2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[ernie koala]

Does anyone know what the rules are around live pick trading?

Collingwood have two players to bid on, Quaynor rated around pick 12 and Kelly rated in the mid 20s. They currently have enough draft points for this with 18, 51, 56 and 57.

As it stands if they matched a bid for Quaynor at 12, they would spend pick 18 as well as pick up selection 71 with points balance giving them 51, 56, 57, 71. This would be enough for them to bid Kelly up to 25 and pick up another pick around 70 as well as their 71 they wouldn’t have used.

If Blakey went at 7, we would use 26 and 33 and would push 38 down slightly so we’d have 39,40,41. That would equate to 1287 points.

Could we live trade 39,40,41 to Collingwood for pick 18 prior to a bid for Quaynor (+302 points to Collingwood).

This would give them a points balance after a discount pick 12 bid of around 273 points getting them pick 50 as well. They would then have picks 50, 51, 56 and 57. They could then match a discount pick 25 with 50, 51 and part of 56 picking up pick around 62 with points balance.

This gets them Quaynor and Kelly and they’ll still have picks 57 and 62.

Swans would get Blakey and another 1st round pick and we’d then upgrade Ronke with our final selection (or take one more national draft pick and then upgrade Ronke, depending on list spots).

Is this allowable under the rules? Not sure I have the calculations exactly right but something to think about that benefits both clubs.

Love this idea.

That would allow us to pick up Blakey and another draftie late 1st round.... like Liam Stocker...Who IMO, a big bodied inside mid, would be a fantastic pick up for us

[S.S. Bleeder]

The Swans thought that they did well by trading away pick 13 for more points and picks on the assumption that picks would be traded for Vandenberg and Langdon. Now they are not on board we have way to many picks to take to the draft as you cannot take more picks than places you intend to fill. We currently have six picks with points attached and at the most only three positions to fill at the draft and that is assuming that we have cleared Tippett off our list and that one of Fox or Pink will be delisted. We can delist more fringe players to make more places available, trade multiple picks for a player or bundle picks in a trade to a higher pick which would lose points that we gained by trading 13. The neatest deal we could do is offer 26, 33 and Newman to Gold Coast for May but I doubt that would be sufficient for GC and I am not sure we have the cap space to do that deal anyway.

Will be interesting to see how the Swans dig themselves out of this hole they have made. Some of our fringe players yet to be contracted must be now fairly nervous.

I'm pretty sure that you can take as many picks to the draft as you want. You just pass on the picks you won't use.

[liz]

I want an explanation too. Terrible deal. I assume we panicked as we wanted to get the pick swap done.

I don't think we're looking to relieve cap pressure because we were looking at Moore and Langdon. We clearly have the room. I'd love to get May but I believe he wants to go to Victoria (just like everyone else).

I think the best interpretation is that the Swans were ultra-keen to move Hanners on and had already agreed an inprincple deal with the Saints weeks, or even months ago. The post a few pages back that suggested he was essentially traded for pick 39 (plus a shift of a current highish second round pick for a 2019 highish second round pick, depending on where the Saints finish).

Clearly there must be cap room now given, as you observe, we were trying to trade a couple of players in on decent wages. But that cap space can be utilised going forward by pulling some 2020 cap payments forward into 2019. I agree it would be better to secure a good player to improve us next year but it's hard to persuade players to move clubs. That's not just a Swans thing - it applies to most players, especially those already at decent clubs.

[liz]

I'm pretty sure that you can take as many picks to the draft as you want. You just pass on the picks you won't use.

You can take as many picks as you want to the draft, but you can't use as many as you want to match bids for academy or FS players. You are limited by the number of spots you have to fill, a change made for last year's draft.

[Auntie.Gerald]

It feels unlikely re steven May

But we all know he would make a significant difference to our team

Quite significant given that teams have to make quite an adjustment when kicking into their forward line knowing Maybis sitting ready to poach and or locking down a key forward / owning a key forward should I say

Steven May: a new breed of enforcer - AFL.com.au

[AB Swannie]

Does anyone know what the rules are around live pick trading?

Collingwood have two players to bid on, Quaynor rated around pick 12 and Kelly rated in the mid 20s. They currently have enough draft points for this with 18, 51, 56 and 57.

As it stands if they matched a bid for Quaynor at 12, they would spend pick 18 as well as pick up selection 71 with points balance giving them 51, 56, 57, 71. This would be enough for them to bid Kelly up to 25 and pick up another pick around 70 as well as their 71 they wouldn’t have used.

If Blakey went at 7, we would use 26 and 33 and would push 38 down slightly so we’d have 39,40,41. That would equate to 1287 points.

Could we live trade 39,40,41 to Collingwood for pick 18 prior to a bid for Quaynor (+302 points to Collingwood).

This would give them a points balance after a discount pick 12 bid of around 273 points getting them pick 50 as well. They would then have picks 50, 51, 56 and 57. They could then match a discount pick 25 with 50, 51 and part of 56 picking up pick around 62 with points balance.

This gets them Quaynor and Kelly and they’ll still have picks 57 and 62.

Swans would get Blakey and another 1st round pick and we’d then upgrade Ronke with our final selection (or take one more national draft pick and then upgrade Ronke, depending on list spots).

Is this allowable under the rules? Not sure I have the calculations exactly right but something to think about that benefits both clubs.

I think this is exactly how the live pick trading will work and two clubs will definitely game the system like this which will cause all other clubs to complain about it. I just hope the Swans are one of the clubs that do it.

[KSAS]

I don't think there's enough data to draw that conclusion.

Trading in future picks is a relatively new thing, and since it was introduced, the Swans have traded in very few players, for various reasons. The only two that have come in since the Buddy coup are Sinclair and now Clarke, both of whom have essentially been player for player swaps.

I hazard to guess we'd be one of the few clubs who haven't traded a future pick for players as yet? GC & GWS come to mind as well?

[KSAS]

Still three days to go but if you’re looking for a positive, this year’s underwhelming trade period so far mirrors West Coast’s last year. Their only player brought in was Brendan Ah Chee for a future 3rd round. They also did some very good pick swap trading with Gold Coast.

And Robert Walls had tipped WC for wooden spoon at beginning of season!

[liz]

I hazard to guess we'd be one of the few clubs who haven't traded a future pick for players as yet? GC & GWS come to mind as well?

True, but we've barely traded any players in, whether by choice or because we haven't been able to persuade the target players that they want to join. So there's no evidence of a policy of not trading future picks for players.

[liz]

Love this idea.

That would allow us to pick up Blakey and another draftie late 1st round.... like Liam Stocker...Who IMO, a big bodied inside mid, would be a fantastic pick up for us

There is merit in that suggestion. I've just looked at the situation of all clubs in the draft and the Pies do look like they might need points. They're not going to move until they know they don't need pick 18 to trade for someone but after that, they might be interested in generating more points.

If our situation doesn't change between now and the draft, as I see it picks 26 and 33 essentially give us Blakey. There could be some shifting up or down of a few spots depending on where he's bid at, but that value's pretty trivial.


That means we take picks 38, 39 and 40 into the draft. Those picks are pretty much at the end of the second/very start of the third round, which are still pretty valuable picks.

Assuming we don't have to carry Tippett on the list next year and we stay with a list size of 38, we have three spots to fill. That's effectively just one "live" pick, taking out Blakey and Ronke. But that could increase depending on the futures of Newman, Marsh, Maibaum and Robinson. Rose too - has it been explicitly stated that he's re-signed or has that just been inferred from the club's comments about his NEAFL grand final? So there's a lot yet to happen in terms of list finalisation for next year.

There's also the option of increasing the senior list to 39 or 40. The benefits of carrying a smaller senior list and larger rookie list have diminished somewhat. Salary cap is still a factor, as is one-year contract status of rookies vs two years minimum for drafted players. But the list flexibility reasons are less than they used to be before rookies had to wait for someone to be injured before they could play. If the club has unbudgeted salary cap space for next season, it could choose to draft an extra player in the ND (ie get earlier access to the options). The fact there are very likely to be three retirements at the end of 2019 might factor in too - that makes it easier to reduce the list size back down to 38 for 2020 if needed, without delisting players they'd rather keep.

[liz]

Thanks for the considered thoughts Liz!

Enjoy your very reasonable posts both here and on the other footy site when you post there

I've actually only just understood the thrust of what you were suggesting in my haste to point out a couple of minor issues around the edges.

If we find a club willing to trade a late first or early second round pick for some or all of our picks around the 40 mark and we do it before Nick Blakey is drafted, we use that pick to draft Blakely. But if we wait until after Blakey is drafted, we get to use lower picks and get the full value of that new pick we've brought in.

I must admit I hadn't realised that implication of live pick trading until just now.

West Coast are a team currently sitting on two picks in the early 20s, but with a gap until pick 61 and apparently with six list spots to fill (though that presumably assumes a full list of 40 - it could be as few as four spots to fill). Their situation could yet change before the draft if they find a way to get the Kelly deal done but, if not, they could be a club that would rather have two picks at the end of the second or start of the third, in return for one of those early 20s picks. I guess it depends on how they see the contours of talent in the draft. They also have an NGA player in Cameron, so their strategy may depend on where they see him being bid upon.

[TheMase]

I've actually only just understood the thrust of what you were suggesting in my haste to point out a couple of minor issues around the edges.

If we find a club willing to trade a late first or early second round pick for some or all of our picks around the 40 mark and we do it before Nick Blakey is drafted, we use that pick to draft Blakely. But if we wait until after Blakey is drafted, we get to use lower picks and get the full value of that new pick we've brought in.

I must admit I hadn't realised that implication of live pick trading until just now.

Exactly! We would need to do it after the Blakey selection and in effect we would get two first round selections.

Where I am unsure as to how, when and who live picks can be transacted with.

Ie. can you trade selections at any time, with any team?

If so it is a viable option for both parties and other teams may be similar as you point out.

Pies were my target as they have two players likely to be bid on between 10-30.