List Mgmt. Analysing the 2018 trade period

Remove this Banner Ad

manpurple said:
No matter how you look at this, we absolutly got smashed on this trade. Andy is going to be a star for us and I am glad about that but this trade was just bad, start to finish.
Click to expand...

I think you got this wrong. Would you not have done the trade, that is said no to pick 2 for Weller and 41? None of us would, and that is because it was a great deal.



There’s this word that we use in poker: “resulting.” It’s a really important word. You can think about it as creating too tight a relationship between the quality of the outcome and the quality of the decision. You can’t use outcome quality as a perfect signal of decision quality, not with a small sample size anyway. I mean, certainly, if someone has gotten in 15 car accidents in the last year, I can certainly work backward from the outcome quality to their decision quality. But one accident doesn’t tell me much.-Annie Duke
 
Last edited:
Tony_Clifton said:
I think you got this wrong. Would you not have done the trade, that is said no to pick 2 for Weller and 41? None of us would, and that is because it was a great deal.



There’s this word that we use in poker: “resulting.” It’s a really important word. You can think about it as creating too tight a relationship between the quality of the outcome and the quality of the decision. You can’t use outcome quality as a perfect signal of decision quality, not with a small sample size anyway. I mean, certainly, if someone has gotten in 15 car accidents in the last year, I can certainly work backward from the outcome quality to their decision quality. But one accident doesn’t tell me much.-Annie Duke
Click to expand...

There are two trades in question. Yes we used Pick 41 in the trade for Pick 2. But it was the top up in that trade. There were other options at the time. Consequently I would say that we way over paid for Pick 41. Making Andy more expensive than required. The trade for Andy, statistically speaking, is even or slightly in GC’s favour. The trade for Pick 41 is not even close, statistically speaking.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Tony_Clifton said:
At the time we traded out pick 41 and a known quantity in Weller for pick 2.

As this is trade analysis, I disagree with looking at the eventual players. That is for drafting analysis.

Draft Guru has some interesting figures produced from 16 years of draft history. Have a look below.

AFL Draft Pick Value Comparison - All Time - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au www.draftguru.com.au

View attachment 1058652

This trade is the very definition of a win.

It's similar to playing poker, you gotta play the long game, winning an individual hand doesn't mean you made the correct play. It's easy to learn the wrong lesson by looking at the individual result.
Click to expand...

I would go with Bridge rather than poker as my cards example.

The end of season period is about both the trade and the draft. 80% of the faces at the trade table are the same ones on draft night.

More importantly teams trade up and down based on their targeted specific players or player range. Just think of us trading to get Serong. Teams trade because they want draft outcomes. No other reason.

A good bridge player knows what cards his or her partner has so they plan winning the match not just a hand or two. In my opinion you can’t seperate the trade from it resulting value on the field.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

manpurple said:
The trade for Pick 41 is not even close, statistically speaking.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

To make it simpler let's just say it was Crozier for pick 41, rather than adding in the extra smallchange going either way.



1613538059850.png

According to the 16 yrs of data up till 2008* courtesy of stats guru that pick 40 had a 1 in 2 chance of being a wash and a 1 in 3 chance to play 100 games. A one in 7 chance of playing 200 games and a 1 in 9 chance of being an AA.

We traded Crozier at the end of 2017 where he finished with a price of 344k. That's the output of a Tom Cole or Taylin Duman. He was 24 yrs old at the time so we could expect another 4 or 5 yrs at about the same price before losing his place. He spent six years on the list and for a few years we were hoping he would have a breakout year and fully cement his spot. By the end of 2017 we were less optimistic of him having a breakout year.

So, given the option of holding a player with Duman's output for 4.5 years, or trading for a pick with that will probably end up slightly worse than Duman(but has a a 1 in 7 chance of playing 200 games and a 1 in 9 chance of being an AA) seems reasonable. Even if the pick doesn't play 1 game we can still cover the output of a 2017 Crozier from within the squad.


But of course he did go on to find a nieche at the Bulldogs and jumped 100k to end 2018 at 450k. Would he have done that at Freo? I'm not so sure.

So the Bullies' trade paid dividends for them. Crozier has played 54 games at a SC price of about $410,000. He is currently 27 so probably has 3 more years at 410k before sliding off. Other players around but not quite at the 400k mark are, Willow, Hughes, Cuddles and Jackson Nelson. His 2020 contempories are solid players but not exactly world beaters. Assuming he plays all 22 games aa season this puts him at 110 games at the Bulldogs as a solid $410000ish player mark.

So they get 110 games at 410k. From stats guru again, the chance of picking a 100 gamer was 1 in 3 so the bullies have done well. All the same it's not much skin off our nose as Crozier's destiny at Freo post 2017 wasn't looking especially rosy. I'd be so bold to call this a win-win.
 

Attachments

  • 1613536126737.png
    1613536126737.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 56
  • 1613536179716.png
    1613536179716.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 55
  • 1613537804073.png
    1613537804073.png
    3 KB · Views: 55
Picks are only part of it. Crowley emerged via a coach who valued a ruthless tagger. Players like Treacy may end up forging a career because there is an opportunity at our club, whereas Sam Collins found himself in a queue with little chance of getting ahead. Duman and Watson may find opportunities impossible to find now that Chapman and O’Driscoll have joined the squad, whereas the draft may have fallen quite differently and the club ended up with Cox and Neale.

The thing with Crozier is he has taken the opportunity that presented itself. We just delisted a few talented players who failed to do that.
 
Now to address Andy. It seems we don't have an issue that Andy will produce just as many SC points over his career as Lachie Weller. That is even before taking into account the three developing seasons at Freo where Lachie played 47 games at a price of around $340k.

The issue at stake is the pick 40. Let's have a look at the same table as before but with medians instead of averages.

1613539722679.png

The median career games is 39.5. That is someone who never solidified a spot in the team. Has a better than average chance of not recieving even 1 career brownlow vote. However, there is a 1 in 3 chance he turns into a solid player, 1 in 7 of being a club stalwart and a 1 in of being an AA.

So, the question becomes, will pick 2 outperform both Weller's 2018 and onwards hypothesised career output(should he have stayed at Freo post 2017), AND the output we could expect from a pick 41.

I'm quite comfortable it was the right call.

Sure, GC seemed to have done well with Ballard but that was half luck.
Here are the picks from Charlie Ballard at 42 to 50.

Charlie Ballard
Connor Ballenden
Hugh Dixon
James Worpel
Ben Paton
Sam Hayes
Oskar Baker
Jordan Houlihan
Tyler Brown
 
Last edited:
manpurple said:
I would go with Bridge rather than poker as my cards example.

The end of season period is about both the trade and the draft. 80% of the faces at the trade table are the same ones on draft night.

More importantly teams trade up and down based on their targeted specific players or player range. Just think of us trading to get Serong. Teams trade because they want draft outcomes. No other reason.

A good bridge player knows what cards his or her partner has so they plan winning the match not just a hand or two. In my opinion you can’t seperate the trade from it resulting value on the field.
Click to expand...

This is true, I remember other clubs desperate to get in the top 3 in 2009 which went 1. Scully, 2. Trengove, 3. DUSTY, 4.Morabito.
I remember this distinctly because we held pick 4 and that was of little interest when people wanted one of Scully, Trengove and Martin.

in 2017, there was no general consensus about where players would land and Gold Coast's next pick was 19. Latest of latemails on the day having Cerra pushing up . I myself joined in the groupthink and would have selected Darcy Fogarty and LDU. Neither Gold Coast or ourselves were jockeying to land someone in particular at pick 41. And even if we were it looks like it would have been Dixon.

So, we got what we wanted in pick 2. Gold Coast's first pick in 2017 was will powell at 19.
I do not believe it would have been possible to get anything ebetter than what we did. To say other wise would prove you to be Dodoro.
 
Tony_Clifton said:
This is true, I remember other clubs desperate to get in the top 3 in 2009 which went 1. Scully, 2. Trengove, 3. DUSTY, 4.Morabito.
I remember this distinctly because we held pick 4 and that was of little interest when people wanted one of Scully, Trengove and Martin.

in 2017, there was no general consensus about where players would land and Gold Coast's next pick was 19. Latest of latemails on the day having Cerra pushing up . I myself joined in the groupthink and would have selected Darcy Fogarty and LDU. Neither Gold Coast or ourselves were jockeying to land someone in particular at pick 41. And even if we were it looks like it would have been Dixon.

So, we got what we wanted in pick 2. Gold Coast's first pick in 2017 was will powell at 19.
I do not believe it would have been possible to get anything ebetter than what we did. To say other wise would prove you to be Dodoro.
Click to expand...
All in hindsight but O Allen and Kelly were available at 19.

O Allen was a slider and most had him in around pick 13.
 
The last of the individual trade reviews.


2017 Trade 28
In the last and easily the most one sided trade Freo made in 2017 we had another player with that queasy feeling in their stomach and a hankering for mum's cooking. More synically I suspect most are suffering from wallet emptyitis. Fortunately it was Matera who had that feeling and Freo was his destination of choice. So we waved goodbye to our future round 3 pick, picked up our boots and went home from the trade spectacle.

From day one Matera proved a frustration to Freo fans who always wanted a bit more from the small forward who seemed to define mercurial. Looking over the numbers his average contribution of 60.1 SC points per game is just low in my opinion. Still he gave us 43 games and 2585 SC points before the powers that be decided enough was enough and delisted him.

Gold Coast wasn’t as fortunate. They traded that future R3 pick, which I believe ended life as Pick 44, to Brisbane in 2018’s fourth trade. It was a pick frenzy with seven picks changing hands. None of which GC held onto. Pick 24 became 27 before being sent to West Coast as part of trade 44. GC then took Jez, McLennan who is yet to be sighted in the wild and a future round 5 West Coast pick (yep that’s a 2019 pick for those counting). Back in trade 4 GC also picked up pick 27, which got sent to Geelong as GC sort talent. The meagre output George Horlin-Smith offered suggested they didn’t succeed. Still they did get a late pick, 80. Except those junk time picks seem to be more and more useless as the AFL limits the number of picks teams take to draft night. 2018 P80 never surfaced after the trade, neither did 2019’s WC round 5 pick.

All that is to say that after count back’s and proportional distribution GC weighed in with 2 games and 85 SC points confirming this as the most one sided trade Freo had in 2017.
 
manpurple said:
Just think of us trading to get Serong. Teams trade because they want draft outcomes. No other reason.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like we knew Serong was going to be such a gun and traded up to get him, this works out nicely as Serong has over performed but it isn't the truth.

We traded up so we could get the two early picks in before Henry was bid on. We traded for 1 shot at a player available after the first 7 had been chosen. That is, players potentially available at pick 8. Rowell, Anderson were known to be off the table. Melbourne said early they wanted Luke Jackson (not sure if that was as early as the final day of trading. During trade week, we would have had an inkling who will probably be available and where a bid might come in for Henry. After Lu.ke Jackson at 3 to Mel it went Lachlan Ash, Dylan Stephens, Fisher McCasey, Hayden Young and then Serong.

We traded 10, 28 and a 4th rounder, to move 10 up to 8. That was because we were paranoid of bids on Henry. When Carlton did bid on Henry it was reported they were playing silly buggers and were looking for extra time. Bidding on Green next kinda validates this.
 
eastfreo75 said:
All in hindsight but O Allen and Kelly were available at 19.

O Allen was a slider and most had him in around pick 13.
Click to expand...
You mean after we blew everyone's minds by reaming them for pick 2 there was a possibility that we should have asked for 19 aswell. This being on the notion we had identified Oscar Allen as our absolute target and knew on the night he would slide.

Will reply later tonight, have been enjoying the topic too much.
 
Tony_Clifton said:
You mean after we blew everyone's minds by reaming them for pick 2 there was a possibility that we should have asked for 19 aswell. This being on the notion we had identified Oscar Allen as our absolute target and knew on the night he would slide.

Will reply later tonight, have been enjoying the topic too much.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Fremantle had no idea that Allen would slide and that Kelly would star like he did.

Hindsight is 20 20 but in saying that nobody saw 2020 coming.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Enjoying this thread. One question I do have - do posters think the Liam Henry deficit had much impact in the end on who we would have taken with our first selection last year? We picked Chapman with 14. If we had no deficit or a smaller one and had pick 11 or 12, would we have still picked Chappy or gone for someone like Tanner Bruhn?
 
Dockeroo said:
ke Tanner Bruhn
Click to expand...

With no deficit we would have had Carlton's pick at 10 before they traded it to Essendon (Carlton would have had pick 11). I think it would have been a toss up between Reid or Chapman. I like to think we still would have picked Chapman as the local and safer option (as he got to play footy in 2020).

In hindsight the deficit hasn't seemed to have been too detrimental.
 
Dockeroo said:
Enjoying this thread. One question I do have - do posters think the Liam Henry deficit had much impact in the end on who we would have taken with our first selection last year? We picked Chapman with 14. If we had no deficit or a smaller one and had pick 11 or 12, would we have still picked Chappy or gone for someone like Tanner Bruhn?
Click to expand...
Lucky we got the player we want and it worked out ok.

The bigger issue was the 2020second round pick we traded with Port to soft the points Shortage.
 
Dockeroo said:
Enjoying this thread. One question I do have - do posters think the Liam Henry deficit had much impact in the end on who we would have taken with our first selection last year? We picked Chapman with 14. If we had no deficit or a smaller one and had pick 11 or 12, would we have still picked Chappy or gone for someone like Tanner Bruhn?
Click to expand...
Fantastic question, I imagine we would've picked Tanner and then had to put Suma onmute.
 
Tony_Clifton said:
You make it sound like we knew Serong was going to be such a gun and traded up to get him, this works out nicely as Serong has over performed but it isn't the truth.
Click to expand...
Not quite. We traded because we wanted him. His performance justifies our opinion. But we have traded in the past becasue we wanted a different player who did not prove a justified target. Certainly this is normal in the post season period. You want a player. You trade to make that reality. You find out if you wasted your time and picks or you got it right.

Getting the post season right is hard. No question.
 
Dockeroo said:
Enjoying this thread. One question I do have - do posters think the Liam Henry deficit had much impact in the end on who we would have taken with our first selection last year? We picked Chapman with 14. If we had no deficit or a smaller one and had pick 11 or 12, would we have still picked Chappy or gone for someone like Tanner Bruhn?
Click to expand...
IMHO it's too early to tell.

We might get out of jail with Treacy in the KPF department which was our greatest need, given we were due to get speed through the acadame players. Pick 11 or 12 might have made it more likely we traded up the draft to secure a quality KPF and this was definately my preference to 2020. Given that Henry is supposed to be a speedy small forward I am dubious as to his value. Yes he is a genuine tallent and has pace but his 3 games to date have only given him a SC score per game of 34.3. Admittedly HFF's don't typically score well in any of the fantasy systems but we are talking about an extra couple of disposals or tackles as a correction. They also theroretically have time for high disposal efficency as an offset. So we are talking about 4 or 5 points as an ajustment. It's still third round pick territory, late second at best. We need him to play 100+ games with a SC score per game in the 70+ range to justify his pick. Hopefully he comes good and justifies the hopes but contribution to date hasn't been there.

Still we took Chapman, in my thinking, because he was the best tall available. He like, most of our talls wants to play as a defender. IMHO this will result in either reduced games for Chapman because he is surplus to needs or else someone else's games will fall for the same reason. Generally everyone here was happy with the tall defensive stocks so there is no "replacing underperformers" type of scenario. Consequently someone's percieved value will fall leading to cheap trades or early delisting.

As I said before it's way too early to tell but L.Henry looks very expensive to me. On the plus side, this scenario was great for club PR.
 
Summarising Freo's 2017 Trade Period
Back in 2017 I saw things playing out differently. I, like others, assumed that Matera would be good, was thrilled with Wilson and hoped we would get LDU at 2 (thank God the drafting team wasn’t listening to me). I was disappointed to loose Crozier and Weller but I wasn’t one who cried at the loss of Balik. Working out who gave us what grade is completely overshadowed by the overarching opinion that we fleeced Gold Coast on the Weller deal. For that reason alone we probably rated an A in the minds of commentators.

Fast forward three years and even though we recorded 2 wins, the Weller trade has turned out to be a much more even affair. When combined with a draw and a loss we would seem to have come back to the pack a bit. Brayshaw turned out better than I foresaw and when combined with rest of those who came in as a result of trading we have scraped 70.2 SC points per game played. That is probably our biggest cause for optimism as many of those points were contributed by young players with no right to the scores they produced.

Matera never quite reached the numbers we needed and the more I look at it the more I come to believe that 70 SC points per game is kind of a pass mark for an experienced player coming across. Aish is a story for 2019 but 65 SC points per game before trade and 81 after tells it’s own story. Any draftee averaging 50+ SC points over his first 5 games should have gone round 2 or earlier. Those who crack 70 rate a top 5 spot (Brayshaw) even if you didn’t get it (Switkowski and Serong).

That all said Wilson is a defender and they score lower than mids so watching him hold up the back line with Ryan for the last 3 yrs, whilst our strength and conditioning forgot the conditioning part, is perhaps the biggest win of the 2017 trade. He played 54 games out of 61 at an average of 74.4 SC points per game. So with that in mind I rate 2017 as a B+.
 
manpurple said:
As I said before it's way too early to tell but L.Henry looks very expensive to me. On the plus side, this scenario was great for club PR.
Click to expand...

TBF Liam Henry was carrying an injury and didn't get a preseason or competitive WAFL games to build match fitness. The return from those few games shouldn't be an indication of his value.
 
Purple_Turtle said:
TBF Liam Henry was carrying an injury and didn't get a preseason or competitive WAFL games to build match fitness. The return from those few games shouldn't be an indication of his value.
Click to expand...
I agree. But Morabito is a good example here. Hope vs Reality. We need to see Henry on the park to realise his value.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. Analysing the 2018 trade period

Similar threads

King Huskii
Autopsy Grade our 2024 draft
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
fnerd
F
BarbieITFC
Autopsy Season 2024 - end of season gradings
Replies
23
Views
2K
ROGS
R
go_the_dockers
Game Day 2024 Trade Period - Lian Yu - that liminal space between trade and draft.
358 359 360 361 362
Replies
9K
Views
275K
Paracleet
Paracleet
go_the_dockers
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management thread - Trade Targets
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
6K
yakamoto
Y
Gimme the Fyfe
Game tickets/Resale/Trade
Replies
8
Views
805
freo_leo29
freo_leo29
apuchar
Strategy WE MUST TRADE EVERYONE
Replies
14
Views
1K
Bicco
Bicco
s_wd6
WE MUST TRADE RYAN
Replies
14
Views
959
Big Animal
Big Animal

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top