Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 8 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[_Mike_]

Opposition supporters coming to troll , you have been warned

 

[JohnnySteel]

Surely we don't take a third pick (passing on Darcy).

We seem very committed to him. His frame is huge & likely still growing. When he fills in he will be a big unit. Worth the long term investment.

 

[Mojorisin]

We do have a rookie spot available. If it comes down to saving it for the MSD vs taking Darcy then I'd use it on Darcy.

Do we? I was under the impression we only had 3 total spots available.

 

[Testekill]

Do we? I was under the impression we only had 3 total spots available.

Baker came off of the rookie list onto the main list.

 

[Testekill]

Probably been asked and answered but do we still get dibs on Darcy in the rookie draft?

If so there’s very little reason to use a draft pick on him. Unless we value an open train on spot (as we have been) over an additional draftee + Darcy as a rookie

If we nominate him as a F/S and he goes all the way through the draft then we can automatically add him to the rookie list.

 

[Mojorisin]

Baker came off of the rookie list onto the main list.

we still have 39 players on our list and can only have up to 42? (Plus 2 Cat B rookies)

 

[Sentinel]

Probably been asked and answered but do we still get dibs on Darcy in the rookie draft?

If so there’s very little reason to use a draft pick on him. Unless we value an open train on spot (as we have been) over an additional draftee + Darcy as a rookie

Yes, if he gets through the National Draft without being bid on we can nominate him prior to the rookie draft and thus automatically take him with our final rookie selection in the draft (which will almost certainly be our only selection if he makes it through).

Do we? I was under the impression we only had 3 total spots available.

3 spots total (excluding Cat B rookies), we can take between 1-3 picks at the National Draft and whatever is left from those 3 spots, if any, can be used on rookies.

 

[Mojorisin]

3 spots total (excluding Cat B rookies), we can take between 1-3 picks at the National Draft and whatever is left from those 3 spots, if any, can be used on rookies.

Thought that was the case, confusing when so many different numbers get reported.

 

[BEaston]

I get it’s a low success rate, but I just personally think holding onto guys we know will be delisted - so that’s a zero percent success rate.

Won't every player be delisted in some form?

 

[Salad dog]

At least two of our picks are live tonight. Then tomorrow is just waiting for either a Darcy bid or the pick that nobody saw coming.

Only one pick tonight

 

[Distinctive_]

AFL list rules are confusing. After the Baker and JOD upgrades we have:

Assuming we draft 3 players in the national draft we will have 38 seniors, 4 Category A rookies and 0 category B rookies.

As the quota for category A rookies is 4-6, are we allowed to take more Category A rookies if we have 0 Category B rookies?

 

[Mojorisin]

AFL list rules are confusing. After the Baker and JOD upgrades we have:

Assuming we draft 3 players in the national draft we will have 38 seniors, 4 Category A rookies and 0 category B rookies.

As the quota for category A rookies is 4-6, are we allowed to take more Category A rookies if we have 0 Category B rookies?

No. Cat b rookies have no bearing on any other listings.

 

[JohnnySteel]

No. Cat b rookies have no bearing on any other listings.

Wonder if we have any on our radar. As we can list any NGA prospects that aren’t drafted. Including those from other teams (I’m fairly sure, anyway).
Seems as though we’re likely not to take any additional players on at this stage though.

Can’t wait for 208cm Mitch Croft to slip onto our Cat B list when hes done with Volleyball.

 

[doggiesin08]

AFL list rules are confusing. After the Baker and JOD upgrades we have:

Assuming we draft 3 players in the national draft we will have 38 seniors, 4 Category A rookies and 0 category B rookies.

As the quota for category A rookies is 4-6, are we allowed to take more Category A rookies if we have 0 Category B rookies?

Short answer: No

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Wonder if we have any on our radar. As we can list any NGA prospects that aren’t drafted. Including those from other teams (I’m fairly sure, anyway).
Seems as though we’re likely not to take any additional players on at this stage though.

Can’t wait for 208cm Mitch Croft to slip onto our Cat B list when hes done with Volleyball.

Might be waiting a while. A volleyball scholarship at the University of Hawai'i is a pretty blessed life.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

For Butters, in realistic terms we have to hope that there's a combination of us playing so well that our 1st round pick is not worth that much and Port play so badly this year that their compensation pick is worth a lot that they just accept the compensation, leaving us with our picks (and the possibility to trade them out).

It's a far different proposition executing a trade to us - even if they could theoretically send Butters to the draft, if forcing a trade means accepting our 1st rounder in the 20's (if we finish top 4) after compensation/bids, and and expectation that we'd be top 4 again in 2027 with Butters as a value future pick, whereas if they finish bottom 4 they're giving up a potential top 5 compensation pick to force a trade.

On the other hand if we finish 7th and Port 12th (or whatever), all of a sudden pick 13 + future picks vs their compensation of pick 7 or whatever doesn't seem a mile apart and 3x future 1st rounders, even with Tasmania factor, is worth more than a single pick in the late top 10.

As the Merrett lack of the trade prove, you can't get to the value of a top 5ish pick simply by adding together 3-4 1st rounders in the late teens or early 20's. So we just have to hope that Port are so crap that they'd rather take the top 5 compensation pick, rather than accepting the expected value of 3 years worth of our future picks which might not even add up to pick 2-3 value in a single year.

 

[Mojorisin]

For Butters, in realistic terms we have to hope that there's a combination of us playing so well that our 1st round pick is not worth that much and Port play so badly this year that their compensation pick is worth a lot that they just accept the compensation, leaving us with our picks (and the possibility to trade them out).

It's a far different proposition executing a trade to us - even if they could theoretically send Butters to the draft, if forcing a trade means accepting our 1st rounder in the 20's (if we finish top 4) after compensation/bids, and and expectation that we'd be top 4 again in 2027 with Butters as a value future pick, whereas if they finish bottom 4 they're giving up a potential top 5 compensation pick to force a trade.

On the other hand if we finish 7th and Port 12th (or whatever), all of a sudden pick 13 + future picks vs their compensation of pick 7 or whatever doesn't seem a mile apart and 3x future 1st rounders, even with Tasmania factor, is worth more than a single pick in the late top 10.

As the Merrett lack of the trade prove, you can't get to the value of a top 5ish pick simply by adding together 3-4 1st rounders in the late teens or early 20's. So we just have to hope that Port are so crap that they'd rather take the top 5 compensation pick, rather than accepting the expected value of 3 years worth of our future picks which might not even add up to pick 2-3 value in a single year.

And the Curnow trade given the first they got this year is going towards points for Dean. Having pick 5, 6 to match a potential bid at one will help more then 5 and 16 plus firsts in years heavily affected by Tassie.

 

[Libbaaaa]

For Butters, in realistic terms we have to hope that there's a combination of us playing so well that our 1st round pick is not worth that much and Port play so badly this year that their compensation pick is worth a lot that they just accept the compensation, leaving us with our picks (and the possibility to trade them out).

It's a far different proposition executing a trade to us - even if they could theoretically send Butters to the draft, if forcing a trade means accepting our 1st rounder in the 20's (if we finish top 4) after compensation/bids, and and expectation that we'd be top 4 again in 2027 with Butters as a value future pick, whereas if they finish bottom 4 they're giving up a potential top 5 compensation pick to force a trade.

On the other hand if we finish 7th and Port 12th (or whatever), all of a sudden pick 13 + future picks vs their compensation of pick 7 or whatever doesn't seem a mile apart and 3x future 1st rounders, even with Tasmania factor, is worth more than a single pick in the late top 10.

As the Merrett lack of the trade prove, you can't get to the value of a top 5ish pick simply by adding together 3-4 1st rounders in the late teens or early 20's. So we just have to hope that Port are so crap that they'd rather take the top 5 compensation pick, rather than accepting the expected value of 3 years worth of our future picks which might not even add up to pick 2-3 value in a single year.

And the Curnow trade given the first they got this year is going towards points for Dean. Having pick 5, 6 to match a potential bid at one will help more then 5 and 16 plus firsts in years heavily affected by Tassie.

Butters will be different considering he is out of contract. Even though it was a while ago I keep going back to how the Dangerfield move happened, don't see why Butters would play out any differently.

 

[Mojorisin]

Butters will be different considering he is out of contract. Even though it was a while ago I keep going back to how the Dangerfield move happened, don't see why Butters would play out any differently.

I was more referring to the benefits of one top pick as opposed to three teens or 20s picks when it comes to electing to match a bid. They may have similar points value and in some cases its better off to scatter our return and not put all your draft asset eggs in one basket but with a potential top pick (probably top 3 worst case) in the only year not affected by a new club it would make alot more sense not to match, when the crows lost Dangerfield they were playing finals so matching made alot more sense.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I was more referring to the benefits of one top pick as opposed to three teens or 20s picks when it comes to electing to match a bid. They may have similar points value and in some cases its better off to scatter our return and not put all your draft asset eggs in one basket but with a potential top pick (probably top 3 worst case) in the only year not affected by a new club it would make alot more sense not to match, when the crows lost Dangerfield they were playing finals so matching made alot more sense.

This is true but surely there's a tipping point where our tradeable picks are so bad and the compensation pick is so good - when combined with the resources and difficulty in negotiating a trade (where the efforts of the Port list manager could be put elsewhere, such as trading up/down around Cochrane bids etc) - that it's just not worth the effort and you accept the compensation pick.

Ball is in our court to play as well as possible this year to make our pick and future picks as unappealing as possible.

 

[Mojorisin]

This is true but surely there's a tipping point where our tradeable picks are so bad and the compensation pick is so good - when combined with the resources and difficulty in negotiating a trade (where the efforts of the Port list manager could be put elsewhere, such as trading up/down around Cochrane bids etc) - that it's just not worth the effort and you accept the compensation pick.

Ball is in our court to play as well as possible this year to make our pick and future picks as unappealing as possible.

Absolutely. The higher we finish and the lower they fall the better our negotiation sits.

 

[Here we go dogs]

We seem very committed to him. His frame is huge & likely still growing. When he fills in he will be a big unit. Worth the long term investment.

View attachment 2480092

Will looks so much like Luke. Looks older than Sam.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Absolutely. The higher we finish and the lower they fall the better our negotiation sits.

Unless another team offers better compensation, a team Butters is not opposed to going to. I don’t like being over confident.

 

[Mojorisin]

Unless another team offers better compensation, a team Butters is not opposed to going to. I don’t like being over confident.

Not many players select more then one destination, Curnow the exception because he wanted away from Voss.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Not many players select more then one destination, Curnow the exception because he wanted away from Voss.

I hope that is the case for Butters.

 

[Doggy Dan]

When I was at school and mum didn’t give me any money I used to wait for the lunch bell to go and sprint to the canteen line. People would be piling in and I’d offer the spot in front of me for 20c - repeated said spot sale until I had $2.40 for a sausage roll and Portello. Point being - when the whips are cracking and the bell has rung, people/clubs will pay overs to get to the front - I’d love to see us just keep extracting micro value over and over by allowing a club to move up one or two spots up into our pick maybe you move back a spot and get a 2026 second rounder off Freo, then move back another spot and get a 2027 second rounder off GWS, so on and so forth until we have a sausage roll and a Portello.

Hawks got the sausage roll and the portello tonight.