Traded Saints trade #6 & #59 to GWS for #12 & #18

[stfan]

Luke Ball

Xavier Clarke was the player gained by having a priority pick. Not Ball.


Remember that even though PP's are put in before your first pick, that the club still picks with that pick the player it would have if no PP had of been given. So the players gained by being givena PP is actually the second player chosen and not the first.

So being given PPs gained St Kilda Kosi and Clarke and not Riewoldt and Ball.

 

[Atomboy]

Xavier Clarke was the player gained by having a priority pick. Not Ball.


Remember that even though PP's are put in before your first pick, that the club still picks with that pick the player it would have if no PP had of been given. So the players gained by being givena PP is actually the second player chosen and not the first.

So being given PPs gained St Kilda Kosi and Clarke and not Riewoldt and Ball.

Not how I would see it but anyhoo.

The Ball/Clarke selections were a bit like playing battleships and filling the bird with misses and no hits in the early part of that draft.

 

[GWS Goose]

Well there is no need to worry about keeping a pick for King now. I think him staying with the Suns is good for the game.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Ben King is coming to saints becuase he IS a twin and a huge saints fan. Life long dream for them both and its a great story.

Yeah, nah.

Try again for 2023?

 

[Tig017]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

 

[Orange Agent]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

Depends what way you look at it and how the recruiters see this years V next years drafts. Taking 2 top 5 talents this year Vs Tom Green and likely a late first next year with all the talk of weaker draft diluted by F/S and NGA picks. The likelihood is if we can get a pick before the Green bid they will be a much better player than next years first pick. So the net result of this trade is a loss of 400 points in the pursuit of getting two top 5 talents with what will likely cost 12, 18 and a future first (possibly 15-20). It comes down to what recruiters get paid to do and analyze what is the best likely outcome over the 2 year period with other factors such as FA involved also.

 

[blitzer]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

This is actually a very interesting point and Melbourne won't be in a hurry to downgrade pick 3 into pick 6 without something very nice coming their way like next years first.

GWS aren't exactly the most savvy of drafters and traders but they have never needed to be because of the amount of resources they have that can be readily converted into high draft picks. They know that their main battle is staying under the salary cap and that the best way to do that is to continually let good but non integral players go for high draft picks (even if they need to upgrade them) so they can bet on the closest to sure things there is in the draft. Their academy has also helped a ton yielding a first round prospect nearly every year (too lazy to check exact numbers so that's a handy 20% discount for them to enjoy and access to talent that often would be out of reach if it wasn't for the academy.

I don't think they'll have any problems taking 2 early first rounders this draft and then having the rest of their picks be either rookie upgrades/end of draft selections over the next 2 years. They'll take a few more cheap mature aged options and then just go again. They are in their window and missing out on some second/third rounders won't concern them overly much.

 

[Crow till I die]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

The only counter to this - and it is not really one that helps GWS greatly is if GWS do trade out pick 6 and their 2020 1st to Melbourne or Adelaide say, yes they will burn the rest of their picks worth points this year and burn down a lot of draft capital next year but they could always trade players out next year to garner more draft capital. The question is if they go into deficit next year, do they have enough points from their 2nd round down to cover the difference?

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

This is actually a very interesting point and Melbourne won't be in a hurry to downgrade pick 3 into pick 6 without something very nice coming their way like next years first.

GWS aren't exactly the most savvy of drafters and traders but they have never needed to be because of the amount of resources they have that can be readily converted into high draft picks. They know that their main battle is staying under the salary cap and that the best way to do that is to continually let good but non integral players go for high draft picks (even if they need to upgrade them) so they can bet on the closest to sure things there is in the draft. Their academy has also helped a ton yielding a first round prospect nearly every year (too lazy to check exact numbers so that's a handy 20% discount for them to enjoy and access to talent that often would be out of reach if it wasn't for the academy.

I don't think they'll have any problems taking 2 early first rounders this draft and then having the rest of their picks be either rookie upgrades/end of draft selections over the next 2 years. They'll take a few more cheap mature aged options and then just go again. They are in their window and missing out on some second/third rounders won't concern them overly much.

I think you're off the mark a little. I'd agree our drafting wasn't great for a two year period when Silvagni was in charge, but for the most part it's been excellent. I also think our trading is very good. We've made the most of our resources and stretched our Premiership window through very good list management.

I'd rather take the best available player at three or four, followed by Green who's an incredible prospect, than gamble on trying to make something happen next year when we will probably not be able to upgrade our drafting position as I doubt we will lose anybody of value in 2020.

 

[Tig017]

Depends what way you look at it and how the recruiters see this years V next years drafts. Taking 2 top 5 talents this year Vs Tom Green and likely a late first next year with all the talk of weaker draft diluted by F/S and NGA picks. The likelihood is if we can get a pick before the Green bid they will be a much better player than next years first pick. So the net result of this trade is a loss of 400 points in the pursuit of getting two top 5 talents with what will likely cost 12, 18 and a future first (possibly 15-20). It comes down to what recruiters get paid to do and analyze what is the best likely outcome over the 2 year period with other factors such as FA involved also.

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

The reason I think picks 12 and 18 for pick 6 will go down as a terrible trade is because I highly doubt any of Melbourne, Adelaide or even Sydney would entertain the idea of trading at all. At this stage, clubs are only allowed to trade draft picks instead of players, and even if your club was prepared to offer pick 6 and a future first to Melbourne, that future first will take a 1198 point hit, which in all likelihood makes it worthless in 12 months time. If no trade gets done, your club has effectively given up pick 18 for nothing, and I don't see it eventuating any other way.

 

[Tig017]

This is actually a very interesting point and Melbourne won't be in a hurry to downgrade pick 3 into pick 6 without something very nice coming their way like next years first.

The point is, GWS's future first isn't very nice at all. If they bid on Green with pick 40 alone this year, their future first next year becomes effectively worthless.

The only counter to this - and it is not really one that helps GWS greatly is if GWS do trade out pick 6 and their 2020 1st to Melbourne or Adelaide say, yes they will burn the rest of their picks worth points this year and burn down a lot of draft capital next year but they could always trade players out next year to garner more draft capital. The question is if they go into deficit next year, do they have enough points from their 2nd round down to cover the difference?

Again, the rest of their picks this year is literally just pick 40. Their next picks (59 & 60) are worth 0. If GWS have pick 3, then Adelaide bids on Green at pick 4, then GWS match the bid, they go into a 1198 point deficit, which takes it's toll next year on their first round pick. This is why I highly doubt Melbourne would do pick 6 + GWS future first for pick 4.

The only thing GWS can really do right now is trade their future second for a current second, or two current thirds. They urgently need points this year right now, just to get Melbourne to entertain the trade.

 

[Crow_68]

I'm afraid you've missed the point.

The reason I think picks 12 and 18 for pick 6 will go down as a terrible trade is because I highly doubt any of Melbourne, Adelaide or even Sydney would entertain the idea of trading at all. At this stage, clubs are only allowed to trade draft picks instead of players, and even if your club was prepared to offer pick 6 and a future first to Melbourne, that future first will take a 1198 point hit, which in all likelihood makes it worthless in 12 months time. If no trade gets done, your club has effectively given up pick 18 for nothing, and I don't see it eventuating any other way.

Suggested this on the Adelaide board, but perhaps the only way GWS can retrieve the situation is admit they botched it and trade down.

Example:
Adelaide - gain 6 & 14, lose 4 & 23
Geelong - gain 4, lose 14 & 17
GWS - gain 17 & 23, lose 6

Gives GWS a slight increase in points for a Green match, also may mean Sydney at 5 make the bid rather than Adelaide when they had 4. Also assumes Geelong are after a particular player who is likely to go top 5 (Flanders?)

There is no way Melbourne or Adelaide entertain a trade, GWS simply do not have the currency. Melbourne would also drop 3 places and Adelaide 2, potentially missing out on their key targets.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blitzer]

I think you're off the mark a little. I'd agree our drafting wasn't great for a two year period when Silvagni was in charge, but for the most part it's been excellent. I also think our trading is very good. We've made the most of our resources and stretched our Premiership window through very good list management.

I'd rather take the best available player at three or four, followed by Green who's an incredible prospect, than gamble on trying to make something happen next year when we will probably not be able to upgrade our drafting position as I doubt we will lose anybody of value in 2020.

Honestly - any other club that had burned the amount of top draft picks as the Giants would be a basket case. Without including their first year in the draft (where by sheer numbers of picks you'll have some hits and misses but overall a good year) here are some of the misses:

2012
Pick 2 - Jonathon O'Rourke
Pick 3 - Lachlan Plowman (traded for virtually nothing so even if he is becoming decent not a good return)
Pick 12 - Kristen Jaksch

2013
Pick 1 - Tom Boyd (though probably a win for GWS because he had everyone sucked in back then and they got a good trade for him)

2014 -
Pick 4 - Jarrod Pickett
Pick 7 - Paul Ahern

2015
Pick 13 - Matthew Kennedy

2016
Pick 5 - Will Setterfield (only because they didn't get anywhere near his draft value recouped but probably not a real drafting mistake and he looks like a good player)

2017
Pick 11 - Aiden Bonar

Not including 2018 since its too early and I only included Bonar because he's left the club already.

No I don't think GWS have been particularly savvy at their drafting. But the startup conditions have meant they had more top draft picks than any other club in the comp so you can afford to miss a few (or even more than a few as the above list shows).

 

[Crashy]

Gold Coast should make a bid if gws trade up

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

Gold Coast should make a bid if gws trade up

Would assume they'd live trade at that pick not beforehand.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

Firstly pick 59 is worth 158 pts and 60 is worth 146 pts not zero points like you stated.
Secondly if the giants trade a future first round pick it stay at whatever level the giants finish at and doesn't get diluted at all as that pick is no longer owned by the giants. So if the giants trade a future first and if a bid is put on Green at pick 4 then any deficient is made up by later future round picks.

There is also the possibility if the giants can't trade into a higher pick that at pick 6 they draft the best available talent and greater need and that may mean drafting someone other then Green.

 

[Vindicater]

They will no doubt trade out a young gun for a pick next year if needed.

I dont see the problem of gaining the elite talent?

 

[GWS Goose]

Honestly - any other club that had burned the amount of top draft picks as the Giants would be a basket case. Without including their first year in the draft (where by sheer numbers of picks you'll have some hits and misses but overall a good year) here are some of the misses:

2012
Pick 2 - Jonathon O'Rourke
Pick 3 - Lachlan Plowman (traded for virtually nothing so even if he is becoming decent not a good return)
Pick 12 - Kristen Jaksch

2013
Pick 1 - Tom Boyd (though probably a win for GWS because he had everyone sucked in back then and they got a good trade for him)

2014 -
Pick 4 - Jarrod Pickett
Pick 7 - Paul Ahern

2015
Pick 13 - Matthew Kennedy

2016
Pick 5 - Will Setterfield (only because they didn't get anywhere near his draft value recouped but probably not a real drafting mistake and he looks like a good player)

2017
Pick 11 - Aiden Bonar

Not including 2018 since its too early and I only included Bonar because he's left the club already.

No I don't think GWS have been particularly savvy at their drafting. But the startup conditions have meant they had more top draft picks than any other club in the comp so you can afford to miss a few (or even more than a few as the above list shows).

You've cherry picked the misses. (And included matched bids on academy players)
They have managed to put together a list that despite a horrific injury run have made 3 of the last 4 prelims. Have a heap of players 22 or under who look the goods.
They have done well to continue to have a number of picks in the top 30 getting reasonable value for exiting players.
They have got loads of selections correct.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

People don't realize this yet, but this trade will go down as one of the worst trades of all time on GWS's end, and it should be getting more attention. Everyone is talking about how GWS will trade themselves up to Melbourne's pick... but how? The ramifications are quite complex.

GWS's picks right now are 6, 40, 59 and 60.
If they happened to get Melbourne's pick 3, select someone, then Adelaide bid on Green at pick 4 (2034 points) that leaves GWS needing to match 2034 - 20% = 1627 points for Green. Pick 40 is worth a measly 429 points, 59 & 60 are worth 0. GWS matching a bid on Green would mean going 1198 points into deficit, and it would be even more if pick 40 was involved in the deal to get 3.

You might then ask "Well, they can just trade future picks" - Once again, they're going into a 1198 point deficit next year, which gets subtracted from their first pick. If GWS were to finish in the same position next year as they did this year (runners up) their pick 17 (1025 points) gets wiped out. GWS trading pick 6 and a future first might look nice on paper for Melbourne, but it's actually pretty terrible.

59 and 60 aren't worth 0, they're worth 300 points combined. But otherwise yes a bit of a bust from GWS. They'll probably have players who want out next year though who'll get them exra draft points.

Also GWS don't need to nail every single pick. You can only have 22 players in an AFL team.

 

[perplexed]

Firstly pick 59 is worth 158 pts and 60 is worth 146 pts not zero points like you stated.
Secondly if the giants trade a future first round pick it stay at whatever level the giants finish at and doesn't get diluted at all as that pick is no longer owned by the giants. So if the giants trade a future first and if a bid is put on Green at pick 4 then any deficient is made up by later future round picks.

There is also the possibility if the giants can't trade into a higher pick that at pick 6 they draft the best available talent and greater need and that may mean drafting someone other then Green.

Are clubs allowed to use later future picks for points if they have already used or traded their future first round pick?
I would have assumed that the same rule applied to using picks for points as it does for trading them.
If that is the case then the most GWS can go into deficit next year is 948 (the value of pick 19).