Traded Melbourne trade #33, #43 and #53 to Port Adelaide for #27

[longdonkey]

I can't see how else they trade for Dunkley without this year's 15 plus their future 1st.

Heading for a big points defict.

Maybe they want to upgrade 34 & 35 to a pick in the low 20's and offer that a next years first for Dunkley then use 15 to get a gazillion low picks to get as many points as possible.

Port are holding 1502 in points not including Pick 7. So that is a bit more than half needed for Ashcroft.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

If we include our other picks in the 50s we can offer the equivalent of pick 8 in points which would help them a lot.

Ofcourse this doesn’t account for Dunkley. Either way I think they have to trade 15 to get extra points and look at future picks for Dunkley.

If im the dogs im not dealing dunkley unless 15 is going to them.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

If im the dogs im not dealing dunkley unless 15 is going to them.

Agree if I was the dogs.

Lions will have to get creative here to get the points and satisfy the Dogs.

 

[kreglze]

The trades I live for.

 

[longdonkey]

Agree if I was the dogs.

Lions will have to get creative here to get the points and satisfy the Dogs.

What if it was 18 -21 its only 5 spots.

 

[Northernsoul74]

What if it was 18 -21 its only 5 spots.

The quality in a draftee can drop quite quickly. Dogs need to give themselves the best shot at turning Dunkley into talent. Being nice and just saying that’s fine it’s only a few picks later won’t cut it. 15 is already back end of the first round so not ideal as it is.

 

[Suma Magic]

Lions need list spots though. They can’t just grab loads of picks in third/fourth round and use them.

They can do this with future picks though.

Just need to make sure they go into the draft with no live picks of value.

Then they can pay for Ashcroft and fletcher with heaps of rubbish 2023 picks.

 

[catman2006]

Bit of an odd move by Melb 33 and 43 for 27 was enough and trade 53 for a future pick

 

[Suma Magic]

Bit of an odd move by Melb 33 and 43 for 27 was enough and trade 53 for a future pick

If 33 and 43 was enough port would have done it.

Or if Melbourne could have got 26 off west coast for the same deal, they would have. But obviously west coast wasn’t keen.

 

[Lampers]

Weren't going to use #43 & #53 apparently

Good move and both clubs win

Melbourne have a history of moving decisively with pick trades that look odd and not in their favour at first glance.

Melbourne know what they are doing, and they will perceive it as moving them closer to whatever their target is.

Which is different to saying Melbourne will actually get their target(s) for what they want to pay.

 

[Freomaniac]

Maybe looking to on trade a whole bunch of our picks to Lions for 15?

Leave us with 3 first rounders to offer for JHF (with a second or third coming back).

Serious question...

With Port Adelaide having picks 33, 43 and 53, is there an academy prospect Port Adelaide are looking for?

 

[Freomaniac]

If 33 and 43 was enough port would have done it.

Or if Melbourne could have got 26 off west coast for the same deal, they would have. But obviously west coast wasn’t keen.

Would pick 33 be enough for Rioli?

Or does pick 43 or 53 need to be added?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Serious question...

With Port Adelaide having picks 33, 43 and 53, is there an academy prospect Port Adelaide are looking for?

Not that I’m aware of for us this year.

Think it will all be absorbed in the JHF/Rioli trades in one way or another.

Would also love us to trow 43 at Ratagolea as a defender if he’s still on the cards.

 

[Crow_68]

Not that I’m aware of for us this year.

Think it will all be absorbed in the JHF/Rioli trades in one way or another.

Would also love us to trow 43 at Ratagolea as a defender if he’s still on the cards.

Don’t Port also need to take a minimum of 3 picks in the draft (including any rookie upgrades)?

 

[Suma Magic]

Would pick 33 be enough for Rioli?

Or does pick 43 or 53 need to be added?

Who knows?

I didn’t think we would get 27 straight up. 33 sounds like a good guess as to the final deal.

As a fan obviously I just want everything and more.

 

[Suma Magic]

The whole “weren’t going to use the picks” thing is just irrelevant bullshit.

Everyone knows that picks can always be traded for future picks.

 

[longdonkey]

Would pick 33 be enough for Rioli?

Or does pick 43 or 53 need to be added?

I don't know and at the end of the day I think we have done this deal with an eye on the Rioli deal but right now getting Horne Francis is the main game and we'll have to look at what we have at the end to get in anyone else.

Its a good trade because it gives us options while giving 27 to Wet Toast gives us no options and all indications are they wanted more than 27.

 

[JasRulz63]

Maybe they want to upgrade 34 & 35 to a pick in the low 20's and offer that a next years first for Dunkley then use 15 to get a gazillion low picks to get as many points as possible.

Port are holding 1502 in points not including Pick 7. So that is a bit more than half needed for Ashcroft.

Issue is we can't take a gazillion low picks to the draft, we can only take as many 2022 picks as the list spots we have. Those points are 5 picks worth; we'll probably only go to the draft with ~5-6 list spots open. That doesn't really leave us enough list spots to hold get the other points required.

I suspect if we trade pick 15 for points, we'll target a ~400-500 surplus across something like 3 picks.

 

[longdonkey]

Issue is we can't take a gazillion low picks to the draft, we can only take as many 2022 picks as the list spots we have. Those points are 5 picks worth; we'll probably only go to the draft with ~5-6 list spots open. That doesn't really leave us enough list spots to hold get the other points required.

I suspect if we trade pick 15 for points, we'll target a ~400-500 surplus across something like 3 picks.

Didn't know that. What about next year - I'm assuming you will be using at least your first next year for Dunkley.

So in terms of points 34, 35, 46, 73 is 1395 points.

And you need 2400 for Ashcroft assuming he goes 1 plus whatever for Fletcher. So you need another 1500-2000 points probably.

You really need to make a dodgy deal with whoever has got pick 1

Yeah you'll need at least 500 surplus points you're right

 

[JasRulz63]

Didn't know that. What about next year - I'm assuming you will be using at least your first next year for Dunkley.

So in terms of points 34, 35, 46, 73 is 1395 points.

And you need 2400 for Ashcroft assuming he goes 1 plus whatever for Fletcher. So you need another 1500-2000 points probably.

You really need to make a dodgy deal with whoever has got pick 1

Yeah you'll need at least 500 surplus points you're right

If we trade our first next year, then we can't trade any of our 2nd/3rd/4th etc. round picks, and keeping those picks allows us to go into deficit (~700 points or so after we trade out our first).

The main issue with relying on trading in more future picks to build up the deficit we're allowed, is that they're automatically allocated the points value of the last pick in that round.

I think we'll be able to do it, it is going to take some decent manoeuvring and shuffling of picks though.

 

[longdonkey]

If we trade our first next year, then we can't trade any of our 2nd/3rd/4th etc. round picks, and keeping those picks allows us to go into deficit (~700 points or so after we trade out our first).

The main issue with relying on trading in more future picks to build up the deficit we're allowed, is that they're automatically allocated the points value of the last pick in that round.

I think we'll be able to do it, it is going to take some decent manoeuvring and shuffling of picks though.

So some clubs are going to be at the door hoping for a fire sale of non first 22 players.

 

[eastfreo75]

Another example where the points system is totally wrong.

AFL Draft Pick Value Calculator - Draftguru

 

[longdonkey]

If we trade our first next year, then we can't trade any of our 2nd/3rd/4th etc. round picks, and keeping those picks allows us to go into deficit (~700 points or so after we trade out our first).

The main issue with relying on trading in more future picks to build up the deficit we're allowed, is that they're automatically allocated the points value of the last pick in that round.

I think we'll be able to do it, it is going to take some decent manoeuvring and shuffling of picks though.

Well you were right you guys did a swap with 15 like I thought you would, not doing it the way I thought you would.

 

[Suma Magic]

Another example where the points system is totally wrong.

AFL Draft Pick Value Calculator - Draftguru

The formula for the AFL’s points curve is:

Points = -697.0ln(pick) + 3000

If you calculate it based on all historical pick for pick trades it gives a formula with a far steeper curve. It would be so easy to change to make it accurate, I don’t know why they don’t.

 

[eastfreo75]

The formula for the AFL’s points curve is:

Points = -697.0ln(pick) + 3000

If you calculate it based on all historical pick for pick trades it gives a formula with a far steeper curve. It would be so easy to change to make it accurate, I don’t know why they don’t.

It’s either corruption or incompetence.

AFL want to assist the Northern academies and this is a massive leg up.