List Mgmt. 2024 National Draft - November 20-21

[Jen2310]

 

[celestial]

Those picks were used for points to match bids for Reid and Rogers. Try again.

But st Kilda gained pick 27 which became 28 after the trade.

 

[Jen2310]

Think we need to add Lor's spreadsheet here.

If someone can pin it? Anzacday Maggie5 Gone Critical jathanas ^

 

[Jen2310]

Think you’re underestimating the bids for Kako and Marshall tbh. Essendon traded pick 9 because they’re expecting a bid earlier than that and Marshall at 20 would be a ridiculous steal. I don’t think Vic clubs would let Brisbane get away without paying full whack given the ire surrounding the northern academies now.

Looking at the spreadsheet above, wouldn't essendon's, Brisbane's picks disappear when matching? Or at least some of them? Suns have 3 picks before ours.

 

[Maggie5]

Think we need to add Lor's spreadsheet here.

If someone can pin it? Anzacday Maggie5 Gone Critical jathanas ^

You asked and it is done!

 

[Apex36]

But st Kilda gained pick 27 which became 28 after the trade.

You’re completely missing the point, which is that none of the clubs who need points except maybe Brisbane, are short on them now. That aside, the only 2 clubs that need points who have picks in the 20’s are Brisbane and Essendon. There are other clubs who have picks that will yeild more points than we have, and our picks aren’t going to move up the order until their bids are done anyway so it makes no sense for them to trade with us.

This theory of yours sounds wonderful but as soon as any basic logic is applied to it, it falls over.

 

[nahnah]

Urquhart? Isn’t he the bloke who’s better than Pendles

 

[Pedro]

Urquhart? Isn’t he the bloke who’s better than Pendles

No pressure

 

[sr36]

In 2023 afl draft, st Kilda made a live trade with gold coast,
St kilda got - pick 27
GC got - pick 40 and 42

so this is a clear possibility for collingwood, especially once our picks come into the 40's. Anyone who rubbishes such a possibility can read it and weep.

You need to understand the context of that trade.

GC had 5 players to match. You can only take in as many picks as you have list spots. So they had to take pretty good picks in to match with. Once they matched their first player, they had more list spots than picks, so they were able to trade picks down to increase their matching points

They went into that draft planning to trade down for matching points. They weren't doing it to have an extra pick.

No one appears to be in that situation this year

 

[Apex36]

Looking at the spreadsheet above, wouldn't essendon's, Brisbane's picks disappear when matching? Or at least some of them? Suns have 3 picks before ours.

All of Brisbanes should, and I think they’ll probably end up splitting 27 for a pick in the 30’s and one in the 40’s from either the dogs, port or StKilda so that would be 4 picks coming back in.
Gold Coast will use theirs on Lombard, so would bring the order in another 2 before our picks, that’s 6.
Essendon have way too many points even for a bid at pick 8 for Kako, so their most likely play is to trade 28 and 31 in to 2025 picks and then use their remaining picks to match bringing our first pick forward 1 (7 total) and our next two picks in 1 or 2. I have a feeling that the Camporeale twins won’t affect the order for us.

So unless I’m way off our first pick might come in from 52 to about 45, and then we might end up with 47 and 48 after bid matching from Brisbane, Essendon and GC, working on the assumption that Kako is bid on at pick 8.

Don’t hold me to this though because it’s Friday and my brain is mush right now.

 

[celestial]

You’re completely missing the point, which is that none of the clubs who need points except maybe Brisbane, are short on them now. That aside, the only 2 clubs that need points who have picks in the 20’s are Brisbane and Essendon. There are other clubs who have picks that will yeild more points than we have, and our picks aren’t going to move up the order until their bids are done anyway so it makes no sense for them to trade with us.

This theory of yours sounds wonderful but as soon as any basic logic is applied to it, it falls over.

You are assuming that teams know exactly where and when the bids are going to come. Last years live trading shows that teams can misjudge the no of points they need. It can and probably will happen in this years draft, as it has happened in previous drafts.
This isnt a theory, it is based on probability that one of the teams will be left scrambling for points as they had to deal with an earlier than expected bid.

Would be extremely foolish and idiotic to think that clubs don’t play mind games with teams that have to match bids.

 

[Apex36]

You are assuming that teams know exactly where and when the bids are going to come. Last years live trading shows that teams can misjudge the no of points they need. It can and probably will happen in this years draft, as it has happened in previous drafts.
This isnt a theory, it is based on probability that one of the teams will be left scrambling for points as they had to deal with an earlier than expected bid.

Would be extremely foolish and idiotic to think that clubs don’t play mind games with teams that have to match bids.

Read sr36 ’s pot regarding GC’s “pick scramble” last year. It was planned they didn’t misjudge anything, in fact they played it absolutely perfectly.

 

[celestial]

You need to understand the context of that trade.

GC had 5 players to match. You can only take in as many picks as you have list spots. So they had to take pretty good picks in to match with. Once they matched their first player, they had more list spots than picks, so they were able to trade picks down to increase their matching points

They went into that draft planning to trade down for matching points. They weren't doing it to have an extra pick.

No one appears to be in that situation this year

I used that example to talk about the value required to move two picks in the 40's to get up to a pick in the low 20's. Wasn't talking about the context if the trade. Yes there are two scenarios in which a team trades down - acquire more picks to pick more players or trading down to get more points. My example was merely referring to a trade value in general rather than the context of the trade.

 

[sr36]

I used that example to talk about the value required to move two picks in the 40's to get up to a pick in the low 20's. Wasn't talking about the context if the trade. Yes there are two scenarios in which a team trades down - acquire more picks to pick more players or trading down to get more points. My example was merely referring to a trade value in general rather than the context of the trade.

The value is related to the context. No one is doing that trade for picks, they're only doing that trade for matching points.

Adding two of ours together might get us up a few spots in the draft if there's someone available we like, it won't get us up 20 spots unless someone needs matching piints and that context doesn't look likely this year.

 

[sr36]

Unless I was matching points wrong, getting discounts wrong or getting anything else wrong, the theory that our picks will "come in with bids" appears to be a bit of a myth.

Other than trading up - say packaging 3 picks into 2, or 2 into 1 - or bids coming earlier than expected... I did a very quick phantom today (not taking into account tema list needs etc) and we ended up selecting at 51 and 54.

I think Leppa is talking available players rather actual draft number, because that's what they'd be valuing picks on.

I think he's saying that 10 picks before ours will be used for matching. In that case our pick number won't have reduced by 10, because we dont only move up due to picks being used to match, we also move down a spot for each player that is matched. But will will have moved into the 40s in terms of available players

 

[Jen2310]

Dont mind this if we take 2, but I feel like given our need for more mids or another small forward now richards is gone and jamie doesn't have long left. I feel like we'll use all three.

Round 3

Pick 40. Sydney: Jaxon Artemis (South Fremantle, 187 cm, HB/OM)

Pick 41. Geelong: Josh Murphy (MB, 190 cm, MF).

Pick 42. Essendon: James Barrat (BP, 193 cm, MD).

Pick 43. St. Kilda: Thomas Sims (NK, 199 cm, KPF/Ruck).

Pick 44. Western Bulldogs: Xavier Ivisic (GF, 180 cm, IM).

Pick 45. Carlton: Lucas Camporeale (GL, 184 cm, HB). Port Adelaide bid pick 45, Carlton match 150 points with pick 55 (207) and add to their surplus to make it 156 points.

Pick 46. Adelaide: Tyler Welsh (Woodville-West Torrens, 191 cm, MF). Port Adelaide bid pick 46, Adelaide match 134 points with pick 56 (194) and gain a 60 point surplus.

Pick 47. Port Adelaide: Archer Day-Wicks (BP, 186 cm, SF/OM).

Pick 48. Collingwood: Harry O'Farrell (CC, 196 cm, KPD).

Pick 49. West Coast: Malakai Champion (Subiaco, 172 cm, SF). Essendon bid with pick 49, West Coast match 90 points with pick 64 (101) and go into a 11 point surplus.

Pick 50. Essendon: Ned Bowman (Norwood, 186 cm, MF).

Pick 51. Essendon: Pass

Pick 51. Collingwood: Charlie Nicholls (Central District, 197 cm, KPF).

Pick 52. Greater Western Sydney: Jasper Alger (OC, 183 cm, SF/OM).

Pick 53. Geelong: Rhys Unwin (GWV, 178 cm, SF)

Pick 54. Collingwood: Pass

Pick 54. Sydney: Sam Davidson (Richmond VFL, 180 cm, OM)

 

[Soups]

Urquhart? Isn’t he the bloke who’s better than Pendles

Wonder what Gav is up to these days

 

[satanshoof101]

Dont mind this if we take 2, but I feel like given our need for more mids or another small forward now richards is gone and jamie doesn't have long left. I feel like we'll use all three.

Old mate also has Mraz at 58, personally find Nicholls awkward and one dimensional.

 

[Jen2310]

Old mate also has Mraz at 58, personally find Nicholls awkward and one dimensional.

You would think if Mraz is anywhere near our picks, we'll take him; given we had a good look at him during preseason.
I looked at some highlights of nichols and I wonder if he is the sort of forward we'd be after.

 

[ksardog]

Old mate also has Mraz at 58, personally find Nicholls awkward and one dimensional.

And just going by Nicholls highlights, he is a terrible kick for goal

 

[Harry O]

You need to understand the context of that trade.

GC had 5 players to match. You can only take in as many picks as you have list spots. So they had to take pretty good picks in to match with. Once they matched their first player, they had more list spots than picks, so they were able to trade picks down to increase their matching points

They went into that draft planning to trade down for matching points. They weren't doing it to have an extra pick.

No one appears to be in that situation this year

We would have to hope the unusual depth of this draft and very even from 30 - 60 might prompt one club to prefer 2 later picks hoping they would still get the players they want

 

[sr36]

We would have to hope the unusual depth of this draft and very even from 30 - 60 might prompt one club to prefer 2 later picks hoping they would still get the players they want

Moving up a few picks is a possibility. We'll probably make offers if it's getting close to our pick and there's a bloke left we rate well above the rest. But we're not going to be able to move up 20 picks - we just don't have the chips to do that - or any club in the situation where they'd trade to us for points.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not following this thread too closely so forgive if this has been asked.

Assuming we have three vacancies and likely only take two picks to the draft.

One option is obviously trading two picks in the 50s to move up a few spots ( maybe 5-6, exoecting a massive move up 20 spots is nonsense). Any gain up the order is better than burning the pick with a pass.

But would another option be trading one of these picks for a F3 ?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Not following this thread too closely so forgive if this has been asked.

Assuming we have three vacancies and likely only take two picks to the draft.

One option is obviously trading two picks in the 50s to move up a few spots ( maybe 5-6, exoecting a massive move up 20 spots is nonsense). Any gain up the order is better than burning the pick with a pass.

But would another option be trading one of these picks for a F3 ?

I doubt anyone is going to trade a future 3rd for a pick in the 50s. At that point they'd probably just back themselves to get whoever at the point in the draft that teams start passing anyway.

 

[Ugene41]

I doubt anyone is going to trade a future 3rd for a pick in the 50s. At that point they'd probably just back themselves to get whoever at the point in the draft that teams start passing anyway.

I think Brisbane would. They still need more points to match Marshall after matching Ashcroft