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