List Mgmt. Trade Hypotheticals (opposition posters post here)

[Cobbler]

I reckon it will end up being something complicated that gives GWS a 'win' (e.g. a higher first rounder or sufficient aggregation of points to be somewhere between late first rounder & mid second rounder) but also Freo a win (McCarthy plus something, e.g. keep a first rounder or get two first rounders). I suspect that GWS would consider a 3rd round value as insufficient. GWS probably don't need more picks in 2016, but might still elect to take a trade in this year's points/picks with Freo, and trade another 2016 pick for a 2017 pick (Melbourne, Geelong & Collingwood might be interested).

So, yes, even though points-wise your option 1 = option 4, I'd see option 1 as still possible and perhaps even more likely. Option 2 is equivalent to pick 22, option 3 equivalent to pick 24 so they both fit my thinking - GWS might try to perhaps also squeeze Freo's 4th round pick to get it closer to a first round value. With future trading and GWS's several first & second round 2016 picks, there's plenty of options to make a trade happen. And I reckon it will - I'm assuming neither side sees any value in McCarthy sitting out another season.

Personally, I would see option 3 attractive if I was GWS list manager. (Although I think the Collingwood pick might be a touch lower at 6 or 7.) Freo can say it's only giving up effectively a 3rd round pick, while GWS say it's getting an improved 1st round pick. Actual value in the 2nd round, which is probably not an unreasonable mid-ground. Practically, if Freo only dropped from 3 to 5 (or even 6 or 7), you'll still get a highly rated midfielder, and get a forward in McCarthy - you'd call that a win. And GWS get a higher pick - if Macreadie gets called high then the points cover him, or even see if Marshall is there to pick. (Would depend on how Marshall's being rated near draft time, and sense of what Bombers & Lions are wanting in the draft.)

Yep there would likely be a bunch of lower draft picks exchanged to provide points. I think this new system provides greater flexibility and the idea of losing a trade doesn't necessarily need to occur in this situation.

Many teams can use academy picks to barter in their favour, but in reality it also favours the team bidding.

A deal will get done.

90% saying give us your first and those saying we'll only give you our 3rd probably have no idea about the intricacies that make up the points system.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

Do we necessarily want a high pick? We don't get a discount if we use it on pick 3.

Surely you'd want to keep pick 3; if we had to use our lesser picks if you bid on an academy player we want, you then get pick 4. You get picks 13 and 17 and you could be further down the draft than you might want to be.

 

[Determinant]

No. I said pick 3 was equivalent to 13 and 17. Never had an option where McCarthy was thrown in on top of that.

I'd say option 1 and 3 are in Freo's favour. Option 4 definitely in Freo's favour, but plausible. Option 2 in GWS favour.

Realistically we need a second rounder to improve our negotiating options.

Apologies I misread your post..
I think a player exchange is the best way to get it done, but the issue there is obviously what player would want to come to Sydney that would improve our side, niche market.
Future picks may have to come into play, though we'd hopefully be seeking assurance from the AFL of their value before trading any in.

 

[Giant Strides]

Ellie - IMO it depends. I'm speculating that GWS might want a crack at Todd Marshall, and see a higher pick as required to be in the race. (Hence the last couple of sentences of my earlier post.) No, we don't get any value from a discount - but of course wouldn't anyway since he's no longer GWS Academy, and therefore would need to be a pick before anyone started bidding against academy kids. And if an early bid came on Macreadie, well, we're not wasting the points (and any excess get rolled to a later pick.)

I'm of the view that we will lose at least one of Stewart and Tomlinson, perhaps both. Zac Sproule seems a bit so-so at this stage, so getting Marshall so he can develop for a few years might be seen as a good idea. As someone (think it was Cogs #1) said - that would really blow Eddie's mind.

WRT Freo, I'd see the option 3 as more likely than 1 or 2 - only dropping a couple of picks down. GWS is more likely to want to trade the Collingwood pick down (if we could) for more points. But hey, it's just BF speculation.

 

[dlanod]

Do we necessarily want a high pick? We don't get a discount if we use it on pick 3.

If we still have enough points for the players we want from the academy and we don't think any of the players will be bid on with an earlier pick, then pick 3 is great - it means we can take all our academy players plus the third best player in the draft (give or take). If one of our players is bit on with an earlier pick, then pick 3 gets used for points and we haven't really lost anything unless we've given up too many points to get pick 3.

 

[ferrisb]

Hi guys/gals,

Not sure if it's been mentioned here, but a rumour* was posted on the Carlton board recently that Carlton is looking at a package of Marchbank, Steele, Tomlinson and Stewart. Apparently GWS have asked for our first and second picks (~5-7 & ~23-25) and the Carlton board (club, not BF) has signed off on it...

The way I see it, we are swapping our first for Marchbank and Steele and our second for Tomlinson and Stewart. I think we are getting very good value on both of those pairings, but it's not highway robbery. Overall, our picks are probably a little skinny, but if the guys want to go and are happy to come to Carlton, you might be willing to run with a package deal and move on. In the same way that we got a great deal for the GWS 4 last year but it worked for you too in its own way....(obviously this year's 4 are a level above last year's).

What do you think?


* rumour posted by a Dogs supporter, so don't yell that Carlton fans are dreaming. Also, while I'm inclined not to believe any rumours from BF,
the poster apparently was on the ball for one of the previous Carlton/GWS trades, so it's possibly not baseless...

 

[coniglio_number1]

Marchbank is best 22 when fit, Steele is highly rated by the club and a local boy.

Just cuz we did a package of stars like lamb and sumner doesn't mean it's happening every year.

We rejected pick 11 alone for Tomlinson. Can't see us handing over the quantity and quality of the names suggested for 2 picks

 

[ferrisb]

Fair enough, Con....

I agree (and said) that it's unders, but that is the rumour.

Of course you guys know your players better than I do. It's also hard to value young players who haven't played much senior footy. But if I had to take a (poor) stab at valuing them...

Marchbank, pick 8-10. Was a pick #6, has shown as much as you would expect from a young KPP. Is OOC and IF he wants to come back to VIC, I think you would settle for (a little less) than the pick #6 you paid.

Steele, pick 15-25. Was a pick #24, but was bid with pick #15? Showed some good signs, but behind a long list of midfielders at GWS. I know he is local (and his parents were foundation members, I read?) but IF he wanted to leave, I guess late 1st, early 2nd?

Tomlinson, pick 20-30. I have read we had agreed to pick 11 for Tommo last year, and it only got rejected due to McCarthygate...He has talent, but has not settled in a position at AFL level. IMHO he is a tall winger, not a KPP. And he is behind a LONG list of wingers at GWS. Also contracted for next year and if you wanted to clear cap, it could be a case of giving him away for 'unders'

Stewart, pick 35-40?? Major guess here, but I think I saw some GWS fans half agreeing to a hypothetical 3rd rounder from Ess (very ie early 3rd round). So I've run with that.

I welcome feedback on those, as I'm trying to be objective, not aiming to come here with 'I really want these guys, but they are spudz and I will only part with 6th rounders and a packet of chips.

For the record, my valuations above would give the GWS 4 a total of 3620 points. Carlton's picks only add up to 2536. Even after you factor in that the picks get you discounts, it still only adds up to 3170...So unless GWS there is a reason for GWS to get 'unders', you are feeling generous, or simply aren't that concerned about extracting full value from some fringe player, I can't see it happening.

 

[Giant Strides]

Hmmm, I had seen that on the Blues rumour thread. After last year, I'm not prepared to dismiss anything outright. But, it would be a very good deal for Carlton if true, and I'd be disappointed if GWS did that deal because we could certainly get better by spreading the players to several clubs.

By my reckoning, Marchbank would certainly command a mid to late first rounder (or equivalent later picks) by himself. Steele would be a late first rounder or early second rounder, Tomlinson a second rounder and Stewart a third rounder. I can see interest variously from Essendon, Richmond, St Kilda, North Melbourne and even Melbourne & Hawthorn for those players (not as a group but individually). So, I don't understand why we would limit our return by bundling them for a lesser return - the example essentially does us out of second and third round picks, which would be around a late first rounder in value.

I note the Blues board talked about our need to save salary cap. Well, Scully just saved some of that; presuming McCarthy is traded (which I believe will happen), that's the rest of the rumoured need, so no firesale is required. In regards needing contracts taken over, well 3 of those 4 are out of contract anyway, so last year's situation with Jed Lamb is not repeated. As I said, given the multiple machinations that surround trading and list management, I wouldn't rule anything out completely.

I have just seen your response to Cogs No. 1 - pretty spot on with those thoughts.

EDIT: Removed erroneous comment about 1st & 2nd round picks this year. D'oh!

 

[IanW]

Assuming Steele, Marchbank, Stewart and Tomlinson want to play at Carlton, Im not unhappy with the proposed mega-deal.

I'd prefer it if Steele and Marchbank re-signed, but if they dont want to be at GWS, Im happy for them to go on these terms.

 

[grouse mate]

Tommo did some interview with Phil talking to one of those brothers that knocked up Miley Cyrus. Remided me of the time Treloar interviewed The Rock. Purely on this I must say goneski.

 

[Colonial]

Tommo did some interview with Phil talking to one of those brothers that knocked up Miley Cyrus. Remided me of the time Treloar interviewed The Rock. Purely on this I must say goneski.

He was gonski after he fluffed his chances this year.

 

[Bokonon]

He was gonski after he fluffed his chances this year.

Only issue I have is we might do better with Collingwood as they will always undervalue their future picks. From the guys point of view their probably better with a club likely to go places, but from our clubs point of view not so sure? They would have to show interest anyway

 

[IanW]

Only issue I have is we might do better with Collingwood as they will always undervalue their future picks. From the guys point of view their probably better with a club likely to go places, but from our clubs point of view not so sure? They would have to show interest anyway

Collingwood have an acute lack of trade currency. The Treloar deal will be seen as we now see the Judd deal.

 

[Bokonon]

Collingwood have an acute lack of trade currency. The Treloar deal will be seen as we now see the Judd deal.

My post was pretty light hearted, I was thinking of the pleasure of holding their 2017 first rounder, but didn't make it clear.

 

[JC100]

I think there is zero chance that Tomlinson, Stewart, Marchbank and McCarthy are all traded out in the same season. Would leave a fair gap in the developing/backup key position stocks. Stewart the most likely of the 4 for us to keep as a good value for money option

If Marchbank, Tomlinson, Steele and another player were to go to Carlton I would be expecting two first rounders back from the blues. A first and second would be robbery on Carltons part but can see why they would be keen on the idea


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[F_therest]

The rumour was our first and second in the mix for those 4 players, but I'd expect we would need to throw in a bit more...

Eg a bunch of 2017 late picks 60+ for you to use as points we wouldnt use anyway...maybe even an extra third rounder as well.

Something like our 2016 first, 2017 second, third and late picks. You could then on trade our first for one next year from another club to really stack up for next year again.

Arguably still slight unders from Carlton, but pretty close to the mark and reasonable if all 4 wanted to join Carlton.

 

[JC100]

The rumour was our first and second in the mix for those 4 players, but I'd expect we would need to throw in a bit more...

Eg a bunch of 2017 late picks 60+ for you to use as points we wouldnt use anyway...maybe even an extra third rounder as well.

Something like our 2016 first, 2017 second, third and late picks. You could then on trade our first for one next year from another club to really stack up for next year again.

Arguably still slight unders from Carlton, but pretty close to the mark and reasonable if all 4 wanted to join Carlton.

I disagree that a first and second is even close to the mark and picks in the 60+ region are worthless (as in aren't they actually worth zero points?).

Three of those players are worth a first round pick on their own and if you were to get those 4 then your ladder position would be higher as a result so next years picks would be worth less.

Another reason why this trade is very unrealistic is because there is plenty of interest in Vic for both Steele and Marchbank so their value won't be reduced like the 4 players sent to Carlton last year.

2 first round picks would be the starting point and pick swaps in later rounds to even things up might be required.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Andre the Giant]

The rumour was our first and second in the mix for those 4 players, but I'd expect we would need to throw in a bit more...

Eg a bunch of 2017 late picks 60+ for you to use as points we wouldnt use anyway...maybe even an extra third rounder as well.

Something like our 2016 first, 2017 second, third and late picks. You could then on trade our first for one next year from another club to really stack up for next year again.

Arguably still slight unders from Carlton, but pretty close to the mark and reasonable if all 4 wanted to join Carlton.

Mate you need to stop dreaming. We cleared the decks last year with some surplus players and we're happy enough to cop a loss.

These are good players in high demand...we are not just here as your feeder to help you along.

That rumour is crapola

 

[OrangeDuck]

If we cleared four players to Carlton each year we wouldn't have a side in five years time. Silly suggestion IMO. Just because it happened once, doesn't mean it happens all the time.

 

[F_therest]

Forget the draft guys. Expect Steele, marchbank, Tomlinson and Stewart to be in the navy blue next season.

No. Check my track record with this stuff.

Carlton board approved the trading of your first and second picks at the most recent board meeting.

This is the rumour.

Doesn't explicitly say that it will be for our first and second picks...just that they will be involved.

 

[Turbocat]

Hmmm, I had seen that on the Blues rumour thread. After last year, I'm not prepared to dismiss anything outright. But, it would be a very good deal for Carlton if true, and I'd be disappointed if GWS did that deal because we could certainly get better by spreading the players to several clubs. (P.S. I note that the 1st & 2nd round picks cannot be in the same year, so at least one of the mooted trade picks must be a future pick.)

By my reckoning, Marchbank would certainly command a mid to late first rounder (or equivalent later picks) by himself. Steele would be a late first rounder or early second rounder, Tomlinson a second rounder and Stewart a third rounder. I can see interest variously from Essendon, Richmond, St Kilda, North Melbourne and even Melbourne & Hawthorn for those players (not as a group but individually). So, I don't understand why we would limit our return by bundling them for a lesser return - the example essentially does us out of second and third round picks, which would be around a late first rounder in value.

I note the Blues board talked about our need to save salary cap. Well, Scully just saved some of that; presuming McCarthy is traded (which I believe will happen), that's the rest of the rumoured need, so no firesale is required. In regards needing contracts taken over, well 3 of those 4 are out of contract anyway, so last year's situation with Jed Lamb is not repeated. As I said, given the multiple machinations that surround trading and list management, I wouldn't rule anything out completely.

I have just seen your response to Cogs No. 1 - pretty spot on with those thoughts.

They can be traded from the same year in the year of that draft.

 

[Giant Strides]

D'oh! Thanks Turbocat, you are correct. Getting mixed up with future trading. Have edited out that error.

 

[JC100]

This is the rumour.

Doesn't explicitly say that it will be for our first and second picks...just that they will be involved.

Big difference between the Carlton board approving a trade and the 4 players plus the Giants all agreeing to it.

It might happen but a lot of stars would have to line up for the blues and a very nice bundle of draft picks. The quality of those 4 players is far better than the 4 players last year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[F_therest]

Hmmm, I had seen that on the Blues rumour thread. After last year, I'm not prepared to dismiss anything outright. But, it would be a very good deal for Carlton if true, and I'd be disappointed if GWS did that deal because we could certainly get better by spreading the players to several clubs.

By my reckoning, Marchbank would certainly command a mid to late first rounder (or equivalent later picks) by himself. Steele would be a late first rounder or early second rounder, Tomlinson a second rounder and Stewart a third rounder. I can see interest variously from Essendon, Richmond, St Kilda, North Melbourne and even Melbourne & Hawthorn for those players (not as a group but individually). So, I don't understand why we would limit our return by bundling them for a lesser return - the example essentially does us out of second and third round picks, which would be around a late first rounder in value.

I note the Blues board talked about our need to save salary cap. Well, Scully just saved some of that; presuming McCarthy is traded (which I believe will happen), that's the rest of the rumoured need, so no firesale is required. In regards needing contracts taken over, well 3 of those 4 are out of contract anyway, so last year's situation with Jed Lamb is not repeated. As I said, given the multiple machinations that surround trading and list management, I wouldn't rule anything out completely.

I have just seen your response to Cogs No. 1 - pretty spot on with those thoughts.

EDIT: Removed erroneous comment about 1st & 2nd round picks this year. D'oh!

Agree that it would seem GWS would be better off just doing individual deals...the deal almost sounds too good to be true for Carlton, despite not knowing exactly what we'd give up.

But hey, the rumour was posted by someone who is usually on the money so its worth discussing in this thread.

I agree with your value assessments of the 4 bolded, maybe valuing Steele slightly less...dont see you getting a first rounder for him even a late one.
Well for starters, let's say our 2016 first, 2017 second and third were on the table and we finish where we are now at 11th.

That's 2016 pick 8 & say 2017 pick in the late 20's and third rounder. Im sure we'd give you our 4th rounder to use as points.
The 2017 picks account for Tomlinson and Stewart.
That leaves pick 8 for Marchbank and Steele...unders as we're rating Marchbank as mid-late first rounder and Steele say early second.
However it's not THAT far off as at the point end of the draft, each spot you get higher is far more valuable than say moving up from pick 29 to 23.
Another factor is where your academy possibilities are rated next year.
I could be wrong but with GWS needing to shrink their list dont they typically want to bundle players for higher first round picks? Like our trade a few years ago pick 7 for Jaksch, Whiley and pick 19. So is bundling Marchbank and Steele up for pick 8 better than getting say pick 16 and 22 for them separately for you?