Seven trades, innumerable rumours – A recap of the first week of #AFLTrades

In this post HPN looks back at the action that took place in the first week of the AFL trade period. For a full recap of all movement on an easy to read webpage, check out Draft Guru.

NOTE: We do not use the AFL draft points system to rate players or picks. For more information, see the explaination at the bottom of the post.

Cameron McCarthy to Fremantle

Verdict: The trade made values McCarthy as having negative value considering the other assets involved. If McCarthy can regain his form from the first half of 2015, Fremantle will have a great deal on their hands.

Brad Hill to Fremantle

Verdict: Brad Hill is a very polarizing player it seems – more people complained with our rating of Hill than any other rating to date. At just 23, Hill looks to be a solid contributor for the best part of the next decade. HPN rates Fremantle as massive winners here (again).

Pick swap between Brisbane and GWS

Verdict: A nearly perfectly balanced exchange of picks that seemingly gives both clubs what they want.

Jack Steele to St Kilda

Verdict: Both clubs receive something that they will be able to get more use out of than the other club could. St Kilda will give the talented Jack Steele plenty of game time, and GWS can get extra bidding point value out of the pick due to the 20% point discount in bid-matching.

Sam Mitchell to West Coast

Verdict: Did this one actually happen? Did Sam Mitchell really leave the Hawks? A club legend moves west to begin his eventual transition to the coaching box, and both sides are reasonable about the value of him. Perhaps the most reasonable trade of the period involving a player so far.

Tom Mitchell to Hawthorn

Verdict: Hawthorn decided they couldn’t go on without a Mitchell in the middle, and Tom is a massive upgrade to their long term prospects. Hawthorn get an absolute bargain here for the talent young player, giving up only their first round pick for a player likely to produce a lot more value than that pick would have (the pick swap doesn’t matter).

Pick swap between Hawthorn and St Kilda

Verdict: What were Hawthorn thinking here? Hawthorn pay massive overs in a desperate attempt to get a pick in order to facilitate the O’Meara trade. St Kilda downgrade slightly, and get two good chances this year and one very good one next to further strengthen their list.

---

Free Agents

For free agent movement, HPN has been tweeting out how the formula values each player on the move. If you’ve got any questions about any aspect of the exchange period, hit us up on Twitter at @hurlingpeople.

Vickery, as the youngest FA, will likely produce the most going forward, especially in a Hawthorn forward line crying out for a tall target. There’s little doubt that Wells has had the best career of the three, but at 31 it’s unsure how much he will produce going forward. Chris Mayne sits in the middle of the two – a solid forward who contributes in ways not often considered valuable by most standard statistics. As all three were granted the same compensation (a round two pick pick after the club’s own), HPN thinks that the AFL got it right for Vickery and Mayne, and perhaps overcompensated North for Wells.

We’ve got a more detailed post on free agents coming up later today if you want to read more.

---

IMPORTANT: HPN rates trades based on the formulas outlined in this post. The HPN Draft Pick Trade Value Chart (TVC) is compiled from the actual, real-world output of each player selected to at that pick. The HPN Player Value Formula predicts the future output of every AFL player, based on their performance in the past 3 years, their age and their “eliteness”. We discuss the theory behind valuations of players in this post. Both formulas use the same ‘currency’ of future games to measure value, so the points are completely comparable/exchangeable.

We do not use the AFL points system as it doesn’t provide a way to explicitly value players.

The chart above shows the primary difference in our valuations – second round picks have a lot more actual worth because of the output of players drafted there.

Finally, note that HPN is not saying the valuations provided here are the only valid considerations for making a trade. Quite often, the point differential in our assessments tell us useful things about what clubs are thinking, valuing and prioritizing during the exchange period.

St Kilda get a Steele #AFLTrades

The interesting thing about GWS trading Jack Steele for St Kilda’s 2017 pick is that both clubs will likely extract more value from their newly acquired asset than the original owner would have.

For Steele this is obviously because the Canberran has struggled to crack a deep midfield at GWS. He has played 17 games in his 2 years at the club, spending a lot of time in the NEAFL. As an overage draftee, and being mostly injury free, he might well have played 40 senior games by now for another club.

Due to his short time in the system, we don’t have 3 years of data for Steele so we’re still rating him at a modest discount (84%) on his market value draft pick. He was drafted at pick 24, but the bid from North Melbourne came at pick 15 which is the value we’re assigning.

For GWS, the improved value of pick ~28 compared to St Kilda’s possible use of it is due to Academy bidding discounts. GWS have several Academy prospects again next year (Spargo, Brander and Powell chief amongst them) which means that – possible AFL rule changes aside – GWS will be using this pick to match bids and thus using it at a discount. Under the AFL’s bidding points system, GWS would be able to use pick 28 to match a bid of pick 22.

We rate this trade as fairly even. As Canberrans, HPN have paid close attention to Steele, rate him pretty highly, and think he’s an absolute monty to overperform the 83 games projected for him based on the typical output of his draft pick. But GWS weren’t going to extract as much value from Steele as the Saints would, and should get plenty of value out of the pick they’ve received.

Verdict: This is the definition of win-win.

The Cats up the ante with Zach Tuohy #AFLTrades

Zach Tuohy is an odd player to both value and spell. Tuohy has come on with a relative flourish in the past couple of years. The Irishman has firmly moved from being a solid contributor, to perhaps one of the Blues best half-dozen players, with his play off half-back a delight for neutral fans to watch. Despite his age, Tuohy is not a free agent this season, and his proposed move to Geelong must either come by the trade or the draft.

Unfortunately Geelong doesn’t have much in the way of assets to facilitate a trade, especially with the pending Deledio trade hovering over the trade period. As such, we’ve looked at a few potential trades that would facilitate such a move.

About the fairest move possible would be the trading of Geelong’s 2017 first rounder (rated for where they finished this season) for Tuohy straight up, however there are some significant hurdles that would prevent this from occurring. Firstly, Geelong must use two first round picks in the four year period leading into 2018, and they have already traded their 2015 and 2016 first rounders. This would require Geelong to either acquire another first rounder this or next year, or an extra 2018 first rounder. This would significantly inhibit their approach to the rest of this trade period, and very likely the next two.

Secondly, as Tuohy is coming out of contract, he may threaten to walk to Geelong via the Pre-Season Draft – an unused method of player acquisition since Jed Lamb’s move to GWS in 2013. If the trade goes down to the final day of the trade period, with other lists being finalized, Carlton may feel the heat from the prospect of the PSD. As such, Carlton may have to take a discount on the deal, as they have less power at the trading table.

This trade would see Tuohy move for Geelong’s second rounder this year (or even their potential 2017 2nd rounder, which HPN projects as the same pick). This would be under what would be truly fair for Tuohy, but perhaps representative of his current contractual situation.

Verdict: Either trade would be fair, but the second trade fits the circumstances a little better.

TRADE: The Sunshine Sets In The West #AFLTrades

This is the first ACTUAL trade of the 2016 Trade Period. HPN is very excited about this! For more information about our trade formula and draft pick values, read this post. 

---

Last year HPN published a post on a potential Cam McCarthy trade entitled:

GWS should take two first round picks from Fremantle for McCarthy and run

Given the trade that occurred today, perhaps we were right with that crass heading.

After allegedly being offered two first round picks last year in exchange for McCarthy, GWS eventually traded the wantaway player for much less. It’s pretty clear that McCarthy is a less valuable prospect than 12 months ago, the trade made today values McCarthy as having negative value considering the other assets involved.

GWS has vastly different targets as a club during the trade period to the 14 non-Academy clubs. Whilst on paper this is a loss for GWS, in actuality it might not see GWS going back much, if at all.

The Giants are rumoured to be very heavily into Andrew McGrath, a potential top 3 pick in the upcoming draft. Trading pick three for seven allows them to have a shot at grabbing McGrath, as well as their top four Academy prospects this year. Contrary to most media reports, the Giants have more than enough points to grab all four, even without the lost value from this trade. HPN has expected most GWS trades to involve future picks as to secure future Academy picks, both in 2017 and beyond.

For Fremantle this trade is a no-brainer. Pick seven is a very good pick, and the last player they chose at this selection won a Rising Star (and then went to GWS). They get only a slightly worse shot at the top end talent of the draft, and another very good selection in the draft to boot. Fremantle may on-trade pick 34 for Shane Kersten, or perhaps include it in the Hill deal. The inclusion of pick 72 seems meaningless at this stage, but Fremantle will have plenty of empty list spots this year.

What confuses us at HPN is the inclusion of pick 34 in this deal. As stated above, HPN assumed that all potentially unused assets this year would be gotten rid of for future value next season in a fire sale at the end of the trade period.

HPN suspects that the deal will have been completed even without this inclusion, as a simple swap of first rounders with McCarthy valued as the difference. However, given GWS’s current success, there appears to be a method in their (apparent) madness.

Verdict: Unfair, but explainable on GWS’s behalf. Fremantle certainly wins their side of this trade.

It’s OVER – Saying goodbye to the 2015 AFL Trade Period

After a hectic last day, the 2015 AFL Trade Period is officially over! Here’s a quick “by-the-numbers” look:

• 37 trades were lodged;
• 4 Free Agents moved clubs;
• 3 Compensation picks were generated;
• 15 trades involved future draft picks;
• 7 trades involved draft picks alone;
• 3 trades were made involving more than two teams;
• 13 players whose first names start with the letter “J” were traded.

HPN ended up writing 32 articles in the less than two weeks, but it felt like a lot more. We’d like to extend our thanks to all those who submitted comments and read our articles, and all of those who engage with us over Twitter, on Reddit, via Facebook and on the site itself.

We will be back with a recap of the entire period over the weekend, with a list of winners and losers. After that, HPN’s focus changes to the AFL draft, with the first edition of the Consensus Phantom Draft hopefully being released sometime next week.

Thanks for reading, and watch this space.

HPN.

In Yarran Richmond Trusts #afltrades

Richmond fill one of their most glaring needs at the deadline, and Carlton accumulate another high pick.

Carlton value in = 980 points – Pick 19.

Richmond value in = 1312 points – Chris Yarran.

Verdict – Unfair trade (Richmond gains 332 points of pick and player value, or 1.34 points back for every point given up).

---

For most of Thursday, it felt like this trade was going to be a touch-and-go proposition. As indicated above, on demonstrated value alone Yarran is worth more than pick 19 in isolation. For a different look on why, this piece by The Age’s Liam Mannix demonstrates why in a nutshell.

But Yarran wanted out of Carlton, and right now Carlton doesn’t have a need for players like Yarran. As difficult as it to frame, Carlton’s goal in 2016 isn’t necessarily to win games of football, it is instead to shape their list into a position where they can win games of football in 2019. Like the Saints recent teardown of their list, the Blues are rebuilding from the ground up around a select few older heads who want in for the long term. With his desire to leave the club, Yarran didn’t fit in those plans. If Yarran stuck around for an extra year before heading off during the next offseason, he might actually perversely hurt the club by helping them win a couple of marginal, if not meaningless, games next season, which would hurt their subsequent draft position.

Make no bones about it; Yarran is a good football player. Perhaps even a very good or great one if placed in the right situation. Last season, even though Carlton had an inability to score goals, Yarran was flung away from the forward line for much of the year. While Yarran has played some good footy running through the midfield or down back, he’s most dangerous with the goals in sight. This is likely why Richmond recruited them, as they were in desperate need for a somewhat defensively minded small forward who could punish the opposition if given space.

Earlier in the week when analysing the trade that sent Richmond’s pick 31 and their 2016 second rounder to Gold Cost as a part of the Dixon trade, we wrote:

“Richmond obviously have plans for the pick, reportedly offering it for Yarran, but if those plans don’t come to fruition they are going to look quite silly, and probably the first team to have conclusively stuffed up future pick trading. Early reports being that Carlton weren’t interested in pick 19 for Yarran – and though they may relent, they’re right that it’s modest unders for him (his true value is around pick 9). And even if the swap happens, if Carlton would prefer pick 19 alone to pick 30 and pick 31, that seems like a strange call on their part.”

This quote remains true, but Richmond’s ability to make the Yarran trade work somewhat redeems their involvement in the Dixon move. The Yarran trade was ultimately a game of chicken, and Carlton blinked first.

Bastinac, Aish and a variety of draft picks change hands near the death #AFLtrades

Collingwood value in: 2756 points – James Aish (1306 points), pick 34 (840 points), pick 53 (610 points). Value out: 3410 points – pick 26 (910 points), pick 28 (890 points), pick 47 (700 points), 2016 2^nd rounder ~ pick 26 (910 points). Total = -654 points.

North Melbourne value in: 3500 points – pick 17 (1000 points), pick 26 (910 points), pick 28 (890 points), pick 47 (700 points). Value out: 5561 points – Ryan Bastinac (1946 points), pick 34 (840 points), pick 38 (800 points), pick 40 (780 points), pick 53 (610 points), 2016 3^rd rounder ~ pick 55 (585 points). Total = -2061 points.

Brisbane value in: 5021 points – Ryan Bastinac (1946 points), pick 38 (800 points), pick 40 (780 points), 2016 3^rd rounder ~ pick 55 (585 points), 2016 2^nd rounder ~ pick 26 (910 points). Value out: 2306 points – James Aish (1306 points), pick 17 (1000 points). Total = +2715 points.

Verdict: Unfair trade. Brisbane the huuuuge winners, North the big losers, Collingwood lose slightly but get the most promising player out of it.

---

Given the quick movements of the final day, we can’t spend too much time on this one, but it’s worth noting that the HPN formula rates Bastinac quite highly due to his “elite” loading for his high Rising Star finish, and his ability to play a lot of games at a young age. Aish’s form seemed to dive off a cliff this year, with his only area of statistical improvement being an increase in RB50s per game. Aish also spent a lot of time in their NEAFL team this year, and will have to work hard to crack the Collingwood midfield rotation.

North, on paper at least, gave up a lot for not a whole lot in return, but this loss would be mitigated if they don’t have any intention of using more than three draft picks this year. That would turn this result from a big on paper loss to a moderate one at best.

Pick swap – Hawthorn 53 and 58 for GWS 48 #AFLtrades

A simple win-win swap of picks, not a “loophole”, not evidence of a broken system.

Hawthorn value in: 690 points (pick 48)

GWS value in: 1130 points (pick 55 – 585 points, pick 58 – 545 points)

Verdict: theoretically unfair but practically win-win. GWS get back 1.63 points of value for what they give away. However, the Hawks probably wouldn’t use half the value they gave away anyway, and GWS’ actual benefit is much lower (1.29 points back) because they won’t use the picks live.

Hawthorn are giving away two mediocre picks for one slightly better one, with the likelihood that they were only going to use one pick here anyway (they also have pick 15 and 18).

There’s been some grumbling on social media that this represents a “loophole” whereby GWS can generate more pick value by treating draft picks as a tradeable commodity. This is because picks 55 and 58 are worth more bid-matching points than pick 48. For GWS it represents a modest upgrade of 75 points, or enough to meed a bid at pick 50. This might help GWS secure Eastlake product Harry Himmelberg as well Hopper and Kennedy. It’s a pretty slight upgrade, but it’s a win for them regardless, while also being a win for Hawthorn.

This is what trade period is all about – clubs generating value through the judicious exchange of commodities (picks and players) to meet needs.

This isn’t a “loophole”, it’s just about clubs having different needs in a market. GWS need more picks, Hawthorn need less, so they swap 2 for 1.

Now, the thing with the AFL’s draft pick value chart for academy and father-son selections is that it gives every pick an explicit values. And once you assign every pick a number, if you add two picks together they will equal some single better pick. That’s just the additive property of integers – numbers sum together to produce bigger ones. Under the AFL’s draft chart system, picks 55 and 58 add up to pick 43 as a completely fair trade. The difference between pick 43 and 48 isn’t a cause for intervention or panic, it’s just the fuzziness caused by who has what picks available and who has what priorities.

This is the sort of trade that could have happened before the market bidding system – if GWS intended to take more late picks and Hawthorn only wanted their minimum 3. GWS need more picks because of the Academy system in this case, but that’s not an inherent requirement for this sort of trade to occur. For example, in 2013 Collingwood traded 3 picks for 2 of West Coast’s picks in order to change their draft position from 11 to 6. West Coast wanted local boy Dom Sheed and figured he’d still be there at 11. Collingwood presumably wanted Scharenberg who would not drop to 11. The clubs had different needs, so exchanged picks accordingly. Collingwood gave up three picks for two, but got a better first pick as a result. It was a positive-sum game, both clubs got what they wanted.

In actuality, the value of 55 and 58 is substantially more than 48, not just the slight upgrade suggested by the Academy system. The benefit the Giants are getting is a lot smaller in academy points than it would be with the value of the live picks.

55 and 58 as live picks means two chancey players, both of whom have a possibility of producing games for their club. They have expected outputs of 58 and 54 games respectively. That’s compared to one pick at 48 with a slightly higher expected output (69 games). By pick 48 there’s little premium available, so all three picks are, in technical terms, a “crapshoot”. If Hawthorn wanted more live picks this would be a bad move for them because they lose one roll of the dice.

But what this trade illustrates is that value has a context. Hawthorn don’t value pick 58, so they’re happy to use it to improve the odds on their third pick in the National Draft. It’s not a win-win because of the Academy system itself, it’s a win-win because one club needs more picks than the other one does.

Tomas Bugg and the ritualistic exchange of picks #afltrades

Greater Western Sydney value in = 2460 points – Pick 10 (1230 points), Pick 43 (750 points) and Pick 63 (480 points).

Melbourne value in = 2873 points – Tomas Bugg (1473 points) and pick 7 (1400 points).

Verdict – Fair trade (Melbourne gains 413 points of pick and player value, or 1.17 points back for every point given up).

---

For no rational reason, Tommy Bugg was one of my favourite Giants players to watch in their inaugural season. Deployed as nearly a Swiss Army knife, he ended up doing a bit of everything for that overmatched, hodgepodge squad. Perhaps more impressively, he wasn’t a name that was floating around as a “talent to watch”, instead emerging from the depths of that enormous list.

He played a lot of games for a gradually developing Giants side, and got better as the players around him improved. On paper, he could be a replacement for what Daniel Cross provided to Melbourne last season, although with less “grit”.

This trade also sees Melbourne swapping a number of picks, including pick 10, for the Giants’ pick 7. The Giants need all the Academy points they can get to match their highly rated crop of talent. As a result, this trade really works for both parties.

The Carlton 5, and Menzel to Adelaide #afltrades

Carlton essentially recruit five fringe players in exchange for Troy Menzel and Lachie Henderson and draft pick scraps.

Menzel for Kerridge

Carlton value in: 1713 points – Sam Kerridge (823 points), Pick 28 – 890 points.

Adelaide value in: 1351 points – Troy Menzel.

Verdict: Fair, and despite popular perceptions, in Carlton’s favour. Carlton get back 1.27 points for every point given up.

Plowman, Lamb, Sumner and Philips to Carlton

Carlton value in: 3081 points -Lachie Plowman (676 points), Jed Lamb (619 points), Liam Sumner (310 points), Andrew Phillips (125 points), Pick 8 (1350 points).

GWS value in: 2390 points Geelong’s 2016 1st round pick ~9 (1270 points), Pick 28 (890 points), Pick 77 (230 points), Pick 95 (0 points).

Verdict: Fair, just, but in Carlton’s favour. Carlton get back 1.29 points for every point they give up.

---

Carlton have been about the busiest team in this trade week, with all rumours seemingly heading to Lygon Street. Today the Blues consumated two trades, one seemingly a long time coming, and one that started as a rumour yesterday and quickly built steam.

The most contentious part of either of these trades is probably about the value of Menzel. Popular perception places Menzel as a much better player than Sam Kerridge. Perhaps it’s Menzel’s original draft pick, or maybe his highlight reel, or the fact that he represented hope for a Carlton side desperately lacking it. Let’s remember that Kerridge himself isn’t chopped liver; like Menzel he is a former Rising Star nominee, and even has Brownlow Votes to his name.

However, pick 28 also constitutes a decent shot at another player, so the question is actually about Menzel’s future contribution versus Kerridge and pick 28’s future contribution. Putting aside the hilarity of Carlton seemingly systematically offloading forwards over in the last two years, the more likely outcome is that Carlton would get more from pick 28 and Kerridge than Menzel alone, even if Menzel is better than Kerridge in isolation, which he might not actually be.

---

But of course, Carlton didn’t get pick 28 just for the sake of it. The Menzel move was partly about securing trade material to bring in four fringe members of GWS’ squad, players who Stephen Silvagni presumably rates having worked at Olympic Park previously.

Carlton are trying to rebuild their list with players less unknown and risky than draft picks. The outcome of this pair of trades hinges entirely on the future outputs of guys with little track record so far. If at least two of these players (realistically, Plowman and either Sumner or Lamb) turn out to have a long and productive career at the Blues they’ll probably have won the trade.

Each of the four have potential roles at Visy Park. Lamb will compete with Kerridge for Menzel’s old spot, and potentially Yarran’s too. Plowman should slot into their back six, especially with players like Simpson and Jamison reaching the end of their careers. Phillips will provide ruck depth, and compete with Wood for the second ruck spot behind the re-signed Kruezer. Finally, Sumner should at worst provide competition for a midfield slot, in a midfield that needs all the competition it can get.

The sidebar to this move for the Giants is that they’ve dealt themselves out of a lot of academy bidding points. Pick 8 is worth 1551 points, pics 28 is worth 677, and they’re momentarily nowhere near being able to afford the likely top ten bids for Hopper and Kennedy. We assume they are confident that the exchange for Treloar will get them back the material they need.