List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

 

[The King!]

Soooooo they got Ethan Read for a Chad and an Errol? Yep, junk picks alright...

Umm we use the Craig Bird measuring system around here.

 

[anotherletdown]

I think they need to fix like 3 things:
1. Matching with a pick within that round or within 10 picks
2. Fix the curve just slightly to value picks in the top 20 more than the 30-40 picks currently that are over valued at the draft and under valued at the trade period.
3. Move NGAs to match after pick 30 rather than 40.

3. Should read as Scrap NGA's

 

[ashep]

It doesn't affect us I agree but to move goal posts during a season seems amateur hour to me.

It's crazy. Clubs have planned for this draft under a specific ruleset. To change those rules on the fly is ridiculous and disadvantages specific teams. It's the very definition of moving the goalposts.

 

[The King!]

It's crazy. Clubs have planned for this draft under a specific ruleset. To change those rules on the fly is ridiculous and disadvantages specific teams. It's the very definition of moving the goalposts.

Yep exactly, Carlton have Campos twins etc, if they moved the rules on us during the year and only a few months before we were about to get Campbell and Gulden we would crack the shits

 

[sataris]

Yep exactly, Carlton have Campos twins etc, if they moved the rules on us during the year and only a few months before we were about to get Campbell and Gulden we would crack the shits

They did that to us with COLA.

 

[Kbroome]

That's all pretty cool but doesn't answer my question.

We got Grundy for pick 46 in isolation because Melbourne wanted to dump his salary.

What I'm talking about is a club asking for, say, a second rounder, but instead accepting three picks in the 60s because 'adding them together is just as good as a second rounder'.

Okay i'll again say this Melbourne wanted the early second round pick that we had i believe it was the pick 33 we had at the time. So they got more value out of getting pick 46 and a future second round pick in pick 40 this year for Grundy as that amounts to pick 23 in terms of value.

 

[The King!]

They did that to us with COLA.

Not defending what they did but they still phased it out.

 

[Kiama Chris]

3. Should read as Scrap NGA's

I wouldn't mind NGAs if they functioned properly. But they don't. The "homeland states" have talent pathways that NSW and Qld don't have. We know that the Academies replace those but they choose to ignore that and the AFL choose not to remind them. So yes, scrap NGAs and let them draft Cat Bs.
Now to phase out father/sons.

 

[Kbroome]

I wouldn't mind NGAs if they functioned properly. But they don't. The "homeland states" have talent pathways that NSW and Qld don't have. We know that the Academies replace those but they choose to ignore that and the AFL choose not to remind them. So yes, scrap NGAs and let them draft Cat Bs.

Agree with this, they function well for guys like Mac Andrew who spent 6 years in the NGA of Melbourne before being selected by Gold Coast. But when you try and put like Sanders or JUH in the NGA for under like 2-3 years when they are already first XVIII of their high school side it kinda defeats the purpose

 

[SM]

Okay i'll again say this Melbourne wanted the early second round pick that we had i believe it was the pick 33 we had at the time. So they got more value out of getting pick 46 and a future second round pick in pick 40 this year for Grundy as that amounts to pick 23 in terms of value.

Did they want that earlier pick? I don't recall that being the negotiating position but I'd be surprised if they were happy to take two very late picks in place of one better pick, but it could also reflect their desperation to get rid of him. I don't think it's the sort of case study you could use to put an absolute value on picks though given the other contributing factors.

 

[Kbroome]

Did they want that earlier pick? I don't recall that being the negotiating position but I'd be surprised if they were happy to take two very late picks in place of one better pick, but it could also reflect their desperation to get rid of him. I don't think it's the sort of case study you could use to put an absolute value on picks though given the other contributing factors.

Its laughable how much you move the goalposts when you get found out. They wanted a high second round pick for him then we traded away pick 25 with the Dylans Stephens trade which is another example of using a pick outside the Top 40 to match value in a trade. So which one do you want. There was also 10 other trades in the 2023 offseason conducted with solely a player and pick(s) outside of pick 40. Would clubs just be letting players go for free if they were under contract and pick 40 onwards was worth nothing

 

[SydneyBlood]

Fox extending makes those list spots even tighter for next season. Not that I would have expected him to be on the outer. Happy for him.

 

[Kbroome]

Fox extending makes those list spots even tighter for next season. Not that I would have expected him to be on the outer. Happy for him.

Has to be Cunningham moving to the rookie list unless they decide to let someone go to make way for draftees and doesn't Edwards have to go onto the main list next year?

 

[robbieando]

Has to be Cunningham moving to the rookie list unless they decide to let someone go to make way for draftees and doesn't Edwards have to go onto the main list next year?

To move Cunningham to the rookie list you have to delist him first and expose him to the draft process before we can select him in the rookie draft.

Edwards doesn’t need to go onto the main list yet.

 

[sataris]

Has to be Cunningham moving to the rookie list unless they decide to let someone go to make way for draftees and doesn't Edwards have to go onto the main list next year?

Are there any salary restrictions/cap savings with moving some to the rookie list?

 

[bedford]

To move Cunningham to the rookie list you have to delist him first and expose him to the draft process before we can select him in the rookie draft.

Edwards doesn’t need to go onto the main list yet.

Voice of reason

 

[SydneyBlood]

Has to be Cunningham moving to the rookie list unless they decide to let someone go to make way for draftees and doesn't Edwards have to go onto the main list next year?

I think three years is the max on rookie list, so yes. Potentially Francis and Mitchell, if re-signed, along with Cunningham could also be asked to be switched to the rookie list? Depends who and how many end up getting delisted/retired/traded.

Personally would like all three of the above re-signed.

Edit: robbieando above says Edwards can stay on rookie list

 

[Kbroome]

To move Cunningham to the rookie list you have to delist him first and expose him to the draft process before we can select him in the rookie draft.

Edwards doesn’t need to go onto the main list yet.

Ah my bad, these decisions are making sense then. Idk how others feel but this year we may only have 4-5 list changes but the year after (2025) feels like alot of the project players might be moved on as they stall in the vfl

 

[Kiama Chris]

To move Cunningham to the rookie list you have to delist him first and expose him to the draft process before we can select him in the rookie draft.

Edwards doesn’t need to go onto the main list yet.

Happened with Taylor, Fox, Reid and at other clubs. Requires trust of course. My guess is we'll ask Harry and probably either Konstanty or Vickery or both. Vickery more likely to be delisted, maybe Konstanty too. Or Konstanty says "yeah, nah" and effectively delists himself.
But we need the senior list spots for the draft.
We may also need rookie spots to move delisted seniors into. Where Magor could miss out.

 

[anotherletdown]

I said it before, but everything is aligning for Parker's first game back to be the Grand Final replacing Adams.

Hamling for Logan a possibility too

 

[SM]

Its laughable how much you move the goalposts when you get found out. They wanted a high second round pick for him then we traded away pick 25 with the Dylans Stephens trade which is another example of using a pick outside the Top 40 to match value in a trade. So which one do you want. There was also 10 other trades in the 2023 offseason conducted with solely a player and pick(s) outside of pick 40. Would clubs just be letting players go for free if they were under contract and pick 40 onwards was worth nothing

What are you on about? I'm not moving anything but it's a bit crazy how personal you get so quickly in these discussions.

My point from the start has been that restricting what picks can be bundled together is sensible as the reality is no club is going to value multiple junk picks at the same level as these Academy points deals get valued. You using an example of a player who wanted out of the club and was allowed to leave for chips isn't proof that this is the case.

I never said trades for players don't happen for picks outside pick 40 and if that's what you think I was saying no wonder you think the goal posts are moving. Go back and have a re-read and simmer down.

 

[bedford]

WOW

 

[Kbroome]

What are you on about? I'm not moving anything but it's a bit crazy how personal you get so quickly in these discussions.

My point from the start has been that restricting what picks can be bundled together is sensible as the reality is no club is going to value multiple junk picks at the same level as these Academy points deals get valued. You using an example of a player who wanted out of the club and was allowed to leave for chips isn't proof that this is the case.

I never said trades for players don't happen for picks outside pick 40 and if that's what you think I was saying no wonder you think the goal posts are moving. Go back and have a re-read and simmer down.

I'll say it slowly for you so that you can understand how flawed your logic is and how it would heavily restrict player movement in the future. If you remove value out of any pick past 40 then you are basically saying that those players that are picked 40 and beyond have little to no value. Furthermore, clubs are not going to be willing to trade picks in the 40s because they hold way less value. One such example is the Swans wouldn't have done the Stephens trade in that manner because they wouldn't have wanted pick 44 which they ended up using to match Cleary. Thus we wouldn't have gotten the spare end of first rounder and probably would have just gotten another pick in the twenties or thirties for Stephens instead.

I think you could pretty easily. How often do you see teams accepting multiple picks outside top 40 for a reasonable player, as if those multiple picks equal a lower, more quality pick?

That's all pretty cool but doesn't answer my question.

We got Grundy for pick 46 in isolation because Melbourne wanted to dump his salary.

What I'm talking about is a club asking for, say, a second rounder, but instead accepting three picks in the 60s because 'adding them together is just as good as a second rounder'.

Here are your two previous tweets about this thought and both of these points got disproven. You never actually stated about them being related to matching for academy bids. So please stop trying to start arguments with me when i just logically counter your points

 

[liz]

If you remove value out of any pick past 40 then you are basically saying that those players that are picked 40 and beyond have little to no value.

It's not so much the players taken post pick 40 having little to no value as the draft picks themselves.

A draft pick gives you the right to select at a certain spot. By the time you get to the back end of the draft the draft boards of clubs have typically diverged so much that there may only be one or two other clubs interested in a player that you have your eye on. The right to pick before those clubs has some value, but a lot lot less than at the top end of the draft where most clubs would have some interest in all the players taken in those spots.

On the topic of moving the goal posts for this season, I'm reasonably indifferent, but I don't think it's that big a deal. Firstly, clubs were on notice during last year's trade period that changes were in the wind, and the (still undisclosed) changes have been brought about by clubs complaining that the existing scale is badly broken.

Secondly, there's a limit to the extent that clubs can plan ahead because they don't know where their picks are going to fall, or where those of future picks they've traded in from other clubs will fall. Case in point is Collingwood trading out their future first round pick in 2020 because they figured it would get eaten up in a bid for Nick Daicos. They assumed that pick would be somewhere in the teens, banking on a finals finish. As it turned out they traded out a very early pick. They might have been able to trade up to get a player ahead of Daicos in that draft. Or had they still traded down (because they couldn't get above where they thought a bid for Daicos would come), they would have got a lot more value for it.

 

[robbieando]

Happened with Taylor, Fox, Reid and at other clubs.

Taylor and Fox were able to be switched without being delisted due to temporary list rules during COVID. Those rules are no longer in place.

Reid was delisted and drafted in the rookie draft due to his history of injuries. I doubt that the club would would do that with Cunningham as there would be interest from elsewhere.

Think Francis, Vickery and Konstanty are the three senior listed players that will delisted to open up the space for our draft picks.

McDonald, Mitchell and Cunningham will take the final 3 list spots.

Also the rookie list is currently over subscribed having taken a pick in the MSD. Assuming we keep Hanily, delisting Reid would get us to even numbers. We would then need to delist an Arnold or Magor just to open up a rookie list spot.

There will be very few list changes this year.