Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)
- Thread starter Norm De Guerre
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
West Australian article but can’t get pass the payroll.
AFL Trades 2022: Manager Liam Pickering warns Josh Dunkley deal could drag on leaving Rory Lobb in limbo
dogwatch
Premium Platinum
"... and it will all be Sam's fault!"
No it wouldn’t be sam’s fault it’s just Pickering playing dumb games
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Even without getting into "fairness" of Dunkley as a player and the league's equalisation tools of out of contract players before they have 8 years service...
The idea that we should be willing to let Dunkley go through the PSD and get no draft haul is just basic game theory.
You've got to stare down Brisbane and risk not getting any draft picks as a mathematical basis for trying to maximise your haul, at maximum probably that it happens.
By the logic of some of the posters here, we should take any picks, because it's better than nothing in the Pre-Season draft.
But if you hold that logic, should we accept a single fourth round pick for Dunkley because it's better than nothing?
That's how negotiating works. You hope the other party blinks first. You ascribe value to assets, probabilities to events happening, and choose the decision that maximises your return if you repeat the same experiment over and over.
We weigh the probability of Brisbane increasing their offer up against the value of the current offer. Say current offer is value 10, we are asking for value 12. We gain 2 if Brisbane change their offer but could lose 10, if he Brisbane don't and we follow through with the PSD threat. As such, if we think that Brisbane blink more than 10 times in 12 (83%), it's the correct strategy, even if he does eventually go through the PSD that occasional time.
Obviously, it's more complicated than that, Brisbane would be running their own similar probabilities, and the different valuations of different assets and the interaction of each team's probabilities (and guessing each other's probabilities) makes it more convuluted than that. It is an entire academic field that's considered as mathematically challenging as physics after all. But the principle holds true. If we were going to blink, it's still the right strategy to not do it right up until the deadline, and to hold the risk of PSD as a strategy to maximise the average value of any of Dunkley trade.
The idea that we should be willing to let Dunkley go through the PSD and get no draft haul is just basic game theory.
You've got to stare down Brisbane and risk not getting any draft picks as a mathematical basis for trying to maximise your haul, at maximum probably that it happens.
By the logic of some of the posters here, we should take any picks, because it's better than nothing in the Pre-Season draft.
But if you hold that logic, should we accept a single fourth round pick for Dunkley because it's better than nothing?
That's how negotiating works. You hope the other party blinks first. You ascribe value to assets, probabilities to events happening, and choose the decision that maximises your return if you repeat the same experiment over and over.
We weigh the probability of Brisbane increasing their offer up against the value of the current offer. Say current offer is value 10, we are asking for value 12. We gain 2 if Brisbane change their offer but could lose 10, if he Brisbane don't and we follow through with the PSD threat. As such, if we think that Brisbane blink more than 10 times in 12 (83%), it's the correct strategy, even if he does eventually go through the PSD that occasional time.
Obviously, it's more complicated than that, Brisbane would be running their own similar probabilities, and the different valuations of different assets and the interaction of each team's probabilities (and guessing each other's probabilities) makes it more convuluted than that. It is an entire academic field that's considered as mathematically challenging as physics after all. But the principle holds true. If we were going to blink, it's still the right strategy to not do it right up until the deadline, and to hold the risk of PSD as a strategy to maximise the average value of any of Dunkley trade.
Also as a repeated game over many years and trade negotiations, even if Brisbane don’t blink it doesn’t mean it was (necessarily) the wrong strategy.
SweatOnMySkin
Team Captain
trying to tie dunkley and lobb together is a crock of shit. we've got 30 and 39 which is more than enough to upgrade to something to get lobb
He's not even for sale yet and wont be until Freo have jackson confirmed
He's not even for sale yet and wont be until Freo have jackson confirmed
You’re right. If they offer way unders, then send him to the PSD or re-sign him.
Sometimes you need to set an example for the benefit of future player and club negotiations.
It hurts but it may be the right thing to do long term.
I’m not going to tear WO down if Dunkley gets sent to the PSD.
Pickers self interest is that he wants to deliver on Dunkley’s request, and collect his commission and/or deliver on a deal he probably set up.
Of course he is going to try to apply pressure to us. Who cares what he says!
I was thinking more about trying to recruit for needs. We didnt need Treloar
Treloar was basically a free hit. I don’t think any of us were feeling this way about half way through the 3rd in the GF last year. Him and Bont were the reason we were in the game.
Would also need to add the F1 for GWS to even think about that deal. Would be good if it could be manufactured to get 3 good younger prospects. Just wonder if Power wants the 2 1st's next year for something
Power is not going to take a sh!t deal to make Dunkley happy. So there is 3 valid options in play 1/ Lions stop *ing around and pony up 2/ Dunks she's that Lions don't really rate him and stays for a year 3/ Dunkley won't come back and can go into the PSD and can go Norf or Bummers maybe even Eagles
If Lions don't stop with the BS option 2 would be the most likely result IMO
The confusion around whether Brisbane traded the GWS' future 2nd or their own future 2nd is such a joke. It surely can't be that hard to have an official account of record.
Also ridiculous there's no historical database (publicly available) to confirm what historical picks have been used to match bids. The only place you can see the picks we used to match the bid on Darcy last year is the youtube video of the draft night.
Also ridiculous there's no historical database (publicly available) to confirm what historical picks have been used to match bids. The only place you can see the picks we used to match the bid on Darcy last year is the youtube video of the draft night.
If we had the pick to get him would take Jhye as well. We have to start thinking like a destination club and take what makes us better and back ourselves to retain talent. If they do go make sure we are properly compensated, that's why it's important to make a point on Dunkley IMO
- Sep 22, 2008
- 25,524
- 34,636
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #14,368
F1 with 11 & 39 for 18 & 19?? No way, 11 on its own for 18 & 19 is about right
Pickering is a flog with a vested interest his opinion is worth less than zero. He is going to look like a massive know if he can't broker a deal a second time around. That is career ending type space a player manager that can't get a deal done
Possibly hoping to use one or both on Lobb, which Freo won’t take atm.
The lack of any formal public record of bid matching is one of my pet peeves, such a massive oversight.
Nah, Dunkley as a Bulldog is absolutely done. No way he can walk back in for a second time, would be hugely embarrassing for both him and his manager. Plus if he re-signs for a year that only gets him to restricted FA, where the Bulldogs can match the offer and he’s in the exact same position as this year.
Then there’s the further circus of him having a third year on the list with everyone knowing he’s gone at the next chance.
The only two outcomes are Brisbane via trade or PSD.
Pay him peanuts for 1 year and he’ll be unrestricted
Draft year: Swans - “We love ya mate, nominate us and we’ll get you up here. ………Hang on, he’ll cost what? Sorry Dunks, f*ck off”
2020: Dons - “We love ya mate, nominate us and we’ll get you over here……….Hang on, he’ll cost what? Sorry, f*ck off Dunks”
2022: Brissie - “We love ya mate, nominate us and we’ll get you up here………….Hang on, he’ll cost what? F*ck off Dunks”
2020: Dons - “We love ya mate, nominate us and we’ll get you over here……….Hang on, he’ll cost what? Sorry, f*ck off Dunks”
2022: Brissie - “We love ya mate, nominate us and we’ll get you up here………….Hang on, he’ll cost what? F*ck off Dunks”
List spots can be fixed if we get the picks
- Status
