2014 Potential Draftee and Trade Watch

[vinum coupe]

Under current rules, if I'm reading them right, bidding reverts to the next pick if a club has first call. For example, last year Adelaide bid it's 3rd Round selection (#46) for Jono Freeman (a Lions Academy player).

Brisbane "matched" that and got Freeman with their 4th rounder (#59).

Is that "fair"?

I actually think that if Adelaide were prepared to part with their pick 46 they should have "won" Freeman (unless Brisbane used #34 to "out bid" Adelaide).

I can't agree

 

[vinum coupe]

Geez Piv.

Heeney may as well go into the draft then.
And there may as well be no academy.

 

[thejester]

I dunno, just throwing it out there for discussion/thoughts.

I think it'd still be fair if it remained based on the ladder, and only modified for existing concessions like F/S and the Northern academies. If the AFL remains insistent on turning the draft into a media event (which I hate) then a bidding process might make it more interesting.

But TBH I think this whole thing about the academies is a storm in a teacup. We already accept a certain degree of technical imbalance in the draft through F/S. If the Swans want to spend stacks of their own cash combing thousands of players in NSW every year to produce one kid who is good enough for the first round, and then are forced to spend their first rounder on him, good luck to them. Means another SA/WA/Vic kid for us.

 

[Turbocat]

I think it'd still be fair if it remained based on the ladder, and only modified for existing concessions like F/S and the Northern academies. If the AFL remains insistent on turning the draft into a media event (which I hate) then a bidding process might make it more interesting.

But TBH I think this whole thing about the academies is a storm in a teacup. We already accept a certain degree of technical imbalance in the draft through F/S. If the Swans want to spend stacks of their own cash combing thousands of players in NSW every year to produce one kid who is good enough for the first round, and then are forced to spend their first rounder on him, good luck to them. Means another SA/WA/Vic kid for us.

Pretty much as Id see it but I can see that If it gets to the stage of having multiple players a change will be required. Imagine having 3 players rated in the top 10 and they get the third one for their R3 at 50 odd.
Its an advantage , and its supposed to be and every kid they get draftable thats more options available for everyone else

 

[Lana]

Pretty much as Id see it but I can see that If it gets to the stage of having multiple players a change will be required. Imagine having 3 players rated in the top 10 and they get the third one for their R3 at 50 odd.
Its an advantage , and its supposed to be and every kid they get draftable thats more options available for everyone else

They could fix that issue with two rule changes.

1) If the pick needed to match has been used already the team that bids gets the player.

For example Sydney has two zone player A and B that are rated in the top 10 and player C who is rated in the top 20 of the draft. Sydney first pick in the draft is 15

First the bidding process goes for player A
Adelaide bids with pick 10, Sydney agrees to match it, so player A is drafted with pick 16

Then the bidding for player B
West Coast bids the lowest pick, pick 12 and since Sydney has already used there first round pick player B goes to West Ciast

Then the bidding for player C
Geelong bids pick 18, so Sydney can match it with there second round pick.

2) If the pick needed to match has been already used than the club has the option of using a higher round pick, if not the player goes to the team that bids

 

[Pivo]

Geez Piv.

Heeney may as well go into the draft then.
And there may as well be no academy.

Well, in theory he is in the draft.

The question is, should Sydney get him for under market value?

Say Sydney win the flag. That gives them, what, pick 18??

Heeney is viewed as a Top 10 player (I've seen him rated as high as 6).

Isn't that a similar sort of issue that caused a change in the Father-Son rule when we got Hawkins in the 3rd Round? The fact we paid less than he was worth.

I don't have an issue with the academies, they are required as the industry needs to generate/develop more talent out of 2 of Australia's 3 most populous states.

And if they are pumping their own money into the academies then there must be some sort of incentive for them.

This comes from the AFL Queensland website, "...the Academies will be designed as a means of growing the national talent pool in the interests of all AFL Clubs and providing opportunities for elite players to remain in their home state under a bidding system..."

Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian, Tasmanian and Northern Territorian kids don't have the same opportunity to remain in their home states. For the first 3 it is luck of the draft while the last 2 just accept that if they want to play Aussie Rules they'll be leaving their home state.

If they are being developed in the interests of ALL AFL clubs then any club that is prepared to give up a higher selection than the academy's club should win the bid.

If the academy's club really wants the player, then they'll need to find a way to beat the bid by trading players to improve their draft position (usually a benefit to clubs finishing low on the table as they'll have the better selections and should, in turn, get a decent player in exchange for the pick).

Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast can get a cash bonus for any player drafted to another club that comes via their academies.

Banding can be determined by the round the player is drafted in.

At the moment, it is a mountain out of a molehill. We are talking 1 kid. Next year Mills and Keays will likely be names people discuss.

But in 5 or 10 year's time, if the job has been done properly and more and more kids from NSW and QLD take up Aussie Rules should this rule still be in effect?

thejester makes a fair point, perhaps we should just shrug and say "well, that is one more Victorian/South Aussie/West Aussie for the rest of us". It is an interesting discussion.

 

[vinum coupe]

Interesting thoughts Piv.

Banding and compensation in particular.

I still don't like these 2 lines. They contradict.


And if they are pumping their own money into the academies then there must be some sort of incentive for them.
If they are being developed in the interests of ALL AFL clubs then any club that is prepared to give up a higher selection than the academy's club should win the bid.

But you kind of fixed that with the compo comment.
Question. Does an academy kid have to be born in NSW? I don't know the answer.

 

[darren forssman]

As a Pistons fan, I too am NOT a fan of the lottery system.

Seriously, I don't actually mind the lottery but that might change if I was more vested in it. Watching from afar it seems a fair enough way to do it.

pistons dont need the lottery...greg monroe, dre3000 drummond and kentavious caldwell pope (sounds more like a wwe wrestler) fell into their laps.

and even better, joe d is out and van gundy is in.

but i digress, back to footy draft talk.

 

[Pivo]

Interesting thoughts Piv.

Banding and compensation in particular.

I still don't like these 2 lines. They contradict.


And if they are pumping their own money into the academies then there must be some sort of incentive for them.
If they are being developed in the interests of ALL AFL clubs then any club that is prepared to give up a higher selection than the academy's club should win the bid.

But you kind of fixed that with the compo comment.
Question. Does an academy kid have to be born in NSW? I don't know the answer.

Ah, well the "pumping money in" is an assumption on my behalf. I honestly don't know if they are or the AFL is or it is a joint venture.

As for the "ALL AFL CLUBS" line, that comes from a website, if they really believe that then should they want/do they need compo if it is in the competition's wider, best interests??

The answer is, yes. If you invest something you should get something back. I have no problem with that - hence the incentive payments.

And perhaps that is how you get around them being outbid.

I've only just started thinking about it and, without researching it very well, it is all opinion and half-assed logic.

As I say, I think the academies are a good idea. Question is, are they just for the northern state sides or are they for everyone?

One website seems to suggest they are for everyone.

And, from what I can gather, the academies are for kids residing in NSW and QLD. Lachie Weller (Mav Weller's brother) was, I'm sure, born in Tassie but moved to QLD (I'm guessing the Weller's moved there when Mav was taken by Gold Coast).

 

[vinum coupe]

See, that's what I'm worried about.
What's to stop you pulling a 16 year old kid from SA into the NSW academy?

I'd hope (and expect to be honest) that there is protection.

 

[Yoda_]

Just a thought that popped into my head, but what if Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/GC who ALL have academies as far as I know, were allowed to continue on there merry way BUT opposition clubs were actually able to trade for these players (hypothetically Melbourne offer Sydney pick 2 for Heeney). Would allow Sydney to gain further advantage but in saying that, they would be paying closer to market value for him. Despite not actually getting him?

 

[Pivo]

See, that's what I'm worried about.
What's to stop you pulling a 16 year old kid from SA into the NSW academy?

I'd hope (and expect to be honest) that there is protection.

It is a fair question that I don't have any answer for.

Are you suggesting they may do it to rort the system if draft incentives were involved? That is, get kids from traditional footballing states to boost their chances of graduates?

I think Eddie has questioned whether these clubs are "hiding" players in the academies to get access to them. Seems a bit far-fetched but, hey, you never know from the outside looking in.

 

[Pivo]

Just a thought that popped into my head, but what if Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/GC who ALL have academies as far as I know, were allowed to continue on there merry way BUT opposition clubs were actually able to trade for these players (hypothetically Melbourne offer Sydney pick 2 for Heeney). Would allow Sydney to gain further advantage but in saying that, they would be paying closer to market value for him. Despite not actually getting him?

It isn't a bad idea, I had been thinking the same thing. Rather than "bidding" a club just trades their pick for the player.

The obvious downside I saw (which is along similar lines to what you mentioned) was all the other clubs would argue they aren't getting the same opportunity to better their position in the draft (while Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and GC can) because they don't have exclusive access to players (except perhaps Father-Son selections).

 

[vinum coupe]

It is a fair question that I don't have any answer for.

Are you suggesting they may do it to rort the system if draft incentives were involved? That is, get kids from traditional footballing states to boost their chances of graduates?

I think Eddie has questioned whether these clubs are "hiding" players in the academies to get access to them. Seems a bit far-fetched but, hey, you never know from the outside looking in.

Absolutely. I'd do it.
What if we had an academy and Wells found 3 15 year olds that he thought would be very advanced at 18.

He says "Look, we'll only end up with one of them, but we'll get compo for the other 2. Let's put them into a good school at our cost and into the academy"

 

[dazbroncos]

Well, in theory he is in the draft.

The question is, should Sydney get him for under market value?

Say Sydney win the flag. That gives them, what, pick 18??

Heeney is viewed as a Top 10 player (I've seen him rated as high as 6).

Isn't that a similar sort of issue that caused a change in the Father-Son rule when we got Hawkins in the 3rd Round? The fact we paid less than he was worth.

I don't have an issue with the academies, they are required as the industry needs to generate/develop more talent out of 2 of Australia's 3 most populous states.

And if they are pumping their own money into the academies then there must be some sort of incentive for them.

This comes from the AFL Queensland website, "...the Academies will be designed as a means of growing the national talent pool in the interests of all AFL Clubs and providing opportunities for elite players to remain in their home state under a bidding system..."

Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian, Tasmanian and Northern Territorian kids don't have the same opportunity to remain in their home states. For the first 3 it is luck of the draft while the last 2 just accept that if they want to play Aussie Rules they'll be leaving their home state.

If they are being developed in the interests of ALL AFL clubs then any club that is prepared to give up a higher selection than the academy's club should win the bid.

If the academy's club really wants the player, then they'll need to find a way to beat the bid by trading players to improve their draft position (usually a benefit to clubs finishing low on the table as they'll have the better selections and should, in turn, get a decent player in exchange for the pick).

Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast can get a cash bonus for any player drafted to another club that comes via their academies.

Banding can be determined by the round the player is drafted in.

At the moment, it is a mountain out of a molehill. We are talking 1 kid. Next year Mills and Keays will likely be names people discuss.

But in 5 or 10 year's time, if the job has been done properly and more and more kids from NSW and QLD take up Aussie Rules should this rule still be in effect?

thejester makes a fair point, perhaps we should just shrug and say "well, that is one more Victorian/South Aussie/West Aussie for the rest of us". It is an interesting discussion.

Been going at it over the D&T board about this and oddly enough the northerners can't see what the advatange is when a Top4 finisher the previous year gets to preselect a top5 rated player for pick 15 - 18 or so.

Simple fix is Academy preselection is null if you finish top 4 previous year. Still have COLA or the version of it now, still have F/S and can still pick academy players but not in first round. And watch them go sideways… and they do….

Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

Just a thought that popped into my head, but what if Sydney/GWS/Brisbane/GC who ALL have academies as far as I know, were allowed to continue on there merry way BUT opposition clubs were actually able to trade for these players (hypothetically Melbourne offer Sydney pick 2 for Heeney). Would allow Sydney to gain further advantage but in saying that, they would be paying closer to market value for him. Despite not actually getting him?

I think their main beef has been that they want to develop the talent as NSW based and then keep them in NSW to avoid the "go home complex" With this, they want to grow them and keep them as well.

A traded pick just gets them back to taking a non NSW player - or potentially anyway.

Go Catters

 

[Pivo]

Absolutely. I'd do it.
What if we had an academy and Wells found 3 15 year olds that he thought would be very advanced at 18.

He says "Look, we'll only end up with one of them, but we'll get compo for the other 2. Let's put them into a good school at our cost and into the academy"

Agree.

In some ways that might not be a bad thing as the players coming out will, in theory, be better as they have had access to top coaching, dietitians, players, strength and conditioning coaches, facilities etc etc.

That could be viewed as a win for everyone, clubs, fans, the AFL administration.

But to take on kids from footballing states there are relocation costs, parents who might not be able to move due to work (or lack thereof), some parents probably wouldn't be comfortable with their 15 year old living away from home and so on.

As I say, it is interesting to work through. There are pros and cons to look at.

 

[Pivo]

Been going at it over the D&T board about this and oddly enough the northerners can't see what the advatange is when a Top4 finisher the previous year gets to preselect a top5 rated player for pick 15 - 18 or so.

Simple counter argument to that is to ask them how they felt when Geelong took Hawkins for a 3rd round selection.

It is basically the same argument. And that got the F/S rule changed.

 

[dazbroncos]

Simple counter argument to that is to ask them how they felt when Geelong took Hawkins for a 3rd round selection.

It is basically the same argument. And that got the F/S rule changed.

correct. The system was corrected. But in 06, we finished what 10th? Certainly not top 4.

Go Catters

 

[Pivo]

correct. The system was corrected. But in 06, we finished what 10th? Certainly not top 4.

Go Catters

True but let's be brutally honest here. The rule allowed us, by chance admittedly, to basically land arguably the 2 best players in the draft that year - Selwood and Hawkins.

At least Sydney MUST use their first pick (assuming a club lower than them bids, which someone is bound to - if to keep them honest if nothing else).

But look at Melbourne a few years ago.

Viney was touted as a top 10 pick but only GWS had selections before the Dees. There are whispers that GWS and Melbourne had a standing agreement that GWS wouldn't bid if they got Melbourne's #3 pick thus allowing Melbourne a free hit with their pick 4 (Toumpus) safe in the knowledge they would collect a top ten player in Viney at #26.

Now, I don't know how true that is as that deal did net Melbourne Hogan but it did the rounds (even making the papers).

 

[dazbroncos]

True but let's be brutally honest here. The rule allowed us, by chance admittedly, to basically land arguably the 2 best players in the draft that year - Selwood and Hawkins.

At least Sydney MUST use their first pick (assuming a club lower than them bids, which someone is bound to - if to keep them honest if nothing else).

But look at Melbourne a few years ago.

Viney was touted as a top 10 pick but only GWS had selections before the Dees. There are whispers that GWS and Melbourne had a standing agreement that GWS wouldn't bid if they got Melbourne's #3 pick thus allowing Melbourne a free hit with their pick 4 (Toumpus) safe in the knowledge they would collect a top ten player in Viney at #26.

Now, I don't know how true that is as that deal did net Melbourne Hogan but it did the rounds (even making the papers).

My gripe is in the face of clear equalisation strategies employed by the AFL for teams with success, there is a clear and blatant advantage to a team based on the presence of the academy. I have no issue with them being there or them taking benefit from it. For e.g., if we were talking the Lions, Id say let them have it. We got a steal with Hawk and Selwood but the year before we were well outside the top 4.

F/S stuff is really the luck of the draw so I have no issues with the Swans in this case or anyone really getting to pick thru it. At least the FS is pretty much applicable to all clubs.

The Academys allow non footy dominate states to stream talent to their clubs. No issues there either as it helps get footy into the non footy states. But there has to be a cap, limit or kill switch on the advantages that these things bring. Not allowing a rd 1 preselection by an academy club after a Top 4 finish the year prior would do that.

Go Catters

 

[Pivo]

My gripe is in the face of clear equalisation strategies employed by the AFL for teams with success, there is a clear and blatant advantage to a team based on the presence of the academy. I have no issue with them being there or them taking benefit from it. For e.g., if we were talking the Lions, Id say let them have it. We got a steal with Hawk and Selwood but the year before we were well outside the top 4.

F/S stuff is really the luck of the draw so I have no issues with the Swans in this case or anyone really getting to pick thru it. At least the FS is pretty much applicable to all clubs.

The Academys allow non footy dominate states to stream talent to their clubs. No issues there either as it helps get footy into the non footy states. But there has to be a cap, limit or kill switch on the advantages that these things bring. Not allowing a rd 1 preselection by an academy club after a Top 4 finish the year prior would do that.

Go Catters

Try convincing the SA clubs of that bolded bit.

Adelaide are still filthy about Bryce Gibbs. His old man played for Glenelg and played 253 games yet Adealide couldn't draft Bryce because his dad hadn't played 200 before 1991 (the Crows entry into the comp).

This year they miss the chance to draft Brayden Maynard and Jaidan Kappler because of the same rule.

 

[Turbocat]

Try convincing the SA clubs of that bolded bit.

Adelaide are still filthy about Bryce Gibbs. His old man played for Glenelg and played 253 games yet Adealide couldn't draft Bryce because his dad hadn't played 200 before 1991 (the Crows entry into the comp).

This year they miss the chance to draft Brayden Maynard and Jaidan Kappler because of the same rule.

I think they have a point , especially with the bid system where a club pays close to rate for the player , it wouldn't have hurt to be more generous with the Crows but it was Port that stuffed them on Gibbs

 

[Pivo]

I think they have a point , especially with the bid system where a club pays close to rate for the player , it wouldn't have hurt to be more generous with the Crows but it was Port that stuffed them on Gibbs

23 years in existence and they have never had a Father-Son, amazing.

 

[Turbocat]

23 years in existence and they have never had a Father-Son, amazing.

How many have the Saints had?