Trading the #1 pick

[Jade]

I think anyone would... except the team giving up 4 & 8.
Pick 1 is worth 3000 points. 4 = 2034 points and 8 = 1551 points, that's a total of 3585 points.
GC would be losing over 500 points. The only way a GWS or GC would give up 2 x 1st rounders for a top 3 pick, is if they are gaining academy points.

Suspect 1 for 4 & 8 would actually be more like 1 & 37 for 4 & 8.

 

[IanW]

So no, not draft tampering.

With regard to this not being draft tampering, you need to find the bloke who wrote this and convince him using this for 'leverage' isnt draft tampering.

"What I find interesting about this, is the threat of wiping both clubs out of the top end of the draft in exchange for one player each might be an interesting point of leverage in trade negotiations."

TLDR : Yeah. Its draft tampering.

 

[Jade]

With regard to this not being draft tampering, you need to find the bloke who wrote this and convince him using this for 'leverage' isnt draft tampering.

"What I find interesting about this, is the threat of wiping both clubs out of the top end of the draft in exchange for one player each might be an interesting point of leverage in trade negotiations."

TLDR : Yeah. Its draft tampering.

How is it any different from the threat of using the PSD?

It's not draft tampering.

Draft tampering would be an agreement to NOT bid on a player in exchange for a favourable outcome.

 

[IanW]

How is it any different from the threat of using the PSD?

It's not draft tampering.

Draft tampering would be an agreement to NOT bid on a player in exchange for a favourable outcome.

Like threatening to bid on a player unless you do a favourable trade to stop you ?


Seriously, if Essendon want to bid pick 1 on Macredie, or Setterfield, or Mutch or whoever. Go for it and good luck. It'll be good for the comp in the long term - the best young player in the country came out of the Academies. Go for it.

 

[Jade]

Like threatening to bid on a player unless you do a favourable trade to stop you?

I'm not seeing how it's any different from using the PSD to strong arm a trade.

In reality I don't think clubs (mostly) try strong arming nowadays - it always comes back to bite teams on the arse, but it is a 'real' consideration.

Whether through PSD or ability to bid on a player, it is 'we CAN use our draft position to achieve an outcome here....'.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm not seeing how it's any different from using the PSD to strong arm a trade.

In reality I don't think clubs (mostly) try strong arming nowadays - it always comes back to bite teams on the arse, but it is a 'real' consideration.

Whether through PSD or ability to bid on a player, it is 'we CAN use our draft position to achieve an outcome here....'.

One is using leverage to negotiate a trade.
The other is bidding on a player that you have no intention of taking, in the hopes that the team that wants him has to use an earlier pick to get him, which then affects all other draft picks from that point on. How could that NOT be considered tampering?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Suspect 1 for 4 & 8 would actually be more like 1 & 37 for 4 & 8.

Would still be a slight downgrade on points. The only way that would happen is if GC are confident they have enough points to get their man with their later picks and wanted a free hit at a top rated gun outside of their academy.

 

[Jade]

One is using leverage to negotiate a trade.
The other is bidding on a player that you have no intention of taking, in the hopes that the team that wants him has to use an earlier pick to get him, which then affects all other draft picks from that point on. How could that NOT be considered tampering?

That doesn't make any sense though, if they bid, they ARE taking them if it isn't matched.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

That doesn't make any sense though, if they bid, they ARE taking them if it isn't matched.

The original plan by the OP was to force GWS and GC to take the players earlier than expected. To make the move, they would have to accept the possibility that GWS or GC could just pass on the players. The idea is that they don't WANT them, but might be forced to take them if the plan backfired.
It is only a workable plan if Essendon rated the players enough to want them at all and rated them highly enough that they would be willing to lose the #1 pick for them if it wasn't matched.

 

[Jade]

This is 100% my thoughts, so GTFO of my head.

Haha..... it's an interesting thought.

 

[adsla69k]

I rate Bowes best in the draft with McLugga and Brodie fighting for second best and lets call a spade a spade "Bowes has been managed this year". I'd love Essendon to bid on Bowes with pick 1. Then we just pick one of the other two when GC matvh at a discounted rate. I know the prestige of having pick 1 is massive but its also a lot of pressure and expectation for Clugga and Brodie to live up to, they will basically be seen as the saviour from the saga and must bring us success. Also to many non essendon fans they think we shouldnt have pick 1. But trading down to 4 and 10 or whatever is a risk on so many levels. If not calculated properly it will end AD.

At the end of the day I just want AD to stay strong and hold his nerve, he has nice hand going into this offseason dont fluff it. Im expecting some magic deals we will talk of for years to come!

 

[Turbocat]

Purely hypothetical, but consider this:

What if Essendon and Dodoro planned to use pick one to wipe GWS and GC out of the draft?

They could potentially use pick one to bid on Bowes, forcing Gold Coast to move up the draft order and sacrifice much of their draft hand in order to secure him.

Then, holding pick 2, they could do the same thing to GWS by bidding on Setterfield.

Now I'm sure Gold Coast would not let Bowes go, but I'm less sure about GWS.

What I find interesting about this, is the threat of wiping both clubs out of the top end of the draft in exchange for one player each might be an interesting point of leverage in trade negotiations.

Would GWS for example by more inclined to trade with Essendon to relieve them of pick one and avoid that scenario?

As I said, purely hypothetical, I in no way think this is actually what will happen, but I find the possibility of it interesting.

What do you think?

If the club rated him within the pick discount they would match but out of that they would let the bidding club have him. So if GC rated him 1,2 or 3 then they would take him but if not ..ie if they rate Mcluggage, Brodie Ainsworth , SPS or perhaps Marshall more then Ess just claimed a player with #1 that the club who knows him best rates 5 or later.

 

[Turbocat]

EFC won't use pick 1 to bid on an academy player. The player they then end up taking at 1 will lose any 'feelgood' aura about them as what is meant to be the top rated player in the draft. Essendon need the hope that comes with a pick 1 after the cesspool they've dragged all their supporters and players through.

You mean Viney, GWS and pick 3? Viney was never rated that high so why would they bid, that's tinfoil hat stuff.

Id agree... "this year"... if however the GC player was a Wietering/Patton type standout that would really test the paradigm

The fact is all these scenarios are proposed because everyone can see its a year where two picks in the top 10 is probably better than just a #1 pick

 

[In the Outer]

I think GC would be absolutely mad not to trade for #1. Bowes rated as top 3. If Essendon bid GC have to match with #5 and have #8 downgraded to #17 to make up the required points...

Bowes + #17
Or trade and have
#1 and Bowes (bid being matched by 3 of the 4 picks they currently hold on the 2nd round...

I'd rather have 2 of the best 3 players rather than 1 of them, then a pick at the end of the first round and 3 between 20 - 30.

Top end talent anytime...

 

[Iva Bigun]

Reading through this "some" Essendon supporters have clearly learnt nothing from their clubs recent troubles. Always out to screw another club over for even the smallest gain.

I feel for the majority decent Essendon fans that must cringe when reading some of this stuff

 

[dlanod]

I think GC would be absolutely mad not to trade for #1. Bowes rated as top 3. If Essendon bid GC have to match with #5 and have #8 downgraded to #17 to make up the required points...

Bowes + #17
Or trade and have
#1 and Bowes (bid being matched by 3 of the 4 picks they currently hold on the 2nd round...

I'd rather have 2 of the best 3 players rather than 1 of them, then a pick at the end of the first round and 3 between 20 - 30.

Top end talent anytime...

Don't be surprised to see Bowes slip to the latter half of the top 10. GC's decision will make more sense then.

 

[Iva Bigun]

Don't be surprised to see Bowes slip to the latter half of the top 10. GC's decision will make more sense then.

I think Your spot on, a few in front of him that involve less risk

 

[IanW]

I think I our spot on, a few in front of him that involve less risk

I'll put it this way.

Im not keen on one-paced midfielders.

 

[Iva Bigun]

I'll put it this way.

Im not keen on one-paced midfielders.

You guys have the luxury of being picky, embarrassment of riches

 

[IanW]

You guys have the luxury of being picky, embarrassment of riches

Yeah. I can see a reality where Cameron is on his second ACL, and Coniglio, Shiel and Treloar went home, and we're struggling along with Williams ...

 

[dave88]

if the bombers decide that they're keen to trade the #1 what or who would other clubs have to offer them?

 

[coniglio_number1]

Given their is no clear number 1 pick this year it would be hard to find buyers willing to pay the usual cost of pick 1. Best bet is a team outside the top 10 offering a first and second

 

[_Irk]

Only will happen if the offer is too good to refuse. Only club I could see doing it is the Giants, but I don't think it's likely.

 

[cartel]

Don't think there has been anybody do it since Hodge draft.

There was a rumour that St Kilda/GWS were discussing a trade for pick 1 and 21 for pick 4 and 7. The sticking point was thought to be the inclusion of 21 or not.

GWS were apparently red hot keen on Petracca.

A similar deal might be brought up, but despite us taking McCartin, Petracca was by far the most popular option for pick 1.

 

[MightyDons4]

Given their is no clear number 1 pick this year it would be hard to find buyers willing to pay the usual cost of pick 1. Best bet is a team outside the top 10 offering a first and second