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

[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.