AFL looking at trading of future draft picks

[Dancin' Douggy]

I simply don't get it at all?

[GVGjr]

I don't mind it to an extent. The benefit it has, is that it may allow clubs to better manage their list management considerations when making plays for marquee players.

Say for instance, Patrick Dangerfield nominates that he wants to head to Geelong at the end of this season, Geelong have finished 6th on the ladder, and hold pick 13 in the draft. They have no players they are prepared to give up, to satisfy the Crows demands.

The problem is that we are considering changing the system because it might make it easier one marquee player a season to move to a club of his choice. When you consider the whole Ryan Griffen and Tom Boyd deal got done at very short notice why would future picks be needed?
By the way, players shouldn't be able to nominate specific clubs when they have a contract, they should nominate a destination. There are two teams now in mainland states and of course a number of clubs in Victoria. If players are homesick they can normally get home

To me, player managers have become more adept at negotiations and clubs are more willing to complete a deal. The players are already benefiting from that.

We have also only just introduced the FA option and for some reason we now think we need to follow the lead of just a few others sports and trade future picks. In your example Dangerfield can wait until he is a FA and pretty much get to the club of his choice and currently his team will be compensated for it. There is a level of consistency in this current system and it needs more time before we make another adjustment.

Even looking at our trade this year with Boyd/Griffen, I know on balance we probably paid overs, but if GWS had been able to add in their 2015 second round pick, or something of that nature, to better balance the scales, I'm sure it's something that would have appeased our club and supporters, and not been detrimental GWS' list management strategy.

Is there a chance that with vastly more options to consider deals will just become that much more to difficult complete?

If there has to be the option of future picks during the trade period then so be it but I'm not comfortable about any player on a whim demanding a move to a club and I think this latest proposal is about making things easier on the players.

I haven't heard anything more than a minimal benefit and that's more than likely for just one marquee player per season.

How many players actually missed out this year?

[Happy Days]

Gary, without getting too intellectual about it (which we can if you want), it gets shit done.

[Topdog]

In the Griff example it would have opened up the chance for us to get something else back. We gave up a lot and had little option but to accept the deal from GWS. If future picks were an option we could have explored getting GWS' round 2 pick next season.

[wimberga]

Is there a chance that with vastly more options to consider deals will just become that much more to difficult complete?

If there has to be the option of future picks during the trade period then so be it but I'm not comfortable about any player on a whim demanding a move to a club and I think this latest proposal is about making things easier on the players.

I haven't heard anything more than a minimal benefit and that's more than likely for just one marquee player per season.

How many players actually missed out this year?

Just on this point, I think that ultimately the trading of future picks just gives clubs more flexibility and ammunition to negotiate trades. So for teams who don't want to trade or are reluctant to, more options means more delays and stumbling blocks.

But for teams who are willing and wanting to trade, they may actually be able to get things done in a more efficient and quicker manner. Whether or not a team is wanting to trade can be evaluated on a trade-by-trade basis.

I also think that it's not about looking at players who missed out on getting traded and saying "how does this help?". I think its probably more about looking at the trades that went through and whether or not they could have been more efficient.

For example - Brisbane giving pick 25 + 5 for Beams. Maybe collingwood would have happily taken pick 5 + next years 2nd rounder (perhaps pick 21 or thereabouts). Additionally, perhaps Brisbane really rated a player around 25 but had no other options.

I do however agree with you that the power the players are getting and there ability to really bend clubs to their demands is dangerous. So regardless of what happens, they need to keep this in mind.

Having contracted players not be eligible to choose a club could be helpful. Other options that might assist in restoring some balance might include limits or restrictions on players moving to top 4-6 clubs.

[Go_Dogs]

I haven't heard anything more than a minimal benefit and that's more than likely for just one marquee player per season.

How many players actually missed out this year?

I couldn't say how many missed out, but Gorringe to Port is one example that struck me immediately.

Because of what Port had to give up to get Ryder, they had no currency to trade for Gorringe, who wanted out and who GC were prepared to trade for the right price. If Port had the option of utilising a pick from 2015 draft, perhaps a deal could've been done.

Unheralded players are much easier to trade these days, because clubs are willing to move them on in exchange for nominal picks, or small upgrades, but any B grade of better player (in my view) is still a relatively challenging trade to get across the line.

BTW, I agree that contracted players should not be able to nominate a club - however that is increasingly the case. Griff nominates GWS, Lake nominates Hawthorn, Cooney nominates Essendon - we've done what we can to get players to their desired destination - I'm sure other clubs do too. Increasing the destination clubs ability to offer more, should allow more deals to be completed and allow clubs a better chance at negotiating a fairer outcome.

It will also mean that recruiters need a lot more say in list management decisions, as there will be a lot of crystal balling to value future draft picks.

Like I said in my original post, most of this is a stab in the dark, as if the whole landscape is to change (which seems to be what is being mooted, rather than just allowing the trading of future picks) it isn't easy to assess the impact this change will have in isolation.

[boydogs]

In the Griff example it would have opened up the chance for us to get something else back. We gave up a lot and had little option but to accept the deal from GWS. If future picks were an option we could have explored getting GWS' round 2 pick next season.

We didn't even get their 3rd rounder this year so I don't see how we could have gotten their 2nd rounder next year

I couldn't say how many missed out, but Gorringe to Port is one example that struck me immediately.

Is it going to make other trades more complicated though? Imagine the Crameri & Jones trades that were stalled enough as it was without the option of trading future year picks being available. The more things stall, the fewer trades get done

[GVGjr]

Gary, without getting too intellectual about it (which we can if you want), it gets shit done.

But trades are getting done, a lot of them. It just sounds too much like using the credit card for something you can't afford now.

[GVGjr]

In the Griff example it would have opened up the chance for us to get something else back. We gave up a lot and had little option but to accept the deal from GWS. If future picks were an option we could have explored getting GWS' round 2 pick next season.

If we had have negotiated harder or thought we were being badly done by they had a 2nd round pick we could have demanded. The fact that the deal got done quickly indicates we weren't too worried with the value of what we were getting.

I'd guarantee if we had the extra option of using future picks we would have paid more for Crameri.

I just don't think it's needed, plenty of sports are getting trade deals done without using future picks.

[soupman]

Gary, without getting too intellectual about it (which we can if you want), it gets shit done.

In the Griff example it would have opened up the chance for us to get something else back. We gave up a lot and had little option but to accept the deal from GWS. If future picks were an option we could have explored getting GWS' round 2 pick next season.

Wouldn't it work both ways though?

Sure it means the club has more to offer to get players into the club, but it also means the club giving up the player has more to demand. Who's to say GWS in the Boyd deal, or Essendon in the Ryder or Crameri deals, don't hold out for more.

Topdogs example is optimistic, because it assumes we would do better out of future picks being tradeable. It equally means other clubs would too.

At present as long as deals are being done for approximate value then it should stay as is. Trades are rarely going to be perfectly fair for both parties even if you bring in more bargaining chips. And of all bargaining chips to even it up, future draft picks are the worst because they have such a wide range of potential values. How can it be easier to work out a deal that is worth the players value when you have no idea how much your pick is worth.

Sure clubs have some idea, but North could finish anywhere from top two to bottom 6 next year, Hawthorn once failed to make the finals after being premiers, Geelong could completely fall away next season. Our first pick could be anywhere from pick 1 to 10. My point is that future draft picks only offer more variables to the trade table, instead of known value.

And besides players are getting where they want anyway. Gorringe is the only exception, but would Port have traded their mystery first rounder for him? Doubtful. And besides if it was already in place maybe they used their 2014 first round pick to get Polec last year, meaning they had to use their 2015 pick on Ryder and Gorringe still misses out.

I think it's a cool concept, but like many of the AFL's ideas that they bring into action would not work quite as perfectly as hoped and would have unforeseen repercussions, not to mention forcing a complete remodel of how father son works which is a system which at present works pretty well.

[Topdog]

The father son part is interesting and not something I'd thought of previously. I really like the way future picks works in the NBA but we are unique with father son picks and it is almost unworkable with future picks being able to be traded.

Oh and I wasnt being optimistic, just bringing up an example of something that could have been explored further.

[chef]

I guess it would have helped us get Bazza a season earlier.

[lemmon]

I guess it would have helped us get Bazza a season earlier.

I hate to think what would be written on here if that were the case and he failed to deliver a premiership. We already bemoan the list management during that period, nice example of selling the farm to grab some quick success.

[chef]

I hate to think what would be written on here if that were the case and he failed to deliver a premiership. We already bemoan the list management during that period, nice example of selling the farm to grab some quick success.

Pick 17 (who knows could have been pick 19) wouldn't have been selling the farm. We did unfortunately get Bazza a season or two too late an IMO we would probably have beaten the Saints that night with him in our team.