2015 Trade/FA Discussion (cont. in Pt.2)

[lions2010]

Does anyone understand why we're rated a C- on fox and I think Terry Wallace rated us a C something (I don't know I started listening right at the end) for our trade performance? Do they factor in any of the factors impacting the club or the points we've picked up?... Seems a bit harsh. I would've rated us a B at least (giving Aish what he wanted let it down). Thought it was a really solid trade period

Its Terry Wallace. He gets it wrong most of the time so I am happy with a C from him

I would be more concerned if he gave a B+ or A.

 

[BangyBangy]

The one thing that concerns me a little is with the way the academy clubs have traded out early picks for later draft picks that add up to the same or more draft points as their early picks, is that they (we) won't have any option but to match bids no matter where they lie. As a hypothetical, if Essendon take Keays at 5 we don't really have an option but to match it. I know it's scenario that is extremely unlikely, but still it opens us up to clubs being arseholes knowing they can force our hand.

 

[Elixuh]

The one thing that concerns me a little is with the way the academy clubs have traded out early picks for later draft picks that add up to the same or more draft points as their early picks, is that they (we) won't have any option but to match bids no matter where they lie. As a hypothetical, if Essendon take Keays at 5 we don't really have an option but to match it. I know it's scenario that is extremely unlikely, but still it opens us up to clubs being arseholes knowing they can force our hand.

I doubt clubs will forego better talent just to make a point. You'd expect the players to fall as they would normally as if they were non-academy players.

 

[BangyBangy]

I doubt clubs will forego better talent just to make a point. You'd expect the players to fall as they would normally as if they were non-academy players.

But that's my point. They won't be foregoing better talent as they know that we have no option but to match the bid, they'd be just forcing our hand. What talent could we pick up with picks 38 to 42 in terms of actual draft spots? I know it's an unlikely scenario, if any club was to do it, it would be very mean spirited and douchebaggy, it's just an observation of what is possible.

 

[Elixuh]

But that's my point. They won't be foregoing better talent as they know that we have no option but to match the bid, they'd be just forcing our hand. What talent could we pick up with picks 38 to 42 in terms of actual draft spots? I know it's an unlikely scenario, if any club was to do it, it would be very mean spirited and douchebaggy, it's just an observation of what is possible.

Sorry yes, you are right, but I think its all tempered and I guess almost entirely negated by reality.

If it happened though it would be a minor disaster. I wonder down the track if you get a Nakia Cockatoo scenario where he is taken much earlier in the draft than was initially expected. Or maybe, depending on the contingency plans clubs like the Lions put in place, it would need to be an even bigger swing.

 

[BangyBangy]

Sorry yes, you are right, but I think its all tempered and I guess almost entirely negated by reality.

If it happened though it would be a minor disaster. I wonder down the track if you get a Nakia Cockatoo scenario where he is taken much earlier in the draft than was initially expected. Or maybe, depending on the contingency plans clubs like the Lions put in place, it would need to be an even bigger swing.

Lol, nice smackdown.

 

[Crawb]

I doubt clubs will forego better talent just to make a point. You'd expect the players to fall as they would normally as if they were non-academy players.

Exactly.

If other clubs do bid stupidly early we get to shaft 'em with a second round pick in 2 years time at the trade table anyway.

 

[Elixuh]

Lol, nice smackdown.

Lol, my bad. Hard to convey any measure of emotion via forum text. Didn't mean it to sound harsh.

 

[Pancho Gonzales]

Interesting that the media still talks about our inability to retain players. Sheesh! It was only 3 players!

Also interesting that none of the 3 'went home'.

 

[braddsey]

Interesting that the media still talks about our inability to retain players. Sheesh! It was only 3 players!

Also interesting that none of the 3 'went home'.

...yeah, potentially none of the 'went home', then just went. didn't matter where, just away from Brisbane.
okay, not quite that bad... I don't see any of our departures being as a result of a player retention issues. Leuey would still be with us if he hadn't been superseded by Martin. Aish was always going, so probably not the best pick 2 years ago. Redden... well he obviously had his reasons, but he gave us 100 games and probably left for a chance to play immediate finals football coupled with some personality clashes.

In terms of retention - well we better improve on field and off field next year. Based on the rumors of players wanting to leave this year, if we don't have a good year next year then some of the rumors from this year may become a reality.

 

[Old Den]

Phew! It's quite convoluted, isn't it? I believe our recruiting team are doing those type of permutations as we speak.

That seems pretty accurate without me doing the actual sums. It will make for a VERY interesting Draft Night, that's for sure.

Our recruiters (and fans alike) will no doubt be hoping the Sydney and GWS boys have their Academy players bid on first. If Hipwood/Keays get bid on first, then I suspect we'll be going into deficit.

Victorian-based fans can get along to our special Draft Night on Tuesday 24 November (http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/BrisbaneLions/Links/PDF/Draft Night Flyer & Booking.pdf) to ride the emotional wave that is the AFL National Draft along with Club recruiters and fellow supporters.

Just looking at worst case scenarios that will leave us in deficit regarding points for next year I agree that if both boys are bid on at 11 and 12 we will be in surplus.

Without posting the sums that my spreadsheet spat out here we go:

Starting with the absolute ultimate horror case:

3 and 4...1276 points in deficit - requires use of pick 12 or equivalent points first up in the 2016 draft to clear deficit.

4 and 5....982 requires a pick 18
5 and 6....756 .....................25
6 and 7....569.................... 32
7 and 8.... 409.....................41
8 and 9.....269.....................50
9 and 10....144.....................60
10 and 11....32.....................70
11 and 12....No deficit to make up having used Picks 38,39,40,41 and 42 to pay in this years draft.

Very little to be concerned about IMO and as Schwabby said,both boys will be covered this year.

Please note that if I have slipped up in my figuring or copying I would welcome to hear about it.

 

[BangyBangy]

Lol, my bad. Hard to convey any measure of emotion via forum text. Didn't mean it to sound harsh.

Haha, all good. I know it's a very unlikely scenario, I just don't like the fact that from a poker perspective we have shown our hand. We don't have a plan B really, so we can be manipulated.

 

[LIONS08]

with the swans having 3 picks in front of us and there kids expected to go before ours, when they use 33, 36 and 37 to match offers, does that mean ours more forward by 3 picks and increase value or do they stay at the points they are worth now?

 

[braddsey]

But that's my point. They won't be foregoing better talent as they know that we have no option but to match the bid, they'd be just forcing our hand. What talent could we pick up with picks 38 to 42 in terms of actual draft spots? I know it's an unlikely scenario, if any club was to do it, it would be very mean spirited and douchebaggy, it's just an observation of what is possible.

I think while we're sitting on the bottom of the ladder then the risk of this kind of thing is limited - we're not exactly a target for other clubs. If we were higher up the ladder with a strong list, then you can imagine that we may be pushed.

Behind closed doors, I think all the clubs get along well and no one wants to screw anyone over unless there's something directly in it for their club. With our picks and current list we're no threat to anyone, so why make an enemy?

The only way I can see it happening is if a Carlton was really into Keays (for example). They could throw out a bid for Hipwood at 8 assuming we match it, and then try for Keays at 11. Even then, by the time Mills, Hopper, Kennedy are match before our boys, Carlton's pick 8 has slipped to 11, and their pick 11 has slipped to 14... so we can cover it.

 

[braddsey]

with the swans having 3 picks in front of us and there kids expected to go before ours, when they use 33, 36 and 37 to match offers, does that mean ours more forward by 3 picks and increase value or do they stay at the points they are worth now?

it would net out assuming they are picking up 3 players. Sydney would slot in where the player is nominated, and the 3 picks at 33, 36, 37 would disappear.

If they need 3 picks to take Mills, and then don't match anymore academy bids before out picks, then we would slide up 2 places.

 

[Cockliff38]

Just looking at worst case scenarios that will leave us in deficit regarding points for next year I agree that if both boys are bid on at 11 and 12 we will be in surplus.

Without posting the sums that my spreadsheet spat out here we go:

Starting with the absolute ultimate horror case:

3 and 4...1276 points in deficit - requires use of pick 12 or equivalent points first up in the 2016 draft to clear deficit.

4 and 5....982 requires a pick 18
5 and 6....756 .....................25
6 and 7....569.................... 32
7 and 8.... 409.....................41
8 and 9.....269.....................50
9 and 10....144.....................60
10 and 11....32.....................70
11 and 12....No deficit to make up having used Picks 38,39,40,41 and 42 to pay in this years draft.

Very little to be concerned about IMO and as Schwabby said,both boys will be covered this year.

Please note that if I have slipped up in my figuring or copying I would welcome to hear about it.

with the swans having 3 picks in front of us and there kids expected to go before ours, when they use 33, 36 and 37 to match offers, does that mean ours more forward by 3 picks and increase value or do they stay at the points they are worth now?

We'll move forward and be allocated the appropriate points when Sydney and GWS bid for their players. My understanding is we'll be able to cover bids on picks 8 and 10 without going into deficit

 

[Cockliff38]

We'll move forward and be allocated the appropriate points when Sydney and GWS bid for their players. My understanding is we'll be able to cover bids on picks 8 and 10 without going into deficit

If things eventuate as predicted with Kennedy, Hopper and Mills

 

[FFB1]

Happy to be corrected but wasn't the idea that GWS, at least in the first couple of years, would trade out their high picks to gain established players from other clubs so they had a mix of players?

 

[Old Den]

If things eventuate as predicted with Kennedy, Hopper and Mills

Yes,there are imponderables that make accurate forecasting impossible as our 2 boys are in the boom at some rival clubs.

Come what may,I think we have handled the guessing game well.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Interesting that the media still talks about our inability to retain players. Sheesh! It was only 3 players!

Also interesting that none of the 3 'went home'.

Collingwood had Seedsman, Kennedy & Freeman all want out as well.

But that gets swept under the rug.

 

[Jman78]

So picks get shoved to the back and multiple picks used advance others, ie using 40-42 will advance 43 to 41 (from what I understand). After all the dust has settled, I wonder what our pick 78 will end up being worth... Maybe it'll advance up to ten spots in value ie 59points, I'll be genuinely interested.

Was excited about trade week, now I can't wait for draft night.

 

[LIONS08]

Collingwood had Seedsman, Kennedy & Freeman all want out as well.

But that gets swept under the rug.

It's crap isn't it. The media hear what they want to hear. Collingwood lost pick Seedsman (pick 76 but an anzac day medalist don't you forget!), Freeman (pick 10) and Kennedy (pick 19). The last two could turn out to be very high quality players, but seeings as it is collingwood, it's irrelevant!!

 

[Hollow Knight]

The one thing that concerns me a little is with the way the academy clubs have traded out early picks for later draft picks that add up to the same or more draft points as their early picks, is that they (we) won't have any option but to match bids no matter where they lie. As a hypothetical, if Essendon take Keays at 5 we don't really have an option but to match it. I know it's scenario that is extremely unlikely, but still it opens us up to clubs being arseholes knowing they can force our hand.

The animosity between us flogs on Bigfooty is in no way representative of how things operate in club land.

List managers have a vested interest in maintaining professional relationships with each other.

Chris Pelchen is an example of a list manager who tried too hard to screw other clubs to the point where it started to disadvantage the club's he worked for. He's now looking in from the outside.

 

[braddsey]

Happy to be corrected but wasn't the idea that GWS, at least in the first couple of years, would trade out their high picks to gain established players from other clubs so they had a mix of players?

That was the AFL intent but it wasn't legislated... so blew up in the AFL's face when GWS traded their 17 year old mini draft picks for ND picks 2 (Gold Coast) and pick 3 (Melbourne).

 

[braddsey]

Collingwood lost pick Seedsman (pick 76 but an anzac day medalist don't you forget!)...

Damn I forgot that. Anzac day medalist... so he got BOG against a club going through the worst drug scandal in the games history. definitely something to hang your hat on!