Trading Draft Picks into the Future

[Fat Tony 5,262]

AFL clubs are full of short-term thinkers – with coaches, recruiters and list managers all wanting to win next year in order to keep their jobs. As a result, and because clubs fall often fall in love with the next year’s young talent and make moves to jump up the draft board, the interest rate for future AFL draft picks is over 20% p.a. and can be as high as 100% p.a. Typically the cost to buy a current first round pick is at least a current second round pick plus a future first round pick to. (The Suns swapped #27 for a future #11 as an example of how expensive it can be!)

With the interest rate being so high (and the power of compound interest) I think it would be possible for an AFL club to delay first round picks for two consecutive years so as to build a bank of draft capital and then utilise two first round picks every year into perpetuity. That seems like a good investment for an AFL club, where the aim is to win as many flags as possible over the long run. (That’s what I want anyway.)

It is also pretty clear that very few first year players are capable of playing in an AFL finals team. How many 19-year old draftees could you see playing in the grand final? (Not even the number 1 pick was selected for GWS in the preliminary final!) From the 2022 draft only Ashcroft, Sheezel, Fletcher and Phillipou would definitely get a game in a final and maybe Humphry and Wardlaw. That’s it, with only Ashcroft and Sheezel really being capable of making a difference in the result.

Given our significant draft capital due to Jackson leaving and the fact that our current best 22 has very few holes going into 2024, I think we should be rotating most of our 2023 draft capital into 2024 picks. Look at the deal GCS are making for #4, which is mooted to be worth picks #10, #17 and a future first-rounder (with a third-rounder coming back to the Dogs from the Suns). This would be an incredible deal for the Suns and if we were to make similar deals, we could hold as many as four first round picks in 2024. With this in the bank, we would have the ability to spend two first round picks every year into perpetuity while maintaining our draft capital in future years. I call this the Macquarie model.

I also believe that trades are usually the best use of draft capital, as they tend to favour the team receiving uncontracted players and because trades can better fill holes in the side. Essentially uncontracted players generally cost 80 cents on the dollar in terms of their value in picks. They also supply players who are ready to help win a final next year. This is even more so the case given the impact of free agency.

The other thing is that the AFL draft is still quite inefficient (although recruiting has improved over the years). This is because you are selecting 18 year olds who have never played against men. Good recruiting teams, like Melbourne’s and Geelong’s, have proven they can find AFL talent with second/third/fourth round picks or rookie selections. While not using first round picks at the draft will impact the quality of a team’s young talent in the short term, I am no sure it really matters to winning next year.

[Clintosaurus 7,861]

Should be able to trade picks well into the future. A 2029 pick was in the Damian Lillard trade this week. Maybe with some of the protected pick stuff from the NBA too.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

With deals like they have given to North and the entry of Tasmania plus the inevitable 20th team a year or two later the future draft landscape is a minefield

[whatwhat say what 22,946]

20 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Should be able to trade picks well into the future. A 2029 pick was in the Damian Lillard trade this week. Maybe with some of the protected pick stuff from the NBA too.

it'll never happen

and part of the reason is that the drafts are so compromised - with father-son, academy, freebie selections for being rubbish, etc. - that it renders the 'equalisation through the draft' concept moot

 

[Skuit 10,031]

We won a flag and have finished top four over the past two years taking the exact opposite approach - getting ahead of the game as to future trading and welcoming the likes of Clarry and Pickett as a result. I once tried to calculate the premium we had paid as to draft points by continually pushing our debt into the future, but there are too many intangibles, the extra year of development being one. I don't think there needs to be a fixed, long-term strategy: see something we like and put our chips in (make the right decisions and it becomes future draft capital, see Jackson), otherwise keep rolling. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

6 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Should be able to trade picks well into the future. A 2029 pick was in the Damian Lillard trade this week. Maybe with some of the protected pick stuff from the NBA too.

Agree to an extent, I think a standard list of available pick protections (top 5, top 10) is better than allowing teams to get too creative. 

And that it should be only 2 years of future picks, spaced by a year. So this year you can trade current picks, 2024 and/or 2026 and that’s it. Nothing for years off in the future as it encourages hoarding a heap of picks in a form of tanking pretty much. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

North Melbourne thought they were clever hiring Glenn Luff from champion data and trading with us in a deal they won by a billion draft points.

We traded back a few picks took Pickett and Rivers and they were premiership players in year 2.

They took Tom Powell and who knows what with the 2nd and 3rd rounders.

There’s merit in trading down or back but right now we are in a window and could do with talent who easily could be ready in years 2 or 3.

The other issue is you can’t control what the future picks are. We trade for a GC. Essendon or Hawthorn future pick and they could easily both finish top 6. Even with additional second or third round picks that’s probably not the big win.

When you trade up at least you control the destiny of the picks.

[buck_nekkid 6,046]

So I buy a bag of chips and a coke this year, or I can have a Parma and a pot next year?

[The Lobster Effect 893]

If we get to draft night and the picks order hasn't changed and West Coast gets Reid at Pick 1, and then it comes to Pick 6 and Curtins still on the board, if West Coast offered their 2024 first round pick for it would you take it?

I.e we'd have a higher pick next year (pick 1 or 2) but would miss getting a year of development in for a player this year...

[The heart beats true 18,145]

14 minutes ago, The Lobster Effect said:

If we get to draft night and the picks order hasn't changed and West Coast gets Reid at Pick 1, and then it comes to Pick 6 and Curtins still on the board, if West Coast offered their 2024 first round pick for it would you take it?

I.e we'd have a higher pick next year (pick 1 or 2) but would miss getting a year of development in for a player this year...

Great question. I think we’d have to look very hard at the Eagles list. They can’t afford to be diabolically bad again, so there’s no guarantee they won’t lift themselves up a touch and pick 6 ends up becoming pick 4-5 in 2024.

I’d say it’s not worth the risk, they’d need to give us back something else to offset our exposure. Likely a future second.

[jnrmac 20,186]

Clubs need to be protected from themselves.

[Fat Tony 5,262]

1 hour ago, The Lobster Effect said:

If we get to draft night and the picks order hasn't changed and West Coast gets Reid at Pick 1, and then it comes to Pick 6 and Curtins still on the board, if West Coast offered their 2024 first round pick for it would you take it?

I.e we'd have a higher pick next year (pick 1 or 2) but would miss getting a year of development in for a player this year...

We would want more than a F1.

A good deal might be WCE F1, and pick swaps for F2 & F3 plus #23 in this year's draft.