The Crows poker face
Range balancing, the Prisoner's Dilemma and how the Crows may approach the 2020 Draft.
In Poker, a concept known as “range balancing” describes an approach to play that ensures your opponents are less likely to be able to place your hand. When taking any aggressive action, a good poker player will have a strong and weaker range of possible hands. This creates uncertainty in the mind of the opponent, who will struggle to anticipate or respond.
I would contend that the Adelaide Crows approach to rival clubs’ Academy players in recent drafts is allegorical to this core poker strategy. Indeed, since the bidding/matching process on Academy players was changed in 2015, no club has bid on Academy players in the first round in more drafts than the Crows.
2015: Crows bid on Harrison Himmelberg at pick 16
2016: Crows bid on Harry Perryman at pick 14
2018: Crows bid on Tarryn Thomas at pick 8
In recent years, the Crows have shown a willingness to go in multiple directions with their 1st round pick. They’ve used a high pick (Fisher McAsey), they’ve traded down in the first round (2019 trade with Giants) and have also traded out of the first round for future picks (2018 trade with Carlton). They have effectively expanded their perceived range in terms of how they may play their draft hand. I believe this open-minded, flexible approach may mean that the Crows could potentially deliver another blockbuster trade prior to the upcoming draft that could fast-track their rebuild.
Whilst the Crows have shown that they’re willing to bid on Academy players, other clubs have perhaps been more reluctant to do so. There are three possible reasons why a particular club may not bid on an Academy player at their selection:
They do not believe the player in question is worthy of being selected at that pick.
Scouting resources are finite. If a club believes that any bid on an Academy player is simply going to be matched, they may choose to not dedicate precious resources to scouting that player. This may lead to a situation where they are on the clock but don’t feel comfortable bidding on a player they have not put any work into.
Some believe that “optics” of bidding on a player is suboptimal, particularly very high in the draft.
So what does the Crows consistent bidding on Academy players tell us? It’s possible they put more work into scouting these players and as such feel more comfortable bidding on them. Or, it’s possible that the Crows consistently rate these players higher than other clubs, though I don’t think this is likely to be the case. Alternatively, it’s possible the Crows are willing to bid on Academy players to ensure competitive integrity by forcing rival clubs to pay the highest price possible for their protected prospects.
Whilst every club has a draft rankings order, there is a wrinkle when it comes to the Academy kids. Often these kids have had significant media exposure in conjunction with the club prior to being drafted, there is an added pressure on the club to ensure that the prospect remains at the club. For instance, this article highlighting the two Swans Academy kids playing together with the club since u11s. In addition to this, the discount the clubs receive further incentivises them to match appropriate bids, for example, it’s possible that GWS may not have had Harrison Himmelberg ranked at 16 on their 2015 draft board, however when taking into account the discount that applies and the points system that allows the matching team to compile later picks to match the bid, it becomes almost a no-brainer to match the bid regardless of where it comes (within reason of course). As such, it is surprising to me that more clubs do not bid on these players sooner, forcing the matching club to cough up more draft capital to secure their prospect. It is not uncommon for these Academy prospects to receive bids later than when they were expected to be drafted, particularly in the first round. The most recent example being Tom Green, whom many felt was a top 3 prospect going into last season’s draft. Despite this, it was left to Carlton (another club with a track record of bidding on Academy prospects) at pick 10 to bid on him, allowing GWS to nab the talented inside mid with an assortment of late picks, thus handing GWS a gift.
This year’s Draft will be particularly interesting given how many highly rated Academy prospects are expected to go in the first round. The Crows are likely to be in the thick of the action at pick 1. Many have the Western Bulldogs Next Generation Academy prospect Jamarra Ugle-Hagan as the top talent in the pool. Will the Crows bid on him? Their recent history suggests they will likely do so forcing the Western Bulldogs to come up with the requisite points to match. What comes after that is what I’d like to focus on. Sydney’s top academy prospect Braeden Campbell is considered a top 5-7 prospect, with AFL.com.au draft expert Cal Twomey placing him at #6 in his October rankings.
Will the Crows bid on Campbell at pick 1?
This is where the Crows history of bidding on Academy players may work in their favour. If the Crows bid on Campbell at pick 1 then the Swans, should they wish to match, would need to come up with 2400 points (3000 minus the 20% discount) to secure the player. The Swans currently hold picks 3, 22, 54, 56 and 76, and as such would not be able to match any bid without using their pick 3 selection. There may be scenarios where the Swans could split pick 3 into a pick around 10 or so and a future selection. This would then give the Swans enough points to match a pick 1 bid on Campbell and leave them with an extra 1st round pick in next year’s draft. Though this would essentially wipe out Sydney’s draft capital for this year and leave them without any ammunition to match a bid for their other Academy star, Errol Gulden. Though they could go into a deficit of course.
An alternative approach may be for the Swans to try and arrange a deal with the Crows. By showing their history of bidding on Academy players in the first round, the Crows could approach the Swans and convince them that a trade may be in their best interest as they are going to bid on Campbell. The Swans of course may simply not rate Campbell that highly and as such may not be willing to match such a high bid on him, however the history of Academy bids suggest this is unlikely. Though the last time this did occur was with Josh Dunkley, coincidentally the Swans were the team that could’ve matched a bid and chose not to. Rumours were however that an agreement between the Swans and the Dunkley camp meant that if a Victorian club bid on him, the Swans would let him go. If the Swans are particularly keen on drafting Campbell then they are caught in a tricky situation. Calling the Crows bluff may result in losing all their picks if the Crows do indeed bid on him. Or alternatively, they could accept that the Crows are likely to do as they say and as such try and work out a trade.
In such a trade, the Crows could conceivably, move down two spots to the Swans pick 3 slot and potentially pick up the Swans future 1st round pick. Why would Sydney do what appears to be such a one-sided trade? The trade should not be viewed in isolation but instead be assessed in terms of what doing such a trade allows Syd to come out of the draft with.
If we presume the following:
The Crows will bid on Campbell at pick 1 or after the bid on Ugle-Hagan
The Swans have their current draft picks and no further deals are done to acquire more
Then a bid on Campbell at the top of the draft would essentially cost Sydney Pick 3 at least. Meaning they would be using pick 3 to move to the top of the draft to match the bid for Campbell.
An alternative scenario may involve a trade such as the following:
Syd trade pick 3 + 2021 1st round pick
For
Pick 1 + 20 + 29
This would allow Sydney to move to the top of the draft and get ahead of any Campbell bid. Ugle-Hagan will then likely be bid on at pick 1, the Swans will then be free to draft whomever they wish at pick 2. North Melbourne would then be on the clock at pick 3, it’s possible they bid on Campbell however they have never bid on an Academy player in the first round so form would suggest this is probably unlikely, especially if they don’t deem Campbell to be worthy of such a high selection. The Crows would then be picking at 4 and would be unlikely to bid on Campbell at this selection after agreeing to a prior Sydney trade. Leaving Hawthorn as potentially the earliest alternative bid for Campbell. Were this to happen, instead of coming up with 2400 points in order to match, the Swans will need 1502 points. In the scenario of the above trade, after selecting a player at pick 1 (or 2 if a JUH bid comes in), the Swans would be left with picks 20, 22, 29, 54, 56 and 76, the equivalent of 2824 points, enough to match a bid for Campbell at 5 and also match any bid for Gulden should it also come in the first round.
By doing the aforementioned trade, the Swans could come out of the draft with WA star forward prospect Logan McDonald and ensure they can match any bid for Campbell that subsequently comes, thus locking in two of the top 5-7 prospects in the draft and still have spare change to secure Erroll Gulden. Meanwhile, the Crows will be able to score a similar trade to the one they did with GWS in 2019, adding a valuable future 1st round pick for the mere trouble of moving down 2 spots at the top of the draft.
The situation the Crows and Swans find themselves in is similar to the game theory situation “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (though there are some key differences). This commonly cited paradox postulates a scenario where two parties have the choice of either solely looking out for their own interests or working together. By cooperating, they are both able to achieve an optimal outcome for themselves but risk a far worse outcome if their partner does not reciprocate. The Crows and the Swans working together to facilitate a trade could potentially result in both clubs being significantly better off than they otherwise would be were they to blindly pursue self-interest but that will require blind faith cooperation.
It is entirely possible that the Crows do not value Campbell as a top pick and do not want to risk leaving themselves with a suboptimal selection at pick 1. Or, it is possible the Crows view Logan McDonald as a generational key forward such that trading out of the top pick is deemed to be too risky, despite the extra picks they could obtain via trade. However, if the Crows feel comfortable potentially taking Campbell that high, approaching the Swans with a trade proposal might be the best course of action. If such a trade occurs, it’s possible the Crows bid history is what has facilitated it. Whilst the Swans may be inclined to call the Crows bluff, the Crows’ willingness to aggressively put other clubs to the test suggests their hand needs to be taken seriously.