List Mgmt. Resources for hypothetical traders and drafters

Remove this Banner Ad

JustInsideFifty

JustInsideFifty

All Australian
Veteran
Sep 15, 2015
975
1,309
Tas
AFL Club
Collingwood
A few links to sites, articles and threads regarding rules and options when it comes to trading and drafting players in 2016...

Draft picks currently held for 2016:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2016-nominal-afl-draft-order.1136636/
an excellent spready updated fairly soon (few days) after match results. A really easy way to see which team holds which picks - kudos to eth-dog and fly

A quick guide to the bidding system:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-24/your-guide-to-the-draft-live-bidding-system
Is from 2015, but same rules apply. Also includes point values of draft picks at the bottom of the page.

Draft pick value calculator:
https://www.draftguru.com.au/pick-value-calculator#
An excellent way to evaluate trades between 2 clubs that involve draft picks. Simple and easy to use.

Summary of rules regarding future picks:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle
The simplest but best article I have found regarding the rules around future picks.

Extensive explanation of father-son and academy bidding system:
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf
Includes an explanation about how the AFL arrived at the bidding system and some examples of how it works.

These are the best places that I have found for use in speculative and hypothetical trading and drafting. If you would like to add any more, post below and I will add to the OP. A lot of people hate players and picks being traded in speculation, but some (including me) find it exciting to think about how our team might look next year (especially after missing finals) and hopefully these links can help to make any hypotheticals posted more realistic and at least possible. Not sure if this needs its own thread, but the only other thread it seemed to fit in it would be gone in to the fog within a few hours.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Quicky said:
Good work putting that all together. Some interesting reading right there.
Click to expand...
Baltimore Jack said:
Brilliant...thank you
Click to expand...
No worries guys... tend to keep my browser the way I keep my house (and some would say my life) and had these open when I finally decided to do some cleaning up, so was easy to put together... glad it has been of some use and/or interest.
 
As we know, the rules around using picks/points to match father/son bids have changed so that you can only take as many 'live' picks to the draft as you have places available on your list...
I think there are still a couple of loopholes here that can be exploited - I have tried to find information refuting this and also posted in other threads about them but so far it looks ok:

1. List size of 38 or 39. If we go in to the draft with a list size of 33 for example, we would have 7 live picks but only need to use 5 to get to minimum list size. We could use any points from our 6th and 7th picks to match bids, which would move to the back of the draft but wouldn't have to use them as our list would be at the minimum size.

2. Rookie upgrades. Rookies are upgraded using picks at the end of the draft. We could drain the points out of our picks before using them to upgrade rookies.

***

To give an example of what I mean, say we go to the draft with live picks 25, 27, 47, 56, 59, 60, 69 and a list size of 33.
We use 25 and 27 in the draft before either F/S attracts a bid, leaving us with 47, 56, 59, 60, 69 - a total of 863 points.

Brown is bid at 29 (653 points) and we match. 653 - 197 = 456 points needed to match. Our next pick, 47 (316 points) moves to the back of the draft leaving 140 points owing. Pick 56 (194 points) has the remainder subtracted (194 - 140 = 54) and moves back in the draft to Pick 69. This leaves us with 59, 60, 69, 70 (392 points).

Daicos is bid at 31 (606 points) and we match. 606 - 197 = 409 points needed to match. All of our remaining picks are moved to the back of the draft and we have a deficit of 17 points to take in to 2017.

We then use a pick at the back of the draft to upgrade a rookie to the senior list.

Senior list = 33 players + Pick 25 + Pick 27 + Brown + Daicos + Upgraded Rookie = 38 players, the minimum list size.
Any points deficit comes off your first round pick in 2017. In this case, the deficit of 17 is small enough that it won't change our draft picks in 2017, irrespective of where we finish.

***

I have tried (and probably failed) to keep this as simple as possible, ignoring the possibility of picks moving around due to bids matched by other clubs etc, but think this shows that in our (likely) trading with GC and GWS, getting their late picks (which they're unlikely to use) could be important to us.
Again, not 100% sure this is within the rules, but can't find anything to say that it isn't. Happy to be proven wrong.

* I am also not sure whether picks shuffled back or forward after bids hold their original value or change points value to their new position. Any info on this appreciated.
 
Thought this might be more appreciated here even if it's more relevant to the trade thread where it would just get lost:

Going to be an interesting trade period, not just for who we get but what we get them for and what we get for our outgoings. Some have applauded Gubby for his football nous and here's some of what I will be looking at to judge trade period.

Trading Frost to Brisbane - regardless of whether we or Lions value him at a 2nd or 4th round we negotiate higher. Hard to know whether this happens as we aren't privy to negotiations but say they offer a 4th, we'd be better off accepting a 4th and swap of 2nd rounders (20 & 25), noting this is worth slightly more in f/s points than their 3rd outright and upgrading our 2nd is the most value. Swap of our 4th (61) and their 3rd (47) another possible piece of the puzzle. The more complex the final swap, the more it appears we have negotiated higher (even if the reality has been them negotiating lower!)

Witts (possible) to Suns - Suns have lots of picks to work with (4,8,21,22,24,27 for starters and that's before any JOM or Prestia trades). Only the most optimistic person would include 8 in the conversation and we'd need to add something to get it. I am hopeful that we'd be targeting 21 though. Maybe even squeeze them for 21 and a swap of 22 and 25. If the price is 27 instead of 21 then still try and sqeeze a swap of 21 & 25. Don't be surprised if Witts trade has to wait on bigger fish for the Suns and if we've already upgraded 25 to 20 with Lions than we would instead be looking to upgrade our 3rd (43) in any trade with Suns or maybe even upgrade 20 (from Lions) to a late first (eg from Hawks for JOM).

WHE (possible) from GWS - GWS have been done in the last 2 drafts at pick 41 (2015) and essentially 24 in 2014 (passed at 2 picks before taking an academy player at 85) and with the new rules multiple picks will be of less value to them so look to upgrade our 4th if we've given up our 3rd for WHE.

Cloke to Dogs - I'd be hopeful of their 2nd round (36) but again looking to upgrade our 2nd or 3rd rounder, especially if we are offered less than 36. Even little moves like upgrading pick 20 (possible in Frost trade above) to 18 would be small wins and could be valuable in 2017 flexibility for having to use 2 of 4 1st round picks.

Will be interesting to see the relative values of two key position players - Cloke (rumoured 2 year deal for aging high ceiling player) vs Frost (3 yr, much younger but lower ceiling).

TRY not to get bogged down in some of the specific pick detail but appreciate that we'd be trying to upgrade our 2nd and 3rd rounders rather than accept late picks (or in addition to whatever pick we get).

Lots depend on who we value in the draft and where we think they'll go. Whilst it would be nice to have a 1st rounder, we might be better off with two sliders drafted pick 20-30. Moore & Grundy aside we've historically done better with some of our later picks (Marsh, Langdon, Phillips, Crocker, Wills come to mind) than Freeman, Kennedy or Shaz & Broomy (so far).
 
JustInsideFifty said:
* I am also not sure whether picks shuffled back or forward after bids hold their original value or change points value to their new position. Any info on this appreciated.
Click to expand...

I would have thought picks change value to the position when used eg if Dogs bid on a GWS academy player at 18 and GWS match with pick 31 and later picks then GWS have effectively taken the player at pick 18 and dogs then hold pick 19 (everyone who held 18 to 30 shuffle back 1). We would then hold 26 and Carlton 24. Say Carlton then bid with 24 on Daicos and we match, 785-197=588 (equivalent to slightly better than 32) but we must use our next available (26) and as that's worth 729, 729-588=141 we would have Daicos and our pick would shuffle back to approx pick 61.
Nothing to support my opinion as I haven't studied what picks were before last year's draft and what they became on the night.
 
Lefthanded said:
Thought this might be more appreciated here even if it's more relevant to the trade thread where it would just get lost:

Going to be an interesting trade period, not just for who we get but what we get them for and what we get for our outgoings. Some have applauded Gubby for his football nous and here's some of what I will be looking at to judge trade period.

Trading Frost to Brisbane - regardless of whether we or Lions value him at a 2nd or 4th round we negotiate higher. Hard to know whether this happens as we aren't privy to negotiations but say they offer a 4th, we'd be better off accepting a 4th and swap of 2nd rounders (20 & 25), noting this is worth slightly more in f/s points than their 3rd outright and upgrading our 2nd is the most value. Swap of our 4th (61) and their 3rd (47) another possible piece of the puzzle. The more complex the final swap, the more it appears we have negotiated higher (even if the reality has been them negotiating lower!)

Witts (possible) to Suns - Suns have lots of picks to work with (4,8,21,22,24,27 for starters and that's before any JOM or Prestia trades). Only the most optimistic person would include 8 in the conversation and we'd need to add something to get it. I am hopeful that we'd be targeting 21 though. Maybe even squeeze them for 21 and a swap of 22 and 25. If the price is 27 instead of 21 then still try and sqeeze a swap of 21 & 25. Don't be surprised if Witts trade has to wait on bigger fish for the Suns and if we've already upgraded 25 to 20 with Lions than we would instead be looking to upgrade our 3rd (43) in any trade with Suns or maybe even upgrade 20 (from Lions) to a late first (eg from Hawks for JOM).

WHE (possible) from GWS - GWS have been done in the last 2 drafts at pick 41 (2015) and essentially 24 in 2014 (passed at 2 picks before taking an academy player at 85) and with the new rules multiple picks will be of less value to them so look to upgrade our 4th if we've given up our 3rd for WHE.

Cloke to Dogs - I'd be hopeful of their 2nd round (36) but again looking to upgrade our 2nd or 3rd rounder, especially if we are offered less than 36. Even little moves like upgrading pick 20 (possible in Frost trade above) to 18 would be small wins and could be valuable in 2017 flexibility for having to use 2 of 4 1st round picks.

Will be interesting to see the relative values of two key position players - Cloke (rumoured 2 year deal for aging high ceiling player) vs Frost (3 yr, much younger but lower ceiling).

TRY not to get bogged down in some of the specific pick detail but appreciate that we'd be trying to upgrade our 2nd and 3rd rounders rather than accept late picks (or in addition to whatever pick we get).

Lots depend on who we value in the draft and where we think they'll go. Whilst it would be nice to have a 1st rounder, we might be better off with two sliders drafted pick 20-30. Moore & Grundy aside we've historically done better with some of our later picks (Marsh, Langdon, Phillips, Crocker, Wills come to mind) than Freeman, Kennedy or Shaz & Broomy (so far).
Click to expand...

Agree it will be an interesting trade period, even though we don't have a lot of trade currency to play with.

I am hoping we can push 2 picks as high as possible for quality KPPs and pick up enough late picks to cover the 2 F/S. Trade anything in the middle for earlier / later picks - for example if we pick up 27, I would trade 25 + 27 for a first and a third or fourth.

Do agree that we do well with late picks, but hoping for something closer to our first choice KPP (especially forward) than late speculative choices this time around.

Also have a feeling something big is coming... no idea who or what, but here's hoping!
 
Also worth noting that Longer (Lions to Saints in 2013 trade period) is probably best recent indication of Witts possible value. Longer & 48 traded for pick 25 and 41, which on f/s points equates to about pick 22. Longer was part of 'go home 5' so Lions possibly had a weak hand, was younger and less experienced than Witts, but was originally a pick 8.
 
Lefthanded said:
Also worth noting that Longer (Lions to Saints in 2013 trade period) is probably best recent indication of Witts possible value. Longer & 48 traded for pick 25 and 41, which on f/s points equates to about pick 22. Longer was part of 'go home 5' so Lions possibly had a weak hand, was younger and less experienced than Witts, but was originally a pick 8.
Click to expand...
Witts is really hard to predict I think. Wouldn't be surprised if he went for a late first like Hawks pick 14 or even something like Witts + 43 or future 3rd for 24 + 27 but also wouldn't be surprised (would be a bit disappointed) if he only got us a late 2nd or even Pick 40. Agree that the Longer trade is a decent comparison though.
 
JustInsideFifty said:
Witts is really hard to predict I think. Wouldn't be surprised if he went for a late first like Hawks pick 14 or even something like Witts + 43 or future 3rd for 24 + 27 but also wouldn't be surprised (would be a bit disappointed) if he only got us a late 2nd or even Pick 40. Agree that the Longer trade is a decent comparison though.
Click to expand...
Pick 14 OR 24&27 minus 43 for Witts (2nd scenario value is around pick 15) are both pretty good outcomes if we can't keep him (my preference). Part of my hope comes from a poster claiming a source saying we will be pleasantly surprised by Suns offer but I also look to history eg Longer to gauge value. Hard to quell the small voice that keeps saying Cam Wood for 14 means Witts worth pick 8 or more! Wood & Longer were similar ages when traded and surely Witts carries less risk than either of those. Less risk = higher value.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lefthanded said:
Would be happy if we got something similar to McEvoy to Hawks (18 + player)
a bit less hopeful after seeing Cats traded 49+53 (=pick 35) to Suns for Zac Smith who on footywire was comparable player to Witts.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...pid2=3599&fid1=P&fopt1=2015&fid2=P&fopt2=2014
Click to expand...
Speaking of McEvoy, pretty sure he still isn't contracted. Not sure where he is at, but if still fit (he is only 27) he might be a cheap option for backup ruck. No idea of his value but think it would be quite low, maybe something like:
'Pies In: McEvoy, 28
Out: Witts

Suns In: Breust, Witts, 14
Out: O'Meara, 22, 28

Hawks In: O'Meara, 22
Out: Breust, McEvoy, 14

Or maybe we could add a future 2nd to the Suns and take 14 instead of 28 ;).
 
JustInsideFifty said:
Speaking of McEvoy, pretty sure he still isn't contracted. Not sure where he is at, but if still fit (he is only 27) he might be a cheap option for backup ruck. No idea of his value but think it would be quite low, maybe something like:
'Pies In: McEvoy, 28
Out: Witts

Suns In: Breust, Witts, 14
Out: O'Meara, 22, 28

Hawks In: O'Meara, 22
Out: Breust, McEvoy, 14

Or maybe we could add a future 2nd to the Suns and take 14 instead of 28 ;).
Click to expand...
don't think Hawks would be trading him when Ceglar is down and they are already having to chase Vickery.
 
Lefthanded said:
don't think Hawks would be trading him when Ceglar is down and they are already having to chase Vickery.
Click to expand...
Weren't they playing Pittonet and Fitzpatrick ahead of him this year?

Edit: my mistake... thought he hardly played this year... was busy pretending Hawthorn didn't exist...
 
Last edited:
JustInsideFifty said:
Speaking of McEvoy, pretty sure he still isn't contracted. Not sure where he is at, but if still fit (he is only 27) he might be a cheap option for backup ruck. No idea of his value but think it would be quite low, maybe something like:
'Pies In: McEvoy, 28
Out: Witts

Suns In: Breust, Witts, 14
Out: O'Meara, 22, 28

Hawks In: O'Meara, 22
Out: Breust, McEvoy, 14

Or maybe we could add a future 2nd to the Suns and take 14 instead of 28 ;).
Click to expand...

re McEvoy. There was a story during finals that his back is stuffed. maybe BS.
 
JustInsideFifty said:
Weren't they playing Pittonet and Fitzpatrick ahead of him this year?

Edit: my mistake... thought he hardly played this year... was busy pretending Hawthorn didn't exist...
Click to expand...
don't follow them closely enough to know so had to look and he played 23 games this year, your edit just got in in time!
 
Lefthanded said:
I would have thought picks change value to the position when used eg if Dogs bid on a GWS academy player at 18 and GWS match with pick 31 and later picks then GWS have effectively taken the player at pick 18 and dogs then hold pick 19 (everyone who held 18 to 30 shuffle back 1). We would then hold 26 and Carlton 24. Say Carlton then bid with 24 on Daicos and we match, 785-197=588 (equivalent to slightly better than 32) but we must use our next available (26) and as that's worth 729, 729-588=141 we would have Daicos and our pick would shuffle back to approx pick 61.
Nothing to support my opinion as I haven't studied what picks were before last year's draft and what they became on the night.
Click to expand...
Just came across this http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-10/10-questions-on-the-fatherson-and-academy-bidding-system where point 3 supports my previous opinion. Worth noting that link is from 2015 so some things may have changed this year but I don't believe this is impacted.
 
JustInsideFifty said:
Brown is bid at 29 (653 points) and we match. 653 - 197 = 456 points needed to match. Our next pick, 47 (316 points) moves to the back of the draft leaving 140 points owing. Pick 56 (194 points) has the remainder subtracted (194 - 140 = 54) and moves back in the draft to Pick 69. This leaves us with 59, 60, 69, 70 (392 points).

Daicos is bid at 31 (606 points) and we match. 606 - 197 = 409 points needed to match. All of our remaining picks are moved to the back of the draft and we have a deficit of 17 points to take in to 2017.
Click to expand...

IIRC the F/S discount used to be 20%? Eg: 20% discount on 653 points is 131 points discount = 521 points needed to match bid

Has that changed?
 
JustInsideFifty said:
it is a 20% discount on first round bids, then a flat rate of 197 points after that.
Click to expand...

Aha yes, I can imagine some wongs at AFL house once tried to figure out the maths behind applying a discount of a logarithmic scale and coming up with Football's equivalent to the Duckworth-Lewis method. Gil's eyes glazed over half way through the explanation, and he said "**** it, I'm gunna make it simple ..."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magpielicious
Time Sniper is reported and suspended.
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
5K
The Royal Sampler
The Royal Sampler
manicpie
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pie eyed
Pie eyed
DIDAIC0S
2023 DVD box set problems please check round 16 and 19 discs
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
DIDAIC0S
DIDAIC0S
magpielicious
Toast Settles the argument about who is the biggest once and for all, you're welcome!
Replies
9
Views
609
domus
domus
Aussie pie
  • Locked
List Mgmt. The obvious (we need a key forward)
Replies
9
Views
377
Maggie5
Maggie5
T
Our draft picks for both mid season and end of season drafts
Replies
10
Views
635
jonbe54
jonbe54
Maggie5
List Mgmt. Teams Delistings and Retirements
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
pablo disco bar
pablo disco bar

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top