List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Not interested one bit of trading anything into the future this is a significantly better draft.

Saints would have to beyond bonkers to take that deal. They won’t.

We have the 3 Academy boys we’ll have to bid on in 2025

 

[Jeffers]

I expect a text from Chad Warner

1

Chad Warner

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

3star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

1star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

2star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

4star

CL

0.0

1star

today (swans marketing team) to say he has re-signed for 3-4 years

 

[ashep]

And just like that, things are looking up.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We have the 3 Academy boys we’ll have to bid on in 2025

We have enough points as we can trade 2 years in advance starting next year.

 

[Callipygian]

Not interested one bit of trading anything into the future this is a significantly better draft.

Saints would have to beyond bonkers to take that deal. They won’t.

There are good reasons to trade into the future, even if it is a weaker draft:

1. We get a significant premium for doing it (and otherwise we don't do it).

2. We have a lot of depth on our list currently, with plenty of good players struggling to get a game. We don't need to add as much quality youth right now, who may also find themselves starved of opportunities going forward. It's better to push our draft capital forward so that we have players blooming when the likes of Heeney and Papley are approaching retirement.

3. We may need draft capital next year to pay for Academy players. (Club will have a clearer idea about this than I do.)

 

[ashep]

Any news on a press conference for Chad? What time would news usually drop?

 

[BloodySwan]

Any news on a press conference for Chad? What time would news usually drop?

Checking my text messages in the past there is no rhythm to it

 

[Callipygian]

AFL draft top 30: Ranking the best prospects set to take the league by storm

The 2024 AFL draft is right around the corner and promises to be one of the most unpredictable in years. Here are our rankings of the 30 best talents set to be drafted this year.

www.abc.net.au

Generally, I'm a big fan of ABC AFL content.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There are good reasons to trade into the future, even if it is a weaker draft:

1. We get a significant premium for doing it (and otherwise we don't do it).

2. We have a lot of depth on our list currently, with plenty of good players struggling to get a game. We don't need to add as much quality youth right now, who may also find themselves starved of opportunities going forward. It's better to push our draft capital forward so that we have players blooming when the likes of Heeney and Papley are approaching retirement.

3. We may need draft capital next year to pay for Academy players. (Club will have a clearer idea about this than I do.)

Sure for a future 1, that trade didn’t include a f1. Not interested in a f2 one bit. Teams will have to pay huge premiums to get into this years draft. North offered their future1 for picks on the teens already and have been knocked back.

We actually do need pieces this year and they are available to us- we need keys, we need a small forward and we sure need an inside midfielder.

Literally makes no sense would rather have more picks than we have this year as it is 3 is annoyingly low

 

[Kbroome]

We have enough points as we can trade 2 years in advance starting next year.

Only thing i raise to this is that if we hold this believe we create a cycling system of using picks years in advance just to cover academy boys. If we can gain marginal value from doing a trade thats gets us more points next year without massively damaging our hand this year then i would be doing it

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Only thing i raise to this is that if we hold this believe we create a cycling system of using picks years in advance just to cover academy boys. If we can gain marginal value from doing a trade thats gets us more points next year without massively damaging our hand this year then i would be doing it

We won't even need to anyway, will literally be MAYBE an extra second of 2026 that's literally it. If the bids are for arguments side pick 5, pick 20, and pick 35, we will have plenty with an extra second. We will have more than enough if a trade occurs too. Pick 35 will be matched with our third so that's fine, it's only matching the first two and an extra second does that, do it next year, it's easier. Then that's only IF these players actuually are worth that in 12 months, Edwards weas meant to be a top 20 ish pick, went in the rookie draft.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

The Hawks deal still retains our draft hand this year, and gives us an additional F1 next year

Lose: 19 and F3
Gain: 33 and F1 (linked to Carlton)

2024:
22
33
44
59

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The possible Hawks deal still retains our draft hand this year, and gives us an additional F1 next year

Lose: 19 and F3
Gain: 33 and F1 (linked to Carlton)

Pass, why are we downgrading to 33 and what's the target? Not against it but there has to be a very specific target, and we shouldn't be including our F3 at all. The going rate is 19 is worth a F1 flat and that's at a minimum. That trade seems as if we are paying overs, if we are the ones downgrading this year it should be US getting the better deal not them.

Would actually rather go to West Coast if we are thinking that way, 33 seems way too low it's close to ourt of the range for our needs. WCE have 26.

I'd be very nervous taking Carlton f1's this is a side that was top 2 until they were decimated with injuries, that pick is 30 plus next year with all the bidding.

 

[Callipygian]

Sure for a future 1, that trade didn’t include a f1. Not interested in a f2 one bit. Teams will have to pay huge premiums to get into this years draft. North offered their future1 for picks on the teens already and have been knocked back.

We actually do need pieces this year and they are available to us- we need keys, we need a small forward and we sure need an inside midfielder.

Literally makes no sense would rather have more picks than we have this year as it is 3 is annoyingly low

It's because I like this year's draft that I'm thinking of 2 2nd rounders (1 this year, 1 next) that I didn't propose a F1. That way we can still get 4 players in this draft. Of course, depends on whose future picks and which current picks. For example, I'd be happy to trade pick 22 for Bulldogs pick 25 + F2 or their 25 +35 or for West Coast's 26 + F2.

Not sure why you're saying only 3 picks this year - we have 4: 19, 22, 44, 59. The first two will be pushed back but the latter two will come in with bid matching.

Personally, I don't feel committed to taking Cochrane (other than as a rookie). There may well be other players available with our last pick that we would prefer. How would others feel if we took a different player with our last pick and another team took Cochrane?

I agree we need keys and a small forward. Not so sure about an inside mid, although they're always good to get. We have more quality inside mids outside our senior team than we do quality outside mids i.e. Adams, Sheldrick and Cleary are significantly better than Corey Warner, 'Sid' Mitchell and who else?

 

[Callipygian]

Pass, why are we downgrading to 33 and what's the target? Not against it but there has to be a very specific target, and we shouldn't be including our F3 at all. The going rate is 19 is worth a F1 flat and that's at a minimum. That trade seems as if we are paying overs, if we are the ones downgrading this year it should be US getting the better deal not them.

Would actually rather go to West Coast if we are thinking that way, 33 seems way too low it's close to ourt of the range for our needs. WCE have 26.

I'd be very nervous taking Carlton f1's this is a side that was top 2 until they were decimated with injuries, that pick is 30 plus next year with all the bidding.

You've done your maths wrong. This deal is getting us a future first AND pick 33 (which you seem to be overlooking). I think that is a fair and realistic deal and I'd wait until the pick is live, see who's available, and then do it if we didn't have anyone we loved there.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Pass, why are we downgrading to 33 and what's the target? Not against it but there has to be a very specific target, and we shouldn't be including our F3 at all. The going rate is 19 is worth a F1 flat and that's at a minimum. That trade seems as if we are paying overs, if we are the ones downgrading this year it should be US getting the better deal not them.

Would actually rather go to West Coast if we are thinking that way, 33 seems way too low it's close to ourt of the range for our needs. WCE have 26.

I'd be very nervous taking Carlton f1's this is a side that was top 2 until they were decimated with injuries, that pick is 30 plus next year with all the bidding.

Because the Hawks are likely to want to trade up as 33 is their 1st pick. They’re into Davis and Hynes so if they want them, they’ll have to pay.

Pretty sure who I think our targets might be there at 22 (26), and 33 (37)

Also a chance we may end up West Coast’s 1st next year anyways….

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It's because I like this year's draft that I'm thinking of 2 2nd rounders (1 this year, 1 next) that I didn't propose a F1. That way we can still get 4 players in this draft. Of course, depends on whose future picks and which current picks. For example, I'd be happy to trade pick 22 for Bulldogs pick 25 + F2 or their 25 +35 or for West Coast's 26 + F2.

Not sure why you're saying only 3 picks this year - we have 4: 19, 22, 44, 59. The first two will be pushed back but the latter two will come in with bid matching.

Personally, I don't feel committed to taking Cochrane (other than as a rookie). There may well be other players available with our last pick that we would prefer. How would others feel if we took a different player with our last pick and another team took Cochrane?

I agree we need keys and a small forward. Not so sure about an inside mid, although they're always good to get. We have more quality inside mids outside our senior team than we do quality outside mids i.e. Adams, Sheldrick and Cleary are significantly better than Corey Warner, 'Sid' Mitchell and who else?

See that's where we disagree, I'm not taking any deal involving next year unless it's a future 1. Look at what North have offered in trade week for their f1, they were all knocked back. Teams will have to pay significant overs to get into the first round regardless how late it is. You are proposing a trade that's fair, great for the other side, it's shocking for us, yet again we take heinous unders when we could get way more. The only way I'm trading into next year is if it's only a couple of spots down and I still wouldn't do it.

Well I don't count Cochran as a pick, wouldn't even take him until a rookie pick, I agree with you there. This is why I have said I want MORE picks this year. Use our fourth and our f3 or whatever to get up a few places above that bid. I'd ideally want 4 picks and then we can match Cochran whatever non fussed if we do or don't there, he's not in my top 60.

A key forward, a small forward, and one of a medium fwd/inside mid. I'd ideally like both of the latter two.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

HSun Code doing a live mock draft today from noon, also doing a phantom next week

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Because the Hawks are likely to want to trade up as 33 is their 1st pick. They’re into Davis and Hynes so if they want them, they’ll have to pay.

Pretty sure who I think our targets might be there at 22 (26), and 33 (37)

Also a chance we may end up West Coast’s 1st next year anyways….

That's great, then the HAWKS can offer more than the unders you have just given us. Why are we helping the Hawks out again? The trade has to be on our terms not theirs, you've given it on their terms, they would be singing from the rooftop if we ridiculously accepted that!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You've done your maths wrong. This deal is getting us a future first AND pick 33 (which you seem to be overlooking). I think that is a fair and realistic deal and I'd wait until the pick is live, see who's available, and then do it if we didn't have anyone we loved there.

The key word I disagree with is 'fair' when you are downgrading it should be on your terms, meaning you get the better deal. I actually don't have an issue with what you are saying, but we have to be getting significantly more that's my issue

 

[wolftone57]

No to Paton

I don't know anything about these young guys. Why no to Paton?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don't know anything about these young guys. Why no to Paton?

Average at best, the one bloke we better not go near

 

[Adnico26Parker]

That's great, then the HAWKS can offer more than the unders you have just given us. Why are we helping the Hawks out again? The trade has to be on our terms not theirs, you've given it on their terms, they would be singing from the rooftop if we ridiculously accepted that!

Just relaying what I’ve heard a potential deal might/may be

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just relaying what I’ve heard a potential deal might/may be

If we do this our whole recruiting team should be fired. Ridiculous unders when we hold the aces, lets sell an ace for a packet of used Twisties. Have we borrowed the Eagles recruiters or something? They would be the only one that's worse if that goes through.