List Mgmt. Trade & Free Agency talk Pt 3

[Tigerbob]

In deep with Lipinski and Wallis from Dogs. (Tiger71 credit for this months ago) but have heard more conversations around this this week. Very interesting. I’ve heard scenarios raised of getting the Bulldogs top pick too. I think we are going to invest in the draft to get 3 or 4 top picks and then get some experience in to beef up the list. Considering we have 6 top 50 picks we will see some movement with these.

Under no circumstances will we move on Pick 7. It’s going to get us an elite player.

 

[4tune8]

Thanks that's a clear mistake re: McCartin. Not even day to day differing of opinions would lead anyone to believe he's a gun haha.

If you look at those five drafts I think it's safe to say that 70-80% of the top 5 picks have all been guns. That's a very good strike rate, not like the days where clubs like Melbourne could stuff up with the likes of Trengrove, Watts and that other tosser that went to GWS/Hawks whose name evades me atm. These days with the amount of connectedness we have across junior leagues it's safe to say that most 'experts' end up with the same top handful and they are generally top shelf.

Even if you and me got a pick all we'd have to do is look at whose name is floating around the lists and choose one.


The 6-10 range would be less I imagine (might check tomorrow for interest's sake)

This set of players covers all non-current players drafted since 1996 in national and rookie drafts.

What we can see here is that about 55% of top 10 draft picks make it to 100 games while less than 30% of any other group does likewise. 60% of rookies never play a senior game and less than 10% of rookie picks make it to 100 games. Finding gems in the rough is a quantity game – it also involves digging up a lot of worthless rocks.

In the week after he broke the career games record, it’s worth pondering just what a spectacular outlier Brent Harvey – pick 46 in 1995 – has been against this backdrop.

If we look at the 150 and 200 game marks we can see everything from top 10 picks to late draft picks start to collapse together into a sub-20% survival rate, while top 10 picks have far lower attrition. Twice as many top-10 picks go on to play 250-games as players from anywhere outside that range.

Top 10 picks matter, and if we refer to the draft pick value chart above we can flesh this picture out by noting that top-3 picks matter more than that. The first chart shows that top 3 picks have a significantly higher number of average games, while later top 10 picks average only a bit over 100. The benefit gained by early picks is reliability and lower risks in selections, because there’s a far greater possibility of a top-10 pick contributing a significant number of games to their club.

 

[Andyy]

View attachment 1224622

This set of players covers all non-current players drafted since 1996 in national and rookie drafts.

What we can see here is that about 55% of top 10 draft picks make it to 100 games while less than 30% of any other group does likewise. 60% of rookies never play a senior game and less than 10% of rookie picks make it to 100 games. Finding gems in the rough is a quantity game – it also involves digging up a lot of worthless rocks.

In the week after he broke the career games record, it’s worth pondering just what a spectacular outlier Brent Harvey – pick 46 in 1995 – has been against this backdrop.

If we look at the 150 and 200 game marks we can see everything from top 10 picks to late draft picks start to collapse together into a sub-20% survival rate, while top 10 picks have far lower attrition. Twice as many top-10 picks go on to play 250-games as players from anywhere outside that range.

Top 10 picks matter, and if we refer to the draft pick value chart above we can flesh this picture out by noting that top-3 picks matter more than that. The first chart shows that top 3 picks have a significantly higher number of average games, while later top 10 picks average only a bit over 100. The benefit gained by early picks is reliability and lower risks in selections, because there’s a far greater possibility of a top-10 pick contributing a significant number of games to their club.

Very nice, this supports my idea, hence why I think we should be aiming for that top 5 pick if it's possible to upgrade.

Admittedly though RFC has done a SUPER job with it's dynasty list. Plenty of our players have come via the rookie draft.

Rookies:
Baker
George
Lambert
Short
Soldo

PSD
Grimes

MSD
Pickett

Deep draft:
Broad 67
Graham 53

 

[Andyy]

The tiers based on the various draft watchers power rankings have a clear top 4 and at least another 6 players in the next group.
Considering some clubs above in the draft could pick on needs we will have available a very good player at pick 7 (9). No big advantage trading up unless there is one of Horn-Francis and Callaghan available at pick 3(5).

The second first rounder should be in the sweet spot in the draft also (go GWS). Could get a player like Goater or Amiss,

Haha the straight sets exit would be a minor premiership for us. Too good to be true

 

[GoTigers2015]

Bad news, the Barometer has re-signed at the Bears for 2 more years.

 

[4tune8]

Very nice, this supports my idea, hence why I think we should be aiming for that top 5 pick if it's possible to upgrade.

Admittedly though RFC has done a SUPER job with it's dynasty list. Plenty of our players have come via the rookie draft.

Rookies:
Baker
George
Lambert
Short
Soldo

PSD
Grimes

MSD
Pickett

Deep draft:
Broad 67
Graham 53

Whilst securing a top 5 pick in essence is attractive, you have to be careful not to be myopic about it. The draft is a very fluid and changeable beast, one year might have elite talent down to pick 10, whereas another year might only have 2-3 in that top tier. Added to that are teams wants and needs, draft capital and where they see themselves in the premiership window. Using Mac Andrew as an example, he wouldn't fit our list because firstly we are chokkas with that type of player and secondly, he would need quite a few years to develop. He's rated by many though as a top 10 pick.
If you look at pick 2 this year (pick 4 after bids) then GWS have the opportunity to take Callaghan who is the last of the players regarded as 'top tier' this year, do they take him or take a player that suits their needs more like Gibcus. I personally think that they go for the best available at their 1st pick then choose a top end KPP with their 2nd first round pick.
In the Tigers situation, we might rate either of those 2 players and have a contingency in place for draft night where we package a couple of picks to gain GCS pick 3 (5 after bids) and snaffle the player that GWS passes on.

 

[smurfin]

Just to clear some stuff I’ve read on here up:

# Chol is an unrestricted free agent the best we can hope for is the offer nets us any compo (most likely a 3rd rounder if any). Don’t bother putting him in trades.

# IF we were to get the pies future 1st that pick would not be pushed back if there were a deficit, their next best pick (likely their 2nd rounder) would incur the deficit.


Still uncontracted

CCJ
Chol
Stack (R)
Cumberland
Egg (R)
Garthwaite
Miller (R)
Biggy

Thank you.
Some obviously needs constant reminding of these facts.

 

[Tigers Time]

Bad news, the Barometer has re-signed at the Bears for 2 more years.

 

[tigs2010]

In deep with Lipinski and Wallis from Dogs. (Tiger71 credit for this months ago) but have heard more conversations around this this week. Very interesting. I’ve heard scenarios raised of getting the Bulldogs top pick too. I think we are going to invest in the draft to get 3 or 4 top picks and then get some experience in to beef up the list. Considering we have 6 top 50 picks we will see some movement with these.

Under no circumstances will we move on Pick 7. It’s going to get us an elite player.

 

[Phar Ace]

View attachment 1224622

This set of players covers all non-current players drafted since 1996 in national and rookie drafts.

What we can see here is that about 55% of top 10 draft picks make it to 100 games while less than 30% of any other group does likewise. 60% of rookies never play a senior game and less than 10% of rookie picks make it to 100 games. Finding gems in the rough is a quantity game – it also involves digging up a lot of worthless rocks.

In the week after he broke the career games record, it’s worth pondering just what a spectacular outlier Brent Harvey – pick 46 in 1995 – has been against this backdrop.

If we look at the 150 and 200 game marks we can see everything from top 10 picks to late draft picks start to collapse together into a sub-20% survival rate, while top 10 picks have far lower attrition. Twice as many top-10 picks go on to play 250-games as players from anywhere outside that range.

Top 10 picks matter, and if we refer to the draft pick value chart above we can flesh this picture out by noting that top-3 picks matter more than that. The first chart shows that top 3 picks have a significantly higher number of average games, while later top 10 picks average only a bit over 100. The benefit gained by early picks is reliability and lower risks in selections, because there’s a far greater possibility of a top-10 pick contributing a significant number of games to their club.

That is a great historical tool, however I do question the relevance perhaps of modern day drafting research against a back drop that includes say the 1996 draft choices (and who could ever forget that great Essendon recruit by the name of Forfeit taken at Pick40 - remind me what position did he end up playing?) :



I'm not for one moment being personally critical - creds to you for this! It would be a good validation tool to see how say 4 blocks of 6 years stack up against each other (though the last and most recent block couldn't be accurately compared yet - and that is probably the nub of my comment).

Also, did what you (or whomever) take season or career defining injuries into account at all? I mean just look at Nathe Brown who was arguably at career peak with us when he broke his leg. So that begs the question - where to stop making excuses? Do you stop before you get to shit coaches Like Mark Neeld, or drug scandals (looking at you Bombers - bloody staring at you to be honest!).

It is great indicative work 4tune8!

 

[Phar Ace]

View attachment 1224643

Surely you had him in your Fantasy team

 

[Rocco sifreddi]

In deep with Lipinski and Wallis from Dogs. (Tiger71 credit for this months ago) but have heard more conversations around this this week. Very interesting. I’ve heard scenarios raised of getting the Bulldogs top pick too. I think we are going to invest in the draft to get 3 or 4 top picks and then get some experience in to beef up the list. Considering we have 6 top 50 picks we will see some movement with these.

Under no circumstances will we move on Pick 7. It’s going to get us an elite player.

What are the scenarios to get the Bulldogs pick?

 

[4tune8]

That is a great historical tool, however I do question the relevance perhaps of modern day drafting research against a back drop that includes say the 1996 draft choices (and who could ever forget that great Essendon recruit by the name of Forfeit taken at Pick40 - remind me what position did he end up playing?) :

View attachment 1224637

I'm not for one moment being personally critical - creds to you for this! It would be a good validation tool to see how say 4 blocks of 6 years stack up against each other (though the last and most recent block couldn't be accurately compared yet - and that is probably the nub of my comment).

Also, did what you (or whomever) take season or career defining injuries into account at all? I mean just look at Nathe Brown who was arguably at career peak with us when he broke his leg. So that begs the question - where to stop making excuses? Do you stop before you get to sh*t coaches Like Mark Neeld, or drug scandals (looking at you Bombers - bloody staring at you to be honest!).

It is great indicative work 4tune8!

Not mine mate, bit embarrassed to have given that impression.

It's on #Lore rules page in the Drafts, Trading & Free Agency section on the main board.

Originally came from here Round 20 – the “survival function” of AFL draftees, and Port’s makeshift ruck – HPN (hpnfooty.com)

Apologies for not referencing in my post.

 

[Phar Ace]

Tell what is significant from that graph 4tune8, how often Clubs appear to push players through to 100 and 200 games if they were drafted but hardly ever if Rookied. Or perhaps the Rookies numerically don't show up as well.

All good re the source of the data (I did say whoever) - you are way too astute to end up with analysis paralysis ....

 

[tigs2010]

Surely you had him in your Fantasy team

I meant who the **** is Tigerbob

 

[4tune8]

What are the scenarios to get the Bulldogs pick?

Doggies could trade their 1st this year for someones future 1st, thereby avoiding losing it in the Darcy bid match.

After the bid on Darcy has been matched they could then trade that future 1st to another club (not the club they acquired it from) for a 1st rnd pick this year.

Would give them 2 x 1st round picks this year and also keep next years 1st providing they have the points to match a bid for Darcy after trading out their 1st year.

 

[Phar Ace]

I meant who the fu** is Tigerbob

A very astute, capable and connected poster if he be the same Tigerbob from many years ago here.

 

[4tune8]

Tell what is significant from that graph 4tune8, how often Clubs appear to push players through to 100 and 200 games if they were drafted but hardly ever if Rookied. Or perhaps the Rookies numerically don't show up as well.

All good re the source of the data (I did say whoever) - you are way too astute to end up with analysis paralysis ....

I see that too. Could be contractual bonuses for those getting to 100 games? Life membership at 200?

 

[Phar Ace]

I see that too. Could be contractual bonuses for those getting to 100 games? Life membership at 200?

As harsh as it appears at times, the industry has a heart!

 

[4tune8]

As harsh as it appears at times, the industry has a heart!

Well the clubs do, I don't think the AFL Commission or Executive give a **** though

 

[fargothegreat]

Doggies could trade their 1st this year for someones future 1st, thereby avoiding losing it in the Darcy bid match.

After the bid on Darcy has been matched they could then trade that future 1st to another club (not the club they acquired it from) for a 1st rnd pick this year.

Would give them 2 x 1st round picks this year and also keep next years 1st providing they have the points to match a bid for Darcy after trading out their 1st year.

Great idea in theory if you have second and third round picks to absorb for the Darcy bid, but the Dogs' next pick after their first is currently pick 69.

Clubs are never keen to go into deficit, so I think they probably let their first rounder go.

 

[Muddiemoose]

A very astute, capable and connected poster if he be the same Tigerbob from many years ago here.

Yup, Tigerbob is one of our best imho

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Doggies could trade their 1st this year for someones future 1st, thereby avoiding losing it in the Darcy bid match.

After the bid on Darcy has been matched they could then trade that future 1st to another club (not the club they acquired it from) for a 1st rnd pick this year.

Would give them 2 x 1st round picks this year and also keep next years 1st providing they have the points to match a bid for Darcy after trading out their 1st year.

They still have to find the draft capital for Darcy - Pick#14 is their only means of achieving this beyond permanently trading out 2022 picks, because once they use any future picks as currency for achieving Darcy points, those picks cannot be retrieved.

 

[tigs2010]

A very astute, capable and connected poster if he be the same Tigerbob from many years ago here.

Yup, Tigerbob is one of our best imho

****ing hell! I might disappear for 10 years and everyone will remember me more fondly that I deserve too

 

[Tigers Time]

Great idea in theory if you have second and third round picks to absorb for the Darcy bid, but the Dogs' next pick after their first is currently pick 69.

Clubs are never keen to go into deficit, so I think they probably let their first rounder go.

Lots of interest around Lipinski (likely mid to late 2nd rounder) and who knows if anyone else gets shaken loose. Plus they can also move next years 2nd and 3rd to this draft. Trading their 1st this year for a future 1st also means even if they did have a bit of a deficit they’d still have a 1st guaranteed.

There’s a multitude of options open to them because almost every club will make a play for their 1st.