List Mgmt. 2022 AFL Draft Discussion

[Scorpus]

Our draft haul:

Pick 17 - Max Michalanney (matched F/S)
Pick 43 - Billy Dowling
Pick 50 - Hugh Bond

Rookie Pick 5 - Andrew McPherson

36

Andrew Mcpherson

Age

25

Ht

187cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.5

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

4.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

3star

MG

118.5

2star

D

10.5

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

4.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

2star

MG

118.5

2star

D

10.5

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

4.5

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.5

4star

MG

118.5

2star

(re-listed)
Rookie Pick 21 - Paul Seedsman

11

Paul Seedsman

Age

32

Ht

190cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

10.7

4star

HB

7.6

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.5

4star

D

15.8

4star

K

8.2

3star

HB

7.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

1.8

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

14.0

5star

HB

5.8

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

1.4

4star

(re-listed)

 

[baldandbroke]

Sorry if I missed this detail in the previous posts, how does it work with the father son bid if it comes in the first round and we cannot get enough points with our 2022 picks?

The deal is we lose those extra points from next year’s first round right?

I saw posts saying we could bring in more points … but once we match aren’t we stuck? Can we drag extra points in with a trade while a match is happening - wouldn’t we get owned in any trade under those conditions?

 

[Mostyn]

So you, some random nuffie, is the market?

BTW no one ever traded 11 for 28 so stop with that rubbish. A mid first round pick in a different year, was traded for a pick in the current draft - as it was happening!

So yes, that trade did reflect the market

The Suns and Cats struck a curious trade. Geelong’s list guru now looks like a genius

The Suns orchestrated a curious trade. Geelong’s list guru now looks like a genius

www.foxsports.com.au

“It’s understood the Suns had been offering the selection (currently Pick 11 for 2020) to a several on Thursday to help them jump up the draft order, with the Cats coming to the party.”​

Literally the pick 11 - already set in the future draft - was traded for Sharp.

It was an obviously terrible decision, and one of quite a few GCS transactions that wouldn't have even been allowed in the most amateur fantasy league, yet alone a supposedly professionally run league.

And don't get me started on their other Geelong trades, or the WCE pick trade.

There is obvious examples of individuals or clubs making bad decisions. It happens all the time, and those individual decisions don't set a market.

You've already acknowledged how clearly clubs are trying to trade out of this draft and into next year. Right?

Therefore the same pick in 2023 is worth more than 2022, right?

So you disagree with either of those points??

 

[Mostyn]

Phew. Good thing North were too dumb to speak to anyone else but us.

Otherwise they’d have realised they could have gotten so much more than our offer

GWS MIGHT be interested in doing that pick trade later, depending on what players are still available to them.

There's a risk on whether they may trade or not, as it depends on circumstances.

North wanted certainty around getting a 2022 pick. GWS couldn't give them that, but we would.

Seems obvious why it unfolded the way it did.

 

[Mostyn]

Sorry if I missed this detail in the previous posts, how does it work with the father son bid if it comes in the first round and we cannot get enough points with our 2022 picks?

The deal is we lose those extra points from next year’s first round right?

I saw posts saying we could bring in more points … but once we match aren’t we stuck? Can we drag extra points in with a trade while a match is happening - wouldn’t we get owned in any trade under those conditions?

We can do a trade for points while a match is happening. Will we get a good deal? I guess that's a different question.

 

[Sanders]

Literally the pick 11 - already set in the future draft - was traded for Sharp.

It was an obviously terrible decision, and one of quite a few GCS transactions that wouldn't have even been allowed in the most amateur fantasy league, yet alone a supposedly professionally run league.

And don't get me started on their other Geelong trades, or the WCE pick trade.

There is obvious examples of individuals or clubs making bad decisions. It happens all the time, and those individual decisions don't set a market.

You've already acknowledged how clearly clubs are trying to trade out of this draft and into next year. Right?

Therefore the same pick in 2023 is worth more than 2022, right?

So you disagree with either of those points??

Yeah, that’s just waffle though.

What really matters is that you’re ignoring that the trade was literally offered to several clubs, but still you think it was a terrible decision that didn’t reflect market value

Several clubs in a closed market declined until this was the best value obtainable, but it didn’t reflect market value?? C’mon

If you are actually interested in trying to understand why you’re wrong (as opposed to whether, which is not in dispute) then look at the immediately preceding trade. Which was Adelaide trading back from 26 (Will Gould) with Sydney to 28 (Josh Worrell), the key difference was staying in the draft. The price was upgrading a future 4th to a future 3rd, for 2 spots and staying in the draft. That’s the key, staying in a more valuable draft. Geelong sold their pick out of the current draft altogether, for the price of the future mid round first (Conor Stone). That price was available openly, no one before Geelong at 27 wanted it - including Adelaide, no one wanted it. Adelaide preferred to stay in this draft, than take what was on offer to move out. The Adelaide/Sydney and Gold Coast/Geelong trades were sequential.

Christ on a bike, even that’s probably too complicated. Try this:

Adelaide could have traded #26 for
a) 28 & future 4th round upgrade to future 3rd round

Or

b) pick 11 in future draft

We said no to b), we rejected 26 for future 11. That was not as attractive staying in the draft at 28

It is not reasonable or arguable to therefore say Gold Coast & Geelong struck a trade that was outside of the market.

What’s more, I wouldn’t even trade Josh Worrell for Conor Stone now!

 

[Rags_118]

Yeah, that’s just waffle though.

What really matters is that you’re ignoring that the trade was literally offered to several clubs, but still you think it was a terrible decision that didn’t reflect market value

Several clubs in a closed market declined until this was the best value obtainable, but it didn’t reflect market value?? C’mon

If you are actually interested in trying to understand why you’re wrong (as opposed to whether, which is not in dispute) then look at the immediately preceding trade. Which was Adelaide trading back from 26 (Will Gould) with Sydney to 28 (Josh Worrell), the key difference was staying in the draft. The price was upgrading a future 4th to a future 3rd, for 2 spots and staying in the draft. That’s the key, staying in a more valuable draft. Geelong sold their pick out of the current draft altogether, for the price of the future mid round first (Conor Stone). That price was available openly, no one before Geelong at 27 wanted it - including Adelaide, no one wanted it. Adelaide preferred to stay in this draft, than take what was on offer to move out. The Adelaide/Sydney and Gold Coast/Geelong trades were sequential.

Christ on a bike, even that’s probably too complicated. Try this:

Adelaide could have traded #26 for
a) 28 & future 4th round upgrade to future 3rd round

Or

b) pick 11 in future draft

We said no to b), we rejected 26 for future 11. That was not as attractive staying in the draft at 28

It is not reasonable or arguable to therefore say Gold Coast & Geelong struck a trade that was outside of the market.

What’s more, I wouldn’t even trade Josh Worrell for Conor Stone now!

It can also be noted that GCS dumped two reasonable picks in the 2020 draft during the 2020 trade period (having already traded out F1-Pick 11 in the 2019 trade period).

First they traded out Pick 37 to Sydney for a F3 tied to Carlton. No big deal - expected future value at the time was about P45. Then 8 days later they traded out P27 to Geelong for a F3 tied to Melbourne. Expected future value at the time about P47.

While not as bad as F1-11 for P27 or the P7+Bowes deal this year, it was yet another lopsided trade that favoured ******* GEELONG! The Cats used the pick to select Shannon Neale after first bidding on Eric Guilden, where Sydney used their traded pick from GCS to match.

The AFL assistance package of draft picks to GCS (other than the P1 priority pick that allowed for both Rowell & Anderson) has proved to be a Draft distorting farce that has mostly benefited Geelong.

 

[Red mist]

Yeah, that’s just waffle though.

What really matters is that you’re ignoring that the trade was literally offered to several clubs, but still you think it was a terrible decision that didn’t reflect market value

Several clubs in a closed market declined until this was the best value obtainable, but it didn’t reflect market value?? C’mon

If you are actually interested in trying to understand why you’re wrong (as opposed to whether, which is not in dispute) then look at the immediately preceding trade. Which was Adelaide trading back from 26 (Will Gould) with Sydney to 28 (Josh Worrell), the key difference was staying in the draft. The price was upgrading a future 4th to a future 3rd, for 2 spots and staying in the draft. That’s the key, staying in a more valuable draft. Geelong sold their pick out of the current draft altogether, for the price of the future mid round first (Conor Stone). That price was available openly, no one before Geelong at 27 wanted it - including Adelaide, no one wanted it. Adelaide preferred to stay in this draft, than take what was on offer to move out. The Adelaide/Sydney and Gold Coast/Geelong trades were sequential.

Christ on a bike, even that’s probably too complicated. Try this:

Adelaide could have traded #26 for
a) 28 & future 4th round upgrade to future 3rd round

Or

b) pick 11 in future draft

We said no to b), we rejected 26 for future 11. That was not as attractive staying in the draft at 28

It is not reasonable or arguable to therefore say Gold Coast & Geelong struck a trade that was outside of the market.

What’s more, I wouldn’t even trade Josh Worrell for Conor Stone now!

Good nuts and bolts right here. Bit of a prickle but research is Larry Hagmans genie.

 

[tinman]

We can do a trade for points while a match is happening. Will we get a good deal? I guess that's a different question.

There will be a number of "handshake" deals already done and sitting in the background, waiting to pull the trigger at different stages of the draft should we want in. Either for a match or a player on our board.

This is where the list managers would be putting in a ton of work. And most of these deals don't ever see light of day.

We'd also have a clear cut off where we'd match or not. And in the unlikely event of a first round bid it would be very questionable if we'd choose to match.

 

[Sanders]

It can also be noted that GCS dumped two reasonable picks in the 2020 draft during the 2020 trade period (having already traded out F1-Pick 11 in the 2019 trade period).

First they traded out Pick 37 to Sydney for a F3 tied to Carlton. No big deal - expected future value at the time was about P45. Then 8 days later they traded out P27 to Geelong for a F3 tied to Melbourne. Expected future value at the time about P47.

While not as bad as F1-11 for P27 or the P7+Bowes deal this year, it was yet another lopsided trade that favoured ******* GEELONG! The Cats used the pick to select Shannon Neale after first bidding on Eric Guilden, where Sydney used their traded pick from GCS to match.

The AFL assistance package of draft picks to GCS (other than the P1 priority pick that allowed for both Rowell & Anderson) has proved to be a Draft distorting farce that has mostly benefited Geelong.

When a trade is offered around, and no one bites until the needle sits at a certain value then the trade isn’t lopsided

 

[Dangarman]

Economics 101 says that value is subjective. From the all knowing wikipedia article on the subjective theory of value (bolding mine):

According to the subjective theory of value, by assuming that all trades between individuals are voluntary, it can be concluded that both parties to the trade subjectively perceive the goods, labour or money they receive, as being of higher value to the goods, labour or money they give away. The theory holds that one can create value simply by trading with someone who values the items higher, without necessarily modifying those. Wealth is understood to refer to individuals' subjective valuation of their possessions, and voluntary trades may increase the total wealth in society.[3] This suggests that items cannot be objectively valued as any value placed upon the item is only correct if both buyer and seller agree on the price and a transaction takes place. A seller may value an item in their possession higher than any buyer will value it leading to either a price reduction until the item's price equals a buyer's value of the item, or the seller will continue to value the item higher than any buyer and no transaction will occur.

 

[conVINCEd]

I’m getting my woe-is-us vibes here, but after the Swans and Saints have snaffled Gulden/Owens/Windhager for bugger all over the last couple of years (even N.Daicos slipping to 4), I can just imagine someone bidding on Michalanney in the teens.

 

[Mutineer]

I’m getting my woe-is-us vibes here, but after the Swans and Saints have snaffled Gulden/Owens/Windhager for bugger all over the last couple of years (even N.Daicos slipping to 4), I can just imagine someone bidding on Michalanney in the teens.

They had better be prepared for us not to match if they do because there's no guarantee we will match if they bid ridiculously high.

 

[conVINCEd]

They had better be prepared for us not to match if they do because there's no guarantee we will match if they bid ridiculously high.

What do you think is the earliest bid we’d match?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

What do you think is the earliest bid we’d match?

Given how few list spots we have, anything that doesn’t have go into defecit .

After our picks move up the order, we could match up to pick 16/17

 

[Sanders]

Given how few list spots we have, anything that doesn’t have go into defecit .

After our picks move up the order, we could match up to pick 16/17

I think that’s right. We don’t have spare list spots so value doesn’t really matter, as long as we don’t exceed the change that’s in our pockets who cares?

Don’t go into deficit then who cares.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I’m getting my woe-is-us vibes here, but after the Swans and Saints have snaffled Gulden/Owens/Windhager for bugger all over the last couple of years (even N.Daicos slipping to 4), I can just imagine someone bidding on Michalanney in the teens.

Father / Son picks traditionally slide, because Clubs know they're going to be bid on ......Michalanney isn't being bid on in the 1st round .....my guestimate is from pick #25 onwards

 

[Big Dub]

Given how few list spots we have, anything that doesn’t have go into defecit .

After our picks move up the order, we could match up to pick 16/17

If the deficit is less than the difference in points to the pick below then you don't get downgraded. Fremantle brought in a deficit of 265 draft points for 2020, downgrading pick seven back to pick 10 (249 point difference) not pick 11 (315).

So if Michalanney was bid on at pick 14, we would have a deficit of 98 points (assuming our picks move to 43, 52 and 55 after Brisbane matching). This wouldn't be enough deficit points to downgrade pick 6 or above. We could also trade for a really late pick pretty easily to shave off the deficit issue.

A bid at pick 15 would only impact us if we had pick 12 or later next year.

While I like the kid, you'd have to be pretty ballsy to bid on him at or before pick 14, particularly as opposition clubs probably haven't put as much work into assessing him compared with kids not under father/ son or academy arrangements.

 

[crow2crow]

Father / Son picks traditionally slide, because Clubs know they're going to be bid on ......Michalanney isn't being bid on in the 1st round .....my guestimate is from pick #25 onwards

Now yes, before when we had pick 23 no - he was going to be bid on

 

[Mutineer]

Now yes, before when we had pick 23 no - he was going to be bid on

How exactly does the pick we hold feed into where another club rates Max and when they place a bid?
Makes no sense at all?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Now yes, before when we had pick 23 no - he was going to be bid on

#23 was around the mark .....made sense to trade it for a F2 ....doesn't mean Michalanney was going to be bid on B4 #23 ...it just took the element of risk out of the equation

 

[DJ75]

Let's say there is a player who slides into pick 20 that we absolutely love and we decide to trade in to grab him.
What are our options in terms of list spots?

Do we grab him and then not match any bid on MM?

Do we grab him, match MM and then have to move a player to the rookie list (and not select Turner)?

Do we grab him, Match MM and then delist a contracted player?

Are these all feasible?

 

[Big Dub]

Let's say there is a player who slides into pick 20 that we absolutely love and we decide to trade in to grab him.
What are our options in terms of list spots?

Do we grab him and then not match any bid on MM?

Do we grab him, match MM and then have to move a player to the rookie list (and not select Turner)?

Do we grab him, Match MM and then delist a contracted player?

Are these all feasible?

We have 3 list spots to fill and could do 1 national and 2 rookie draft with no mucking around.

If we move someone from the main list to rookie (or delist) we can do 2 national and 1 rookie.

I doubt we don't match on MM (after pick 14) after nominating him, but everything else will likely depend on who is there at our pick (including any pick we trade into).

 

[DJ75]

I fully expect us to pick up MM and that's it.

Do we really have 3 spots available? I thought it was much tighter than that. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

I fully expect us to pick up MM and that's it.

Do we really have 3 spots available? I thought it was much tighter than that. Can anyone confirm?

Yes and no, as 2 of the spots are lined up for Strachan and Butts. But my understanding is that we can use our 3 picks to match until the rookie upgrades are official.

We'll either take a ruckman in the rookie draft or move a contracted player to rookie list and take one late in the ND.
I expect Turner to be re-rookied.

 

[Big Dub]

I fully expect us to pick up MM and that's it.

Do we really have 3 spots available? I thought it was much tighter than that. Can anyone confirm?

We were stacked after last season's draft, and then:

In: Turner, Rankine
Out: Turner, Brown, Frampton, Rowe, Davis