2017 trade/draft thread

[Suma Magic]

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.

I was saying it has to be our first for the deal to stack up.

 

[pantskyle]

Very concerning that it includes our first next year which is a super draft.

And that only makes sense if we firmly believe one of our free agents are gone and we're getting a first rounder.

 

[Suma Magic]

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

I think maybe getting two early picks means they can use them on live selections. Then get their father sons with later picks.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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.

The first is obviously absurd, but the second is also terrible.

Why trade picks from a strong draft, for less value in a poor draft?

 

[Suma Magic]

The first is obviously absurd, but the second is also terrible.

Why trade picks from a strong draft, for less value in a poor draft?

It's more value in a worse draft.

That's if you think three picks in the late 20s is better than 13. Fair enough if you don't.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

I was saying it has to be our first for the deal to stack up.

Bah! I need to learn to read if I want to survive.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

What future pick swaps exactly?

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

Hmmmmmmm!!!!

If it is, that is terrible.

 

[The_Reaper]

The first is obviously absurd, but the second is also terrible.

Why trade picks from a strong draft, for less value in a poor draft?

There could be a specific player in this years draft we believe we can get with pick 9 but who we think won't be around for pick 13.

Plus could pick up Kelly, Starvercich whoever in the 20s.

 

[ziad]

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.

they will because some fool on BF postulated it as a hypothetical

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I really disagree. By your logic having pick 1 is better than having pick 2+3+4+5.
Pick 1 might be the best player, but there's WAY more value in the second option

That's just being moronically stupid. Would you trade 1 for 2 + 3. If the top was even you would. Would you trade 1 if the #1 pick was a standout stud, head and shoulders better than the rest. No way.

Hypothetical, 2007, Carlton give us pick one instead of 3. We we're going to take Cotchin. Would we trade that for 4 of Kreuzer, Masten, Morton, Grant, Meyers and Palmer? Lol.

 

[Monocle]

There could be a specific player in this years draft we believe we can get with pick 9 but who we think won't be around for pick 13.

Plus could pick up Kelly, Starvercich whoever in the 20s.

We are super keen on Brayshaw that may be our target and at # 9 he is very much there about's.

Starcevich is not worth a pick in the 20's. He is late third rounder at best more likely a fourth rounder.

 

[dajesmac]

There could be a specific player in this years draft we believe we can get with pick 9 but who we think won't be around for pick 13.

Plus could pick up Kelly, Starvercich whoever in the 20s.

If true, I'd guess it's Andrew Brayshaw.

 

[nameless]

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.

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.

Fair enough.

Personally I wouldn't be overly happy if we got guys like...Pears, Suban, Sam Wright, Jordan Roughead, Shaun McKernan, Liam Jones, Ben Griffiths, Colyer, Aaron Black, Josh Green, Aaron Young, Jake Bachelor, Jackson Merrett, Shane Kersten, Jimmy Webster, Ryan Lester, Sam Rowe and Jordan Murdoch...But if you rate them as successful that's fine.

 

[swingdog]

How desperate are the Dogs to do this deal? If they really want Stringer gone, then it may be a 2018 second rounder.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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.

No way, that would be an awful trade for WC.

Pick 13> Picks 25, 30

Our likely low 2018 1st in a strong draft> Pick 9 in a weak draft.

WBD make out like crooks.

 

[avishka5]

We are super keen on Brayshaw that may be our target and at # 9 he is very much there about's.

Starcevich is not worth a pick in the 20's. He is late third rounder at best more likely a fourth rounder.

yeah but it's hunter clarke or GTFO.

 

[DanWCE]

Very concerning that it includes our first next year which is a super draft.

And that only makes sense if we firmly believe one of our free agents are gone and we're getting a first rounder.

Saints said today they'll keep going for Gaff and Sloane. I reckon Gaff is gone. Too much chatter for nothing to eventuate.

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

No way, that would be an awful trade for WC.

Pick 13> Picks 25, 30

Our likely low 2018 1st in a strong draft> Pick 9 in a weak draft.

WBD make out like crooks.

You're missing the mystery 2018 pick we're also going to get.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Fair enough.

Personally I wouldn't be overly happy if we got guys like...Pears, Suban, Sam Wright, Jordan Roughead, Shaun McKernan, Liam Jones, Ben Griffiths, Colyer, Aaron Black, Josh Green, Aaron Young, Jake Bachelor, Jackson Merrett, Shane Kersten, Jimmy Webster, Ryan Lester, Sam Rowe and Jordan Murdoch...But if you rate them as successful that's fine.

It doesn't matter what you are happy with. You are making a qualitative judgement.

Another fan of another team probably thinks Selwood and Lycett are trash.

The only way to make a reasonable estimate of success, is by using games played.

 

[pantskyle]

Saints said today they'll keep going for Gaff and Sloane. I reckon Gaff is gone. Too much chatter for nothing to eventuate.

Well they can give us 8 and 2018 first right now.

Now if this whole fantasy trade comes off we take 8 + 9 and some picks in the 20s this year.

It's simply to fantastical to work.

 

[The_Reaper]

No way, that would be an awful trade for WC.

Pick 13> Picks 25, 30

Our likely low 2018 1st in a strong draft> Pick 9 in a weak draft.

WBD make out like crooks.

Picks are only a way to get players in the end.

Depending on how highly we rate Brayshaw and if we think we might get a round 1 pick next year from lets say Gaff why not?
Could be that we think Brayshaw is going to be better than anyone we might get next year anyway.

 

[Bestbird]

If is a bit risky. Mind you i don't always buy into supposed super drafts. As an example at this time last year this years draft was supposedly fairly strong and all about key position players

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Picks are only a way to get players in the end.

Depending on how highly we rate Brayshaw and if we think we might get a round 1 pick next year from lets say Gaff why not?
Could be that we think Brayshaw is going to be better than anyone we might get next year anyway.

That is a crazy risk. What if Brayshaw is taken before pick 9?

What if a bolter surprises next year?

I don't rate our recruiters judgement at all, so I support improving our position, not worsening it cummulatively.

 

[Dark Sharks]

What is going on.

 

[The_Reaper]

That is a crazy risk. What if Brayshaw is taken before pick 9?

At this point of the post season we probably have a fair idea of who wants to pick what. Its still a risk but we desperately need elite midfield talent and if this trade can put us in the box seat for that then it (and the two second rounders - one for Kelly I assume) may be worth next years first rounder.
There is no guarantee that the best midfielder around next year will be better than Brayshaw even if next years draft is better than this one.