List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade and FA

[jmac70]

Port clearly stated they wanted 2 first round picks unless they could get one in the top end from North Melbourne. Not something we can offer.

Don’t be so sure.

 

[sr36]

It's because of the points attached to the pick. There is a steep drop off in points after a certain range. This is a problem for teams with top picks that get pushed down as the trade value points of their picks gets lowered. So a team lower than them won't have to pay a greater price for the same draft position.

That doesn't impact first round picks as they don't get used to match players. It only impacts the earliest used matching picks. The later ones get raised back up in terms of points as picks ahead of them disappear when they're used to match players.

 

[Seedsfan]

Don’t be so sure.

What they have said is a matter of fact

 

[manicmagpie]

Not the way I see it. You’ve just accepted and internalised the AFL’s system.

The other way to see it: once upon a time if you finished say 12th in the league you would get access to the 7th best young talent in the league (in theory it 7th access in line is the other way to put it) and the 25th best.

With the regularity of the academies outputs these days and into the future and assuming a particularly strong cohort on a given year, plus add in a few FA comp and f/s you could finish 12th and only access the 12th best and 32nd best talent instead.

It’s destroying equalisation in the name of ensuring northern clubs who don’t have their own local talent pool get an easy access and leg up.

Whether or not you agree with the academies and F/S being there isn't the same as recognising the reality of the draft pool available to you. Go off on the system as much as you like, just don't pretend that a pick for this year's draft somehow loses value in different scenarios when it actually gets you the same end result.

People on here argue that trading someone for Pick 13 shouldn't be done as that Pick 13 may fall to Pick 17 or 18 by the time bids come in ignore the fact that you would still get the same player with Pick 13 (and no academy bids) as you do with Pick 18 (with 5 academy bids) and hence it has the exact same value.

The only time it makes a difference is if you intend to use the points value of the pick and not actually select a player with it.

 

[Vankri]

That's a valid lens. But the equity of the system is different to how valuable that pick is in this draft with this system. Ashcrofts bid coming earlier than pick 13 will make 13 the number 14, but it won't alter what player is taken at the pick

That would heavily depend on which players the recruiters are interested in around whatever pick you’re talking about. At the end of the day they don’t all rate the draft strength overall the same way nor have the same rankings.

To put it simply, right now pick 12 for example is not what pick 12 used to be 5 years ago so its value in a trade shouldn’t hold the same weight. Deflation has come through and you can see it playing out live with Noble.

Thankfully the Pies are never in a situation where we have bottom 4 finishes years in a row but I can totally see where the Saints Pres was coming from.

 

[OniAu]

When do the compromised drafts start for Tassie ?

 

[jmac70]

What they have said is a matter of fact

Let’s see what happens.

 

[Vankri]

Whether or not you agree with the academies and F/S being there isn't the same as recognising the reality of the draft pool available to you. Go off on the system as much as you like, just don't pretend that a pick for this year's draft somehow loses value in different scenarios when it actually gets you the same end result.

People on here argue that trading someone for Pick 13 shouldn't be done as that Pick 13 may fall to Pick 17 or 18 by the time bids come in ignore the fact that you would still get the same player with Pick 13 (and no academy bids) as you do with Pick 18 (with 5 academy bids) and hence it has the exact same value.

The only time it makes a difference is if you intend to use the points value of the pick and not actually select a player with it.

Nope, still disagree. Why do you think clubs state a certain player is worth ‘two first round picks’? Picks are a currency and just like the $ it depends on what you can on trade that currency for.

Back a few years you could make an easier point of what a player’s worth was in picks. The academies system in addition to f/s has obfuscated that value.

In that specific example it’s obvious that pick 12 in itself holds a lot less value to GC due to the academies crop this year for that same reason it should hold less value to other clubs relative to a draft year where the academies talent is less strong.

 

[Soups]

When do the compromised drafts start for Tassie ?

2027.

 

[Seedsfan]

Let’s see what happens.

On what aspect, us not being able to offer a pick with a similar value to North or them not asking for two first rounders if they are in the second half of the first round?

 

[manicmagpie]

It's because of the points attached to the pick. There is a steep drop off in points after a certain range. This is a problem for teams with top picks that get pushed down as the trade value points of their picks gets lowered. So a team lower than them won't have to pay a greater price for the same draft position.

Again, this only makes a difference to anyone using that pick for its points value, which almost no club actually does with first round picks.

Anyone taking a pick to the draft gets the same value out of that pick whether it drops places for academy bids or does not.

 

[celestial]

Apart from we are supposedly having to burn our future first and Noble to get a first round pick this year due to blowing our pick already on Schultz.

On top of that is Richards someone largely unproven worth more than Owies? Who finished the year with 33 goals, the same as Schultz in his last year at Freo. While Schultz’s defensive game is better than Owies. There is very little to suggest that Richards’ pressure game is better.

I don't think Collingwood in their right mind would trade a F1 plus noble for pick 13.

Worst case scenario - top 10 pick + noble for a lower first round pick . ( No one would do this,and our history of F1 trading will probably make us steer clear of this possibility)

Best case - pick 18 and noble for pick 13. Noble is worth so much more than a 5 pick upgrade.

So neither of those two scenarios are remotely appealing or makes sense from a list management standpoint. I think the Collingwood list management team are wise enough to see that.

Richards has shown a lot of game sense and nous with the limited and interrupted opportunities he has had. If you extrapolate his performance ( which port undoubtedly have) to a a greater game time and a full season, it is hard not to see how much more impact he would have had if he was given the chance .

I think Schultzs 33 goals in a poor Fremantle side with bad midfield supply is worth a hell of a lot more than owies contribution in a side with a top 5 midfield supply.

 

[ThePhantom777]

Who is our next trade target if any?

 

[Obese Arachnid]

are they spuds now? What about Walker's son

He's given up football to become a milliner.

 

[SchuPie]

I don't know why people obsess over picks dropping x many places because of F/S and academy bids.

It doesn't matter how many F/S bids there are, the pool of players you are selecting from is exactly the same and never included Ashcroft or any other F/S or academy linked player.

For example, if Collingwood somehow got it's hands on Pick 5 it wouldn't matter whether someone bid on Ashcroft2 or not before our selection, we would still end up with the exact same player at the end of it.

Free agent compo picks lessen the value of your pick, F/S selections don't.

I’ve always thought exactly the same - we know which players are tied to clubs so you’re picking from the same pool
If we have pick 5 and it slides to 15, we’ll still take the 5th best kid available to us

 

[sr36]

Nope, still disagree. Why do you think clubs state a certain player is worth ‘two first round picks’? Picks are a currency and just like the $ it depends on what you can on trade that currency for.

Back a few years you could make an easier point of what a player’s worth was in picks. The academies system in addition to f/s has obfuscated that value.

In that specific example it’s obvious that pick 12 in itself holds a lot less value to GC due to the academies crop this year for that same reason it should hold less value to other clubs relative to a draft year where the academies talent is less strong.

It seemed easier as we just thought of all pick 10s as being the same, rather than valuing the picks by the available players, which is ultimately their only real value. The worth of current picks is based on likely available players at that pick or matching points they hold- future picks by a prediction of a teams performance and the next year's draft crop.

 

[manicmagpie]

Picks are a currency and just like the $ it depends on what you can on trade that currency for.

But this is exactly what I am saying. The end currency and value for draft picks is players. And Pick 13 with no academy bids ends up getting you the same player (value) as Pick 18 with 5 academy bids.

Anyone you trade that pick with should recognise the value it gets them and make their decisions accordingly.

Let's take Noble and Gold Coast's pick 13 - if we intended to take that pick to the draft then we would have a list of 13 players that we know we will get one of in exchange for Noble. If there are 0, 3, or 10 F/S or academy bids before pick 13 we still end up getting one of those players. Its value hasn't changed.

If instead we decide to on trade that pick to Port Adelaide as part of a deal for Houston, then it's the same thing but Port Adelaide are the end receivers of one of the top 13 players available to them in the draft and they will make their decision based on that. Port Adelaide won't say no because that pick might end up having a larger number attached to it at the end as they will get the same player (value) anyway.

Obviously it sounds better to say you receive Pick 13 instead of Pick 18, but it makes no difference whatsoever to what the actual value is.

 

[NMBB]

Interesting re recruitment

NRL grand final news 2024, Andrew Johns exclusive on Craig Bellamy, Melbourne Storm coaching career and future

 

[Gabbo64]

He's given up football to become a milliner.

Did you know that a well milliner becomes a miner.

 

[gouki88]

Apart from we are supposedly having to burn our future first and Noble to get a first round pick this year due to blowing our pick already on Schultz.

On top of that is Richards someone largely unproven worth more than Owies? Who finished the year with 33 goals, the same as Schultz in his last year at Freo. While Schultz’s defensive game is better than Owies. There is very little to suggest that Richards’ pressure game is better.

This isn't really true though, beyond speculation of those online. I could easily see Noble + F2 (which will be more valuable in the future) getting the deal done.

 

[Vankri]

But this is exactly what I am saying. The end currency and value for draft picks is players. And Pick 13 with no academy bids ends up getting you the same player (value) as Pick 18 with 5 academy bids.

Anyone you trade that pick with should recognise the value it gets them and make their decisions accordingly.

Let's take Noble and Gold Coast's pick 13 - if we intended to take that pick to the draft then we would have a list of 13 players that we know we will get one of in exchange for Noble. If there are 0, 3, or 10 F/S or academy bids before pick 13 we still end up getting one of those players. Its value hasn't changed.

If instead we decide to on trade that pick to Port Adelaide as part of a deal for Houston, then it's the same thing but Port Adelaide are the end receivers of one of the top 13 players available to them in the draft and they will make their decision based on that. Port Adelaide won't say no because that pick might end up having a larger number attached to it at the end as they will get the same player (value) anyway.

Obviously it sounds better to say you receive Pick 13 instead of Pick 18, but it makes no difference whatsoever to what the actual value is.

In one given year, with one given pick, sure close enough. With the subtle differences in how different clubs rate the draft.

But add future trading and uncertainty around how many academy players will attract high picks and the value of a pick in a trade has been deflated.

So same example, 5 years ago ‘pick 12’ for Noble might be crazy because that gives you the 8th best talent in the draft. Today that is a different story, RELATIVE to other years.

 

[Caztheconquerer]

Interesting that on the main board Perryman thread that someone said the afl took into consideration the compo stkilda got for battle to decide the fairest pick to give gws

 

[Scodog10]

Interesting re recruitment

NRL grand final news 2024, Andrew Johns exclusive on Craig Bellamy, Melbourne Storm coaching career and future

It’s a lot harder in our system because we have the draft and recruiters are banned from contacting the kids outside the combine. Junior coaches and people that grew up with these kids aren’t going to dob if they’re a ratbag so it leaves schooling which AFAIK already happens…

That all said if there’s a way to measure character through the draft process, like the Storm, I’d say that trumps everything else. A switched on hungry to learn guy is essentially the Daicis!

 

[TradeDraft]

Interesting that on the main board Perryman thread that someone said the afl took into consideration the compo stkilda got for battle to decide the fairest pick to give gws

Love and Explanation from the AFL about it

 

[Scodog10]

Love and Explanation from the AFL about it

What’s to explain? He got a big contract that was enough for band 1 compensation. It’s really straightforward.