It seems some clubs such as Collingwood and Geelong were keen to get straight into Draft Debt hence losing future picks.

I wanted to see people's thoughts on this and if it looks to be a genuine tactic to always stay ahead.

Even though these clubs traded out 2 years of draft picks they now have x amount more talent then they usually would which in effect makes their future picks worth less ( as they will finish higher on the ladder).

Next year if they felt the need to be in the draft they could simply trade the future first rounder for a different clubs current first rounder which effectively means that their net value of picks stays ahead of the rest of the leagues.

I honestly think draft debt is a good thing and we should get in on trading out future picks if possible. Every successive year we could just the following years picks to get back in if needed

It seems some clubs such as Collingwood and Geelong were keen to get straight into Draft Debt hence losing future picks.

I wanted to see people's thoughts on this and if it looks to be a genuine tactic to always stay ahead.

Even though these clubs traded out 2 years of draft picks they now have x amount more talent then they usually would which in effect makes their future picks worth less ( as they will finish higher on the ladder).

Next year if they felt the need to be in the draft they could simply trade the future first rounder for a different clubs current first rounder which effectively means that their net value of picks stays ahead of the rest of the leagues.

I honestly think draft debt is a good thing and we should get in on trading out future picks if possible. Every successive year we could just the following years picks to get back in if needed

I don't think they will be too concerned about "draft debt" players will just nominate them as a destination club again when the time is right for them. They will most likely go hard at free agents next year & then load up again for the 2017 draft.

It seems some clubs such as Collingwood and Geelong were keen to get straight into Draft Debt hence losing future picks.

I wanted to see people's thoughts on this and if it looks to be a genuine tactic to always stay ahead.

Even though these clubs traded out 2 years of draft picks they now have x amount more talent then they usually would which in effect makes their future picks worth less ( as they will finish higher on the ladder).

Next year if they felt the need to be in the draft they could simply trade the future first rounder for a different clubs current first rounder which effectively means that their net value of picks stays ahead of the rest of the leagues.

I honestly think draft debt is a good thing and we should get in on trading out future picks if possible. Every successive year we could just the following years picks to get back in if needed

It depends on how things work out for them I suppose. Trading future draft picks will always be fraught with danger, but if they keep it as only trading future draft picks from the next year then I don't think teams can hamper themselves too much, unless they do it every year.

It certainly has helped clubs get more deals done, which is what the players want, but constantly trading out these picks could leave a vacuum of talent down the track.

It's an extreme case, but the Brooklyn Nets in the NBA traded so much away that they don't have a first round pick in a two round draft until 2019... and their team is rubbish. They might be able to nab a player or two in free agency over the coming years but trading ahead doesn't always equal success.

Interesting topic. Cats are going all in for now. You'd hate to be them in 5 years when those assets they may have drafted mature and there list is not as good. I look at the Pats as a team that stockpiles draft picks as much as possible. The Washinton NFL team went into massive debt for Griffin III... But again it depends on your current list and staff to get the job done.

I'm all for the tactic - we are doing an abridged version - where we get in known commodities over the speculative players in late picks - having said that - it can turn badly quickly when you don't replenish your list with young players and, yes, I am aware that 'big clubs are taking all the players!1!' but are they? And who did the big clubs get this week.

Are they the club changing A graders?

Dangerfield is. But no-one else is.

Any debt..if managed and balanced and affordable can be a huge positive.

Goinv to be horses, courses and timing.

Presents a lot of interesting possibilities but not without risk.

It seems some clubs such as Collingwood and Geelong were keen to get straight into Draft Debt hence losing future picks.

I wanted to see people's thoughts on this and if it looks to be a genuine tactic to always stay ahead.

Even though these clubs traded out 2 years of draft picks they now have x amount more talent then they usually would which in effect makes their future picks worth less ( as they will finish higher on the ladder).

Next year if they felt the need to be in the draft they could simply trade the future first rounder for a different clubs current first rounder which effectively means that their net value of picks stays ahead of the rest of the leagues.

I honestly think draft debt is a good thing and we should get in on trading out future picks if possible. Every successive year we could just the following years picks to get back in if needed

I do believe there's pretty strict rules about using the first round picks. So a club can't continually keep trading their future picks, they actually have to participate in the first 2 rounds a set amount of times in a 2 year period.

So the debt does get called in.

The cost is huge if you finish near the bottom and progressively gets lower. I wouldn't be in favour of it this year because we are 15th in line for the flag according to the bookies.

1. Clubs would be permitted to trade one year in the future only;
2. Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period or will otherwise face restrictions from trading any further first round draft picks;
3. Should a club trade its future first round selection, it may not trade any other future selection for that same draft. Alternatively, a club may elect to keep its future first round selection but chose to trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-08-06/afl-gives-tick-to-trading-of-future-picks

It works if your window is open, thus you need players to fill gaps for a push at a flag and therefore expect your future pick not to be of very high value anyway.

It doesn't work if you're not a destination club and expect to have early round picks the following year.

I would be pretty disappointed if we traded next years picks unless we were in a position to gain a very good player. Since this isn't something we have any ability in doing, we have nothing to worry about.

There is such a thing called the salary cap that will eventually catch up with some of these clubs (maybe, probably not).

But I can see the OP's point.

It's a bit like the property market, even if a mortgage is tight on your bottom line just getting in and starting to get the capital gains and an asset is worth a lot long term.

So I'd gladly trade a first rounder for a gun player if it makes our list better because that could flow on to becoming a destination club and all the benefits associated. Of course it still has to be the right deal.

Interesting topic. Cats are going all in for now. You'd hate to be them in 5 years when those assets they may have drafted mature and there list is not as good. I look at the Pats as a team that stockpiles draft picks as much as possible. The Washinton NFL team went into massive debt for Griffin III... But again it depends on your current list and staff to get the job done.

And when RG3 did his knee the finished third last and the Rams got pick three. Worked out well for us.

Not always a good thing, for Treloar or Dangerfield I would only because they are proven talent.

And when RG3 did his knee the finished third last and the Rams got pick three. Worked out well for us.

Not always a good thing, for Treloar or Dangerfield I would only because they are proven talent.

Future picks can be a dangerous commodity.

I don't see trading away next year's pick as much different to trading one in the current year. It's the same balancing of searching for new kids v getting known quantities now.

Hmm, what rpfc said about known quantities got me thinking - given the current lack of gross talent to fill teams, does that make our approach of targeting 'adequate for AFL' players more appropriate to the times?

Could also point to why clubs seem to be going high-low in how they value draft picks. Could be that there is a general move to building up a best 22 (or 25) as much as possible and then accepting the need for a long 'tail' of new and developing players with a pretty high churn rate, hoping that enough will show promise in any given year to cover injuries.

It will be interesting to see how the pay spread for AFL players goes. Will we see more players earning higher salaries AND more players earning lower salaries, with fewer around that average amount? Easy one to measure, since the salary cap standardises average salary. Just keep an eye on how the median and standard deviation go and we'll know.

I think you want to have the profile of your team just right before you start trading away high picks.

Each of the top teams accrued the bulk of their talent via the draft to ensure there was core group/cluster of talented players who are paid commensurate to their experience and performance. They only started trading in from outside to supplement the team that was already built. In the case of Hawthorn, they traded out established players to accrue more picks to get the core together asap.

Geelong built through the draft, had their success and are now building around the younger part of their core. it's very targeted. Their age profile showed that there was likely to be a drop off in 14 as the list experienced a gap/loss of players in the 24-26 age range at the time.

We saw the drop off, and now they've worked to fill it perfectly. They could jump back up quite quickly, before falling away again in a couple of years. They could at that stage aim for a rebuild or go again at free agency/trade if the current younger group prove to be premiership quality.

I think we're at least a year away from these type of moves, if not 2 or 3. The caveat being the player we're recruiting in trade fits right in that age range of our developing core (e.g. Prestia). Every chance we are paying well overs to bring them in though.

Edited October 20, 20159 yr by ChaserJ

I wouldn't like to be trading out early picks for next years draft, it's streets ahead of this years.

I wouldn't like to be trading out early picks for next years draft, it's streets ahead of this years.

Conversely, I wouldn't mind trading in some early picks for next year. To do so, of course, means giving something up. But if next year's draft is meant to be significantly better, or at least run deeper, then some arbitrage of draft picks makes sense.

People are only viewing the trading of future picks negatively because we are not currently in a position to benefit from them. If we were in Geelong's position of having a queue of players lining up to come to the club, people would expect us to do anything possible to bring them in. If that means drafting away future picks, so be it. Better to lose an unknown kid, than established players.

Every club will be keenly watching how it goes and it will take years for the jury to reach a decision.

Much like how once it was seen as a clever thing to tank in order to pick up a Kruezer or a Watts. But in the fullness of time it's now not seen as so useful.

Or going to Arizona for some high altitude training. Once, if you didn't do it, you were falling behind. Now, it's pretty much a team bonding exercise.

Some clubs have to jump in and then others watch and wait and learn.

On face value it looks like the Cats best 22 is very impressive

Talls

Hawkins, Clark, Taylor, Henderson, Bliczavs, Stanley, Lonegran, Zac Smith

Smalls and runners

Motlop, Caddy, Dangerfield. Selwood, Selwood, Murdoch, Guthrie, Duncan, Menzal, , Gregson,

Young players who have shown a bit and could step up

Thurlow, Cockatoo, Bews, Koladjashnji

Bartel, Mackie & Enright all still very capable players unless they fall the other side of the cliff quickly

Could cause a few problems with this side at full strength

B: Bews Lonegran Enright

HB:Henderson Taylor Mackie

C:Bliczavs Caddy Koladjashnji

HF:Bartel Hawkins Duncan

F:Menzal Clark Motlop

R:Stanley, J.Selwood, Dangerfield

I/C: S.Selwood, Gregson, Murdoch, Cockatoo,

If it works great for them but we have seen clubs go all out in the past like the Lions and Crows and things can go horribly wrong. Mackie, Lonegran, Enright and Bartel are almost at the end and if the end comes quickly as it does for some in one preseason that leaves some massive holes. Harry Taylor still has some years left but will need Henderson to stand up should Lonegran fall down. Mitch Clark well he will be lucky to put 10 games together but on the other side if he could manage an injury free run their trading would look fantastic. Joel Selwood is the biggest beneficiary from Dangerfield coming in and taking the number 1 tagger but Scott Selwood is no certainty to return to 2012 form his ankles are badly damaged and he really butchers the ball a hell of a lot.

Like I said it looks great currently but they have taken a gamble and given up a lot. Journo's without having a deep look are talking them up already as the big climbers and a lock for top 8 possibly pushing for the flag. The journo's previously also talked up how Plugger heading back and joining up with Hall was going to make Sydney invincible, Carey to the Crows and Ryder to the Power were the missing pieces of the Premiership jigsaw and how good did the Lions look early with Fev and Brown up forward. Most teams will improve next year but with the Pies, Cats, Giants and Power expected to make big pushes next season not sure they are all going to fit in to the 8.

IMO I think the Cats will show a lot early and a good start may allow them to manage their aging stars, but they are hardly over the line yet

Edited October 20, 20159 yr by Pennant St Dee

Fringe players at top clubs are a far more tradeable commodity on reputation alone. Jed Anderson has spent a majority of his time developing at Box Hill, which he needed to given his body size. He commanded a 1st round pick. If we spent time developing Anderson at Casey, people would question his ability.

There's no stopping clubs like Geelong trading back into the 1st round next year. They'll have fringe players like Horlin-Smith who are tradeable commodities.

I honestly think draft debt is a good thing and we should get in on trading out future picks if possible. Every successive year we could just the following years picks to get back in if needed

We've done it.