Strategy Pick trading pre-draft and mid-draft

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

I would have thought that having B King and Naughton down back is pretty solid.

Easier to get midfielders than key backs.

Thats what im thinking too, as the Dogs have a few promising F/S coming through including west twins that i have heard are better the Ryley at the same age.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Easier to get midfielders than key backs.

Wait wat...

Someone get Dodoro on the phone.

 

[anotherletdown]

Delusional

Which one.... plenty of targets for that barb...

 

[anotherletdown]

That should be against the rules IMO

Why? We should be able to use our picks however we want to.... still, I’m sure the AFL will grant us another trade ban for playing within the rules

 

[anotherletdown]

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.

And we’re back... didn’t the AFL already do what you’re suggesting and that’s how they came up with the points system as it is?

 

[Suma Magic]

And we’re back... didn’t the AFL already do what you’re suggesting and that’s how they came up with the points system as it is?

My post suggested a variation on the current system. So to answer your question, not they didn’t, + it seems you’ve misunderstood my post.

The system they came up with systematically favours teams trading down. They didn’t aim for this to occur. My post just pointed out how a simple tweak could fix their mistake and give them what they said they wanted.

 

[Peel67skin]

The system they came up with systematically favours teams trading down. They didn’t aim for this to occur. My post just pointed out how a simple tweak could fix their mistake and give them what they said they wanted.

Maybe try it with AFL , if they like your work you earn good money . Sadly in BF nobody appreciated it

 

[Gosaints12]

We’re really keen on Rankine but so are the crows. Not sure how we’d manage to land him without paying massive overs to St Kilda or Gold Coast

You might be in trouble with the saints, the talk is that the saints will trade pick 4 for 8 and 13 from Adelaide

 

[Crow till I die]

You might be in trouble with the saints, the talk is that the saints will trade pick 4 for 8 and 13 from Adelaide

I have heard a rumor as well via Tom Browne..however until a deal is set in stone I won't believe it. Has anyone on your board heard different (ie that it is further down that track? as we haven't)

 

[Jakksynn]

You might be in trouble with the saints, the talk is that the saints will trade pick 4 for 8 and 13 from Adelaide

I’m gonna call bs on that. Purely because you guys would be mental to trade out of the top five this year for such little return

 

[Gosaints12]

I’m gonna call bs on that. Purely because you guys would be mental to trade out of the top five this year for such little return

It is St Kilda though

 

[Strahany]

Lethlean already shut down the possibility of 4 for 8+13 in the trade period proper (and he did so rather bluntly, I should add).

Adelaide/Port are likely waiting to see what happens in picks 1-3 before considering a trade with St Kilda, but are setting themselves up to pay a massive premium in the event that one of Rankine or Lukosius is available - the price would jump somewhat significantly,

 

[Crow till I die]

I’m gonna call bs on that. Purely because you guys would be mental to trade out of the top five this year for such little return

8 & 13 is more than what was paid for treloar or dylan shiel or lachie neale..how on any scale is that such little return?

 

[Gosaints12]

Because pick 4 will be better then all three of those players, (properly).

 

[Crow till I die]

Because pick 4 will be better then all three of those players, (properly).

Now I have heard everything

 

[WeedsMullet84]

I’m gonna call bs on that. Purely because you guys would be mental to trade out of the top five this year for such little return

I'm gonna call BS Bias on you though, seeing as you're a Port supporter...

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Because pick 4 will be better then all three of those players, (properly).

There is reportedly not much that separates pick 1-8 in this draft, at least with pick 8/13 you can bring in at least one of those 8 and another gun players.
As a Crows fan, and if you read the Crows forums the majority of people agree, I'm more than happy to go to the draft with our picks. We've only finished in the bottom 6 TWICE in our entire club history, so more often than not we've gone to the draft needing to find gems outside the top 10. Confident we can get a gun at 8, and find some serious talent with 13/16/21

 

[Atomboy]

You might be in trouble with the saints, the talk is that the saints will trade pick 4 for 8 and 13 from Adelaide

What a stupid idea that would be....

 

[WeedsMullet84]

Lethlean already shut down the possibility of 4 for 8+13 in the trade period proper (and he did so rather bluntly, I should add).

Adelaide/Port are likely waiting to see what happens in picks 1-3 before considering a trade with St Kilda, but are setting themselves up to pay a massive premium in the event that one of Rankine or Lukosius is available - the price would jump somewhat significantly,

Saints fans keep running with this delusional scenario, but it won't happen. Ports list numbers are basically pointing towards them not doing any more pick swaps to get further up the ladder, they'll go with what they have. Crows have also been speaking with GC (rumour are that some weird arrangement has happened with the Francou coaching appointment) about pick 3.

Saints know they could be stuck with pick 4, going for a player like Max/Ben King whom they don't need with their Key forwards already in place. They'll blink come Draft night for 8/13, they'd be stupid not to.

 

[briztoon]

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.

You know there are other clubs who can take advantage when teams like Sydney or Collingwood or North Melbourne need to accrue points, to improve their own draft hand. This opportunity is available to every club during trade period.

Sydney are always going to get Blakey, same way Collingwood are always going to get Quaynor. What matter if they use multiple later picks to match the bid or a single early pick.

Teams after the bid on Blakey aren't really disadvantaged because their picks are pushed, because it's still the same kids available to them via the open draft pool, while the Academy and Father Son kids are still off limits to every club, unless team bids for them insanely early. There are a heap of clubs whose picks in the 50's and 60's are going to move up the draft order as Sydney and North and Collingwood match bids with multiple picks.


Why the fascination with Sydney by the way? They're not the only club to trade out their first pick for extra points later in the draft. Is it because Collingwood and North are more than likely going to have to use all the points in this years draft to match their multiple NGA and FS kids, while Sydney only has the one kid to match and will retain picks late in the second round to use on other draftees?

If you look at Sydney's original picks going in to the trade period, it was possible that they could match a bid outright with their first round pick and retain their second round pick, more likely they would have to have used their first two picks to match a bid on Blakey, with their second round pick down graded about 5 places. By downgrading their first pick, it means it will take their first two picks match the probable bid, and maybe part of their third pick if a team bids a little earlier than expected.

Sydney always run with a 38 man senior list (because of the Buddy Franklin contract), so they always go in to the draft with more picks/points than they intend to actually use, but because they have the available list spots, are allowed to take the "extra" picks in to the draft.


There are many inequities in the competition. Teams using the draft and points system to their advantage is small potatoes compared many others.

 

[Suma Magic]

You know there are other clubs who can take advantage when teams like Sydney or Collingwood or North Melbourne need to accrue points, to improve their own draft hand. This opportunity is available to every club during trade period.

Sydney are always going to get Blakey, same way Collingwood are always going to get Quaynor. What matter if they use multiple later picks to match the bid or a single early pick.

Teams after the bid on Blakey aren't really disadvantaged because their picks are pushed, because it's still the same kids available to them via the open draft pool, while the Academy and Father Son kids are still off limits to every club, unless team bids for them insanely early. There are a heap of clubs whose picks in the 50's and 60's are going to move up the draft order as Sydney and North and Collingwood match bids with multiple picks.


Why the fascination with Sydney by the way? They're not the only club to trade out their first pick for extra points later in the draft. Is it because Collingwood and North are more than likely going to have to use all the points in this years draft to match their multiple NGA and FS kids, while Sydney only has the one kid to match and will retain picks late in the second round to use on other draftees?

If you look at Sydney's original picks going in to the trade period, it was possible that they could match a bid outright with their first round pick and retain their second round pick, more likely they would have to have used their first two picks to match a bid on Blakey, with their second round pick down graded about 5 places. By downgrading their first pick, it means it will take their first two picks match the probable bid, and maybe part of their third pick if a team bids a little earlier than expected.

Sydney always run with a 38 man senior list (because of the Buddy Franklin contract), so they always go in to the draft with more picks/points than they intend to actually use, but because they have the available list spots, are allowed to take the "extra" picks in to the draft.


There are many inequities in the competition. Teams using the draft and points system to their advantage is small potatoes compared many others.

I created a thread for this as I didn’t want to clog up other threads. It explains how other clubs are disadvantaged when clubs trade high picks for a huge increase in points. I’m happy to discuss it there.

 

[briztoon]

My post suggested a variation on the current system. So to answer your question, not they didn’t, + it seems you’ve misunderstood my post.

The system they came up with systematically favours teams trading down. They didn’t aim for this to occur. My post just pointed out how a simple tweak could fix their mistake and give them what they said they wanted.

The system doesn't just favour the team trading down, if the team trading up doesn't value the lower picks in the draft.

You're forgetting the human element to the draft. Teams value high picks because of the greater chance of picking a good player.

Secondly, teams such as Sydney or Collingwood or North are auctioning their picks to the highest bidder. There's not supposed to be anything "fair" about an auction, or the draft either for that mater. The draft favours teams with higher picks.

But it's only one component of list management. The trade period, and the way the VFL runs the competition is inherently biased towards the the Vic teams and particularly disenfranchises the Northern teams.

 

[Mitchell54]

Lethlean already shut down the possibility of 4 for 8+13 in the trade period proper (and he did so rather bluntly, I should add).

Can you add a link as to when he did this. Would shut down a whole lot of thread clogging if it was confirmed and known by all here.

 

[Crow till I die]

Can you add a link as to when he did this. Would shut down a whole lot of thread clogging if it was confirmed and known by all here.

From memory this came about during trade period on trade radio where they asked Reid if he would swap picks 8 & 13 with St Kilda - he said he was open to a number of options. Lethlean was there as well and apparently off camera he shook his head when asked. Gallagher has also been on 5AA saying it will take a very good deal to prise pick 4 away and that a deal with pick 8 forming part probably won't get a deal done

I have since seen posturing that St Kilda (via this forum and twitter) that Rankine is their no 1 target. Putting 2 & 2 together it could be a lot of posturing to try and extract maximum pay dirt from Adelaide as Rankine is absolutely desperate to get to the crows from some people who are ITK and know him. I think St Kilda will be making a very big mistake if they take him in the draft as it will end up being a wasted pick in my opinion as he will not hang around with them..or any interstate club for very long

 

[Strahany]

Saints fans keep running with this delusional scenario, but it won't happen. Ports list numbers are basically pointing towards them not doing any more pick swaps to get further up the ladder, they'll go with what they have. Crows have also been speaking with GC (rumour are that some weird arrangement has happened with the Francou coaching appointment) about pick 3.

Saints know they could be stuck with pick 4, going for a player like Max/Ben King whom they don't need with their Key forwards already in place. They'll blink come Draft night for 8/13, they'd be stupid not to.

So Smith doesn't exist? There are players other than the King brothers; Rankine included (since that is the scenario we're talking about).

Not to mention Adelaide's own list manager stated that 8+13 wouldn't be sufficient, so check who's the "delusional" one here. The reality is that Adelaide desperately want Rankine, and were prepared to pay 8+13 for only a chance at getting him, with Rozee/Max King the likely secondary option (both of which could be there at their current pick, so not much incentive for pick 4 other than Rankine or Lukosius). So if Adelaide are prepared to trade 8+13 for a chance at Rankine, do you think St Kilda would accept the same offer on draft night if it guarantees Rankine? Of course not; it's simple business. It's a seller's market, and the worse case scenario for St Kilda playing hard ball is that no trade gets done and they're "stuck" with pick 4 in an amazing top-end draft....yeah, they'll definitely blink