List Mgmt. 2022 Trade and Free Agency Thread

[Jivlain]

 

[irel]

That is insane from Geelong. Makes no sense.

Must be something else going Geelong way. Otherwise Ambrogio is
God.

On F1 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Nuggo]

Further price drop, pick 21 and Geelongs future 2nd for Dunkley and 39

 

[pulpdriver]

Correct and pick 21 this year too.

21 + F1 + F2 for Dunk and 39?

 

[dlanod]

Can you provide something in writing that suggests it doesn't?

All I can I find is that a points deficit will apply to a club's corresponding future round selection depending on the round that their bid-match occurred i.e. if you enter into a deficit to match a first-round bid, you're corresponding first round pick in the next draft would be impacted.

I've seen nothing to suggest that the deficit is applied to a club's next available pick in the next year's draft in circumstances where they've traded the relevant future pick affected by the deficit i.e. the deficit still applies to the club's corresponding future first round pick irrespective if it has been traded to another club.

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.

 

[Nathan Barley]

21 + F1 + F2 for Dunk and 39?

Do we need 39?

 

[mpal6]

21 + F1 + F2 for Dunk and 39?

Yep and "after" that deal is done, package all the future picks and find our way up to get pick 5 from Gold Coast Rankine trade.

Dogs board will be in absolute meltdown !!

 

[pulpdriver]

Do we need 39?

Not sure. I think we have the points covered without it but the trade looks more balanced with it included.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Not sure. I think we have the points covered without it but the trade looks more balanced with it included.

I think the future second could work out to be pick 39 so might as well leave both off

 

[M Malice]

Up to date, great work from Lore , just about have points covered now for Ashcroft/Fletcher.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Pick 21 is worth 878

 

[mpal6]

Pick 21 is worth 878

With all the future picks, deficit next year can be covered too I think.

 

[Nathan Barley]

With all the future picks, deficit next year can be covered too I think.

Especially if Ashcroft goes at 2 and Fletcher in the 20s

 

[M Malice]

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?

 

[mpal6]

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?

If North are smart, they could set their rebuild up in 1 draft.
Let's see.

 

[blueiris]

It allows us to trade out the Giants future 2nd for a 1st round pick this year so a first this and next to Doggies and still have a future 2nd and 2 future 4th round picks

 

[M Malice]

If North are smart, they could set their rebuild up in 1 draft.
Let's see.

You reckon 3 and 12 would be enough for pick 1? They would still get one of the top 2 rated players(behind Ashcroft) and another highly rated at 12.

 

[pulpdriver]

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?

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

 

[chopperduck]

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?

Yes, probably.

 

[mpal6]

You reckon 3 and 12 would be enough for pick 1? They would still get one of the top 2 rated players(behind Ashcroft) and another highly rated at 12.

They should ask for 3, 12, 19.
GWS just have too many picks, if they're desperate for pick 1 - they won't care throwing an extra teen pick at it.

 

[Bucking Beads]

You reckon 3 and 12 would be enough for pick 1? They would still get one of the top 2 rated players(behind Ashcroft) and another highly rated at 12.

They would 100% ask for me if they're fair dinkum

 

[Nuggo]

I wonder if not going hard for Bowes helped Geelong which turn were happy to off load those picks for pick 25.

 

[blueiris]

You reckon 3 and 12 would be enough for pick 1? They would still get one of the top 2 rated players(behind Ashcroft) and another highly rated at 12.

They need the key forward does Jefferson make it to pick 13 more than likely they take Wardlaw at 3

 

[ManeMan]

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

 

[Full Wingspan]

I don’t know why you’re so insistent on this mate. Think for a second, you don’t need any official writing.

If it worked the way you think it does, then clubs could f*ck other clubs over on purpose by trading them their future 1st and then racking up a massive deficit.

Obviously that’s not how it works.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Edit: see response from dlanod providing the example of Greene from GWS.

 

[chopperduck]

A few teams with a big chunk of picks now this year. A few might be keen to get picks into next year's draft.