Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Agree but they might trade 6 back down for other assets so it might work out.
Prediction Possible pick swaps
- Thread starter Mego Red
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Agree but they might trade 6 back down for other assets so it might work out.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Hope it does because right now it’s looking like a weird trade
- Jul 13, 2012
- 43,684
- 21,203
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
Yeh wouldnt the plan be to only trade when theyre on the clock to match and it suits them to do so?
I feel this is going to be a by the second decision depending on what's available and when Green is bid on.
You with the new rules.
Adel could bid on green at 4...
Gws could then trade 6 to adel for 2020 first and a bunch of late picks this year to match.
Makes it a little stupid you can trade your next pick and that is not locked in
Adel could bid on green at 4...
Gws could then trade 6 to adel for 2020 first and a bunch of late picks this year to match.
Makes it a little stupid you can trade your next pick and that is not locked in
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Yeah i think they will have some trade down scenarios ready and only do it in the 5 mins once green is bid on.
Peel67skin
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 21, 2017
- 8,387
- 3,941
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
- Banned
- #581
I don't understand.
Last year... if we were to bid on green... gws can not trade away pick 6... that is locked in for the bid + what is needed
This year they can get rid of 6... and match with all late picks
Peel67skin
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 21, 2017
- 8,387
- 3,941
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
- Banned
- #583
I don't think GWS would trade pick 12 and 18 away if under last year rule. That's why I said I don't understand. These peoples surely check with AFL before trading pick 12 and 18 away. If these rules is not approve by AFL I don't think Fremantle would take St kilda deal also.
Last edited:
Possible Trade for Adelaide
Melbourne Receive: 15 and 20
Gold Coast Receive: 8
Adelaide Receive: 8 and Future Compo(11)
Gold Coast Receive: 4 and 45
Brisbane’s Receive: 49 and Future compo(11)
Adelaide Receive: 16 and 34
Leaves Adelaide with
8
16
23
28
34
37
Melbourne Receive: 15 and 20
Gold Coast Receive: 8
Adelaide Receive: 8 and Future Compo(11)
Gold Coast Receive: 4 and 45
Brisbane’s Receive: 49 and Future compo(11)
Adelaide Receive: 16 and 34
Leaves Adelaide with
8
16
23
28
34
37
- May 6, 2007
- 42,932
- 26,329
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspurs, Melbourne Vixen
Essendon supporters keep throwing up Essendon's 64 + 65 for St.Kilda's pick 51
Can see Fremantle probably swapping 58 and 69 though. Maybe Hawthorns 54?
Unfortunately there's not much value in fourth round picks this year as most teams have more picks than list spots. Your best chance of getting something back for 65 is as a live trade for a future fourth if someone wants to pick up a slider.
Cobwebs
Team Captain
- Oct 21, 2019
- 452
- 377
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Only problem you have with that is Melbourne not trading 8 and if they did the Freemantle option would be a better result, only drop 2 places to 10.
Horrible trade? Getting a second top 10 pick in a stronger draft than next year is horrible?
You must be one of those "BUT THE POINTS!?!!!?!" kind of people, that trade was a good one for Melbourne.
- Nov 14, 2013
- 1,564
- 5,946
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Colts, Raptors, Milan, FU Crabs
No one can say whether it is good for the Roos or Dees until next year anyway. If you guys bomb and give us pick 1, then it's obviously gonna be a win for us. If you make finals then it probably favours you lot.
Anyone declaring a winner in that trade this early is really jumping the gun. But I don't think I've seen anyone say this year's draft is significantly stronger than next year's though, just less compromised.
Lystics did a podcast on it. They said that next year is a bit more compromised than normal, but that is mainly due to the mid first round pick given to Gold Coast. The number of good NGA and father-sons is pretty much normal or slightly higher. Most of the prospective NGAs that played before the grand final won’t figure in the top 30.
They also said that next year’s draft is significantly weaker than this year, mainly because the Victorians are weaker than normal.
No one can ever say a trade is a winner until the completion of all players’ careers. But people do all the time. At this stage, it’s perfectly fair for both Melbourne and North Melbourne to feel that they have won their trades.
I heard it as well.
My thoughts is that the truth between the Lystics guys and King.
The comprise will depend on the position of the picks and bids.
The Suns compo affects picks after 11, that might affect the next bracket of players.
The Lystics guys didn’t mention any free agency compo like Daniher, B Crouch, Grundy, J Cameron, or Whitfield.
Nice trade for the Dockers not so much for the Hawks.
Maybe. Screw them though
I agree with you. The Lystics guys even tempered what they said at the beginning of the podcast by the end. They were mainly annoyed, I think, that the David King statements had become the orthodoxy.
You are right about the potential free agents. It might soon be time to modify the free agency rule a little, so that the team that benefits the most pays the most, instead of the cost being shared around with all the clubs who don’t benefit at all. The points system would work well there, I think.
Eg To get Tom Lynch (long contract, captain of club, high pay) would have still netted the Suns a first round pick (maybe pick 5 at 2000 points), but would have cost Richmond that amount with discount applied (maybe pick 10 at 1500 points). The discount could be greater the more years of service that a free agent has given his club, which could give the AFLPA what it wants by allowing free agency earlier while still protecting the evenness of the competition by actually giving fair compensation to clubs who lose players they have invested in. Obviously the points in the example might need some work, but you get the idea.
Picks after the compensation and cost have been worked out would be unaffected, rather than pushed back as they are now.
- Oct 14, 2016
- 3,063
- 3,811
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Devils advocate. Anderson is already being tapped up by the Vic clubs. He might not be such a lock to stay...?
Just on the options available to GWS if it still has its heart set on trading up pick 6 to get a selection ahead of Green, I came across this article (while looking for something different). It's old (2015), so may well be out of date, but suggests that the maximum deficit a club can go into is adjusted by any future pick trades they have done. Previously I thought I'd read that the maximum deficit was set at 1723 points (being the sum of the points value of the picks the premier will earn).
www.afl.com.au
So, hypothetically, if GSW were to trade their pick 6 up to pick 3 (swapping with Melbourne) in return for next year's first round pick, the maximum deficit they could go into is 1723 - 985 = 738 points - if the contents of the above article still apply. For this purpose I'm assuming that the maximum deficit won't be adjusted by the AFL for the effects of GC's extra 2020 pick in the middle of the first round. It won't make that much difference.
If the above goes ahead, GWS select whoever they want with pick 3 and then a bid comes for Green with pick 4, it will cost them 1,627 points to match. They have picks 40, 59 and 60 in this year's draft, which together provide 733 points. They will be left with a deficit of 1627 - 733 points = 894. This is bigger than the maximum deficit they are allowed, per the above paragraph.
Edit: I see they've traded in a third round pick next year and traded out a fourth. So that increases their maximum deficit by 201 points (being the difference in points value between picks 54 and 72). So that just squeezes them over the line of being able to match a bid at 4. But the margin is very small, and it probably rules out them being able to match bids on Delahunty or any one else, later in the draft. Of course, they could well trade in some other late picks to help bolster their points value, though not from Melbourne, as Melbourne don't currently have any late picks to trade. (Though I guess a late future pick might do the trick.)
I'm not suggesting what might happen. Just trying to better understand how the points deficit system works. Does anyone know if the above is (approximately) correct, or did the AFL change the system since that article was published in 2015?
AFL closes draft bidding system loophole
AFL acts on possible loophole in draft bidding system
www.afl.com.au
So, hypothetically, if GSW were to trade their pick 6 up to pick 3 (swapping with Melbourne) in return for next year's first round pick, the maximum deficit they could go into is 1723 - 985 = 738 points - if the contents of the above article still apply. For this purpose I'm assuming that the maximum deficit won't be adjusted by the AFL for the effects of GC's extra 2020 pick in the middle of the first round. It won't make that much difference.
If the above goes ahead, GWS select whoever they want with pick 3 and then a bid comes for Green with pick 4, it will cost them 1,627 points to match. They have picks 40, 59 and 60 in this year's draft, which together provide 733 points. They will be left with a deficit of 1627 - 733 points = 894. This is bigger than the maximum deficit they are allowed, per the above paragraph.
Edit: I see they've traded in a third round pick next year and traded out a fourth. So that increases their maximum deficit by 201 points (being the difference in points value between picks 54 and 72). So that just squeezes them over the line of being able to match a bid at 4. But the margin is very small, and it probably rules out them being able to match bids on Delahunty or any one else, later in the draft. Of course, they could well trade in some other late picks to help bolster their points value, though not from Melbourne, as Melbourne don't currently have any late picks to trade. (Though I guess a late future pick might do the trick.)
I'm not suggesting what might happen. Just trying to better understand how the points deficit system works. Does anyone know if the above is (approximately) correct, or did the AFL change the system since that article was published in 2015?
Similar threads
