Trade Requested Bailey Smith [reportedly headed to Geelong]

[TiAn_]

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).

Yeah the known quantity gives teams more certainty but I think likewise teams also hold picks until the draft to see who is available or trade for a premium, rather than trade before. Although I think it’s been pretty consistent in terms of what those picks in that range are valued at trade wise, in or outside of live trading.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Pretty sure you have more to lose on both fronts tbh

So the Dogs agree to Geelong making this statement. Then what?

Geelong don't offer a first round pick and offer a second round pick, because if they refuse to trade, they miss out on a second round pick.

Geelong don't offer a second round pick and offer a third round pick. A third round pick is more than nothing, so the Dogs would miss out on a third-round pick if they rejected every trade.

Clearly Geelong think there is some element of loss of not executing a trade, otherwise they would literally offer the barest minimum possible in a trade, because why would they pay more for something that they'd be guaranteed to get anyway?

Once you answer that question you can see how the premise of what you're proposing is stupid.

Purely from a maximising their own trade haul standpoint, Dogs have to be sincere with their risk of losing nothing and use the leverage of Smith not smoothly going to Geelong in a trade against Geelong.

 

[TiAn_]

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)

The Suns traded that pick for nothing for cap reasons, not because they thought the last 50 players in the draft weren’t worth drafting. It’s so far removed from a normal valuation of a draft pick that the trade has zero value as a comparison to almost any other trade. It’s just irrelevant here.

There are years of drafts and numerous trades that indicate the value of picks in this range are relatively consistent, despite varying perceptions of the depth and quality of those individual drafts.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The Suns traded that pick for nothing for cap reasons, not because they thought the last 50 players in the draft weren’t worth drafting. It’s so far removed from a normal valuation of a draft pick that the trade has zero value as a comparison to almost any other trade. It’s just irrelevant here.

There are years of drafts and numerous trades that indicate the value of picks in this range are relatively consistent, despite varying perceptions of the depth and quality of those individual drafts.

At the end of the day we're talking about a 6-7 pick drift in a flat quality curve. Respect your opinion but I don't think you're getting shafted to the degree dogs fans are insinuating.

 

[Ross]

Yeah the known quantity gives teams more certainty but I think likewise teams also hold picks until the draft to see who is available or trade for a premium, rather than trade before. Although I think it’s been pretty consistent in terms of what those picks in that range are valued at trade wise, in or outside of live trading.

Yeah, we don't see as many of those weird pick swaps now before the draft unless they're aiding academy or F/S picks. The other thing is Smith is also a known commodity and so trying to equate his value with a number in the draft is kind of pointless, clubs can't just move up and down the draft to obtain the exact satisfactory draft pick. Geelong have their picks and the Dogs have their picks, some combination of those will end up being used to make a deal.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

At the end of the day we're talking about a 6-7 pick drift in a flat quality curve. Respect your opinion but I don't think you're getting shafted to the degree dogs fans are insinuating.

You're not going to convince that an upgrade of 6-7 picks in the late teens or whatever is "meaningless".

Your evidence is a handwave that there's a perception that the "quality is flat"

Dogs' fans evidence is the direct and past evidence that there is a meaningful benefit in taking a player earlier in the top 20 that significantly drops away by the 30's that teams don't see a huge issue filling up their list with a zero-value pick rather than a pick in the 30's.

Who are you trying to convince?

 

[ShadowCat]

So the Dogs agree to Geelong making this statement. Then what?

Geelong don't offer a first round pick and offer a second round pick, because if they refuse to trade, they miss out on a second round pick.

Geelong don't offer a second round pick and offer a third round pick. A third round pick is more than nothing, so the Dogs would miss out on a third-round pick if they rejected every trade.

Clearly Geelong think there is some element of loss of not executing a trade, otherwise they would literally offer the barest minimum possible in a trade, because why would they pay more for something that they'd be guaranteed to get anyway?

Once you answer that question you can see how the premise of what you're proposing is stupid.

Purely from a maximising their own trade haul standpoint, Dogs have to be sincere with their risk of losing nothing and use the leverage of Smith not smoothly going to Geelong in a trade against Geelong.

I can answer this one pretty simply, which is what a fair few of the commentators discussing this have said as well - there's far more likelihood of us being able to secure Smith with our first round pick in the draft, than a 2nd or 3rd rounder. Anyone would take him once it got past the 1st round. In a draft this deep, not many - if any - are going to sacrifice their first round pick on someone who likely didn't want to be there.

It probably won't eventuate this way, but if Sam Power did decide to draw the line in the sand on this one, then I could see us offering a Future 2nd at the 11th hour, and then calling his bluff and sending Smith to the ND if need be. I imagine the thinking would be along the lines of 'they only offered him 2 years, he contemplated retiring and has had off-field issues, and just did his ACL...what do we consider as fair for an OOC player? We'll give them what we would use in the draft anyway, and then work backwards from that.'

Hasn't happened with a high profile player since Luke Ball, so I doubt it does. Will be a lot of posturing though, and I suspect neither side will be happy when it's all said and done.

This is very similar to Jordan Clark, imo. We knew just how good he could be, but Scarlett really screwed things up and Clark rightfully wanted out as he wasn't getting the exposure he should. Nek minnit, AA squad for Pick 22 and a Future 3rd. We were adamant we wanted a Top 10 pick, and at the very least a 1st rounder. Unfortunately, OOC does mean something, as you can't force them to honour their contract, ala Oliver, Kelly, Papley, Dunkley, Sav, etc.

I can say, from what I've seen on your guys' side, that this won't be pretty - as Smith has basically checked out and not treated your club the best. Obviously there's reasons like playing position, issues with coach, issues of his own, but I suspect we'll never fully know.

We wanted a 1st for Sav last year, as he played 19 out of 23 games, and was coming into his own as a KPD (other clubs wanted him too). Port put 25 on the table and said 'take it or leave it.' Stonewalled until the 11th hour, ended up with two 4th rounders - one which was Humphries. Is what it is. TK was the exception, not the rule, as he had just come off a phenomenal season where he was AA, Top 5 Brownlow, and runner up B+F...if Smith had of had that season just gone, I imagine we'd be talking similar picks. Unfortunately, his trade value has dropped, given he hasn't played a real dominant game since midway through 2022.

TL; DR offering a 2nd or 3rd would actually be ridiculous, because either way we have to use a 1st to secure him in the ND. Not giving it to you guys would just be asking for trouble. Who know what's top of that, but there is absolutely 100% no doubt that our 1st is guaranteed to you guys. It's what else is involved/not involved that is going to cause consternation over the next 2 weeks.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You're not going to convince that an upgrade of 6-7 picks in the late teens or whatever is "meaningless".

Your evidence is a handwave that there's a perception that the "quality is flat"

Dogs' fans evidence is the direct and past evidence that there is a meaningful benefit in taking a player earlier in the top 20 that significantly drops away by the 30's that teams don't see a huge issue filling up their list with a zero-value pick rather than a pick in the 30's.

Who are you trying to convince?

I've got no particular need to convince anyone. I just don't think you're walking away from a first and second round pick to make some kind of grand statement.

 

[Burtyl78]

Oh come on. Seriously. Get with the times

The times are it’s taken the blues 20 years to get competitive without buying their way out of it, YOU get with the times

 

[Pencil case]

TL; DR offering a 2nd or 3rd would actually be ridiculous, because either way we have to use a 1st to secure him in the ND. Not giving it to you guys would just be asking for trouble.

One would argue only offering a first and change is asking for trouble