick 27 in the West bid so it would be the one to trade for later picks / points this year and a 2nd rounder next year.

Swans will lose three of those 2nd rounders on Blakey so similar situation.

What will be interesting is if a club like Sydney trade out a couple of 2nds pre draft, use the remainder to land Blakey and then trade back into the lower 2nd round after paying for Blakey.

It will be a very interesting two days IMO.

Very unlikely we will be doing this. Waste of time, we are likely to have a late 2nd or early 3rd after the Blakely bid anyway.

 

[McCraeBF]

Just had lunch with a friend who told me bulldogs and GWS doing a swap off pics...wouldnt say anything else..

GWS picks 9-11 for bulldogs picks 7,27

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just had lunch with a friend who told me bulldogs and GWS doing a swap off pics...wouldnt say anything else..

GWS picks 9-11 for bulldogs picks 7,27

GWS are getting royally bent over there. There would have to be a future pick coming GWS's way at the very east.

 

[McCraeBF]

GWS are getting royally bent over there. There would have to be a future pick coming GWS's way at the very east.

Dogs want 2 picks before west bid..

might be future 3rd coming back

actually makes sense

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Dogs want 2 picks before west bid..

might be future 3rd coming back

actually makes sense

GWS are still getting royally screwed. Has to be a future 2nd coming GWS's way to make it somewhat okay to trade out of a top quality first round). It's more likely to not involve GWS's first rounders, rather a smaller pick exchange in the later rounds so you get more points.. If I were GWS I wouldn't bother. 3 firsts this year is a good hand, have a good go in a ripping draft.

 

[Virgin Dog]

GWS are still getting royally screwed. Has to be a future 2nd coming GWS's way to make it somewhat okay to trade out of a top quality first round). It's more likely to not involve GWS's first rounders, rather a smaller pick exchange in the later rounds so you get more points.. If I were GWS I wouldn't bother. 3 firsts this year is a good hand, have a good go in a ripping draft.

The dude you're replying to is notorious on the Dogs board for outright making s**t up that "his mate in the know" has told him. So take it with a grain of salt

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The dude you're replying to is notorious on the Dogs board for outright making s**t up that "his mate in the know" has told him. So take it with a grain of salt

Thought so just seemed way too lopsided. You guys have a good hand anyway with picks

 

[old55]

Twomey explained what he knew on the latest podcast.

Live picks are limited to list spots pre-draft.

Mid-draft, clubs can trade for as many picks as they want but the picks with points values will be limited to the number of live picks. He didn’t specify how they would determine whugh picks that would be (lowest or most recently brought in).

So based on that, sydney could absolutely do that. Which is ridiculous, but adding more rules to prevent it creates issues and then just pushes the system towards farce.

That's crazy s**t and perverts the whole F/S and Academy points system.

Trade out early picks, use later picks for Academy or F/S, trade back in early picks (using future picks) - madness.

Sure there'd be a cost to doing the trades but the essence of the F/S and Academy bidding is the club uses its next live pick to match. It would be a simple rule to say that you can't trade in a pick before the earliest one you used to make a bid.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Thought so just seemed way too lopsided. You guys have a good hand anyway with picks

Yeah, our draft position is actually pretty strong this year thanks to our poor finish and decent return on Dahl/Adams. If GWS were to approach us with a deal like that, I think we'd take it in a heartbeat, but there's no way we would get away with something so blatantly in our favour

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah, our draft position is actually pretty strong this year thanks to our poor finish and decent return on Dahl/Adams. If GWS were to approach us with a deal like that, I think we'd take it in a heartbeat, but there's no way we would get away with something so blatantly in our favour

Pretty much there is a limit to how much points you can gain from a trade. It has to be equitable for both sides.

 

[Suma Magic]

That's crazy s**t and perverts the whole F/S and Academy points system.

Trade out early picks, use later picks for Academy or F/S, trade back in early picks (using future picks) - madness.

Sure there'd be a cost to doing the trades but the essence of the F/S and Academy bidding is the club uses its next live pick to match. It would be a simple rule to say that you can't trade in a pick before the earliest one you used to make a bid.

Yeah that would be a simple addition which would get around the issue.

An even better idea would be to just edit the points curve so that it's accurate.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah that would be a simple addition which would get around the issue.

An even better idea would be to just edit the points curve so that it's accurate.

You still going on about that lol- you do realise you can benefit from this points trading?

 

[Suma Magic]

You still going on about that lol- you do realise you can benefit from this points trading?

Do you realise that teams not involved in the trade are relatively worse off than they would be if the points system accurately valued picks?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Do you realise that teams not involved in the trade are relatively worse off than they would be if the points system accurately valued picks?

In your view. Makes no difference. The system is fine, you whinged enough to change the old system. This system is fine and it benefits everyone. Teams knew Sydney, Dogs and Pies needed points and teams actively traded for their early selections. It is such a minor thing in the game you will still get the player you want 99 times out of 100.

 

[Suma Magic]

In your view. Makes no difference. The system is fine, you whinged enough to change the old system. This system is fine and it benefits everyone. Teams knew Sydney, Dogs and Pies needed points and teams actively traded for their early selections. It is such a minor thing in the game you will still get the player you want 99 times out of 100.

It's just mathematics.

Imagine that the points system accurately (or more accurately) valued picks. Given that points don't interest most clubs, the Carlton and Adelaide deal still would have been the most attractive for the swans. So now Sydney can trade 13 for a ~100 point advantage, rather than a 624 point advantage.

This would mean the swans would need to pay for Blakey with all the picks they get from the trade deal, and potentially a bit more. This means that instead of picks 26 and 28 disappearing into the ether for matching, pick 40 and maybe a late pick also disappear.

This means that the only thing that has changed compared to the current situation, is that Sydney have paid more for blakey. This means more picks are removed from the draft, benefiting all other teams who didn't participate in the trade.

I'm not sure why people would oppose a system that works as it was originally supposed to - where picks are assigned points to match their actual value.

 

[Obeanie1]

Very unlikely we will be doing this. Waste of time, we are likely to have a late 2nd or early 3rd after the Blakely bid anyway.

If the Swans burn pick 26 when they can bank it thats great for the rest of the teams.

We will just have to wait and see if they waste their time improving their draft hand then.

 

[old55]

It's just mathematics.

I'm not sure why people would oppose a system that works as it was originally supposed to - where picks are assigned points to match their actual value.

Sorry I've missed it - where can I see your model or picks are assigned points to match their actual value?

 

[Suma Magic]

Sorry I've missed it - where can I see your model or picks are assigned points to match their actual value?

It's obviously impossible to get it right, but if you add in a multiplier of 0.985 into the current system, then for recent points for points pick trades this:

• increases the average points ratio (points given up by team with the highest pick divided by the points they get in return) from 0.78 to 0.91
• decreases the number of trades favouring the team with the highest pick from 14/16 trades to 11/16
• decreases the average points differential per trade from 318 to 136.

With a simple tweak you can change the system so that picks have points values that more accurately reflect their market value.

 

[Thetrader15]

Goes to show how BS the whole academy/Father-son crap is