Prediction Possible pick swaps

[Crow till I die]

There is a maximum deficit that GWS (or any club can go into). It's set at the amalgamated picks in rounds 1-4 that the premier would be awarded - ie picks 18, 36, 54, 72. (I have no idea whether that gets adjusted down a pick in each round to allow for the fact that Gold Coast have already been awarded an extra pick in the first round of next year's draft. I don't suppose that situation was anticipated when the rules were drawn up.

If GWS are successful in trading up to draft another player before Green (or even if they don't trade up but no bids come on Green before their existing pick 6), the deficit they go into will be less than the maximum allowed, so there will be no reason they can't do it. It will wipe out their pick 40 (and any other late picks they hold this year) and then the remaining deficit will come off their first round pick next year. If they've traded that pick out in order to trade up, I am not entirely sure what happens but I think it comes off their second round and subsequent round picks. So it would largely wipe them out of next year's draft too unless they acquire more earlyish picks next year by trading out players or through FA compensation if they were to lose a Cameron or Whitfield. So if they were to do this - ie trade out next year's first round pick to secure an extra pick in the top 5 this year - they are essentially trading most of next year's picks for that additional choice this year. Whether that is "wise" or not I guess depends on their views of who they might obtain in this year's top 5 compared to their assessment of next year's draft and where their picks are likely to be. They'll almost certainly go deep into the finals again unless they have an absolutely awful injury crisis, so those picks next year will fall late in each round. If they are doing it because there's a particular player they have in mind - say a Luke Jackson because they really want a good young ruckman - it makes more sense than if they are just after one of the midfielders. None of those stand out as being particularly different to those available most years in the draft.

It could be that they're doing it just because they can - ie being clever for the sake of being clever. They've got the savvy Quayle on their staff, so you'd think that's unlikely, but you never know.

Or they could be doing it because of an obsession with drafting players with high picks, and effectively what they are doing is packaging all their picks next year into a top 5 pick this year, something they'd be very unlikely to achieve via a trade with another club. Other clubs generally aren't amenable to giving up picks at the very pointy end of the draft for a raft of later ones. If so - and it's only a suggested possibility, not a claim that they are - I question their obsession with drafting players with top draft picks, especially midfielders. They've already got such a stacked midfield that it's hard for players to break in, even if they are good enough to at another club. They already have Caldwell from last year waiting in the wings, and have just essentially given away Bonar for nothing. Maybe that's because they've realised he hasn't lived up to his pre-trade hype, but had he played more games, they might have gotten more of a return for him.

High draft picks also come with a sense of entitlement and expectation that they will get to play senior footy early in their careers. They seem to become "more homesick" than players drafted later if they don't get opportunities. And clubs have to given them fatter contracts that they haven't yet earned because they believe there will be plenty of demand for their services. (Again, see Bonar. If he hadn't been signed on such a handsome contract that his football hadn't earned, they might again have received more of a return for him in a trade).

Furthermore, they already have so much top (and "entitled" talent) that it might explain why, thus far, what they have delivered has been less than the sum of its parts. They have five or six absolute stars on their list, but even their second and third tier talent would be considered A grade at most other clubs (the likes of Davis, Ward, Haynes, the up and coming Taranto and Hopper, et al). Less heralded players have come in and actually improved them - players like De Boer, Lloyd, Daniels - because these guys don't mind being role players. Arguably they need more of these in their team, not fewer, if their top grade talent is to be as effective as it can. Richmond have demonstrated how four or five absolute top rung players can be very effectively supported by a whole host of "lesser" role players - players who are loyal beyond their pay grade and don't mind doing the dirty work. The Hawthorn teams of the three-peat were similarly a mix of stars and lots of solid role players. I could argue that the Swans team of 2012 contained pretty much 22 "role players" (some more central and talented than others, but probably no-one viewed in the same light that Cameron, Greene, Coniglio, Kelly, Whitfield are in the current Giants outfit).

A question I don't know the answer to is if they deal with Melbourne or us and it involves a swap of 3 for 6 + 2020 1st or 4 for 6 + 2020 1st without any other picks being involved, assuming they won't have the points to match a bid with the remainder of this year's draft picks, are they allowed to use their 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders next year if they have already traded out their 1st rounder. I ask this because I thought there was a rule that if you trade out your 1st rounder without gaining another 1st rounder, you cannot then trade out 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th round picks. essentially they would not have a 2020 1st rounder and likely no future 2nd or future 3rd rounder in matching a bid at say pick 5 and you could put your house on Sydney bidding on Green I would think in any scenario

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Freo have a couple of 2020 seconds (ours and Melbourne's).

Anyone have multiple picks in the 20's this year they might swap?

We have 4 picks and dont have 4 list spots so we might.

 

[liz]

A question I don't know the answer to is if they deal with Melbourne or us and it involves a swap of 3 for 6 + 2020 1st or 4 for 6 + 2020 1st without any other picks being involved, assuming they won't have the points to match a bid with the remainder of this year's draft picks, are they allowed to use their 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders next year if they have already traded out their 1st rounder. I ask this because I thought there was a rule that if you trade out your 1st rounder without gaining another 1st rounder, you cannot then trade out 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th round picks. essentially they would not have a 2020 1st rounder and likely no future 2nd or future 3rd rounder in matching a bid at say pick 5 and you could put your house on Sydney bidding on Green I would think in any scenario

Trying to find anything from the AFL that is
- consolidated (so that you know it reflects any changes that have been made)
- comprehensive
- written in plain English

is close to impossible. And that's not just on the draft and bidding rules. It's on practically anything. Conspiracy theorists amongst us might suggest that's because writing (and making available) any document that is consolidated, comprehensive and written in plain English would limit the AFL's ability to make decisions on the fly, "interpret" their own rules according to whim, make exceptions according to pressure brought from some clubs (but not others) etc etc...

The most comprehensive (and enjoyable to read) explanation of the bidding process was written by Quayle back in 2015 when it was first introduced.

An idiot's guide to the new AFL bidding system

Have you struggled through many sleepless nights trying to work out how the AFL's new bidding system works? Don't worry: your questions, concerns and 'what ifs' are all answered in here...

www.theage.com.au

The drawback of relying on this is that it requires an interpretation of Emma's interpretation of the rules. (And doesn't account for any changes made since 2015.) But based on how Emma describes it, there isn't a rule against offsetting a deficit against later picks if there is no first round pick against which to offset them. You're right that this is equivalent to trading out first, second and subsequent round future picks, something that the AFL supposedly doesn't permit. But I guess they hadn't thought through all the consequences of their mechanisms. (What a surprise!) And in any case, the rules around protecting clubs by limiting their trading of future picks are a bit daft anyway. Clubs are big and ugly enough to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

 

[Procrastinator35]

We have 4 picks and dont have 4 list spots so we might.

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

 

[Thetrader15]

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

Why do GC do that? They won't use a pick past the 2nd round

 

[liz]

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

Not sure what that does for Gold Coast. They are listed as having six picks currently (and thus six list spots). I don't know if they might free up more spots by delisting more players, but their draft concessions mean that they can fill the latter two spots (currently relating to the picks at the end of the draft) with their NT and academy products (Rosas and Buderick). Maybe Buderick is more of a rookie candidate? Not sure. But its possible they may be out of the draft by pick 20 and thus not really be interested in splitting any of their picks down.

Indicative draft order: Your club's picks as they stand

Check out the latest indicative draft order as the Telstra AFL Trade and Free Agency periods shape each club's list

www.afl.com.au

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why do GC do that? They won't use a pick past the 2nd round

Picks 24 & 36 are second rounders....It also gives them the option of adding an extra player from this draft.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

We didnt gift it we swapped 37 for a 40s pick next year bc we probably couldnt have used 37 anyway.
15 is a good idea but GC dont have any academy players worth the swap.
I think we might swap 36 for someones future 2nd or if henry really gets bid at 8 we get on the phone and offer freo some deal for 10 involving 2nds and one of our future 1sts.
Or we may just try and trade for an earlier top 10 pick.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Not sure what that does for Gold Coast. They are listed as having six picks currently (and thus six list spots). I don't know if they might free up more spots by delisting more players, but their draft concessions mean that they can fill the latter two spots (currently relating to the picks at the end of the draft) with their NT and academy products (Rosas and Buderick). Maybe Buderick is more of a rookie candidate? Not sure. But its possible they may be out of the draft by pick 20 and thus not really be interested in splitting any of their picks down.

Indicative draft order: Your club's picks as they stand

Check out the latest indicative draft order as the Telstra AFL Trade and Free Agency periods shape each club's list

www.afl.com.au

Great stuff.....You'd reckon they'll be de-listing at least 1 more yet, given they have the first pick in the Pre-Season draft.....The 3 Tigers boys getting de-listed today would surely come under consideration as DFA's for them also.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

It really is comparable, we don’t have high level Academy kids every year either.

Even the rules for NGA are shambolic, they should just call it the AEFH (Appease Eddie Free Hit).

Wow, that must be really tough not having high level academy kids every year. Poor GWS, you guts do it so roughly

 

[Crow till I die]

Trying to find anything from the AFL that is
- consolidated (so that you know it reflects any changes that have been made)
- comprehensive
- written in plain English

is close to impossible. And that's not just on the draft and bidding rules. It's on practically anything. Conspiracy theorists amongst us might suggest that's because writing (and making available) any document that is consolidated, comprehensive and written in plain English would limit the AFL's ability to make decisions on the fly, "interpret" their own rules according to whim, make exceptions according to pressure brought from some clubs (but not others) etc etc...

The most comprehensive (and enjoyable to read) explanation of the bidding process was written by Quayle back in 2015 when it was first introduced.

An idiot's guide to the new AFL bidding system

Have you struggled through many sleepless nights trying to work out how the AFL's new bidding system works? Don't worry: your questions, concerns and 'what ifs' are all answered in here...

www.theage.com.au

The drawback of relying on this is that it requires an interpretation of Emma's interpretation of the rules. (And doesn't account for any changes made since 2015.) But based on how Emma describes it, there isn't a rule against offsetting a deficit against later picks if there is no first round pick against which to offset them. You're right that this is equivalent to trading out first, second and subsequent round future picks, something that the AFL supposedly doesn't permit. But I guess they hadn't thought through all the consequences of their mechanisms. (What a surprise!) And in any case, the rules around protecting clubs by limiting their trading of future picks are a bit daft anyway. Clubs are big and ugly enough to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

Much appreciated and i suppose the AFL would not want to be seen to stymie gws from recruiting their own academy players even if they put themselves in a position that is a grey area in terms of draft points they would need to use to bid. I would think an exemption would be granted to them to use whatever picks they needed to

 

[Andre the Giant]

Wow, that must be really tough not having high level academy kids every year. Poor GWS, you guts do it so roughly

It must be hard to be one of the oldest clubs in the competition, to have been given (through failure after failure) a seemingly endless supply of higher draft picks which you fail to develop and inevitably trade for lesser draft picks which you also fail to develop, but still feel so justified to call out a small start up team which is still largely competitive due to generous allowances given 9 years ago.

Yeah fetch me some Royal Salute and a Cheese Platter, poor bloody Melbourne.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

Not sure GCS would go for that. The devil was in the detail on the Jenkins deal in that we got the GCS future 3rd back, which is likely to be in the 37-41 range. The pick swap suited us fine given how many 2020 picks the cats are gonna need. Worked well for the crows too

 

[THE_GUN]

Lets assume a Green selection doesn't come, can anyone tell me what happens if GWS take someone like Jackson at 6 and then Green is selected at 7?

Can GWS match? And if so how do they pay with nowhere near enough points this year.

Are they;

- given 5 mins to try to trade future picks into this draft?
- or do they go into next year with a points deficit? If so how is the deficit applied next year?
- or simply can't match?

I think once their selection 6 is available and no bid has come for green they will select the best available player but will be arranging with another club to get the required picks before having to match other wise will go into deficit for their 2020 1st rounder

 

[TryAnHit]

I think once their selection 6 is available and no bid has come for green they will select the best available player but will be arranging with another club to get the required picks before having to match other wise will go into deficit for their 2020 1st rounder

A bid will 100% come before 6

 

[Ash1337]

A bid will 100% come before 6

This. It's expected that Sydney will bid which also means no homesick option if they don't match. They will eventually waste 6 on him if they don't trade it away. GWS only hope was that Sydney traded 5 for Daniher.

 

[Thetrader15]

Picks 24 & 36 are second rounders....It also gives them the option of adding an extra player from this draft.

GC have access to NT acad for free, plus 4 picks in the top 20 and Ellis as a FA so I can't see them needing 5.

I believe this is why the Martin deal didn't get done - SOS wanted to offer a 2nd rounder, but GC said they wouldn't even use that pick so there was no need to take it.

You were right though, 24 and 36 were 2nd rounders

 

[kreglze]

You blokes fairly well gifted Adelaide pick 37 for Jenkins.....Perhaps package up 36 & 24 for Gold Costs pick 15....Could be worth a shot. The extra 175 points could sway them.

That gives you 14, 15 & 17 as a draft hand.....Not too shabby.

Points aren't really any value to us since we can for the time being just pre-list our academy kids without bidding on them.

I think we are more likely to try and trade down 15 and 20 to a higher pick.

 

[jusjoshin]

Points aren't really any value to us since we can for the time being just pre-list our academy kids without bidding on them.

I think we are more likely to try and trade down 15 and 20 to a higher pick.

You think 15 and 20 for 10? seems to suit both clubs. We will probably burn 10 on matching a bid for Henry anyway, so this will get us an extra pick.

 

[Mego Red]

Fremantle issue is the number of available spots on the list.

We need to trade 22 for two picks.

28 and 45?

 

[Thetrader15]

Points aren't really any value to us since we can for the time being just pre-list our academy kids without bidding on them.

I think we are more likely to try and trade down 15 and 20 to a higher pick.

that's what Kall Burns said on Road to the Draft yesterday, so these options being presented showing GC splitting higher picks for two lower ones won't happen

 

[Mego Red]

Would Geelong be interested in trading their pick 17 for the GWS 2020 first?

 

[Theo X]

Sounds like Green is clear top 3 so I would expect us to bid on him.
GWS needed to involve a player to get pick 3 from us, now they only have 6 and next years first rounder which will likely be in the 20s after all the F/S academy selections so definitely not worth our while.

 

[raffrox]

Sounds like Green is clear top 3 so I would expect us to bid on him.
GWS needed to involve a player to get pick 3 from us, now they only have 6 and next years first rounder which will likely be in the 20s after all the F/S academy selections so definitely not worth our while.

So possibly a bid on Green and Henry?

 

[sydney_gws]

That is why I hope gws back tracks, maybe ask for port to swap 6 for 12,18. We then trade 12 for 17,24 with Geelong to gain more points to get a better pick after 17, 18, and part of 24 is used to match on green.