Trade Requested Bailey Smith [reportedly headed to Geelong]

[CatToTheFuture]

I can’t see a recruiter ever taking the view that there’s negligible difference in value between pick 11 and pick 25 in any draft. The trades made every single year bear that out.

I'm not saying negligible, just that the 6-7ish pick difference between 12-13 and 19-20 in this draft is worth the 2nd we'd chuck in

 

[Pure_Ownage]

You do realise that the flow-on effect of "power to the players" is the players congregating at the biggest clubs. It's hardly as if the player power losses to clubs are evenly distributed.

I agree but he's right in that the aflpa and not the clubs themselves are the ones driving it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Unfortunately he’s not the first or he won’t be the last player that screws over clubs. We lost Dawson for a packet of used Twisties because of this.

Whilst I recon two firsts is fair with something back so let’s say pick 20 plus (12-16 ish next year) seems fair with a swap in the second/third round to balance it. The swap going Cats way.

Geelong won't trade the future 1st it's too much risk for a player where we don't have to trade the future 1st. There will be other pick swaps but it won't involve that.

 

[Pencil case]

Must drafts i would say yes. This draft specifically i would say not a big difference. The pick is currently 17 with FA compo and unlikely any more FAZ band ones come through. Ashcroft and Lombard will get bids with an outside chance of Kako but I think unlikely. The pick will be 19 or 20 i think

Berry available at 12 would entice the Dogs.

Hannaford would be their next target and he’d be right around that 20 range, which was fine before band ones but now it’ll make them nervous holding Cats first.

 

[Bulldogs85]

This thread will be legendary when it’s all said and done with all the carrying on. Yes their will be a stand off but the trade will get done at the end of the day

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Unfortunately he’s not the first or he won’t be the last player that screws over clubs. We lost Dawson for a packet of used Twisties because of this.

Whilst I recon two firsts is fair with something back so let’s say pick 20 plus (12-16 ish next year) seems fair with a swap in the second/third round to balance it. The swap going Cats way.

The twisties were USED? Christ that’s grim.

 

[The Inbetweener]

I'm not saying negligible, just that the 6-7ish pick difference between 12-13 and 19-20 in this draft is worth the 2nd we'd chuck in

Based on recent live trading a 2nd rounder is worth moving up 1 or 2 spots in the 1st round. 2 x 2nds would be closer to the mark.

 

[TiAn_]

I'm not saying negligible, just that the 6-7ish pick difference between 12-13 and 19-20 in this draft is worth the 2nd we'd chuck in

At last year’s draft teams used better second round picks just to move from 11 to 10 and 18 to 17.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

That’s 20, and Kako will go before you think he’s the prototype of today’s football goes between 10-15. Pick 20 is not enough, add your f1 in at least. Then have a swap here and there.

Exactly why these draft rules should have come in this year (trading 2 years in advance). If I were the Dogs I’d be happy with this years first plus a 2027 first rounder if these rules were in. They come in next season

Kako is good for sure but academy kids slip. Gulden went in the 30s and everyone knew he was a gun. Maybe it's different because clubs spent more time on him thinking he was available this year but I think it's 50/50

I probably view Geelong's first next year as being worth a lot more than most here too because I'm not going with the recency bias people have from seeing us in a prelim. We had a good injury run this year and finished 3rd, we had a bad one last year and finished 12th. Bailey Smith is good but I don't think covers the depth we are losing and our structure requires an uncomfortable number of 34 year olds to perform.

I think everyone has a reasonable opinion based on their view of their club, I just think some are panicking a bit.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Based on recent live trading a 2nd rounder is worth moving up 1 or 2 spots in the 1st round. 2 x 2nds would be closer to the mark.

One or two spots in the top ten sure but in this draft I think the incentive to move up will be diminished by the depth available. Others may disagree.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

At last year’s draft teams used better second round picks just to move from 11 to 10 and 18 to 17.

Yeah but last years draft is not this years draft

 

[TiAn_]

Yeah but last years draft is not this years draft

The year before last the Hawks gave up a second and a third to move from 27 to 18 and the year before that Port gave up a second to move from 14 to 12…

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The year before last the Hawks gave up a second and a third to move from 27 to 18 and the year before that Port gave up a second to move from 14 to 12…

Yeah true but these are different drafts and I can't see a great deal of difference driving the value change here compared to what there was then. Year before last single digit picks were being thrown away as steak knives so depth can change dramatically.

 

[TiAn_]

Yeah true but these are different drafts and I can't see a great deal of difference driving the value change here compared to what there was then.

I think when you can go back a number of years and the value is that consistent its telling us something.

Year before last single digit picks were being thrown away as steak knives so depth can change dramatically.

What are you referring to here?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I think when you can go back a number of years and the value is that consistent its telling us something.



What are you referring to here?

Yeah but drafts aren't aren't the same.

referring to the draft the Bowes trade was in. Where does Jhye Clark or Rueben Ginbey sit in this draft? Because it's not the top 10

 

[Ross]

Using live trades to gauge the value of a pick is a bit disingenuous. Clubs give up better picks than they would during the trade period because they're trading for a very specific player that's still available in the draft.

Essendon didn't trade us a second rounder to move up one spot last year because they wanted the privilege of having a top ten pick, they did it because they wanted to pick Nate Caddy and were willing to offer a second round pick to ensure they got him. They'd have never offered such a deal before the draft.

 

[TiAn_]

Yeah but drafts aren't aren't the same.

referring to the draft the Bowes trade was in. Where does Jhye Clark or Rueben Ginbey sit in this draft? Because it's not the top 10

Haha c’mon man the Bowes trade? You can’t put that debacle up against years of actually relevant evidence to the contrary.

Using live trades to gauge the value of a pick is a bit disingenuous. Clubs give up better picks than they would during the trade period because they're trading for a very specific player that's still available in the draft.

Essendon didn't trade us a second rounder to move up one spot last year because they wanted the privilege of having a top ten pick, they did it because they wanted to pick Nate Caddy and were willing to offer a second round pick to ensure they got him. They'd have never offered such a deal before the draft.

What you’re suggesting in valuing picks by trades that didn’t happen rather than what they were actually traded for is disingenuous. Weird way of looking at it.

 

[supahoops]

Honestly think if Geelong don't pay up the draft is a real threat here. Power won't cave in and given Smith being an utter flog of late then there's no desire to help him

So we take him with our R1 in the draft, sweet.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Haha c’mon man the Bowes trade? You can’t put that debacle up against years of actually relevant evidence to the contrary.



What you’re suggesting in valuing picks by trades that didn’t happen rather than what they were actually traded for is disingenuous. Weird way of looking at it.

Forget the trade, look at the names, which incidentally is why the pick was available in the first place.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So we take him with our R1 in the draft, sweet.

If Geelong don't pay up, Dogs fans would be fine with this, because we understand that it's far more risky for Geelong than Geelong fans are pretending than it is, even with their fans' confidence in situations like this. What you suggest isn't smooth at all, with a multitude of possibilities (however unrealistic, it's not zero), that either involve Smith not making his way to Geelong or otherwise Smith making his way to Geelong but in a way that's harmful to Smith and Geelong's relationship.

And to maximise your trade haul, you have to be sincere in your willingness to walk away.

 

[Pencil case]

So we take him with our R1 in the draft, sweet.

Geelong’s list management team would be sweating buckets if this happened, along with losing (further) respect from player managers etc for trading in poor faith.

Geelong won’t let it come to that you’d think, neither will Dogs, but the threat is very real.

Hopefully whatever happens, it gets done on Monday and both clubs can be somewhat satisfied.

 

[supahoops]

Geelong’s list management team would be sweating buckets if this happened, along with losing (further) respect from player managers etc for trading in poor faith.

Geelong won’t let it come to that you’d think, neither will Dogs, but the threat is very real.

Hopefully whatever happens, it gets done on Monday and both clubs can be somewhat satisfied.

Pretty sure you have more to lose on both fronts tbh

 

[TiAn_]

Forget the trade, look at the names, which incidentally is why the pick was available in the first place.

Clark has been a disappointment but at the time it was being compared to the Selwood pick. That draft wasn’t viewed as so poor as to render top 10 picks steaknives, like you suggested. The Bowes deal was only done because they desperately needed his $1.6M off their books and sold the farm to do it. It’s basically useless as a guide for the cost to trade up from say 20 to 12 in any other scenario.

 

[Ross]

What you’re suggesting in valuing picks by trades that didn’t happen rather than what they were actually traded for is disingenuous. Weird way of looking at it.

All I was suggesting is clubs are more open to trading second rounders to move up one or two slots when they know they'll be getting a specific player through a live trade than they would to just get a pick. That said, list vacancies and academy and F/S stuff can distort the value of picks during trade week as well. Dees traded 14, 27 and 35 for 11 last year but that was because they were only using two picks in the draft. We did similar in 2022, we only used two picks and traded several picks to Brisbane for their Ashcroft points so we could get a better pick to trade for Ollie Henry.

FWIW, I've been reluctantly fine with giving up two firsts all along. I'm also not trying to say our R1 and R2 are exactly equal to Dan Hanneberry's pick 12 valuation either (also not sure why anybody cares about Hanneberry's opinions either but this thread seemed to suddenly get a bit nasty after that was posted, like pick 12 had somehow now became Smith's exact value).

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Clark has been a disappointment but at the time it was being compared to the Selwood pick. That draft wasn’t viewed as so poor as to render top 10 picks steaknives, like you suggested. The Bowes deal was only done because they desperately needed his $1.6M off their books and sold the farm to do it. It’s basically useless as a guide for the cost to trade up from say 20 to 12 in any other scenario.

The selwood comparison was only ever at how hard he cracked into the contest. No one seriously thought he'd be an actual selwood replacement. There is a reason the suns were happy to lose it.

The point is that every draft is is a completely different set of players and the numbers mean different things in different years. Bo Allen will likely be around the first we give you but I don't think he's any worse than Ginbey (pick 9)