2017 trade/draft thread

[Woobla Stainz]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/adelai...ndon-hanging-on-a-thread-20171017-gz2tw3.html

Why would the Doggs do this?

Rawlings is a genius

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

If it's our second for their fourth next year then we come out far better.

And it looks like this, assuming we finish 10th and they finish 6th:

9, 25, 30 and 67(2018)

for

13 and 27(2018)

That's heavily in our favour.


If it involves our first for their second:

9, 25, 30 and 31(2018)

for

13 and 9(2018)

Then it looks much more even.

So I'll probably be the latter because, as we know, trades always end up pretty even. At least they do on the surface, when they're first struck.

I can't say I'm in love with it but it might be that we're taking advantage of the fact that next years draft is always meant to be awesome but never is, so we're trading future picks accordingly.

Still, risky stuff.

 

[dajesmac]

It said a swap of future draft picks, so we're also getting a 2018 pick back too.

It's essentially pick 13 + 2018 ??? = 2018 ???, picks 9, 25 and 30.

Those question marks make this an impossible trade to grade.

It's too complex for me to try and work out who gets what out of WB and ESS, haha.
So just looking at it from our perspective, maybe:

OUT: Pick #13, 2018Rd1
IN: Picks #9, #25, #30 and 2018 Rd2

So going into this year's draft with #9, #25, #30, #32 and #50. That achieves the 5 picks in the top 50.

Next year we would enter the draft with no first and no third, but two seconds and two fourths. Given that it's a deeper draft and we could still be creative to upgrade some of those picks next year, I think that would be a good deal for us.

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

Ffs we better not give up our 1st round pick next year...

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

If we do trade our 2018 first, it's going to be hell dealing with people who want to tank every year and don't know that we don't have the pick

 

[dajesmac]

I'm seriously confused, why would the dogs do something like this?

It's getting complex but it's part of their compensation for Stringer. Bearing in mind 25 and 30 are actually Essendon's picks.

 

[archiemoses]

Trading out of next year's draft would be a terrible move

 

[Samikin]

Which is fine if they say that's what they're doing.

Too many of them pretending they've got inside knowledge when really they're guessing as much as we are.

Too bloody true

 

[Obeanie1]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/adelai...ndon-hanging-on-a-thread-20171017-gz2tw3.html



Rawlings is a genius

What future pick swaps exactly?

To get 9 + 25 + 30 for 13 + ? it would need to our 2018 first swapped for their 2nd?

Hmmmmmmm!!!!

 

[Rookie]

There's no way that proposed trade makes sense unless it's your future first and our future 3rd, or future 4th. It just doesn't add up otherwise...?

2 x 2017 second rounders plus a first round downgrade this year for ???

Can only be a future first with not a lot coming back.

So few details, so many questions.

 

[avishka5]

Rawlings in the ah chee clip admitted that Next year looks to be a great draft and they took that into consideration. He would look like an absolute idiot now if he does that trade after admitting to next years draft being good.

 

[Obeanie1]

1) 13 + WCE 2018 R1 = 9, 25, 30, WBD 2018 R2
2) 13 + WCE 2018 R2 = 9, 25, 30, WBD 2018 R3

Option 2 I could handle, leaving us with 9/25/30/32/50 this year and WCE R1/WBD R3/HAW R4/WCE R4 next year.

But as others have said, don't really want to give up next year's R1.

Let's get it done Brady. 2017 Top 10 & retain 2018 R1.

I'll take option 2 thanks Eddie!!!!

 

[KO_KO]

We’ll get 2 first round picks next year when gov senior ****s off to Adelaide


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The_Reaper]

We’ll get 2 first round picks next year when gov senior ****s off to Adelaide


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why would he go to Adelaide?

 

[DickDunn]

There's no way that proposed trade makes sense unless it's your future first and our future 3rd, or future 4th. It just doesn't add up otherwise...?

2 x 2017 second rounders plus a first round downgrade this year for ???

Can only be a future first with not a lot coming back.

So few details, so many questions.

You blokes are the ones desperate to end up with a first-rounder this year so it's inevitable that you'll have to pay over. Should just suck it up and accept the two second-rounders for Stringer tbh

 

[twce13]

If the swap is our first for thier 2nd I reckon we should do it .

They'll come last and we will flag so basically it's a one pick down grade.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

You're an angry man aren't you.

Why the obsession with our second round drafting, like there's some sort of systematic error with our drafting inbetween 18 and 36. Roll a dice 10 times, if you don't roll a 6 does that make you sht at rolling 6's?

I understand the overall criticism of our Recruiting and development but this focus on the second round is a bit bizarre.

How exactly is it bizarre? Posters were arguing we should downgrade a mid 1st rounder for 2 late/mid second rounders. WC are quantitatively bad drafters, especially in the 2nd round.

That is a horrible list.
However, lets look at how many "A/B-grade" players have gone in the 2nd round:

2007:
Ward (19), Selwood (2/16: 12.5%)

2008:
Ballantyne (21), Zaharakis (23), Redden (25), D. Beams (29), Hannebery (30), Liam Shiels (34) (6/16: 37.5%)

2009:
Fyfe (20), Carlisle (24), Duncan (28), Gunston (29) (4/16: 25%)

2010:
Lycett (29), Howe (33), Parker (40), (3/17: 17%)

2011:
B. Hill (33), Newnes (37) (2/18: 11%)

2012:
NONE (worst draft ever) 0%

2013:
Impey (21), M Crouch (23), Z Merret (26), Taylor (28), Lobb (29), Nankervis (35) (6/18: 33%)

2014:
McLean (26), Miller (29), Blakely (34) (3/18: 16%)

So basically from 137 second round picks 30 have been a winners and very good players.

So that's about a 22% chance.

Ignoring 2015 and 2016 as too early to tell.
We have had 2 winners (Selwood and Lycett) from 10 picks. So 20% success, which is just below the average.

So while it's not great, the 2nd round is full of duds.

(this was a huge waste of time)

Edit: Actually 137 picks for 30 winners.
So 22% success rate

So here is a more accurate set of numbers.

2007 to 2011 is a 5 year window, it is also our best in terms of second round picks from the last 10 years, just based on relative games played.

My criteria is as follows: since you have included Lycett, who is absolutely not a B grade player, but has contributed I set a minimum floor of 50 games. 50 games is someone who played a role, even if for a short period. For a successful draftee I set the floor at 100 games. That is someone who spent an extended period in a sides best 22, even if it was simply playing a role.

Of the 83 picks over this 5 year period, 25 played 100+ games (success rate of 30.1%) and 42 played 50+ games (rate of 50.6%).

WC over the same period had 6 selections. Of those 1 played 100+ games at WC (Selwood, 135) and 2 have played 50+ at WC (Lycett, 50).

This is a comparative strike rate of 16.6% and 33.3%. Objectively bad.

Now if I change the criteria and include all draftees over the last 10 years, using arbitrary catagories of say 50 and 35 games for 2012-2014 and 35-15 games for 2015-2016, our drafting looks spectacularly bad.

 

[Dark Sharks]

Everyone shut UP!


STAAAAHHHP!

 

[Suma Magic]

There's no way that proposed trade makes sense unless it's your future first and our future 3rd, or future 4th. It just doesn't add up otherwise...?

2 x 2017 second rounders plus a first round downgrade this year for ???

Can only be a future first with not a lot coming back.

So few details, so many questions.

If it's your future second it's essentially 13 for three picks in late 20s. And on top of that our first pick next year will be better than 9 this year.

So I wouldn't rule out our first for your second.

 

[Elite Pete]

No chance it’s our 1st 2018. How unknown we will be next year. No way Rawlings trades it and if we finish bottom 4 he would be sacked on the spot

 

[Coasters7]

There's no way that proposed trade makes sense unless it's your future first and our future 3rd, or future 4th. It just doesn't add up otherwise...?

2 x 2017 second rounders plus a first round downgrade this year for Masten

Can only be a future first with not a lot coming back.

So few details, so many questions.

EFA

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

If it's your future second it's essentially 13 for three picks in late 20s. And on top of that our first pick next year will be better than 9 this year.

So I wouldn't rule out our first for your second.

I think our 2018 is almost certainly the future pick we're moving.

I understand that points system has it's flaws but, if you exclude the 2018 picks, we're up by 1642 points. It's impossible for the Bulldogs to catch that up without us including our 2018 first round pick (and it falling in the first 7 selections).

Why would the Dogs do a pick only trade that's impossible to win?

Answer: They wouldn't.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think our 2018 is almost certainly the future pick we're moving.

I understand that points system has it's flaws but, if you exclude the 2018 picks, we're up by 1642 points. It's impossible for the Bulldogs to catch that up without us including our 2018 first round pick (and it falling in the first 7 selections).

Why would the Dogs do a pick only trade that's impossible to win?

Answer: They wouldn't.

if that article is correct it can't not be our first.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

if that article is correct it can't not be our first.

Please explain?

Or is there some rule where you cannot trade your first round pick 2 years in a row?

If we're not trading out 2018 first, we're winning this trade by a country mile.

 

[The_Reaper]

if that article is correct it can't not be our first.

Aren't the Dogs interested in a father son next year?
What are their point requirements for that?