Seems the complete opposite of how we're handling the Howe situation.

"I think Jake probably had his heart set on going to St Kilda. That may be where he still wishes to go but Hawthorn is a good option," Dodoro told NAB AFL Trade Radio.

"I'm sure he'd prefer to go to Hawthorn than to go into the pre-season draft."

Such a dickmove, but [censored] I'm jealous. Carlisle's elected to move to the Saints and the bombers are just going yeah mate, Hawthorn's the go hey. If the Suns offer a better deal, god damn it, get him to the Suns.

Sometimes its better to be a dick, than a [censored]. He will probably end up at the Saints but at least Essendon are forcing St.Kilda's hand.

Look I agree in principle, but this isn't a case of Hawthorn having an advantage over anyone here, they're just the ones willing to do the deal with Essendon. Carlisle seems (seemed?) quite willing to go to St Kilda; so can get him if they want. They're just choosing to be stubborn and Hawthorn are holding them to account.

I think In the Saints case they're a little constrained by circumstances though. Because they hold pick 5 Essendon naturally see this as fair compensation, but from the Saints perspective they have a plan about how to build their list and I think their first priority is to go to the draft with pick 5 and their second priority is to get Carlisle, its what they're prepared to give up to get him. Having traded out McEvoy and then Stanley they probably haven't got too many others to trade out to get the sort of picks they need to get him. ... maybe they should offer their first pick for next year and try and get another 2nd/3rd round pick to do the deal, or maybe not. I think the player in question isn't worth dying in a ditch for.

Edited October 15, 201510 yr by grazman

Htf can Hawks land another gun after winning a flag... After landing a kpp in frawley after winning a flag...

Competition is in a bad way

What if saints gave up 5 and Ess gave up Belinda plus the second rounder they got from us?

Effectively becomes saints get their man plus pick 25 and give up pick 5, we get Milkshake and give up 25, Ess get pick 5 and give up the two players.

What if saints gave up 5 and Ess gave up Belinda plus the second rounder they got from us?

Effectively becomes saints get their man plus pick 25 and give up pick 5, we get Milkshake and give up 25, Ess get pick 5 and give up the two players.

I'd prefer both teams got [censored] over.

I'd settle for one team getting [censored] over.

A win win is unacceptable.

I'd prefer both teams got [censored] over.

I'd settle for one team getting [censored] over.

A win win is unacceptable.

Do I detect a nasty tone DA?

If Carlisle believes Saints offer is fair then that is a game changer.

If he does end up in the draft it'd be a huge risk for a club to spend $600,000 on a seeming immature personality who may walk in the door disgruntled and stay disgruntled.

In the highly unlikely event that Belinda goes through to the draft or psd and the even more unlikely case that he slipped through to our pick, we would stark raving, absolutely bonkers not to select him. We folded when Ball was available, never bloody again.

Saints are continuing to be hard to deal with. Their latest Carlisle offer is a joke.

Saints: 5 (1878) + 63 (112) = 1980

Dons: 23 (815) + 25 (756) = 1571 + Carlisle

Values Carlisle at 419. Pick 40 (429), pick 41 (412)

The new AFL system makes this transparent.

Saints are continuing to be hard to deal with. Their latest Carlisle offer is a joke.

Saints: 5 (1878) + 63 (112) = 1980

Dons: 23 (815) + 25 (756) = 1571 + Carlisle

Values Carlisle at 419. Pick 40 (429), pick 41 (412)

The new AFL system makes this transparent.

I seem to remember an AFL team management game where the players and draft picks were valued in a very similar way during the simulation trade period. Think it was called AFL Premiership Coach 2010.

On that basis my original proposal of 5 (1878) for Carlisle and 23 (815) values him at 1063 = pick 16 (1067). Which seems very fair.

Saints are continuing to be hard to deal with. Their latest Carlisle offer is a joke.

Saints: 5 (1878) + 63 (112) = 1980

Dons: 23 (815) + 25 (756) = 1571 + Carlisle

Values Carlisle at 419. Pick 40 (429), pick 41 (412)

The new AFL system makes this transparent.

But you are talking about an arbitrary value applied only for the purposes of academy/FS bidding.

I don't think it necessarily applies here.

It's not arbitrary, it's a real effort by the AFL to give relative value to draft picks.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

It's not arbitrary, it's a real effort by the AFL to give relative value to draft picks.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Thanks Fifty 5 for linking that.

It's not arbitrary, it's a real effort by the AFL to give relative value to draft picks.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

It's an arbitrary value applied by the AFL.

It doesn't mean that picks 24 & 25 are more value than pick 8, except for use in terms of bidding and nothing more.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by Mach5

Surely the currency of picks is not a constant either. It must i think vary as to which club has/wants it..to which club it may be offered and for whom.

In other words a picks value is whatever you make from it.

Guy who pouts and whinges when the coach doesn't play him in his preferred position.

Um, sound familiar? Pass.

Certainly does - just trying to think Howe familiar though

It's an arbitrary value applied by the AFL.

It doesn't mean that picks 24 & 25 are more value than pick 8, except for use in terms of bidding and nothing more.

Did you actually read the linked document? The DVI is a mathematical model based on real AFL data, signed off by University of Melbourne, the top ranking educational institution in Australia. That's not "arbitrary".

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by Fifty-5

Did you actually read the linked document? The DVI is a mathematical model based on real AFL data, signed off by University of Melbourne, the top ranking educational institution in Australia. That's not "arbitrary".

No, not by strict definition, but it may as well be.

Did you actually read the linked document? The DVI is a mathematical model based on real AFL data, signed off by University of Melbourne, the top ranking educational institution in Australia. That's not "arbitrary".

it may not be arbitrary but it's hardly qualitative as a judgement of talent

it's just a little algorithm invented to iron out the existing lumpiness in father/son bidding picks/payment (and academy pick fairness)

using it for other purposes it was not intended for would be misguided

but some will anyway.....sigh

It gives Carlisle an objective pick value that enables comparison of the two proposed trade scenarios. Otherwise any comparison is arbitrary.

It gives Carlisle an objective pick value that enables comparison of the two proposed trade scenarios. Otherwise any comparison is arbitrary.

Objective but not accurate.

It also doesn't allow for how that draft class is rated, and by all accounts - it isn't a great class of kids (not that they know for sure).

Also, I am aware of the numbers that the AFL have put on picks and I applaud it as it leads to more justice at the bidddng table for F/S and Academy but beware of applying it in a 'video game fashion' as I could amass 5 picks in the 30s of the draft and swap them for the the 2nd pick in the draft and this formula will tell me that is fair.

But it isn't fair - the axiom quality over quantity applies here and that deal would be terrible.

So beware when taking these numbers and applying them in all trade scenarios.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by rpfc

I don't much care about the Carlisle trade in itself, I don't see him as being a value fit for us, but... wow, it all stinks.

- St Kilda are clearly dreaming, and so obviously that it is embarrassing. They want him, but don't rate him worth any picks. Has their list management been taken over by forum posters?

- Carlisle crapping on his club is just another round of poor form from players (not that Essendon warrant any loyalty from their players), and a failure of the AFL to adapt trading to accommodate everyone transparently.

- Hawthorn being able to target such a quality player under their salary cap raises real questions about whether the salary cap is still very effective, given the 'value' of non-salary benefits different clubs can offer. Seriously, how much can someone on 500k really care about an extra 100k? It becomes money for money's sake.

I don't much care about the Carlisle trade in itself, I don't see him as being a value fit for us, but... wow, it all stinks.

- St Kilda are clearly dreaming, and so obviously that it is embarrassing. They want him, but don't rate him worth any picks. Has their list management been taken over by forum posters?

- Carlisle crapping on his club is just another round of poor form from players (not that Essendon warrant any loyalty from their players), and a failure of the AFL to adapt trading to accommodate everyone transparently.

- Hawthorn being able to target such a quality player under their salary cap raises real questions about whether the salary cap is still very effective, given the 'value' of non-salary benefits different clubs can offer. Seriously, how much can someone on 500k really care about an extra 100k? It becomes money for money's sake.

It was said somewhere that the Saints offer is $650k per year and that explains why he is holding out for them.

Also the Saints offer equates to a pick 40 for him and that is ridiculous and the Saints know it.