Trading Down

_RT_

Hall Of Famer
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
34,865
Likes
42,915
Location
Southern Stand Punt Road End
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Furies Premiers 2010
Thread starter #1
Been thinking about this for a few days, so I'm going to throw it out there for the masses to disect.

If we were to finish last and got pick 4, would anyone be upset if we went to GC and offered up pick 4 for 2 of their latter first round picks i.e. 7 & 13 or 9 & 11?

After reading the reports from a few different draft watchers it would appear that the talent level is pretty even once you get outside the first few picks(most opinions seem to think the first 3 are standouts then its even from 4-20).

Having the chance to add 2 kids from this group as well as pick 28(picks 27 & 29 if we get the PP) is something we should look at long and hard. We could address the need for an outside reciever plus possibly adding a bit more depth to the KPP ranks & ruck stocks.

So now I put the question to you guys would you mind if the club went down this path?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

tigerdan

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Posts
6,903
Likes
6,387
Location
Qatar
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dolphins
#2
I'm against that idea for the same reason why we did not do the deal with Sydney for Martin.

From what I read there were real standouts in the top 3 and if GC blink we would get one of them.

I don't think this is the year for such a strategy.
 

Roachy8

Premium Platinum
Joined
May 11, 2007
Posts
11,437
Likes
19,642
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Richmond
#4
Nup... not for me.

We need another "A" grader more than we need another 2 possible "good players".

Now I know drafting can still be a bit of a lottery but I would go with picking the best possible kid as early as possible.
Later picks are still good value... exhibit A = one Ben Nason. :thumbsu:
 

rfctigerarmy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
21,825
Likes
11,014
Location
Punt Road
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Heart, Furies
#6
It's interesting because of how many picks the Gold Coast have. I think at the moment we should perhaps keep #4. But that's probably a more conservative thing.

Yeah, good thread RT. Hard to say!
 

TOOs_Finest

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Posts
7,933
Likes
2,101
Location
East of Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dallas Desire
#7
As with any draft, you get to know the applicants and target the players you want, based on your position in the pecking order. IMO, the only reason we would do such a downgrade would be if we had some candidates in the lower end of the first round who we had an interest in to fill some needs. I don't believe you just downgrade pretty much a certain very good top end pick, with the hope that you will end up with two good first rounders.

If we knew we could get, say, a specific KPD and a small forward, which we had identified as needs... and we had confidence these would be available with the downgraded picks, then it might be considered.

These days, drafting should not be about rolling the dice.
 

Bojangles17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
28,676
Likes
25,048
Location
Punt Rd
AFL Club
Richmond
#9
silly idea, without a shadow of a doubt in almost every draft the top 4 or 5 are shades better than the rest, we would be seriously running the gauntlet to ditch the prospect of Gaff in favour of ???

In many cases picks beyond the immediate top 5 become speculative to the point they are often little better than a selection in the 70s.

I couldnt see it happening
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Posts
16,924
Likes
6,868
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
#10
It's an interesting thought, but I would highly doubt that GC who are trying to fill a list would reduce their picks by 1 from the top 20. But saying that the AFL are yet to release what the compensation will be for losing a Marquee player. If Ablett does go north than that might change the top picks.....???
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

_RT_

Hall Of Famer
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
34,865
Likes
42,915
Location
Southern Stand Punt Road End
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Furies Premiers 2010
Thread starter #12
Nup... not for me.

We need another "A" grader more than we need another 2 possible "good players".

Now I know drafting can still be a bit of a lottery but I would go with picking the best possible kid as early as possible.
Later picks are still good value... exhibit A = one Ben Nason. :thumbsu:
Fair call, but who says that pick 4 is a guaranteed A grader and 7 & 11 aren't. One of the draft watchers, whose opinion I value, says that there are around 20 A grade talents in the draft. The top 3 are the standouts and then the next 15-17 are pretty even.

I don't believe you just downgrade pretty much a certain very good top end pick, with the hope that you will end up with two good first rounders.

If we knew we could get, say, a specific KPD and a small forward, which we had identified as needs... and we had confidence these would be available with the downgraded picks, then it might be considered.

These days, drafting should not be about rolling the dice.
I haven't really watched much U/18s this year so will put this out there to those that have.

Using the logic of downgrading for specific targets, lets say we downgraded for picks 9 & 13. Would using those picks on say Jacobs or Atley and Watson (big bodied KPD) be of more value to our lineup than say adding just Gaff or Darling.

Don't forget we would also have picks 27 & 29 if we got the PP or pick 28 if we didn't get it. Which would mean we're adding 3-4 picks in the top 30 without having to trade out any players who would be considered essential.

What was the deal with Sydney?
Last year Sydney offered us picks 6 & 14 for 3.

It's an interesting thought, but I would highly doubt that GC who are trying to fill a list would reduce their picks by 1 from the top 20. But saying that the AFL are yet to release what the compensation will be for losing a Marquee player. If Ablett does go north than that might change the top picks.....???
If GC did the deal they would have picks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 or 9, 11 or 13 & 15. I think they would be pretty tempted to take the offer if we put it to them.
 

nut

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Posts
16,924
Likes
6,868
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
#13
I can see the club taking a risk and trading with one of our backs. The player with probably the most currency for the GC is Mcguane.

Pick 4 and Mcguane for picks 9, 11 and 15 would be something to think about
 

tugga

Moderator
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
29,601
Likes
41,710
Location
Yid army
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Tottenham,Red Sox,San Antonio Spurs
Moderator #14
Good thread RT.
I wouldn't do it.
I'm still haunted by Danny Meyer at No 12 and Adam Pattison at No 16 for Otto.
Pick 4 wouild pretty much guarantee us a solid AFL player at worst. Two lower picks in the 1st round wouldn't guarantee us anything.
I'm all for taking risks, but not silly risks.
 

Roachy8

Premium Platinum
Joined
May 11, 2007
Posts
11,437
Likes
19,642
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Richmond
#15
Fair call, but who says that pick 4 is a guaranteed A grader and 7 & 11 aren't. One of the draft watchers, whose opinion I value, says that there are around 20 A grade talents in the draft. The top 3 are the standouts and then the next 15-17 are pretty even./QUOTE]
That's the rub though... no one is to say. (Need I mention our own no. 4 from a few years ago? :eek:)

There are few 'sure bets' but the surer bets come at the pointy end of the 1st round & if I was going to gamble (talking about bets... actually I wouldn't mind Eddy Betts! :D) then I would stick with number 4.

You would have to have a real sure & confident form line from 4 - 12 to even consider this but hey... we are more confident in our recruiting guys now aren't we?

I just have a pretty conservative nature I guess. :cool:
 

Azzleberry

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Posts
2,004
Likes
1,162
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
#16
Fair call, but who says that pick 4 is a guaranteed A grader and 7 & 11 aren't. One of the draft watchers, whose opinion I value, says that there are around 20 A grade talents in the draft. The top 3 are the standouts and then the next 15-17 are pretty even.
All the talk at the moment is that Swallow, Bennell and Day are the 3 standouts! I would be confident in assuming that if we had Pick 3, the GC would take Swallow (who they have already committed to) and Day. That gives them the best tall and best Mid before our choice, which leaves us with Bennell, who fits our needs perfectly... So now the question is; how do we make this happen?

We offer the GC our Pick #4, our 2nd or priority pick (if we get one) #27-28 and a McGuane, Rance or Morton type to GC for Picks #3 and either #11 or #13.
Therefore, GC finish with picks 1,2,4,5,7,9,11 or 13, 15, their 2nd round pick and #27. As well as a KPD ready to go at AFL level.
We finish up with picks 3 (Bennell), 11 or 13 (Parker type or pick for needs).

Net result:
GC: -Pick 3 and 11 or 13, + Pick 4, 27 and McGuane/Rance or Morton. (Still have the same amount of picks but add a quality KPD that we can afford to lose)
RFC: -Pick 4, Pick 27 and McGuane/Rance/Morton, +Pick 3 and Pick 11 or 13..

So rather than downgrading a pick, I would go the other way and try and upgrade our pick into the Top 3 who are all elite potential, and into the top 15 who are all very solid looking players..
We have a plethora of potential defenders and considering our backline looks to have Deledio, Newman, Connors all there for the next 5 yrs, we only need 3 actual defenders, which can come from McGuane, Moore, Thursfield, Rance, Post, Gourdis, Astbury, Farmer, Webberley, Dea, Grimes etc.. Who have all played as defenders this year in various teams (VFL incl.)

In saying all of this, this time last year Butcher was still being talked about as top 3-5 and there was very little talk of Martin... As happens most years.. The key to drafting is that we need to try and wait and see who GC will use the majority of their first rounders on and then target the players we want and then work out what picks we need for those players. Once we have an indication of where players will go due to other's needs, we can exchange picks to ensure our draft position reflects these players...
 

richoatthedisco

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Posts
21,382
Likes
33,556
Location
Paradise
AFL Club
Richmond
#17
No chance GC will trade pick 3.

RT's idea is worth looking at if the recruiters do think the kids on offer are pretty even. Pick 4 this year (if we even get it) will be more like pick 5-10 last year, so it might the equivalent of giving up a Cunnington or Melksham for Bastinac + Tapscott/Duncan. No doubt they'll be doing their homework.
 

TimeFor11

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Posts
2,880
Likes
71
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool, Portland
#18
I mean its worth a thought but only if our #1 target they are almost certain will still be there at #7 because then #11 or whatever would become a complete bonus selection. Either way GC shouldn't do it they will be pumping as many kids in as possible or trading for playing not to upgrade amazing picks already.
 

tugga

Moderator
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
29,601
Likes
41,710
Location
Yid army
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Tottenham,Red Sox,San Antonio Spurs
Moderator #19
With picks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, GC17 hardly need to bother upgrading. They have a shoitload of picks as it is.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Posts
225
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#21
The way Richmond are playing lately there is no guarantee we will have pick 4. Another of the AFL clubs will put the cue away and tank. Hope Hardwick keeps a firm eye long term and gets us the best possible pick another A grader.
If it means trying out youngsters and experimenting so be it.
 

santa claws

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
5,688
Likes
670
Location
perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
west tigers. glenelg.
#22
we do everything we possibly can to get picks as early as we can and then people want to down trade them why not just give em away. sheesh people tallk about winning culture and processes for the on field team its the same off field. when supporters start treating picks with the respect that they should have we may in time be able to do away with threads like this one have we lerarnt not a thing.
keep our picks but do all we can to get even earlier ones. if we want another first round pick trade into one with players but have a player in mind and a good idea what pick it will take to get him.

last yrs draft was a ripper but this yrs draft has already had some of the carcass picked over the earlier the pick this yr the better the chance of getting a player. why anyone would want to trade out of a pick 4 is beyond me if we cant pick an a grader with pick 4 we might as well pack up and go home now.

isnt it ironic sydney were prepared to trade out of picks 6 and 14 to target a quality player at 3. the exact opposite of what is being espoused here. i suppose syd appreciate the concept of the earlier the pick the better.
some are prepared to forgo a quality pick that could well snare another martin to get an extra pick its not the way its done your early picks are sacrosanct if we were doing what sydney were doing i could understand.
sheesh in 04 hawthorn had targeted jordan lewis but knew they would need a pick inside the top 10 to get him, they traded pick 10 and 37 to collingwood to get pick 7 that went on lewis.pick 10 ended up being chris egan. the moral being dont trade up tade down. treat your early picks as though they are solid gold in fact treat all your picks as though they are gold.
 

_RT_

Hall Of Famer
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Posts
34,865
Likes
42,915
Location
Southern Stand Punt Road End
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Furies Premiers 2010
Thread starter #23
we do everything we possibly can to get picks as early as we can and then people want to down trade them why not just give em away. sheesh people tallk about winning culture and processes for the on field team its the same off field. when supporters start treating picks with the respect that they should have we may in time be able to do away with threads like this one have we lerarnt not a thing.
keep our picks but do all we can to get even earlier ones. if we want another first round pick trade into one with players but have a player in mind and a good idea what pick it will take to get him.

last yrs draft was a ripper but this yrs draft has already had some of the carcass picked over the earlier the pick this yr the better the chance of getting a player. why anyone would want to trade out of a pick 4 is beyond me if we cant pick an a grader with pick 4 we might as well pack up and go home now.

isnt it ironic sydney were prepared to trade out of picks 6 and 14 to target a quality player at 3. the exact opposite of what is being espoused here. i suppose syd appreciate the concept of the earlier the pick the better.
some are prepared to forgo a quality pick that could well snare another martin to get an extra pick its not the way its done your early picks are sacrosanct if we were doing what sydney were doing i could understand.
sheesh in 04 hawthorn had targeted jordan lewis but knew they would need a pick inside the top 10 to get him, they traded pick 10 and 37 to collingwood to get pick 7 that went on lewis.pick 10 ended up being chris egan. the moral being dont trade up tade down. treat your early picks as though they are solid gold in fact treat all your picks as though they are gold.
Its interesting that people want to tank/experiment to ensure that we get the best possible pick and/or the PP, find the idea of moving down 3-5 spots in the draft and adding another pick 2 picks later as a repulsive.

Given that most of the reports suggest that outside the top 3 the draft is pretty even talent wise, you would think that if we were given the opportunity to snare another top end first round pick they would jump at it. Especially if it meant that we didn't have to trade a required player to get it.

For example, lets say we did the deal and traded down to picks 7 & 13. We could realistically pick up someone like Atley at 7, a player who some here rate as a better player than Gaff. Either one would fill a need. Then at 13 we could then target someone like Gorringe(AA ruckman) or Watson(AA KPD currently 195cm/99kg) again either one would fill a hole in the list. Lets not forget that if we did manage to snare the PP we would then have picks 27 & 29 to add 2 more players who should be at worse core list players. In the space of 2 rounds we could/should have added 4 future best 22 players. Depending on delistings we could then use another 2-4 picks in the 3rd round onwards to target a few list needs.
 

LuKe2428

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Posts
3,043
Likes
398
Location
Cranbourne/MCG
AFL Club
Richmond
#24
If Parker looks like falling through to 7 then sure do it but otherwise dont. Parker is a gun and should be our number 1 prority at pick 4 or 6. Wouldnt mind gonig 27 + McGuane for a pick around the 8-12 range. Could snag a Green, Darling, Antly if either of them slide.:thumbsu:
 

Calcium Man

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Posts
16,762
Likes
36,282
Location
The Hospital
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Golden State, Daniel Rioli
#25
isnt it ironic sydney were prepared to trade out of picks 6 and 14 to target a quality player at 3. the exact opposite of what is being espoused here. i suppose syd appreciate the concept of the earlier the pick the better.
some are prepared to forgo a quality pick that could well snare another martin to get an extra pick its not the way its done your early picks are sacrosanct if we were doing what sydney were doing i could understand.
sheesh in 04 hawthorn had targeted jordan lewis but knew they would need a pick inside the top 10 to get him, they traded pick 10 and 37 to collingwood to get pick 7 that went on lewis.pick 10 ended up being chris egan. the moral being dont trade up tade down. treat your early picks as though they are solid gold in fact treat all your picks as though they are gold.
Yeah but the top 3 last year like this year are a cut above. Otherwise Sydney would have offered the same for pick 4.

Just for comparisons
2009
Pick 4 - Morabito
Pick 7 & 13 - Sheppard & Talia
Pick 9 & 11 -Moore & Gysberts
Picks 8, 10, 12, 14 & 15 - Butcher, Melksham, Lucas, Jetta and Howard.


2008

Pick 4 - Hartlett (Hurley at 5)
Pick 7 & 13 - Rich & Lynch
Pick 9 & 11 -Ziebell & Sidebottom
Picks 8, 10, 12, 14 & 15 - Vickery, Davis, Johnston, Cordy(f/s) and Mitch brown.

2007

Pick 4 - Cale Morton
Pick 7 & 13 - Palmer & Ebert
Pick 9 & 11 -McEvoy & Veszpremi
Picks 8, 10, 12, 14 & 15 - Henderson, Dangerfield, Rioli, Grimes and tarrent

2006

Pick 4 - Luenberger (Boak at 5)
Pick 7 & 13 - Selwood & Reiwoldt
Pick 9 & 11 -Armitage & Everitt
Picks 8, 10, 12, 14 & 15 - Reid, Nathan Brown, Frawley, O'Keefe and Sellar

2005

Pick 4 - Kennedy
Pick 7 & 13 - Ryder & Hurn
Pick 9 & 11 -Mitch Clark & Higgins
Picks 8, 10, 12, 14 & 15 - JON, Drum, Nathan Jones, Birchall and Varcoe

I can certainly see the benefit of trading down especially if we trust our recruiters. If we had pick 3 i would say no but unless we are sure that GC will let day or Bennell slip i can see the benefits of trading down.
 
Top Bottom