List Mgmt. 2022 Trade and Free Agency Thread

[Jivlain]

 

[M Malice]

It's been suggested they want pick 1 for Cadman.

Nearly all draft pundits have Cadman going below 3 so they probably don't need to move up to 1 to get him, maybe North and/or Eagles have Cadman in their sights as well.... although in that case you would expect them not to do that trade with the Giants... it's getting complicated.

 

[mpal6]

So we have 9 picks in this draft. Do we need that many lists spots available going into the draft?

yep we do.

We'll have 5 I think, few other experts are better at quoting the exact players than me.

We could also, you know, delist few of our older players and get them back as delisted free agents after draft is done. Gives us more active picks.

 

[Full Wingspan]

It's literally already happened.

GWS went into deficit meeting the Tom Green bid.

They had already traded out their future first.

The deficit came off their second round pick the next year, pushing it back.

You'll be looking forever for it in writing because as I pointed out, the determination referred to hasn't been published. However we have an example of how the rule plays out.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[chopperduck]

Draft pundits don't always have it right for what clubs want.

 

[Sausages]

So, re: our trading this year, is this accurate?

 

[mpal6]

Draft pundits don't always have it right for what clubs want.

Man, even I was crystal balling Port's 33/43/53 or Geelongs 38/48/55.

But Geelong's future 2nd and 4th on top of those picks ? That's just pure genius from Dom Ambrogio !

 

[chopperduck]

25 was a decent pick and could have been used for Dunkley. We would not have traded that out if it did more damage on Dunkley trade. Interesting to see where this is heading.

 

[mpal6]

25 was a decent pick and could have been used for Dunkley. We would not have traded that out if it did more damage on Dunkley trade. Interesting to see where this is heading.

We have an additional future second now.
Lots of combinations to play with.

 

[chopperduck]

Man, even I was crystal balling Port's 33/43/53 or Geelongs 38/48/55.

But Geelong's future 2nd and 4th on top of those picks ? That's just pure genius from Dom Ambrogio !

I think the future picks is a good angle. Seems like clubs are keen for more picks next year (stronger draft, although they say that every year). Having those picks might get us better value. Few teams with extra picks that I reckon will be happy to bank into next year.

 

[dlanod]

I'm curious to know how it works and if it's possible? I make no apology if my curiosity bothers you. It might explain the hesitation in the Dogs wanting to accept a future first pick from Brisbane if it's going to be distorted by a potential points deficit from Brisbane.

Curiosity doesn't bother me, but you seemed to be setting out to disagree specifically with those of us trying to help you understand.

In saying that, I'm not suggesting that it works in the manner I'm describing - I'm simply trying to determine where in the rules it is speifically precluded. Based on what we know i.e. a points deficit will affect a team's corresponding selection in the following draft year, it's not outrageous to see that it would affect the future draft selection even if it's traded to another club. What's the alternative? It pushes back a team's first selection (that it still holds) in the following year? I.e. if you have a first round points deficit but no first rounders, does that deficit reduce the value of your second round selection?

Yes. It pushed back GWS's second round pick.

Barring any restriction on trading future picks the following year, what's stopping a club from trading out its first 3 selections the following year if its points deficit is large (I acknowledge points deficits are capped). Do you carry that deficit into the 3rd year if you can't resolve it in the 2nd year?

What's stopping people is exactly the deficit cap, plus the rule about trading away only a future first or your later future picks - so everyone will have either a future first or future second at a minimum.

If we ignore the rule covering trading out, if you trade out the first three rounds of next year you can only go into deficit for the equivalent of the last pick of round 4, pick 72,which is worth next to nothing.

I don't think we'd see systemic attempts at clubs trying to screw each other on purpose. It may be considered part of the risk of trading future selections. No one can determine for sure what that future draft pick will be because of the team's finishing position, so it's a relevant consideration for the team choosing to trade in that future pick. Whether that pick is likely to be distorted due to the original team's points position (based on its academy and f/s prospects in the current draft) may also be a relevant risk factor list managers need to consider.

There's a risk in trading for future picks because you don't know where they'll end up. You don't need to worry about another team's antics diminishing it though, beyond winning games.

 

[davemc_lions]

View attachment 1529367

Not sure what to make of this

called it earlier although did not think we get future 2nd and 4th

So now 21 and future 1st and cats 2nd for Dunkley

 

[Nathan Barley]

I wonder which future second we value more; ours or geelongs

 

[dlanod]

Thanks for clarifying.

Heh this came through after writing the previous one. All sorted then?

 

[jfn]

Giants have 5 selections inside 20(3, 12, 15, 18, 19) and probably another 1 coming for Hopper, what the hell they going to do with them? Trade up to pick 1?

Rebuild their team. They weren’t good this year.

 

[Sproj]

Geelong get a lot of leg ups BUT credit where it’s due, they get stuff done and aren’t worried about ‘winning trades’, they just get stuff done

 

[davemc_lions]

I wonder which future second we value more; ours or geelongs

Also could do 21 plus next years first and one of our picks in the 30's and cats or our second.
So 4 picks..
We have way too many now need to start condensing and moving them on

 

[irel]

Also could do 21 plus next years first and one of our picks in the 30's and cats or our second.
So 4 picks..
We have way too many now need to start condensing and moving them on

Likely start moving them on to next year building points for potentially 2 first round draftees.



On F1 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blueiris]

I wonder which future second we value more; ours or geelongs

We don’t have ours so GWS Future 2nd

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Brad Johnson

Brad Johnson

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

14.1

5star

HB

5.6

4star

M

5.9

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.5

5star

No current season stats available

D

12.8

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

2.6

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

1.2

3star

G

0.6

3star

being a one eyed flog on fox.

 

[Saucery]

We've traded out another pick? Hope we got the Doggies approval on this one first

 

[dlanod]

We don’t have ours so GWS Future 2nd

 

[haystark]

Brisbane being very proactive and not beholden to the Bulldogs. Love it.

 

[blueiris]

Not what its saying on the AFL website as good as Fish is he may be wrong

 

[pulpdriver]

Not what its saying on the AFL website as good as Fish is he may be wrong

He does say "confirmed by Lions". He would've spoken with Dom or to someone who knows before he posted that.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Not what its saying on the AFL website as good as Fish is he may be wrong

It's not just Whiting saying it, it's everyone