Draft Watcher Knightmare's 2019 Draft Almanac

[Peel67skin]

Possibly. In which case we say no, and if they bid on Green (which I do expect), we then activate the backwards trade. The ruling from the AFL allows us some flexibility to manage this as the night goes (good for us, and perhaps for the spectacle too) - obviously we still need to have other clubs agree to any trade, but I suspect GCS, Cats & Lions would be keen to get that pick 6.

The only thing I think GCS is a better trade is after the first three pick, GCS have pick 70+ compare to Geelong and Brisbane.

 

[Thetrader15]

And in my trade suggestion they're essentially bringing that pick forward to 6 this year.

If we trade our 2020/1 for 6, we'd want a sweetener, like GWS 2020/1 and then we'd throw in 37. It has to be to our advantage, otherwise I'm not doing it. The pressure is on GWS to pay up, otherwise let's see where Green (no e) goes

GWS 6, 2020/1 2020/2 - > Adel 2020/1, 45, 49

Then GWS can look to trade Adelaide's 2020/1 for something this year if they want. It gives them enough points, but if they don't like it, don't take match the Green bid

 

[manny100]

If GWS cannot trade up to the Crows or Ds pick if there is an early bid they can use the 5 minutes to trade pick 6 back to say 2 late teens picks. Use one for Green and one in the draft.
GWS however would be better off throwing away pick 6 plus next years draft at the Ds or Crows and get Green plus a young gun early. They will probably lose a quality player or 2 next year which will give then some picks anyway. Tat way when its all washed up GWS will not be far behind GC in draft outcome.

 

[Draft Bored]

If we trade our 2020/1 for 6, we'd want a sweetener, like GWS 2020/1 and then we'd throw in 37. It has to be to our advantage, otherwise I'm not doing it. The pressure is on GWS to pay up, otherwise let's see where Green (no e) goes

Mate, it's just an example of a way for GWS to manoever out, and back into the draft.

Why should any team be the clear winner of a trade? If a trade clearly favours anyone it's for playstation only.

 

[TryAnHit]

If GWS cannot trade up to the Crows or Ds pick if there is an early bid they can use the 5 minutes to trade pick 6 back to say 2 late teens picks. Use one for Green and one in the draft.
GWS however would be better off throwing away pick 6 plus next years draft at the Ds or Crows and get Green plus a young gun early. They will probably lose a quality player or 2 next year which will give then some picks anyway. Tat way when its all washed up GWS will not be far behind GC in draft outcome.

Could see them trading 6 for
Adel 2020 first + some picks to help match the bid this year

 

[Northernsoul74]

If GWS cannot trade up to the Crows or Ds pick if there is an early bid they can use the 5 minutes to trade pick 6 back to say 2 late teens picks. Use one for Green and one in the draft.
GWS however would be better off throwing away pick 6 plus next years draft at the Ds or Crows and get Green plus a young gun early. They will probably lose a quality player or 2 next year which will give then some picks anyway. Tat way when its all washed up GWS will not be far behind GC in draft outcome.

Wouldn’t they have to use both to match Green?

 

[Peel67skin]

Wouldn’t they have to use both to match Green?

Yup if not enough point they use up next year future pick.
End up green and without any pick for this year and next year.

 

[LegendLewis]

It’s applied to the round the bid comes in.

If the bid comes in the first round, and a deficit carries over to the next years draft, 100% the deficit comes off the first round pick.

If a bid comes in the second round, then it comes off the next years second round pick.

Not the way I read it. Where r u getting your info?

 

[Giant Strides]

GWS 6, 2020/1 2020/2 - > Adel 2020/1, 45, 49

Cannot do that - can't trade first round pick and later rounds.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

It's sounding possible. GWS have been consistent in saying they will only match if it's the right number.

My feel is they'd match if it's pick 4. If it's pick 3, I'm not sure because I'm hearing strong word that GWS are red hot on Jackson.

Surely it doesn't matter if it's pick 3, 4, or 5, if they prefer Jackson to Green they'll base their decision on whether they think Jackson will still be there at 6 if they pass. Which strangely makes it more likely for them to pass the later the bid comes - if it comes at 5 and Jackson it still on the board, they know they can pass and take him. If the bid comes at 3, it's more of a risk to pass because Jackson might be taken at 4 or 5.

 

[briztoon]

Not the way I read it. Where r u getting your info?

The AFL website.

Twomey has written and spoken about it a few times.

The was also a very, very long article in The Age newspaper by Emma Quayle a couple of years ago that also explained everything as well.


Page 8, first column.

https://m.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

The middle third of this article, especially the last paragraph.

AFL closes draft bidding system loophole

AFL acts on possible loophole in draft bidding system

m.afl.com.au

 

[briztoon]

Wouldn’t they have to use both to match Green?

Nope. Brisbane’s 16 and 21 is more than enough points to match a bid at pick 4 and still leave enough points over equivalent to pick 47 (but because the bid is in the first round, the residual points are “hidden” and carried over and can be used to pay for a bid on their other academy player).

The pinned thread at the top of the page that has all the picks and point values. Makes it very easy to work out matching bids, pick swaps and points value, etc.

 

[liz]

Nope. Brisbane’s 16 and 21 is more than enough points to match a bid at pick 4 and still leave enough points over equivalent to pick 47 (but because the bid is in the first round, the residual points are “hidden” and carried over and can be used to pay for a bid on their other academy player).

The pinned thread at the top of the page that has all the picks and point values. Makes it very easy to work out matching bids, pick swaps and points value, etc.

Can you expand on the bolded bit. I'm not sure that makes much sense to me. Why wouldn't they just - under that scenario - have pick 21 pushed back to pick 47? Then they can use that as a normal pick 47, or use it to match another academy pick if a bid comes first, and if they want to match that bid. Why does it matter that the bid is in the 1st round?

The Swans have received later picks back after matching bids on Mills and Blakey, and I don't recall any mechanism of those points being hidden. We didn't have other academy players to match bids for. We just use the picks equivalent to the residual points value. We started the draft with picks 33, 38 and 39. It's hard to keep track of the matching because other bids push them back, and Thomas was bid on before Blakey. But we essentially used those three picks to match the Blakey bid, and then received the residual points back from the original pick 39. By the time it was used that had become pick 51, used to draft Zac Foot. Going into the draft we also had pick 40 (which had become pick 44 by the time it was used on McInerney) and then pick 84. So the pick used for Foot definitely came from the residual picks from the Blakey match.

 

[briztoon]

Can you expand on the bolded bit. I'm not sure that makes much sense to me. Why wouldn't they just - under that scenario - have pick 21 pushed back to pick 47? Then they can use that as a normal pick 47, or use it to match another academy pick if a bid comes first, and if they want to match that bid. Why does it matter that the bid is in the 1st round?

The Swans have received later picks back after matching bids on Mills and Blakey, and I don't recall any mechanism of those points being hidden. We didn't have other academy players to match bids for. We just use the picks equivalent to the residual points value. We started the draft with picks 33, 38 and 39. It's hard to keep track of the matching because other bids push them back, and Thomas was bid on before Blakey. But we essentially used those three picks to match the Blakey bid, and then received the residual points back from the original pick 39. By the time it was used that had become pick 51, used to draft Zac Foot. Going into the draft we also had pick 40 (which had become pick 44 by the time it was used on McInerney) and then pick 84. So the pick used for Foot definitely came from the residual picks from the Blakey match.

Hmmm I’ll have to go back and reread the rules again. It might only apply to matching a first round bid with a single first round pick.

 

[Thetrader15]

Cannot do that - can't trade first round pick and later rounds.

I agree...but if you swap 2020 picks, I'm sure the afl would allow it being GWS and all

"If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds."

More making up policy on the run by the AFL without thinking it through.

Surely if say GWS swaps it's 2020/1 with GC, they move up. There is no value in not allowing them to trade their 2nd in that instance.

 

[Knightmare]

Surely it doesn't matter if it's pick 3, 4, or 5, if they prefer Jackson to Green they'll base their decision on whether they think Jackson will still be there at 6 if they pass. Which strangely makes it more likely for them to pass the later the bid comes - if it comes at 5 and Jackson it still on the board, they know they can pass and take him. If the bid comes at 3, it's more of a risk to pass because Jackson might be taken at 4 or 5.

I can't yet confirm GWS like Jackson over Green, but that's my suspicion.

If it's Melbourne bidding on Green, if Jackson is GWS' man, they're only not matching if they know beyond doubt Adelaide and Sydney aren't taking him. I suspect both would pass, but I don't yet know for certain. Sydney don't have a great ruckman and Reilly O'Brien is Adelaide's one good ruckman, and there are a lot of clubs that flat out love Jackson. I suspect both clubs will remain tight-lipped on Jackson as they may want to cash in that first pick to move down to 6 if it means still getting their guy and taking advantage of GWS' draft plans.

 

[briztoon]

I agree...but if you swap 2020 picks, I'm sure the afl would allow it being GWS and all

It’s against the rules. You can trade either your first round pick, or, any combination of later picks.

 

[Thetrader15]

It’s against the rules. You can trade either your first round pick, or, any combination of later picks.

Same way a few years ago Geelong couldn't trade their first but did...on the priviso that they later traded one back in.

It's all about poorly worded rules not being written as the afl i tended.

But I agree, as currently written, it's not allowed

 

[yaco55]

This debate about draft picks should be in another thread - Leave this thread to discuss Knightmare's rating and analysis of potential draftees.

 

[Northernsoul74]

Nope. Brisbane’s 16 and 21 is more than enough points to match a bid at pick 4 and still leave enough points over equivalent to pick 47 (but because the bid is in the first round, the residual points are “hidden” and carried over and can be used to pay for a bid on their other academy player).

The pinned thread at the top of the page that has all the picks and point values. Makes it very easy to work out matching bids, pick swaps and points value, etc.

Yeah but I was replying to a post stating they could use for example the 16 on Green and use the 21 to draft another player. 16 wouldn’t pay for Green on its own so 21 would have to also be used in some form I would have thought. Anyway let’s move on.

 

[smashbox gill]

A lot of experts are predicting Serong to be the slider. Why do you think this is?
What role do you see him play at the next level and who does he remind you of?

 

[Mego Red]

A lot of experts are predicting Serong to be the slider. Why do you think this is?
What role do you see him play at the next level and who does he remind you of?

Probably a little bit small and without any single extraordinary weapon. Just a very good footballer.

 

[Davo-27]

A lot of experts are predicting Serong to be the slider. Why do you think this is?
What role do you see him play at the next level and who does he remind you of?

i hope he slides to Pick 11

 

[Knightmare]

A lot of experts are predicting Serong to be the slider. Why do you think this is?
What role do you see him play at the next level and who does he remind you of?

It's sounding increasingly like Serong goes somewhere around pick 8/9, rather than sooner, and it could be later still if a club falls in love with Weightman. My view is Serong will go largely around where he should based on recent talk. With sub 180s I tend to advise caution as typically they have less development left in them and Serong has an advanced game.

Serong I suspect plays at the next level as a forward who rotates through the midfield. Or at least that would be my preferred usage, as he does both well, but sub 180cm he probably won't be a dominant mid.

Serong is a bit like a shorter poor man's Isaac Heeney. He also somewhat reminds me of Ben Ainsworth from a few years ago. Perhaps not as quick, but otherwise pretty similar and more on quality what you're roughly looking at.

 

[Knightmare]

Three AFL Draft trends to look out for:

AFL draft: Three trends to look out for in 2019

With the 2019 draft rapidly approaching, Chris Doerre has identified three key trends that may impact this year's event on Nov. 27 and 28.

www.espn.com.au