2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Video piece up on the AFL website with Gil chatting about how the draft went. The tactic we used to preserve a 20s pick may not be allowed next year - yes! we were ahead of the game :-)

I actually think they should close that loophole as it undermines the bidding system.

- - - Updated - - -

I think most of us here will be dead by 20020 when Gulden is eligible to be drafted. Mind you, he probably will be too...]

Buddy will still be completing his free agency deal 20,000 years from now

[707]

The wash up for all the 2019 pick trading based on 2018 ladder positions and obviously without the diluting effect of FA compo.

Pick 12 - ours
Pick 21 - Saints (16th, could rise up order)
Pick 48 - ours
Pick 54 - WCE (1st, could rise up order)
Pick 55 - Carlton (18th, could slip) But we're not sweating Carlton improvement like the Crows!
Pick 66 - ours

Pies have the weakest draft hand next year, total points currently under 800

Gold Coast picks 2 & 4 but then not until mid 50s

[S.S. Bleeder]

Video piece up on the AFL website with Gil chatting about how the draft went. The tactic we used to preserve a 20s pick may not be allowed next year - yes! we were ahead of the game :-)

Probably not a bad idea as it does fly-in-the-face of the intentions of the points system. In hindsight we probably didn't get much benefit from it anyway. Given that Rowbottom was likely to be available at our "original next pick anyway". I suspect that the club was probably trying to get up the draft order to get someone like RCD.

[707]

Probably not a bad idea as it does fly-in-the-face of the intentions of the points system. In hindsight we probably didn't get much benefit from it anyway. Given that Rowbottom was likely to be available at our "original next pick anyway". I suspect that the club was probably trying to get up the draft order to get someone like RCD.

I don't like the ability to trade away your first rounder and sometimes second rounder for more later picks (Swans) or gun players (North & Pies) then still take high ranked draftees Thomas at 8, Blakey at 10, Quaynor at 13. It's double dipping but rules to stop it would be very complicated.

[AB Swannie]

I know it hurts us but I actually think that they should get rid of the discounts. If Blakey is a pick 10 we should pay pick 10 or equivalent. That should be the same for academy and Father/Sons. It would mean that players are bid on exactly where they are rated too as any frivolous bid would likely not be matched.

[707]

I know it hurts us but I actually think that they should get rid of the discounts. If Blakey is a pick 10 we should pay pick 10 or equivalent. That should be the same for academy and Father/Sons. It would mean that players are bid on exactly where they are rated too as any frivolous bid would likely not be matched.

I don't mind idea, makes it more difficult to ditch early picks and then use later picks to match. Being able to match the bid should be sufficient incentive, after all we wouldn't have been able to draft Heeney, Mills or Blakey if we didn't have that right.

AFL never thinks these things through correctly, always too many unintended consequences. The level playing field does not exist in the ND, gets more distorted all the time.

[Bloody Hell]

I don't like the ability to trade away your first rounder and sometimes second rounder for more later picks (Swans) or gun players (North & Pies) then still take high ranked draftees Thomas at 8, Blakey at 10, Quaynor at 13. It's double dipping but rules to stop it would be very complicated.

It's win-win for both parties. People can trade second and third round picks for first round.

[barry]

I know it hurts us but I actually think that they should get rid of the discounts. If Blakey is a pick 10 we should pay pick 10 or equivalent. That should be the same for academy and Father/Sons. It would mean that players are bid on exactly where they are rated too as any frivolous bid would likely not be matched.

Having a son play for the same club as his father is a romantic thing which should be preserved. I dont mind having a discount to encourage it. Its fairly rare anyway.

And if there wasnt a discount for northern academies, why would the swans bother investing in it at all ?
The idea of Swans/GWS/Lions/Suns investing in academies is to provide a pathway to those clubs for local players would can see clear alternative pathways to local clubs in rugby league and soccer.

[CureTheSane]

.....and yet the AFL ticked it off before it happened. Has Eddie or Alistair had a coffee with Gil since the draft FFS? It just goes to show that when the AFL make changes to these areas, they either don't look at all possible scenario's or they design them to help Victorian teams and when an interstate club benefits.....they have a 'sudden rethink' if/when some Vic clubs have a sook about it. Would they have the same reaction if say Collingwood or Hawthorn were 'ahead of the game' like we were?

Yeah the AFL had no choice but to tick it off.
They have a choice to change the rules though and they were always going to.
I doubt other clubs would have complained, they are just pissed that they didn't think of it and now won't get to use the tactic (read: Swans unfair advantage in their eyes)
I like that clubs can play these games, but I can see why it was always going to be shut down
...until the next time.

Interesting that the Swans this time ran iot by the AFL BEFORE they did it, rather than just pulling a swifty (Franklin)
Probably the only way to avoid another trade ban or the like....

[The Big Cat]

rather than just pulling a swifty (Franklin)

We didn't pull a swifty! OK, everyone assumed he was going to GWS. Swans were under no obligation to indicate otherwise. Even if they had have indicated early on that he was headed our way, the result would not have changed. Hawthorn had the right to match our bid, but they chose not to. END OF STORY.

[CureTheSane]

We didn't pull a swifty! OK, everyone assumed he was going to GWS. Swans were under no obligation to indicate otherwise. Even if they had have indicated early on that he was headed our way, the result would not have changed. Hawthorn had the right to match our bid, but they chose not to. END OF STORY.

Duh.
Unfortunately, the AFL and other clubs don't see it that way.
Maybe I should have written 'swifty'
The AFL were desperate for Franklin to go to GWS,a d we screwed with that, and with the AFL.
And vengeance was taken. Swift and pointed.

[Ludwig]

Let's not forget that this whole thing started with the northern clubs given the right to have academies to offset the many disadvantages of not being located in a traditional football area. Whatever advantages there were to the original system, including the COLA, have been taken away, one piece at a time, until now with the NGA, we are probably back to where we started, with there being a lot of disadvantages and few advantages to being one of the 4 northern clubs.

I like the current pick trading system and don't think it should be changed. Other clubs have used it to their advantage as well, especially Collingwood and North, both having NGA and FS selections. The clubs they trade with have also gained something by moving up the ladder to get better talent while discarding lower draft picks not needed.

if anything, the advantages in the draft need to swing back in favour of the northern clubs.

I'm proposing the AFL grant the Swans a new NGA zone: