List Mgmt. 2021 Draft Prospects

[dergert]

Cox is a pure forward imo

Gowers type of forward

Is a mid-fwd what we need? We have Wallis, Hannan and a bunch of other mids we run through there.

I agree, his highlights look impressive.

 

[Hoges64]

Yes it does. If Daicos bid comes at 4, Collingwood must match, removing some of their selections from the draft, thus our 52 or whatever may become 49 or something

I was specifically referring to the picks we have to use to get Darcy, which for arguments sake would be us giving up 23 for 32 and 34.

So 32, 34, 43, 44 and 45 would go to cover Darcy. The poster I quoted said we'll be trying to keep our picks in the 40's (we won't) and we'll be using 4 picks to match the Darcy bid (we won't).

In my above scenario, yes, our pick 52 slides up a few spots with ours, Daicos and couple of other F/S / Academy bids.

But to all those here saying we'll still have picks in the 40's PRE-BIDS, we wont.
It's hard to even see a scenario that nets us the picks required to match the Darcy bid AND get a future pick (unless its a very high third or 4th), unless it's a hell of a deal by Power.

 

[The Buck]

Watch out you don't drool:

 

[TommyD13]

I was specifically referring to the picks we have to use to get Darcy, which for arguments sake would be us giving up 23 for 32 and 34.

So 32, 34, 43, 44 and 45 would go to cover Darcy. The poster I quoted said we'll be trying to keep our picks in the 40's (we won't) and we'll be using 4 picks to match the Darcy bid (we won't).

In my above scenario, yes, our pick 52 slides up a few spots with ours, Daicos and couple of other F/S / Academy bids.

But to all those here saying we'll still have picks in the 40's PRE-BIDS, we wont.
It's hard to even see a scenario that nets us the picks required to match the Darcy bid AND get a future pick (unless its a very high third or 4th), unless it's a hell of a deal by Power.

Sure, I do see what you are saying, but I don't think it matters if it is excess after the bid, or before the bid, we should still have a pick in the 40s without too much hassle.

 

[TBOW]

That doesn't give us enough points (1798, well shy of the 2014 required)....

Not by my math. Unless I'm missing something.
42 = 395
43 = 378
44 = 362
45 = 347
47 = 316
52 = 246
Total = 2044

 

[Hoges64]

Not by my math. Unless I'm missing something.
42 = 395
43 = 378
44 = 362
45 = 347
47 = 316
52 = 246
Total = 2044

Sorry, I wasn't counting 52 as you can only enter the draft with the number of list spots available (5, so the picks from 42-47) but as 23 won't be traded until we get in there it seems you can then trade for as many picks as you like?

Which in saying that feels extremely strange, as what's to stop clubs lining up deals like this when wasn't the point of "number of list spots available" being brought in was to stop clubs paying for top draft picks with 8 picks from 50-65?

 

[dergert]

Watch out you don't drool:

looks ****in useless. GWS better not risk it.

 

[TBOW]

Sorry, I wasn't counting 52 as you can only enter the draft with the number of list spots available (5, so the picks from 42-47) but as 23 won't be traded until we get in there it seems you can then trade for as many picks as you like?

Which in saying that feels extremely strange, as what's to stop clubs lining up deals like this when wasn't the point of "number of list spots available" being brought in was to stop clubs paying for top draft picks with 8 picks from 50-65?

Yeah. It is all very, very vague.

 

[Mofra]

Sorry, I wasn't counting 52 as you can only enter the draft with the number of list spots available (5, so the picks from 42-47) but as 23 won't be traded until we get in there it seems you can then trade for as many picks as you like?

Which in saying that feels extremely strange, as what's to stop clubs lining up deals like this when wasn't the point of "number of list spots available" being brought in was to stop clubs paying for top draft picks with 8 picks from 50-65?

They suspended that rule last year for Covid. Basically the perfect storm arrived all in one year that enabled us to get Marra. We were damn lucky.

 

[Mofra]

Watch out you don't drool:

In one of those highlights you see the carbon-copy 'knees up' running style his dad had

 

[Hoges64]

They suspended that rule last year for Covid. Basically the perfect storm arrived all in one year that enabled us to get Marra. We were damn lucky.

Exactly, so now that it's back in, why are we now only allowed to enter the draft with 5 spots, but trade for as many picks as humanly possible once we're in there. Seems extremely counter-intuitive to what they were trying to stop.

 

[Mofra]

Exactly, so now that it's back in, why are we now only allowed to enter the draft with 5 spots, but trade for as many picks as humanly possible once we're in there. Seems extremely counter-intuitive to what they were trying to stop.

If we match the Darcy bid with 5 picks (as per list spots free) then instead of forfeiting the extra later picks, they become 'live' and we can use them.

 

[Hoges64]

If we match the Darcy bid with 5 picks (as per list spots free) then instead of forfeiting the extra later picks, they become 'live' and we can use them.

I could be wrong, but I think you're making my point for me.

We go in now with the picks we have, and match Darcy using all 5 picks we have. We're done. Do we then get picks at the end of the draft as we have to have minimum 3 picks? (Is that the rule?)

Where as we seemingly can go in now, then before the Darcy bid we swap some sucker (lets call them Geelong in this instance) pick 23 for 32, 34 and 50*. So we would then match the bid with 32, 34, 43, 44 and 45, and have picks 50 and 52 to use, plus the residual of 199 points from 45 (equal to pick 56).

So we've turned our 5 list spot draft picks into 7, and we get to use 50, 52 and 56 (which will all shuffle forward a minimum of 5 spots from our own use of the picks in the Darcy bid).

This is the exact thing the "only bring in the list spots you have" rule was created to stop, no?

*not a likely deal but lets say for arguments sake we strike some sort of Gold Coast Suns / Collingwood list management level of incompetence

 

[flipper83]

If we match the Darcy bid with 5 picks (as per list spots free) then instead of forfeiting the extra later picks, they become 'live' and we can use them.

In the d&t board they seem to think that you can only enter the draft with the number of picks corresponding to list spots but once the draft has begun you can live trade one pick for as many as you want and use them all to match a bid.

 

[dergert]

If we match the Darcy bid with 5 picks (as per list spots free) then instead of forfeiting the extra later picks, they become 'live' and we can use them.

We missed some of the best years of Luke Darcy due to his injuries. I feel he was really coming into his own.

 

[Mofra]

I could be wrong, but I think you're making my point for me.

We go in now with the picks we have, and match Darcy using all 5 picks we have. We're done. Do we then get picks at the end of the draft as we have to have minimum 3 picks? (Is that the rule?)

Where as we seemingly can go in now, then before the Darcy bid we swap some sucker (lets call them Geelong in this instance) pick 23 for 32, 34 and 50*. So we would then match the bid with 32, 34, 43, 44 and 45, and have picks 50 and 52 to use, plus the residual of 199 points from 45 (equal to pick 56).

So we've turned our 5 list spot draft picks into 7, and we get to use 50, 52 and 56 (which will all shuffle forward a minimum of 5 spots from our own use of the picks in the Darcy bid).

This is the exact thing the "only bring in the list spots you have" rule was created to stop, no?

*not a likely deal but lets say for arguments sake we strike some sort of Gold Coast Suns / Collingwood list management level of incompetence

Pretty much. We're capped at matching the Darcy bid with 5 picks, the number of free list spots we have.
The rule was brought in due to GWS having something like 7 draft picks to match an NGA bid with only 3 or 4 list spots free. Beyond that, we have all sorts of avenues available to us - draft picks given to teams technically aren't limited and teams can use 15 live picks if they want to, but picks beyond 72 don't have any draft points attached to them so can't be used to match a bid.

You also can't trade out a pick and trade the same pick in again after matching a bid (thanks Sydney). Basically the AFL brought in the bidding system and keep adding rules to it as teams keep finding loopholes or ways to exploit the system. We're responsible for one of them - NGA bids inside the top 20 can't be matched thanks to Marra last year.

 

[Mofra]

In the d&t board they seem to think that you can only enter the draft with the number of picks corresponding to list spots but once the draft has begun you can live trade one pick for as many as you want and use them all to match a bid.

And live pick trading is allowed after a bid as well. There is quite a bit Sammy Power can do to maximise our draft hand.

 

[Shadow89]

Posted this on the main board and I'll post it here - reckon it works for all parties:


OUT:

Dogs - 23 (815 points)
Geelong - 32, Future 2nd
North - 42, 47 (728 points)

IN:

Dogs - 42, 47, Future 2nd
Geelong - 23
North - 32

************

Dogs get a Future 2nd, and then use 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 52 (2021 points) to match Darcy bid (2013 points after discount).

North take Motlop with their 20's pick, and Bazzo with the pick in the 30's from Geelong. We take Macdonald, Sheldrick or Brown dependant on who's available.

 

[Hoges64]

Pretty much. We're capped at matching the Darcy bid with 5 picks, the number of free list spots we have.
The rule was brought in due to GWS having something like 7 draft picks to match an NGA bid with only 3 or 4 list spots free. Beyond that, we have all sorts of avenues available to us - draft picks given to teams technically aren't limited and teams can use 15 live picks if they want to, but picks beyond 72 don't have any draft points attached to them so can't be used to match a bid.

You also can't trade out a pick and trade the same pick in again after matching a bid (thanks Sydney). Basically the AFL brought in the bidding system and keep adding rules to it as teams keep finding loopholes or ways to exploit the system. We're responsible for one of them - NGA bids inside the top 20 can't be matched thanks to Marra last year.

Yeah, I'm aware of all that, basically what I'm saying is if my scenario is true, the AFL will have ANOTHER loophole to close for next year, as we will have clearly exploited what they were trying to stop by being able to trade for as many picks as you wish in the live trading inside the draft.

 

[Hoges64]

Posted this on the main board and I'll post it here - reckon it works for all parties:


OUT:

Dogs - 23 (815 points)
Geelong - 32, Future 2nd
North - 42, 47 (728 points)

IN:

Dogs - 42, 47, Future 2nd
Geelong - 23
North - 32

************

Dogs get a Future 2nd, and then use 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 52 (2021 points) to match Darcy bid (2013 points after discount).

North take Motlop with their 20's pick, and Bazzo with the pick in the 30's from Geelong. We take Macdonald, Sheldrick or Brown dependant on who's available.

The question mark remains as to whether we can use 6 picks to match the Darcy bid, or only 5 as that's how many list spots we have available. If it's only 5 and we can't use 52 we fall well short.

I guess time will tell....

 

[Mofra]

Yeah, I'm aware of all that, basically what I'm saying is if my scenario is true, the AFL will have ANOTHER loophole to close for next year, as we will have clearly exploited what they were trying to stop by being able to trade for as many picks as you wish in the live trading inside the draft.

I actually don't think they will close it as it's one that has been live for a number of years (apart from last year). It also means that clubs with one good NGA or FS prospect still can get involved with pic trades which = more stories in November. One of the major reasons we have a whole trade period and draft in October and stretched into later November is so that the Spring Racing Carnival doesn't get a clean run at dominating the back page of the paper for weeks on end. The AFL have a very specific media cycle strategy and it overrides practicality in some respects.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Posted this on the main board and I'll post it here - reckon it works for all parties:


OUT:

Dogs - 23 (815 points)
Geelong - 32, Future 2nd
North - 42, 47 (728 points)

IN:

Dogs - 42, 47, Future 2nd
Geelong - 23
North - 32

************

Dogs get a Future 2nd, and then use 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 52 (2021 points) to match Darcy bid (2013 points after discount).

North take Motlop with their 20's pick, and Bazzo with the pick in the 30's from Geelong. We take Macdonald, Sheldrick or Brown dependant on who's available.

We’re not clear if we can use 6 picks to match as only 5 list spaces. We know we can only bring the 5 into the draft but once the draft has started can we add more picks to use?

 

[Hoges64]

I actually don't think they will close it as it's one that has been live for a number of years (apart from last year). It also means that clubs with one good NGA or FS prospect still can get involved with pic trades which = more stories in November. One of the major reasons we have a whole trade period and draft in October and stretched into later November is so that the Spring Racing Carnival doesn't get a clean run at dominating the back page of the paper for weeks on end. The AFL have a very specific media cycle strategy and it overrides practicality in some respects.

Well unless it stands that you can only use the number of picks you have for the list spots available to match the bid, the rule they brought in is effectively useless.

And if that IS the case, you can still work around it well enough that you can get some live picks in decent spots anyway, which doesn't send you to the back of the draft like the system is seemed to be designed to do.

Crazy AFL.

 

[TiAn_]

We can take as many draft picks as we want into the draft, and trade for more during the draft, the restriction is that when matching a bid we can only use as many of them as we have free list spots. So if we have 4 free list spots we can only use our first 4 picks at the time of matching, irrespective of how many we hold or have traded in.

 

[Mofra]

Well unless it stands that you can only use the number of picks you have for the list spots available to match the bid, the rule they brought in is effectively useless.

Not really - if a team only has 3 open list spots, they can only use three picks to match a bid. We've cut & traded out a little harder so we have the extra spots to match a bid. If we didn't we'd likely hold onto pick 23 as trading down wouldn't benefit us.