Why we should never, ever trade away future draft picks...

[bulldogtragic]

Anyone who pays any attention to my rambling thoughts know I'm dead against a strategy of trading away future draft picks, especially first rounders.

Port Adelaide traded this year's second rounder to get Dixon. Which looks like yet another juicy pick for GCS if their poor form continues.

Collingwood offered up this year's first rounder for Treloar, and this year's second rounder for Aish. If their season falls of a cliff, and I hope it does, they could have given away pick 3-5 and 21-23. In addition to picks 7 and 25 last year. If we split the difference and say pick 4 and 22 this year. That's picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 for Treloar & Aish and are locked out top draftees if no other trades get them back in. That's a much, much bigger potential disaster than resigning Buckley 5 weeks ago. Although GWS & Brisbane must be feeling a bit better now, and much happier if their form continues.

Geelong will probably break even in the Henderson first rounder for this year.

But I really, really don't like the strategy and really hope we don't go down this path. If you get it wrong, it could cripple the club worse than potential gain.

[GVGjr]

BT, whilst I don't necessarily like a hard and fast rule with trading or list management I tend to think your position on not trading future picks is very close to the mark. It would take a big deal for me to be comfortable with it.

Just to expand on this a bit further I'd like to know your views on how much influence a coach should have on trading away future picks?

My concern would be if a coach who knows he is under some pressure to get results would look towards a quick fix by paying overs for an established star. This could very well be in his best interest but not necessarily that of the clubs.
I could also see how an experienced coach could easily influence a new list or recruiting manager.

Thankfully the AFL has some safeguards and limits on what a club could trade but like you I'd prefer that we don't consider it as regular option.

[boydogs]

Disagree, if you never did anything that affected list management in future years everyone would be on 1 year contracts

[bulldogtragic]

BT, whilst I don't necessarily like a hard and fast rule with trading or list management I tend to think your position on not trading future picks is very close to the mark. It would take a big deal for me to be comfortable with it.

Just to expand on this a bit further I'd like to know your views on how much influence a coach should have on trading away future picks?

My concern would be if a coach who knows he is under some pressure to get results would look towards a quick fix by paying overs for an established star. This could very well be in his best interest but not necessarily that of the clubs.
I could also see how an experienced coach could easily influence a new list or recruiting manager.

Thankfully the AFL has some safeguards and limits on what a club could trade but like you I'd prefer that we don't consider it as regular option.

That's a real web of issues G. We saw Mick Malthouse get Liam Jones a million bucks, Tutt to walk out and recruit a range of mid range players for top picks (Jeaksch etc). Plus getting Daisy $4,000,000 for a non contending club. I'd think to save his skin he'd have traded every possible pick the club had if he was at the club still. There in lies so many problems like you tease out. That's why I'd have a hard and fast rule of never ever doing it, with a tiny asterisk. Perhaps an internal override can exist only if all five of the president, CEO, coach, list manager and recruiter ALL agree.

The fall out like Collingwood face could mean they can't rebuild properly, whoever they realise they need to rebuild. If they stay down this should be front and centre if it gets mentioned at our club. As for the AFL, if they want to allow clubs to do stupid things in the trade period that hurt them long term so be it. I just hope we're not one of them.

[bulldogtragic]

Disagree, if you never did anything that affected list management in future years everyone would be on 1 year contracts

Collingwood would've thought in their minds that they we giving up 18 & 36 (winning the trade). They could give up 4 & 22 (major, serious loss). That's betting the farm and losing. Plus being without top draftees for two years. I don't want to be in that class of arrogant recklessness.

[1eyedog]

Depends on what you want and need. You have to give up something good to get something good. I'm not adverse to giving up picks provided we get the right player(s) that suits our needs and I would only do it when we are a genuine premiership threat.

[bulldogtragic]

Depends on what you want and need. You have to give up something good to get something good. I'm not adverse to giving up picks provided we get the right player(s) that suits our needs and I would only do it when we are a genuine premiership threat.

What if you fall off the perch the following year (ala Port & Collingwood) and you estimated giving up picking 15 for an equivalent player, but then go bust, and then you give up pick 4. That's not about giving good for getting good isn't it? That's a punt of a Stringer or Bontempelli type who you can rebuild around if it doesn't go well. If Collingwood end up giving up picks 4 or 5 this year I'm sure every Collingwood member will follow the progress of the player picked up with that pick until they retire.

[Twodogs]

So if Collingwood's season goes tits up they haven't even got decent draft picks to play for? There is no upside for them at all? Whatsoever? They can't even say "oh yeah the lower the better"

The position they attain at the end of the season will be a complete true and accurate reflection of how shit they are.

The reaction of the toothless masses could be fun.

[1eyedog]

What if you fall off the perch the following year (ala Port & Collingwood) and you estimated giving up picking 15 for an equivalent player, but then go bust, and then you give up pick 4. That's not about giving good for getting good isn't it? That's a punt of a Stringer or Bontempelli type who you can rebuild around if it doesn't go well. If Collingwood end up giving up picks 4 or 5 this year I'm sure every Collingwood member will follow the progress of the player picked up with that pick until they retire.

There's a fair amount of knowing in who you choose to target for such a high draft pick though surely? A Treloar or an Aish are safeish picks, as safe as any other top 10 I think and both are young. I think the Pies will benefit that they've had 2 years of preseasons under their belts. The really dangerous ground is picking up at 26+ year old for a top 10 and you fall off the perch the following year. They turn 27 and you enter a 3-4 year rebuild. Not a good scenario.

You can just as easily pick a Cale Morton, Bryce Gibbs, Mitch Thorp or dare I say it a Jarrad Grant, ouch.

[bulldogtragic]

There's a fair amount of knowing in who you choose to target for such a high draft pick though surely? A Treloar or an Aish are safeish picks, as safe as any other top 10 I think and both are young. I think the Pies will benefit that they've had 2 years of preseasons under their belts. The really dangerous ground is picking up at 26+ year old for a top 10 and you fall off the perch the following year. They turn 27 and you enter a 3-4 year rebuild. Not a good scenario.

You can just as easily pick a Cale Morton, Bryce Gibbs, Mitch Thorp or dare I say it a Jarrad Grant, ouch.

But the full trade for Aish & Treloar at the current position is picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 over two years and no picks in the first two rounds for two years (unless they trade back in). That's a badly losing, overpaying overall trade in my estimation.

The pies banked on these guys costing pick 14 & 32 this year, not 4 & 22. It's a huge gamble to trade away future picks and they look like losing big time.

[boydogs]

Collingwood would've thought in their minds that they we giving up 18 & 36 (winning the trade). They could give up 4 & 22 (major, serious loss). That's betting the farm and losing. Plus being without top draftees for two years. I don't want to be in that class of arrogant recklessness.

Every decision has its risks. Perhaps without trading future picks Treloar never gets to the club at all, but now that he has wins the brownlow. Maybe Tom Boyd wins the Coleman and is the missing ingredient in our flag push, or maybe he stuffs our salary cap for 7 years

[bulldogtragic]

Every decision has its risks. Perhaps without trading future picks Treloar never gets to the club at all, but now that he has wins the brownlow. Maybe Tom Boyd wins the Coleman and is the missing ingredient in our flag push, or maybe he stuffs our salary cap for 7 years

Driving a car has risk, driving a car at 200km with your eyes shut is a big risk. Potentially losing picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 for Treloar & Aish is an horrific outcome because they didn't/refused to trade players out, but signed up more like Jeremy Howe too. They were forced by circumstance to trade their future away. Gryphone walked out under contract, and we traded to get the former no. 1 draft pick to walk from his contract. Paying the most talented tall kid money to get his services is a long way off screwing your future.

For instance, Carlton got Chris Judd for a couple of very high picks and Josh Kennedy. Judd won a Brownlow, yet Carlton are a disgrace and West Coast played in the Grand Final. Why bet your future draft picks when there's no need? You can't use the pick, nor trade up, nor trade down, nor use it on a player trade in that year if you've given it away, especially for way under market value as Collingwood look likely to do.

[1eyedog]

But the full trade for Aish & Treloar at the current position is picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 over two years and no picks in the first two rounds for two years (unless they trade back in). That's a badly losing, overpaying overall trade in my estimation.

The pies banked on these guys costing pick 14 & 32 this year, not 4 & 22. It's a huge gamble to trade away future picks and they look like losing big time.

You're probably right. I agree it's a lot to give up and given our success in the 20s it makes me think that it is way overs even if they do have stellar careers. FWIW I think Treloar will be a fantastic player for them, he's been on show for while and Collingwood like the preview. Like I said it's a lot to give up but I think they're pretty ok with what they're getting.

[bulldogtragic]

You're probably right. I agree it's a lot to give up and given our success in the 20s it makes me think that it is way overs even if they do have stellar careers. FWIW I think Treloar will be a fantastic player for them. The benefit of getting a Treloar is that you just know he's going to be a player. But yeah, agreed, its a lot to pay for that preview.

Treloar is a gun, no doubt. But let's use Ward & Harbrow as names instead of Treloar and Aish (similar sorts in a sense, one gun, one good runner with foot skills). We got picks 6 & 18. If we were offered picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 for them we'd sign, head down to the nearest pub and put a wad of $100 notes on the bar. Carlton over payed for a gun (Judd) and have never really recovered because of involving Kennedy too. Collingwood might just follow suit. I just think there's a real lesson to be learnt here about gambling future picks, gambling future full stop.

[boydogs]

Driving a car has risk, driving a car at 200km with your eyes shut is a big risk. Potentially losing picks 4, 7, 22 & 25 for Treloar & Aish is an horrific outcome because they didn't/refused to trade players out, but signed up more like Jeremy Howe too. They were forced by circumstance to trade their future away. Gryphone walked out under contract, and we traded to get the former no. 1 draft pick to walk from his contract. Paying the most talented tall kid money to get his services is a long way off screwing your future.

For instance, Carlton got Chris Judd for a couple of very high picks and Josh Kennedy. Judd won a Brownlow, yet Carlton are a disgrace and West Coast played in the Grand Final. Why bet your future draft picks when there's no need? You can't use the pick, nor trade up, nor trade down, nor use it on a player trade in that year if you've given it away, especially for way under market value as Collingwood look likely to do.

I don't think you've made the case for Carlton & Collingwood losing those trades, let alone the involvement of low or future picks being the reasoning. West Coast probably won the Judd trade but more from getting Kennedy than the draft picks involved. Treloar has started really well and Aish is getting games, too early to call that 4 weeks in

We've already traded our 2016 3rd round pick in the pick 11 downgrade for Collins & Dunkley. If we never, ever traded away future draft picks, one of them wouldn't be on our list

[boydogs]

Double post

[FrediKanoute]

I think that you trade the future with caution, especially where the future value is very uncertain. That's not to say you don't do it. If the Dogs were on the cusp of a GF and were a Barry Hall - trading the 2008 pick in 2007 to get Barry which wins you a flag in 08 and 09 is exactly what you should be doing - yes you are stuffed going forward, if the time is now you do it.

The Pies big issue is that they have completely misread their list - top up players aren't going to get them to the big dance any time soon.

[Sedat]

Great thread. It is critical for clubs to know exactly where they are at in their development cycle, otherwise the trading of future picks can be a disaster waiting to happen.

With those players in their mid to late 20's who are 'name' players, I'd much prefer to go the free agency route to ensure future talent is still coming through to the club. Charlie Dixon is a classic case of over-paying for a player in this age bracket who has never shown consistency deserving of the eventual draft pick investment - it also shows Port having an inflated opinion of their list. Dixon reminds me of Jade Rawlings in terms of the outlay needed to secure the services of a player who has done very little in the position they were secured for.

Treloar is a slightly different case in that his talent level and age profile would justify the investment of future picks, but only if the club knows where they are at in their development cycle. Clearly Collingwood think they are contending for top 4 (and top 8 at the very least) this year, which would justify the cost outlay to secure Treloar's services. That value proposition diminishes rapidly if they finish 13th-16th.

[Sedat]

Double post

[soupman]

The Pies big issue is that they have completely misread their list - top up players aren't going to get them to the big dance any time soon.
Tbf Treloar and Aish are as much long term investments as they are players for now. It isn't like Collingwood loaded up on 30 year olds North style.

[1eyedog]

Great thread. It is critical for clubs to know exactly where they are at in their development cycle, otherwise the trading of future picks can be a disaster waiting to happen.

With those players in their mid to late 20's who are 'name' players, I'd much prefer to go the free agency route to ensure future talent is still coming through to the club. Charlie Dixon is a classic case of over-paying for a player in this age bracket who has never shown consistency deserving of the eventual draft pick investment - it also shows Port having an inflated opinion of their list. Dixon reminds me of Jade Rawlings in terms of the outlay needed to secure the services of a player who has done very little in the position they were secured for.

Treloar is a slightly different case in that his talent level and age profile would justify the investment of future picks, but only if the club knows where they are at in their development cycle. Clearly Collingwood think they are contending for top 4 (and top 8 at the very least) this year, which would justify the cost outlay to secure Treloar's services. That value proposition diminishes rapidly if they finish 13th-16th.

I'm not sure Collingwood believe they are top 4. I think Bucks is a realist and knows he needs to get them to the finals but he also realises they have a young list and need to plan for life post Swan (32) and Pendlebury (28). Collingwood believe that Treloar will be an out and out gun and paid overs to get him, plenty of teams do that. Aish could be anything as well and was expected to go around 4-6 in the draft. If I was a Collingwood supporter I wouldn't be unhappy getting Treloar and Aish for what they gave up, at least they've got two players who are young, gifted and will come through the system at an age profile inline with a large percentage of their list. There are plenty of misses in the 20s as well.

[chef]

I'm not sure Collingwood believe they are top 4. I think Bucks is a realist and knows he needs to get them to the finals but he also realises they have a young list and need to plan for life post Swan (32) and Pendlebury (28). Collingwood believe that Treloar will be an out and out gun and paid overs to get him, plenty of teams do that. Aish could be anything as well and was expected to go around 4-6 in the draft. If I was a Collingwood supporter I wouldn't be unhappy getting Treloar and Aish for what they gave up, at least they've got two players who are young, gifted and will come through the system at an age profile inline with a large percentage of their list. There are plenty of misses in the 20s as well.


Pert was saying a March that they believe they are are top 4 side and expect to snag a flag over the next 3 seasons.

[Happy Days]

Question - is there any protection that can be placed on the traded future picks? Eg, saying that you'll trade a "future pick" without a specified year, but rather your next first round pick that falls outside of the top 10?

[bulldogtragic]

Question - is there any protection that can be placed on the traded future picks? Eg, saying that you'll trade a "future pick" without a specified year, but rather your next first round pick that falls outside of the top 10?

I'm pretty sure at this stage it's only the following years draft picks.

[1eyedog]

Pert was saying a March that they believe they are are top 4 side and expect to snag a flag over the next 3 seasons.

Not the first time a senior football manager / CEO / President has gone off at the mouth prior to the commencement of the season. If they believe that they're delusional. If they believe that Treloar and Aish will be the difference between finals / no finals they are insane. I think they could be top 4 in 3 years but with the exception of Moore they're lacking in the big man department.

They'll also need Scharenberg and Reid to stay on the park.

[Twodogs]

Collingwood have to say the occasional stupid thing or make the odd outrageous statement because their supporters demand it. I have no doubt that Pert was just preaching to the masses, he knows that hey aren't in contention for at least a couple of years but their supporter base don't want to hear it. Whether it's the right thing to be giving people false hope is open to question but it's only Collingwood supporters. If they knew anything about football then they wouldn't be barracking for Collingwood...

[Sedat]

Collingwood have to say the occasional stupid thing or make the odd outrageous statement because their supporters demand it. I have no doubt that Pert was just preaching to the masses, he knows that hey aren't in contention for at least a couple of years but their supporter base don't want to hear it. Whether it's the right thing to be giving people false hope is open to question but it's only Collingwood supporters. If they knew anything about football then they wouldn't be barracking for Collingwood...
I reckon they genuinely thought they were in with a shot at top 4 this year - they have spent the last couple of years shedding the older players and stockpiling young talent and made fast starts in both 2014 and 2015 before falling in a hole. Those years were their '1 step back' years and 2016 was going to be their '2 steps forward' year. Where they've come unstuck is that they overrated players who performed well in a small sample size (eg: Crisp in 2015, Greenwood for Norf in 2014), they overrated the talent of the youth on their list (eg: De Goey, Oxley, Maynard but they've all still got time to come good), they missed some howlers at the top end of the draft (Scharenberg, Freeman) and they've overrated the capacity of older players to rediscover lost form (Cloke).

They also haven't planned for the rule changes, and are painfully light on for leg speed and kicking skills (Freeman would have helped here but was always injured and is now at St Kilda). The lower rotations have hurt them - this was a great strength of theirs previously with the likes of Swan who could run redline in short bursts. All adds up to their current predicament, where they still use a 30yo Pendles to fill every hole on the ground - he's a gun but he isn't going to get better or quicker.

Oh, and Bucks may well not be able to coach. Wasn't a mistake to move Malthouse on, but to replace him with someone unproven and without adequate experience at multiple clubs or coaching his own side was a big error of judgement.

[1eyedog]

Collingwood have to say the occasional stupid thing or make the odd outrageous statement because their supporters demand it. I have no doubt that Pert was just preaching to the masses, he knows that hey aren't in contention for at least a couple of years but their supporter base don't want to hear it. Whether it's the right thing to be giving people false hope is open to question but it's only Collingwood supporters. If they knew anything about football then they wouldn't be barracking for Collingwood...

Smorgo did the same thing a few years back.

[always right]

Gordon posed the question at the bulldogs family day this year......"Is this the best bulldogs list ever?"

Presidents talk the club up.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

looks like the afl journo's are making use of forums for their work again

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/gws-set-for-giant-draft

[bulldogtragic]

looks like the afl journo's are making use of forums for their work again

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/gws-set-for-giant-draft

Man I/we should copyright my threads. They could at least recognise WOOF.

[Twodogs]

looks like the afl journo's are making use of forums for their work again

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/gws-set-for-giant-draft


Hi Peter.

[Bulldog4life]

Man I/we should copyright my threads. They could at least recognise WOOF.

Man I/we should copyright my/our threads.:)

[Greystache]

Man I/we should copyright my threads. They could at least recognise WOOF.

These days I put on my tax return- Banking Strategist/Freelance writer for Herald-Sun, The Age, AFL.com.au

There's a couple of journalists who are well know parasites of other people ideas on footy forums.

[Greystache]

On topic it's too simplistic to say you should never trade future picks. In fact the perceived value of draft picks far outweighs the value of players once selected.

Look at some of the recent high picks, Tom Boyd was unanimous pick #1, now you have "experts" saying you wouldn't trade a valuable first round pick for him. When Melbourne gave up pick 2 for pick 9 and Dom Tyson they were criticized for giving up a certain superstar in pick 2 for pick 9 and some no name dud, ignoring completely that Tyson was the guaranteed superstar you wouldn't lose by giving up pick 3 only 3 years earlier. Aish was supposed to be the player you'd give up a gun for to get an early enough pick snare him, then 2 years later isn't worth 2 second round picks.

Using our club, we could've traded our future first round pick every year from 2005 to 2008 and been in no danger of missing out on a good player in doing so. Draft picks are only as valuable as the selection you make with them, and often that selection doesn't work out.

[hujsh]

On topic it's too simplistic to say you should never trade future picks. In fact the perceived value of draft picks far outweighs the value of players once selected.

Look at some of the recent high picks, Tom Boyd was unanimous pick #1, now you have "experts" saying you wouldn't trade a valuable first round pick for him. When Melbourne gave up pick 2 for pick 9 and Dom Tyson they were criticized for giving up a certain superstar in pick 2 for pick 9 and some no name dud, ignoring completely that Tyson was the guaranteed superstar you wouldn't lose by giving up pick 3 only 3 years earlier. Aish was supposed to be the player you'd give up a gun for to get an early enough pick snare him, then 2 years later isn't worth 2 second round picks.

Using our club, we could've traded our future first round pick every year from 2005 to 2008 and been in no danger of missing out on a good player in doing so. Draft picks are only as valuable as the selection you make with them, and often that selection doesn't work out.

The way we've been going I'd be hesitant to trade pick 35 for anyone short of Buddy

[jeemak]

Double post

Quoted for truth!

[jeemak]

Good thread, and it poses a question that in my view won't be answered for a few years, and then not answered again for another few.

Teams which make bold decision like the Pies did need to be prepared to offer up something reasonable in the forward year for trade to find themselves in the late first round or early second round if they want to keep their lists improving. I guess that means just like any recruiting strategy, giving away forward picks needs to be viewed as part of a long term recruitment strategy. Due to their age Aish and Treloar weren't going to pay immediate dividends and just like us, having them develop with other young players developing is the real pay off.

I always think predictions on form, aside from a few clearly pox teams, this early in the season are irrelevant. Collingwood in bad form attracts the same level of hyperbole as Collingwood in good form and after four rounds this is no different.

[bulldogtragic]

I'm not addressing the OP strictly, but on Collingwood, they are on track to have now given up picks 5 & 23 this year (7 & 26 last year for Treloar & Aish). Treloar now looks to have cost picks 5 & 7. I think that makes this trade the most expensive from a pick/player perspective behind only The Judd Deal.

That's a really huge impediment and hit for them being able to rebuild effectively. GWS get another top 5 picks from Collingwood, plus probably a first rounder for McCarthy, plus their natural first rounder and any other decent trades. That's up to another 4 first rounders for GWS this year.

[Twodogs]

That's turned into a silly price to pay for Trealor. I rate Trealor but not two first round picks worth. That's Judd at his peak price.

[bulldogtragic]

That's turned into a silly price to pay for Trealor. I rate Trealor but not two first round picks worth. That's Judd at his peak price.

Yep, taking the names out, Carlton gave up pick 4 (of one year) followed by pick 3 (later year) and pick 20. Treloar costs picks 5 & 7. I think Judd at his peak is worth more than the pick 20 which separates the two trades. Arguably, both could have or did stunt the clubs rebuild. A part from that, handing GWS two top 7 picks isn't doing the rest of us any favours.

[comrade]

Treloar is an absolute jet but A grade mids can be found outside the top 10 generally - look at Sydney's group for example (Parker, JK, Hannebery all guns and no where near the top 10 in their draft years). Giving away 2 of them is a huge cost in terms of opportunity. What else could they have returned with those picks. Perhaps 2 players of Treloar's quality. Perhaps they turn it into a key forward they're crying out for?

Obviously they'll get great service from Treloar but for his type of player, the cost will end up too great.

[bulldogtragic]

Dangerfield - Picks 9, 28 & Dean Gore
Treloar - Picks 5 & 7

If Tom Boyd is irresponsible trading because of the salary component, the Adam Treloar trade is irresponsible for giving up more than the Dangerfield trade and just less than the Judd trade. So let's see Barrett line up Collingwood, Eddie & Treloar.

[bulldogtragic]

Collingwood are locked in their final ladder spot, virtually now. So this is the cost:

Treloar: Pick 7 2015, Pick 7 2016
Aish: Pick 26 2015, Pick 28 2016

[GVGjr]

Collingwood are locked in their final ladder spot, virtually now. So this is the cost:

Treloar: Pick 7 2015, Pick 7 2016
Aish: Pick 26 2015, Pick 28 2016

It's somewhat more about perceived value for Collingwood because they knew what the potential downside was for them when they made the deals.

I think Brisbane have come up short (again) on this deal for Aish and of course GWS have come up trumps (again) on the Treloar deal.
The GWS strategy of drafting so many youngsters in their early years will continue to generously fund them going forward if clubs are prepared to use their credit card to acquire their talent.

I'd still be very cautious about trading future picks for players.

[jeemak]

The price for Aish looks appealing. Treloar as good as he is looks expensive.

[Twodogs]

Drafting pretty much all kids gave GWS a sort of superannuation of draft picks trickling back to them as they trade then back. They even got to inflate the draft pick number of some kids by up to five in some cases. That would have been handy to know if you were always planning on trading them back anyway.

[jeemak]

The AFL sold the GWS concept and concessions to clubs on the understanding a raft of picks would be traded for experienced players, but apparently the AFL was powerless in enforcing that process (even though they funded them and effectively managed them).

[Twodogs]

Yep. Couldn't be done, sorry. Even though they they ran the show they couldn't get themselves to agree with one another. Obviously the only sane course of action was to renege on the promises they'd made in order to get their own way on the first pace. Oh well they know best I guess.

[azabob]

Collingwood are locked in their final ladder spot, virtually now. So this is the cost:

Treloar: Pick 7 2015, Pick 7 2016
Aish: Pick 26 2015, Pick 28 2016

Adam Treloar is an out and out superstar. Collingwood also got pick 28 from 2015 in return, and also gave up pick 68.

Based on what I've seen from Treloar this year and on Friday night I think they would be ok with how things have panned out.

[Topdog]

Adam Treloar is an out and out superstar. Collingwood also got pick 28 from 2015 in return, and also gave up pick 68.

Based on what I've seen from Treloar this year and on Friday night I think they would be ok with how things have panned out.

That became pick 32. Its a difficult one. They have gained a gun but lost chance at having 2 great players.

He was 22 when they got him so still a potential of a 10 year gun but in 3 years time they will have no one aged 21 that will be good. They have created a big hole in their list and they weren't close to a premiership.

[bulldogtragic]

Last year we obviously traded 12 for 20 & 21. Dunkley & Collins who will be guns. The finer details also included trading our 3rd rounder this year for Carlton's fourth.

They would not have expected us to be in the final 4. So we are getting their pick 59. But because we pushing deep, they will receive pick 51-54. A very minor drop in deed. We already won from this trade, but because the gap is so narrow in a only a 5-8 pick drop down, we've really, really done well and even better. Sorry Carlton.

[bulldogtragic]

So what do make of clubs being able to trade high end future picks, with Hawthorn now in the shit?

It makes big trades more easy to facilitate, but Treloar (Picks 7 & 7) & O'Meara (Picks 10 & 3*) are really forcing up market prices on these gun players. The mid level tinkering (say the 12-15 pick upgrade for Hrovat/Stevens etc) that clubs are doing seems to making life a lot easier for list managers and also bringing in some speculation risk to list management, which isn't too bad a thing.

The question is, should the AFEL review this futures trading and protect some clubs from themselves, and maybe even bring down the trade value at the pointy end players? Or leave everyone with just enough rope?

[Happy Days]

It's pretty simple, just let clubs put protections on their picks like the NBA does.

[comrade]

It's pretty simple, just let clubs put protections on their picks like the NBA does.

How does that work? How would St Kilda be compensated in this case?

[GVGjr]

How does that work? How would St Kilda be compensated in this case?

I think it means you could do a future trade that say's if you finish in the bottom four (as an example) then the Hawks would still keep that pick and the Saints would get the following years first round pick regardless of where the Hawks finish.

It essentially means that if you do worse than expected you don't have to hand over that years early pick.

[comrade]

I think it means you could do a future trade that say's if you finish in the bottom four (as an example) then the Hawks would still keep that pick and the Saints would get the following years first round pick regardless of where the Hawks finish.

It essentially means that if you do worse than expected you don't have to hand over that years early pick.

So let's say it's a top 3 protected first round pick in 2017, if Hawks finish 2nd last the Saints get the Hawks 2018 first rounder even if they finish last?

[GVGjr]

So let's say it's a top 3 protected first round pick in 2017, if Hawks finish 2nd last the Saints get the Hawks 2018 first rounder even if they finish last?

That is my understanding.

[Twodogs]

So what do make of clubs being able to trade high end future picks, with Hawthorn now in the shit?

It makes big trades more easy to facilitate, but Treloar (Picks 7 & 7) & O'Meara (Picks 10 & 3*) are really forcing up market prices on these gun players. The mid level tinkering (say the 12-15 pick upgrade for Hrovat/Stevens etc) that clubs are doing seems to making life a lot easier for list managers and also bringing in some speculation risk to list management, which isn't too bad a thing.

The question is, should the AFEL review this futures trading and protect some clubs from themselves, and maybe even bring down the trade value at the pointy end players? Or leave everyone with just enough rope?

Apart from anything else at least we know Hawthorn won't be tanking at least.

[Webby]

So let's say it's a top 3 protected first round pick in 2017, if Hawks finish 2nd last the Saints get the Hawks 2018 first rounder even if they finish last?

In America (whose draft, cap & trade systems we've copied), trades are done for future draft picks with caveats such as "traded for LA's future first round pick - top 5 protected." for example.

That then protects the Hawthorn's from themselves.

As with tanking, it amazes me that the AFL collectively copies the Americans' systems, but doesn't learn from the Yanks' mistakes, experiences and subsequent fixes. It's borderline ignorant.

[comrade]

In America (whose draft, cap & trade systems we've copied), trades are done for future draft picks with caveats such as "traded for LA's future first round pick - top 5 protected." for example.

That then protects the Hawthorn's from themselves.

As with tanking, it amazes me that the AFL collectively copies the Americans' systems, but doesn't learn from the Yanks' mistakes, experiences and subsequent fixes. It's borderline ignorant.

Yeah, understand the protection. But just wanted clarification on what Saints would get in return. GVG believes it would be the next year's pick regardless of where it is.

[bulldogtragic]

Yeah, understand the protection. But just wanted clarification on what Saints would get in return. GVG believes it would be the next year's pick regardless of where it is.

That'd be very harsh on St Kilda, they'd give up 2016 and not get anything until 2018.

[comrade]

That'd be very harsh on St Kilda, they'd give up 2016 and not get anything until 2018.

Yeah, I think you just let teams cop it if they fall off the cliff. It's not like it was unexpected for Hawthorn to slip down the ladder eventually.

[bulldogtragic]

Yeah, I think you just let teams cop it if they fall off the cliff. It's not like it was unexpected for Hawthorn to slip down the ladder eventually.

That, or drop this all together. It's the work of the devil in these extreme cases. GCS & GWS got to plunder drafts, yet again, already having multiple academy prospects last year. St Kilda who may open their window whilst we are in ours, get a huge boost with a possible top 3-5 pick. That's great for them, but not those competing against them.

I'd like to know if the AFEL will review it and make public whether it's actually good thing for the game, or not. So far Geelong keep throwing away futures to top up, and it's facilitated trades sure, but has the market price of players involved in higher end trades gone above what market value should be. Yes, the market sets the value, but they regulate the conditions of the market and it'd be nice to know if it's been a good thing or not. Free agency for all its hoopla, is a very small thing despite the promises and seems to mainly make stronger teams stronger.

[Twodogs]

I think we should just let teams live with their mistakes. You can't legislate against stupidity.

[bulldogtragic]

I think we should just let teams live with their mistakes. You can't legislate against stupidity.

Ordinarily id agree, but they've only just introduced it. Soon enough to scrap it, if it's not best for the entire comp.

[GVGjr]

We shouldn't consider protected or unprotected future picks just because it happens in other sports. It's a bit of American BS that doesn't suit or competition which is unique with vastly different challenges to most other sports.

The NBA teams for example have a small roster and worldwide talent pool that they can potentially recruit from. The clubs ability to spend money to address gaps on the list is vastly different to the challenges our club face. San Antonio Spurs have never had a top 20 picks for years in fact the last time they had an early draft pick was 1997 when they landed the number 1 pick. During this period the club has been a serious contender nearly every year because they have found away our recruiting outside of the draft.

I think the balance we have in recruiting and trading is more than adequate to allow a good blend of trades and drafts picks allowing players to move around the competition.

I don't believe having trading of protected draft picks would benefit the competition in the slightest

[Sedat]

Last year we obviously traded 12 for 20 & 21. Dunkley & Collins who will be guns. The finer details also included trading our 3rd rounder this year for Carlton's fourth.

They would not have expected us to be in the final 4. So we are getting their pick 59. But because we pushing deep, they will receive pick 51-54. A very minor drop in deed. We already won from this trade, but because the gap is so narrow in a only a 5-8 pick drop down, we've really, really done well and even better. Sorry Carlton.
Carlton got Charlie Curnow with our pick 12, who I rate massively. We need Collins to come through for this trade to be a definitive win.

[bulldogtragic]

Carlton got Charlie Curnow with our pick 12, who I rate massively. We need Collins to come through for this trade to be a definitive win.

Fair enough. If we take Dal at face value, we wouldn't have selected Curnow if we kept 12.

[bornadog]

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/fed9331388021f45b17ebf35da00468f?width=650

[Sedat]

Fair enough. If we take Dal at face value, we wouldn't have selected Curnow if we kept 12.
I completely agree with our rationale for trading down to get 2 picks in the top 21, and who we targeted and got with those picks - Curnow is basically a hybrid size tall mid/forward, and we do already have a couple of handy types in Stringer and Bontempelli in similar roles. But I do think Curnow will develop into a serious player - Kouta comparisons have already commenced and I can see the resemblance.

[boydogs]

I'd like to know if the AFEL will review it and make public whether it's actually good thing for the game, or not

By what measure? It's a very subjective thing

[bulldogtragic]

By what measure? It's a very subjective thing

The measure they had in mind when agreeing to change the rules, whatever they may be. That is to say, have the improvements projected or hypothesised in the system change by the AFEL materialised or not?

[Bulldog4life]

I completely agree with our rationale for trading down to get 2 picks in the top 21, and who we targeted and got with those picks - Curnow is basically a hybrid size tall mid/forward, and we do already have a couple of handy types in Stringer and Bontempelli in similar roles. But I do think Curnow will develop into a serious player - Kouta comparisons have already commenced and I can see the resemblance.

They both have curly hair?

[Twodogs]

I haven't seen Curnow play in senior footy yet, I'm looking forward to it. Carlton are starting to build an impressive young list of players with Cripps and the big kid they took at #1 last year, Wetering is it?

[jeemak]

Yep TD

[jeemak]

The measure they had in mind when agreeing to change the rules, whatever they may be. That is to say, have the improvements projected or hypothesised in the system change by the AFEL materialised or not?

As a rule you should bank on the exact opposite of the publicly declared intent of an AFL rule change taking place.

[bulldogtragic]

As a rule you should bank on the exact opposite of the publicly declared intent of an AFL rule change taking place.

Yep. I'm trying to work on not being debilitatingly cynical, but the AFEL and its various arms ('integrity unit', fixturing, MRP etc) make it impossible. But it would be really nice if just once they shocked the fans by doing something constructive, beyond $3 possum, beef anus & rat filled pastry shells on Sundays. But I suppose when you have a monopoly, you can do nothing, ignore the game and help personally help yourself to large salaries.

[Twodogs]

Yep TD


Cheers mate.


As a rule you should bank on the exact opposite of the publicly declared intent of an AFL rule change taking place.

Sir Humphrey said on Yes Minister that you got the difficult bit you didn't actually want to do out in the title of a report. If you put it in the title that way it's out there, everybody can see it's been acknowledged and nobody has to mention whatever it is ever again.

[boydogs]

The measure they had in mind when agreeing to change the rules, whatever they may be. That is to say, have the improvements projected or hypothesised in the system change by the AFEL materialised or not?

Wasn't it an AFLPA request? Wanting more options for clubs to get trades done when players wanted to move. Trades have been done using the new options so they're probably happy

[bulldogtragic]

Forgetting the OP, but looking at the risk of trading future firsts.

Jackson and two late picks: Picks 4, 13 & 23

Hopper and two late picks: Picks 6 & 31


Compare to say Dunkley: Picks 21, 15-18 & 65 (swap two thirds for second)


If you mix trading firsts with unexpectedly falling down the bottom 6… jeez you can seriously overpay. Dees & GWS must be stoked about now.