List Mgmt. 2022 Trade, Draft, etc thread

[Scythe94]

Dory_77 – might be worth pinning this? Gets updated after every move.

 

[danster168]

Anyway, back on topic. Are people hoping that we trade up or trade down (and strengthen our hand in next years draft) or keep our current picks? What are peoples preferences.

 

[Fork n Hell]

my prediction is we'll trade 13 to the Eagles for picks 20+26.
then we trade the Dockers future first to the Swans for pick 17.
we take Brayden George with 17. then Jacob Ryan with 20, Max Gruzewski with 26, and Isaac Keeler with 37.

 

[Poko Loko]

The Dr talk about exaggeration. I said Grundy has 3 years max in the game in my opinion and likely only 2 years of decent enough footy left. 11 hours is an exaggeration.

Haha just a bit of light hearted banter in reply to an earlier comment with a touch of cheekiness thrown in. Granted i took a little bit of liberty with the expiration date of his career but i thought it was an obvious joke. Apologies if it's not your style

 

[netslave]

hurry up draft night

 

[Bluelegs]

don't speak on behalf of others. But it's hard not to exaggerate when we're literally talking about the worst kick for goal in the afl. but yes, I was surprised that we didn't get more on the rebound from kickins. You need to calm down though. Stop getting personal.

Ok I actually looked into it and the Goal Accuracy stat is a bit dodgy.

I got 45.06 for Patrick Dangerfield which included his first year where he got 50% kicking 1.1 for the entire year. He gets a worse score in the year he kicked 45.31 than in the year he kicked 23.13 and at the end it just adds all of those percentages together. That it can't merge the data across the entirety career to create a true percentage makes it incredibly dubious. They don't even show the numbers for kicks that didn't result in a goal so who knows how accurate it is?

I also looked at Nat Fyfe who gets a score of 50.07% But that's boosted by a year where he got a score of 81.8 kicking a whopping 9.2 for the year

 

[LarryDavidNeitz]

Anyway, back on topic. Are people hoping that we trade up or trade down (and strengthen our hand in next years draft) or keep our current picks? What are peoples preferences.

I can't see how we can get any higher without seriously overpaying with next year's first rounders. If Taylor likes what he sees at 13 then happy for us to pick there, otherwise I think 13 for Eagles 20 and 26 is a good deal that depending on circumstances they might be keen on.

 

[danster168]

Ok I actually looked into it and the Goal Accuracy stat is a bit dodgy.

I got 45.06 for Patrick Dangerfield which included his first year where he got 50% kicking 1.1 for the entire year. He gets a worse score in the year he kicked 45.31 than in the year he kicked 23.13 and at the end it just adds all of those percentages together. That it can't merge the data across the entirety career to create a true percentage makes it incredibly dubious. They don't even show the numbers for kicks that didn't result in a goal so who knows how accurate it is?

I also looked at Nat Fyfe who gets a score of 50.07% But that's boosted by a year where he got a score of 81.8 kicking a whopping 9.2 for the year

The stat in itself isn't dodgy but if trying to extrapolate it over a full career then more investigation needs to be done because, like you correctly pointed out, higher volume shots on goal one year will have a far bigger effect on total Career GA% than low volume shots on goal years. The number for kicks that didn't result in a goal is there on afl.com. It's 'shots on goal' minus 'Goal and Behinds'.

Petracca
2022: 19 Goals from 69 Shots
2021: 29 from 71 Shots
2020: 15 from 34 Shots
2019: 22 from 45 Shots
2018: 19 from 48 Shots
2017: 26 from 38 Shots
2016: 12 from 35 Shots

Total: 142 Goals from 340 Shots on Goal = 41.7% over his career.

So this quite honestly, rightfully, puts him as quite possibly the worst goal kicker in the afl. You listed him at 55% because you looked at his 142.118 Goals and Behind Totals which is understandable but when we look deeper into it, it's significantly lower, to a point that marries up closer to where I'd thought it to be. He's hopeless in front of the sticks.

 

[Bluelegs]

The stat in itself isn't dodgy but if trying to extrapolate it over a full career then more investigation needs to be done because, like you correctly pointed out, higher volume shots on goal one year will have a far bigger effect on total Career GA% than low volume shots on goal years. The number for kicks that didn't result in a goal is there on afl.com. It's 'shots on goal' minus 'Goal and Behinds'.

Petracca
2022: 19 Goals from 69 Shots
2021: 29 from 71 Shots
2020: 15 from 34 Shots
2019: 22 from 45 Shots
2018: 19 from 48 Shots
2017: 26 from 38 Shots
2016: 12 from 35 Shots

Total: 142 Goals from 340 Shots on Goal = 41.7% over his career.

So this quite honestly, rightfully, puts him as quite possibly the worst goal kicker in the afl. You listed him at 55% because you looked at his 142.118 Goals and Behind Totals which is understandable but when we look deeper into it, it's significantly lower, to a point that marries up closer to where I'd thought it to be. He's hopeless in front of the sticks.

There are a few limitations on that stat. It wasn't recorded prior to 2013 so any player who has beeen in the game longer than that doesn't have complete stats. Apparently Scott Pendlebury has kicked 185 goals over his career from only 180 shots.

Also, worst in the AFL is a massive claim. Unless you've found a way to compare his accuracy with every player in the league then you can't know it's true. It's also leaves out key information like how difficult the shot on goals are. Jack Higgins is a terrible shot on goal but his stats look better because he gets joe-the-goose goals all the time. Like according to this formula Jack Higgins is a better shot for goal than Shai Bolton, Bolton misses a heap but loves to take the super hungry shots while Higgins is missing absolute sitters.

Not saying Trac is a great shot. He's definitely not. Not sure about worst in the AFL.

 

[Bluelegs]

Clayton Oliver

13

Clayton Oliver

Age

27

Ht

189cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.8

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

18.4

5star

M

3.2

3star

T

6.3

5star

CL

6.3

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

19.2

5star

K

4.6

2star

HB

14.6

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

4.4

5star

CL

3.8

5star

- 45 goals from 125 shots 36% over his career. Not even going to look anymore, worst kick for goal in the comp.


Melbourne players, hey.

 

[ozzy2012]

Pick 13 and future 2nd to giants for 18 and 19.

 

[danster168]

There are a few limitations on that stat. It wasn't recorded prior to 2013 so any player who has beeen in the game longer than that doesn't have complete stats. Apparently Scott Pendlebury has kicked 185 goals over his career from only 180 shots.

Also, worst in the AFL is a massive claim. Unless you've found a way to compare his accuracy with every player in the league then you can't know it's true. It's also leaves out key information like how difficult the shot on goals are. Jack Higgins is a terrible shot on goal but his stats look better because he gets joe-the-goose goals all the time. Like according to this formula Jack Higgins is a better shot for goal than Shai Bolton, Bolton misses a heap but loves to take the super hungry shots while Higgins is missing absolute sitters.

Not saying Trac is a great shot. He's definitely not. Not sure about worst in the AFL.

Why are you concerned with players that played before Petracca?
Massive claim? Well we proved that he had the worst goal kicking accuracy in 2022 out of the 158th players that kicked more than 10 goals. That's damning. 158th. It's going to be a hard argument to say that out of the 158 player, Petracca had harder shots than anyone else.

But yes, you are correct, the difficulty of the shots does impact the stats. And that's why we extrapolate it over the course of his whole career. 7 years. Thats more than enough of a sample size to say that he is horrific.

Jack Higgins also doesn't get easy set shots like Petracca does.

 

[Demon 16]

Anyway, back on topic. Are people hoping that we trade up or trade down (and strengthen our hand in next years draft) or keep our current picks? What are peoples preferences.

All depends how high we could get for which picks etc obviously, and my impatience wants us to get up the order this year - but my brain is telling me that we aren’t in rebuilding so using what have have to press next year (or trade for needs) might be the better option.

Doesn’t seem as though there might be many suitors for pick 13 though.. maybe west coast given there are 3 or 4 Perth kids pegged for the top 15?

 

[Bluelegs]

Why are you concerned with players that played before Petracca?
Massive claim? Well we proved that he had the worst goal kicking accuracy in 2022 out of the 158th players that kicked more than 10 goals. That's damning. 158th. It's going to be a hard argument to say that out of the 158 player, Petracca had harder shots than anyone else.

But yes, you are correct, the difficulty of the shots does impact the stats. And that's why we extrapolate it over the course of his whole career. 7 years. Thats more than enough of a sample size to say that he is horrific.

Jack Higgins also doesn't get easy set shots like Petracca does.

A lot of players currently playing played prior to 2013, making their stats incomplete. I thought that point was pretty clear.

Worst in 2022 is a much different claim than worst in the AFL.

Lmao Higgins has many of the worst howlers I've ever seen for a permanent forward.

 

[Dudoro]

Would you guys consider:
13, 37, F1, Freo F1 for 4,22

All those first rounders will be teens and this draft drops away after first dozen. Please don’t abuse me

 

[danster168]

A lot of players currently playing played prior to 2013, making their stats incomplete. I thought that point was pretty clear.

Worst in 2022 is a much different claim than worst in the AFL.

Lmao Higgins has many of the worst howlers I've ever seen for a permanent forward.

yeah.so what? it doesn't mean you can't do their stats from 2013 onwards. or is 9 years not enough data for you?

Higgins is a good kick for goal. The stats back this up. Isolating to some howlers is a silly argument to make. Otherwise, Tom Hawkins isn't a good kick for goal because he's missed some howlers too.

 

[danster168]

Would you guys consider:
13, 37, F1, Freo F1 for 4,22

All those first rounders will be teens and this draft drops away after first dozen. Please don’t abuse me

Personally I wouldn't. That's 13, F1 and F1 for pick 4. And 37 for 22.

I'm not saying our recruiters wouldn't think about it but I wouldn't want to throw 3 first rounders for pick 4.

 

[Down the throat]

Would you guys consider:
13, 37, F1, Freo F1 for 4,22

All those first rounders will be teens and this draft drops away after first dozen. Please don’t abuse me

I could be convinced to take that deal. One top 5 pick is better than 3 in the teens.

Probably haggle to keep 37 - but it's pretty close.

 

[Scythe94]

Would you guys consider:
13, 37, F1, Freo F1 for 4,22

All those first rounders will be teens and this draft drops away after first dozen. Please don’t abuse me

I wouldn't. That Freo F1 will be better than most are expecting

 

[sydney_gws]

Pick 13 and future 2nd to giants for 18 and 19.

I think GWS probably accept that.

 

[Topkent]

I could be convinced to take that deal. One top 5 pick is better than 3 in the teens.

Probably haggle to keep 37 - but it's pretty close.

I think that's a terrible deal for us. What's so good at pick 4 that we are throwing away 3 good picks.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Just for shits and giggles, using the NFL Draft pick value/trade chart for that proposed trade:

Melbourne Get: Pick 4 = 1800, Pick 22 = 780 Total: 2580

Essendon Get: Pick 13 = 1150, Pick 37 = 530, Future Firsts of Melb & Freo (Approximating going off this years results) = 2250 Total: 3930

Essendon win that trade by 1350 points , the equivalent of Melbourne overpaying by pick 9

Seems like a legit Dodoro Bigfooty account

 

[Topkent]

Just for shits and giggles, using the NFL Draft pick value/trade chart for that proposed trade:

Melbourne Get: Pick 4 = 1800, Pick 22 = 780 Total: 2580

Essendon Get: Pick 13 = 1150, Pick 37 = 530, Future Firsts of Melb & Freo (Approximating going off this years results) = 2250 Total: 3930

Essendon win that trade by 1350 points , the equivalent of Melbourne overpaying by pick 9

Seems like a legit Dodoro Bigfooty account

And that's if Freo makes finals. If they finish outside finals we could be throwing away a top 10 pick aswell

 

[Lampers]

Really don't think it's that simple. I think they talk to agents and the players themselves. If a certain player has been interviewed 17x by Geelong and 0 by Melbourne not hard to work out who's more interested

One of my mates used to be a journo and did phantom drafts. I don’t think any of it was his views trying to be a talent scout.

He was putting together a jigsaw puzzle from information he sourced mostly through his relationships with head recruiters - who would talk about what they thought other clubs would do, not what they wanted to do.

And yes, the head recruiters know which clubs are interested in which players because they know which clubs have interviewed players, players’ junior coaches etc.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

Just for shits and giggles, using the NFL Draft pick value/trade chart for that proposed trade:

Melbourne Get: Pick 4 = 1800, Pick 22 = 780 Total: 2580

Essendon Get: Pick 13 = 1150, Pick 37 = 530, Future Firsts of Melb & Freo (Approximating going off this years results) = 2250 Total: 3930

Essendon win that trade by 1350 points , the equivalent of Melbourne overpaying by pick 9

Seems like a legit Dodoro Bigfooty account

I don’t think it is that clear, I agree the deal favours essendon by a decent margin.
but I would trade our first and future first for pick 4 but we still lose that by what? 500 points

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

I don’t think it is that clear, I agree the deal favours essendon by a decent margin.
but I would trade our first and future first for pick 4 but we still lose that by what? 500 points

Going off the scale that is even enough, ~ 450 points, the equivalent of us overpaying by pick 44