Strategy Pick trading pre-draft and mid-draft

[Suma Magic]

I would trade 8 and 13 for 4 if Rankine was available. Otherwise I’d be happy to keep them.

 

[Strahany]

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.

Other St Kilda posters might be able to point it our more directly, but I believe he said it on one of his Trade Radio appearances?

 

[Peel67skin]

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

I don't want from memory ,I want link so that at least other 17 other club can report him to AFL and let ÀFL decide whether to deregister him from this year and next year draft . I could not care less if he play in SANFL league , he can still support Adelaide and stayed in his hometown .

 

[Strahany]

I would trade 8 and 13 for 4 if Rankine was available. Otherwise I’d be happy to keep them.

That's the thing, though. A team can't have their cake and eat it - either pay a given price for a chance that you'll get the player you want, or pay a higher price to guarantee that you'll get the player you want.

That's why higher picks are valued more - the higher a pick is, the more likely that a given player will be available. If Adelaide traded for pick 1 or 2, they'd be paying a much higher price than pick 4 but in return get a guarantee of getting Rankine, instead of just a chance as they would with pick 4. However if Rankine is available at pick 4 on draft night, then trading for pick 4 is trading for a guarantee of Rankine (just like pick 1 or 2 would have been) and will therefore have a higher price (albeit not what 1/2 would command, obviously).

 

[Crow till I die]

I don't want from memory ,I want link so that at least other 17 other club can report him to AFL and let ÀFL decide whether to deregister him from this year and next year draft . I could not care less if he play in SANFL league , he can still support Adelaide and stayed in his hometown .

haha..from memory I have no idea where to find what you are after

 

[Strahany]

I don't want from memory ,I want link so that at least other 17 other club can report him to AFL and let ÀFL decide whether to deregister him from this year and next year draft . I could not care less if he play in SANFL league , he can still support Adelaide and stayed in his hometown .

The poster you quoted was answering a request for proof of Lethlean shooting down any suggestion fo 4 for 8+13, and their suspicion that St Kilda is trying to make it seem like Rankine is their number 1 target to make an SA club panic.

I assume you think they're talking about Rankine allegedly draft tampering (or something to that effect) which has nothing to do with what they'e talking about.

 

[Peel67skin]

The poster you quoted was answering a request for proof of Lethlean shooting down any suggestion fo 4 for 8+13, and their suspicion that St Kilda is trying to make it seem like Rankine is their number 1 target to make an SA club panic.

I assume you think they're talking about Rankine allegedly draft tampering (or something to that effect) which has nothing to do with what they'e talking about.

If Rankine available at 4 and Fit St Kilda need just pick him , sick of people keep label him as flight Risk . I don't think he show anything as Flight risk but an honest 18 years old kid that want to play AFL.

 

[Crow till I die]

That's the thing, though. A team can't have their cake and eat it - either pay a given price for a chance that you'll get the player you want, or pay a higher price to guarantee that you'll get the player you want.

That's why higher picks are valued more - the higher a pick is, the more likely that a given player will be available. If Adelaide traded for pick 1 or 2, they'd be paying a much higher price than pick 4 but in return get a guarantee of getting Rankine, instead of just a chance as they would with pick 4. However if Rankine is available at pick 4 on draft night, then trading for pick 4 is trading for a guarantee of Rankine (just like pick 1 or 2 would have been) and will therefore have a higher price (albeit not what 1/2 would command, obviously).

But draft picks for the unknown (we don't know what a player picked at any given point will produce at AFL level) should never ever be worth more than what is proven at AFL level with age and injury being factors obviously. Qualifying this, Adam Treloar is an absolute A grade mid, Dylan Shiel is an absolute A grade mid as is Lachie Neale. These players cost 2 x 1st round picks with something coming back when traded. We know what they are capable of as players and they deliver.

Who knows what Lukosius or Rankine or Walsh or Smith or any of these guys will actually deliver and if they deliver, is it going to be of a higher level than the 3 players I mentioned in terms of their output and ability to their team? Chances are very unlikely it will be better although it may be of similar quality. As such, to value a draft pick (pick 4 in this case) at a greater premium than these players is ridiculous and that is why no-one is going to offer up more than 2 x 1sts for a very high end pick as it is just a stupid demand (if the selling club actually has even asked for such as is and we don't know what has been asked for if trades have at all been discussed)

 

[Suma Magic]

That's the thing, though. A team can't have their cake and eat it - either pay a given price for a chance that you'll get the player you want, or pay a higher price to guarantee that you'll get the player you want.

That's why higher picks are valued more - the higher a pick is, the more likely that a given player will be available. If Adelaide traded for pick 1 or 2, they'd be paying a much higher price than pick 4 but in return get a guarantee of getting Rankine, instead of just a chance as they would with pick 4. However if Rankine is available at pick 4 on draft night, then trading for pick 4 is trading for a guarantee of Rankine (just like pick 1 or 2 would have been) and will therefore have a higher price (albeit not what 1/2 would command, obviously).

If it was me I would just keep 8 and 13 unless Rankine was on the board and St Kilda were will to trade for pick 4. It’s a simple equation.

That may mean that saints don’t do the deal or he goes top 3, but I don’t think he’s worth giving up more than that to get.

 

[Atomboy]

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 we downgrade to pick 8 getting none of the players we want and go in the lucky dip for pick 13.

Seems like a pretty poor deal to me.

 

[1990crow]

So we downgrade to pick 8 getting none of the players we want and go in the lucky dip for pick 13.

Seems like a pretty poor deal to me.

No offence but the Saints need depth of talent, not elite talent. The only reason Adelaide would do that trade is because Rankine is a local player and he's potentially elite. If he wasn't from SA I'd suggest we wouldn't do the trade.

 

[Stewart66]

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

Of course the saints could even do better deal give 4 to Gold Coast for 6 and their 2019 1st rounder.
Then Suns get Lukosius / Rankine / Rozee ....and the opportunity to keep them together.

 

[Crow till I die]

So we downgrade to pick 8 getting none of the players we want and go in the lucky dip for pick 13.

Seems like a pretty poor deal to me.

None of the players you want..so implying your recruitment team have spent the entire year scouting just a couple of players and thinking that just about every other player is not worth scouting? Or implying that they have scouted everyone and only want 1 of about 3 or 4 players in what is dubbed one of the strongest drafts in years?

The reality is that your list management and recruitment team have scoured the land thoroughly and have drawn up a big hit list of players and ranked them. Now sure the 1st choice player may well sit at pick 4 but there will be a number of other players they rate very highly - just like every other clubs recruitment and list management teams do and they will make a call as to the ability to bring in multiple top end players they rate or just the one player they have as their 1st choice. At 4 you will almost certainly take Max King and if that is the way the club goes - you are going to want to hope like hell that he is no patty McCartin mark II. Picks 8 & 13 most probably get you Jye Caldwell and Riley Collier-Dawkins / Jackson Hately - all are highly rated mids and with more % chance one of them will make it and have a big career. That is why the crows - as much as they want Lukosius or Rankine will not trade out more then 8 & 13 and even then there are plenty on our board who say keep the picks as we have just about the best in the business in Haggis Ogilvie to make the calls

 

[Atomboy]

Or implying that they have scouted everyone and only want 1 of about 3 or 4 players in what is dubbed one of the strongest drafts in years?

Yes. This.

 

[Crow till I die]

 

[Peel67skin]

Of course the saints could even do better deal give 4 to Gold Coast for 6 and their 2019 1st rounder.
Then Suns get Lukosius / Rankine / Rozee ....and the opportunity to keep them together.

No thanks not that desperate .

 

[Gosaints12]

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.

I’d rather have pick 4 and will take Rozee.

 

[Thetrader15]

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

Until they enter the Saints 'development' program..
Billings, Gresham, McCartin

 

[boffo]

So we downgrade to pick 8 getting none of the players we want and go in the lucky dip for pick 13.

Seems like a pretty poor deal to me.

FYI here are the players taken at those picks over the past 20 years.

1997
4 Mark Bolton

8 Chris Tarrant
13 Callum Chambers

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Bolton was OK but Tarrant played 200+ games and was all Australian


1998
4 Ryan Fitzgerald

8 Jude Bolton
13 Chris Lamb

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, obviously


1999
4 Pav

8 Joel Corey
13 Rob Murphy

Verdict: an honourable draw, you'd be happy with either outcome


2000
4 Luke Livingstone

8 Daniel Motlop
13 Ashley McGrath

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Livingstone was a bust


2001
4 Graham Polack

8 Jimmy Bartel
13 Nick Del Santo

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, by quite a way


2002
4 Tim Walsh

8 Luke Brennan
13 Byron Schammer

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13 (at least Schammer played over 100 games)


2003
4 Farren Ray

8 Raphael Clarke
13 Brent Stanton

Verdict: Narrow win for 8 + 13 (Ray 209 games, Clarke 85 games, Stanton 255 games)


2004
4 Richard Tambling

8 John Meesen (sorry to remind everybody!)
13 Matthew Bate

Verdict: Clear win for 4, even though Tambling never lived up to (Richmond's) expectations.


2005
4 Josh Kennedy

8 Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls
13 Shannon Hurn

Verdict: Narrow win for 4, but you'd also be happy if you got Hurn


2006
4 Matthew Leuenberger

8 Ben Reid
13 Jack Riewoldt

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2007
4 Cale Morton

8 Lachie Henderson
13 Brad Ebert

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2008
4 Hamish Hartlett

8 Ty Vickery
13 Tom Lynch

Verdict: Narrow win for 8+13. Hartlett 153 games, Vickery 125 (crap) games, Lynch 123 games. None of them have been all Australian.


2009
4 Anthony Morabito

8 John Butcher
13 Daniel Talia

Verdict: Clear win for 8+13 (even Port can't butcher a win for 8+13)


2010
4 Andrew Gaff

8 Dyson Heppell
13 Seb Tape


Verdict: Win for 4. Gaff 175 games and two time all Australian, but you'd be OK with Heppell 141 games.


2011
4 Will Hoskin-Elliot

8 Billy Longer
13 Taylor Adams

Verdict: Inconclusive. H.E. 100 games, Longer 65 games, Adams 120 games – all still playing, none of them seem to super-stars


2012
4 Jimmy Toumpass

8 Sam Mayes
13 Jesse Lonergan

Verdict: FMD, what a haul! 8+13 obviously better though. Toumpass 37 games, Mayes 101 games, Lonergan 60 games.


2013
4 The Bont

8 Luke McDonald
13 Pat Cripps

Verdict: Inconclusive. Guns with picks 4 and 13.


2014
4 Jarrod Pickett

8 Peter (two-metre) Wright
13 Lachie Weller

Verdict: win for 8+13


2015
4 Clayton Oliver

8 Callum Ah Chee
13 Matthew Kennedy

Verdict: All still playing, but this is looking like a clear win for 4. Oliver is already an all Australian.


2016
4 Ben Ainsworth

8 Griffin Logue
13 Daniel Venables

Verdict: Too early to tell, but so far Ainsworth has played 29 games, Logue 13 and Venables 15 games.


Conclusions: Over 20 years 8+ 13 have produced the better outcome twelve times. Some of these years have seen better outcomes for 8+13 by quite some margin.

Pick 4 has produced a better outcome only four times. But in two of those four years it was only a narrow win and you would have been happy with not trading up (Hurn at #13 in 2005 and Heppell at #8 in 2010).

 

[joop]

FYI here are the players taken at those picks over the past 20 years.

1997
4 Mark Bolton

8 Chris Tarrant
13 Callum Chambers

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Bolton was OK but Tarrant played 200+ games and was all Australian


1998
4 Ryan Fitzgerald

8 Jude Bolton
13 Chris Lamb

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, obviously


1999
4 Pav

8 Joel Corey
13 Rob Murphy

Verdict: an honourable draw, you'd be happy with either outcome


2000
4 Luke Livingstone

8 Daniel Motlop
13 Ashley McGrath

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Livingstone was a bust


2001
4 Graham Polack

8 Jimmy Bartel
13 Nick Del Santo

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, by quite a way


2002
4 Tim Walsh

8 Luke Brennan
13 Byron Schammer

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13 (at least Schammer played over 100 games)


2003
4 Farren Ray

8 Raphael Clarke
13 Brent Stanton

Verdict: Narrow win for 8 + 13 (Ray 209 games, Clarke 85 games, Stanton 255 games)


2004
4 Richard Tambling

8 John Meesen (sorry to remind everybody!)
13 Matthew Bate

Verdict: Clear win for 4, even though Tambling never lived up to (Richmond's) expectations.


2005
4 Josh Kennedy

8 Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls
13 Shannon Hurn

Verdict: Narrow win for 4, but you'd also be happy if you got Hurn


2006
4 Matthew Leuenberger

8 Ben Reid
13 Jack Riewoldt

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2007
4 Cale Morton

8 Lachie Henderson
13 Brad Ebert

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2008
4 Hamish Hartlett

8 Ty Vickery
13 Tom Lynch

Verdict: Narrow win for 8+13. Hartlett 153 games, Vickery 125 (crap) games, Lynch 123 games. None of them have been all Australian.


2009
4 Anthony Morabito

8 John Butcher
13 Daniel Talia

Verdict: Clear win for 8+13 (even Port can't butcher a win for 8+13)


2010
4 Andrew Gaff

8 Dyson Heppell
13 Seb Tape


Verdict: Win for 4. Gaff 175 games and two time all Australian, but you'd be OK with Heppell 141 games.


2011
4 Will Hoskin-Elliot

8 Billy Longer
13 Taylor Adams

Verdict: Inconclusive. H.E. 100 games, Longer 65 games, Adams 120 games – all still playing, none of them seem to super-stars


2012
4 Jimmy Toumpass

8 Sam Mayes
13 Jesse Lonergan

Verdict: FMD, what a haul! 8+13 obviously better though. Toumpass 37 games, Mayes 101 games, Lonergan 60 games.


2013
4 The Bont

8 Luke McDonald
13 Pat Cripps

Verdict: Inconclusive. Guns with picks 4 and 13.


2014
4 Jarrod Pickett

8 Peter (two-metre) Wright
13 Lachie Weller

Verdict: win for 8+13


2015
4 Clayton Oliver

8 Callum Ah Chee
13 Matthew Kennedy

Verdict: All still playing, but this is looking like a clear win for 4. Oliver is already an all Australian.


2016
4 Ben Ainsworth

8 Griffin Logue
13 Daniel Venables

Verdict: Too early to tell, but so far Ainsworth has played 29 games, Logue 13 and Venables 15 games.


Conclusions: Over 20 years 8+ 13 have produced the better outcome twelve times. Some of these years have seen better outcomes for 8+13 by quite some margin.

Pick 4 has produced a better outcome only four times. But in two of those four years it was only a narrow win and you would have been happy with not trading up (Hurn at #13 in 2005 and Heppell at #8 in 2010).

This is just a ridiculous way to look at things.

 

[Thetrader15]

I’d rather have pick 4 and will take Rozee.

Why not trade for 6 and take him there then also have another pick

 

[Thetrader15]

FYI here are the players taken at those picks over the past 20 years.

1997
4 Mark Bolton

8 Chris Tarrant
13 Callum Chambers

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Bolton was OK but Tarrant played 200+ games and was all Australian


1998
4 Ryan Fitzgerald

8 Jude Bolton
13 Chris Lamb

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, obviously


1999
4 Pav

8 Joel Corey
13 Rob Murphy

Verdict: an honourable draw, you'd be happy with either outcome


2000
4 Luke Livingstone

8 Daniel Motlop
13 Ashley McGrath

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, Livingstone was a bust


2001
4 Graham Polack

8 Jimmy Bartel
13 Nick Del Santo

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13, by quite a way


2002
4 Tim Walsh

8 Luke Brennan
13 Byron Schammer

Verdict: Win for 8 + 13 (at least Schammer played over 100 games)


2003
4 Farren Ray

8 Raphael Clarke
13 Brent Stanton

Verdict: Narrow win for 8 + 13 (Ray 209 games, Clarke 85 games, Stanton 255 games)


2004
4 Richard Tambling

8 John Meesen (sorry to remind everybody!)
13 Matthew Bate

Verdict: Clear win for 4, even though Tambling never lived up to (Richmond's) expectations.


2005
4 Josh Kennedy

8 Jarrod Oakley-Nicholls
13 Shannon Hurn

Verdict: Narrow win for 4, but you'd also be happy if you got Hurn


2006
4 Matthew Leuenberger

8 Ben Reid
13 Jack Riewoldt

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2007
4 Cale Morton

8 Lachie Henderson
13 Brad Ebert

Verdict: Clear win for 8 + 13


2008
4 Hamish Hartlett

8 Ty Vickery
13 Tom Lynch

Verdict: Narrow win for 8+13. Hartlett 153 games, Vickery 125 (crap) games, Lynch 123 games. None of them have been all Australian.


2009
4 Anthony Morabito

8 John Butcher
13 Daniel Talia

Verdict: Clear win for 8+13 (even Port can't butcher a win for 8+13)


2010
4 Andrew Gaff

8 Dyson Heppell
13 Seb Tape


Verdict: Win for 4. Gaff 175 games and two time all Australian, but you'd be OK with Heppell 141 games.


2011
4 Will Hoskin-Elliot

8 Billy Longer
13 Taylor Adams

Verdict: Inconclusive. H.E. 100 games, Longer 65 games, Adams 120 games – all still playing, none of them seem to super-stars


2012
4 Jimmy Toumpass

8 Sam Mayes
13 Jesse Lonergan

Verdict: FMD, what a haul! 8+13 obviously better though. Toumpass 37 games, Mayes 101 games, Lonergan 60 games.


2013
4 The Bont

8 Luke McDonald
13 Pat Cripps

Verdict: Inconclusive. Guns with picks 4 and 13.


2014
4 Jarrod Pickett

8 Peter (two-metre) Wright
13 Lachie Weller

Verdict: win for 8+13


2015
4 Clayton Oliver

8 Callum Ah Chee
13 Matthew Kennedy

Verdict: All still playing, but this is looking like a clear win for 4. Oliver is already an all Australian.


2016
4 Ben Ainsworth

8 Griffin Logue
13 Daniel Venables

Verdict: Too early to tell, but so far Ainsworth has played 29 games, Logue 13 and Venables 15 games.


Conclusions: Over 20 years 8+ 13 have produced the better outcome twelve times. Some of these years have seen better outcomes for 8+13 by quite some margin.

Pick 4 has produced a better outcome only four times. But in two of those four years it was only a narrow win and you would have been happy with not trading up (Hurn at #13 in 2005 and Heppell at #8 in 2010).

Nice research if nothing else!

 

[Crow till I die]

This is just a ridiculous way to look at things.

Why..because the facts support his argument?

 

[Thetrader15]

This is just a ridiculous way to look at things.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story

 

[eastfreo75]

No offence but the Saints need depth of talent, not elite talent. The only reason Adelaide would do that trade is because Rankine is a local player and he's potentially elite. If he wasn't from SA I'd suggest we wouldn't do the trade.

Seriously, I think the opposite is true. Brunch of solid foot soldiers with no generals or guns.