AFL set to introduce live bidding for father-son and academy picks

[Superstar swan]

Can easily see clubs "hiding" players away to lower their draft value. Would be terrible if mills and dunkley suffered injuries and couldnt play in the carnival this year

 

[juddy_Like]

Scrap the academy.
Not worth our while.
We certainly dont have any responsibility to the other clubs to produce new blood so why even bother.

Someone else can spend the money and put in the resources if they feel so inclined...we'll be perfectly happy to sit back and take our equal slice of any kid that comes thru.

Better still...let the AFL have another go at developing NSW. That'll be at least fun to watch.

Was once something to be proud of. Now its like a soapbox for every paranoid troll going around..including that stooge rompingbro.

Why you so mad?

Not every year you are going to have the last pick in the round by finishing near the top and not every year is a Heaney or Miles going to be top 5 talent where you 'might' have to give up a considerable amount of your picks.
Say hypothetically in five years time when you are mid-table team and a top 10 talent is available, it's essentially the same system. Pick 9 bids, you match it with pick 10 (or under the new system, pick 9 bids, you match it with pick 10 and say a late rounder).

Everybody gets you guys are doing a much better job at developing northern states talent. Just remember 3/4 of the other teams don't get this ability to do so. I know at West Coast, we would love to have our own academy for under-developed indigenous talent in the far north west but aren't able to do so (and maybe rightly so).

 

[replicant]

I'd be ok with it if the curve wasn't so steep. Pick one is not 25% better than pick 3. A straight line graph or a lower gradient curve would work fine, but you can't have picks in the same round of the draft be more than 300% different. Look at the number of failed first round picks, and then think about giving up your entire draft for Jack Watts, Xavier Ellis, Cale Morton etc... The draft is partly luck that the player will develop as expected and won't be injury-prone like Morabito, or Gumbleton. There are too many unknowns for there to be that much difference in the valuation between one, three and eighteen.

The rationale that the value is based on the average salary is poorly conceived, because salaries are based partly on reputation based on draft position. Is Tom Scully really a million dollar player? Or is that based on his draft position? What about Boyd off to the Bulldogs? It sure isn't based on output.

So they've based the draft position value on salaries which are partly based on draft position. Kind of circular. I would have used CD rankings or something.

 

[RUNVS]

I'd be ok with it if the curve wasn't so steep. Pick one is not 25% better than pick 3. A straight line graph or a lower gradient curve would work fine, but you can't have picks in the same round of the draft be more than 300% different. Look at the number of failed first round picks, and then think about giving up your entire draft for Jack Watts, Xavier Ellis, Cale Morton etc... The draft is partly luck that the player will develop as expected and won't be injury-prone like Morabito, or Gumbleton. There are too many unknowns for there to be that much difference in the valuation between one, three and eighteen.

I agree with that. The gap between pick 1 and pick 4 is absurd.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Would be nice to have a wingard or kavanagh situation work in our favour for once

So far the Kavanagh situation has worked in everyone's favour but Essendon's.

I agree with that. The gap between pick 1 and pick 4 is absurd.

As are the gaps between Riewoldt and Livingston, Hodge and Polak, Goddard and Walsh, Cooney and Ray, Deledio and Tambling, and so on.

 

[blue harvest]

When are Collingwood and Hawthorn's next father son picks due to come through? I'm just interested to know when we can expect the rule to be reverted back to normal play.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/potential-father-sons-watch-thread.807722/page-21
Knock yourself out.
Probably a whole pile of Buddy juniors appearing in 15 or so years too.

 

[replicant]

So far the Kavanagh situation has worked in everyone's favour but Essendon's.

As are the gaps between Riewoldt and Livingston, Hodge and Polak, Goddard and Walsh, Cooney and Ray, Deledio and Tambling, and so on.

We can all cherry pick... Apparently according to the formula, Lachie Hansen is worth 27% more than Joel Selwood, and Tom Scully is worth 3.5 Nat Fyfes.

Picking isloated examples is just silly, either way.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

It's a trend based on 14 years of data. Pick 1 is significantly more valuable than pick 4. From 2000 to 2010 (too early to call recent drafts, particularly with three KPFs at #1), you have just one instance where pick 4 produced a better player (Hartlett over Watts), and potentially two where it's close to even (Gibbs/Leuenberger and Murphy/Kennedy). In every other case pick 1 is vastly superior. Half the pick 4s aren't even on AFL lists anymore.

Take all the picks, run a trend line through them (thereby smoothing out statistical flukes like the "pick 6 curse"), and you get a clear result: the gulf between pick 1 and 2 is bigger than between 2 and 3, which in turn is bigger than between 3 and 4, so on and so forth all the way down the line.

 

[suspect footskills]

I'd be ok with it if the curve wasn't so steep. Pick one is not 25% better than pick 3. A straight line graph or a lower gradient curve would work fine, but you can't have picks in the same round of the draft be more than 300% different. Look at the number of failed first round picks, and then think about giving up your entire draft for Jack Watts, Xavier Ellis, Cale Morton etc... The draft is partly luck that the player will develop as expected and won't be injury-prone like Morabito, or Gumbleton. There are too many unknowns for there to be that much difference in the valuation between one, three and eighteen.

The rationale that the value is based on the average salary is poorly conceived, because salaries are based partly on reputation based on draft position. Is Tom Scully really a million dollar player? Or is that based on his draft position? What about Boyd off to the Bulldogs? It sure isn't based on output.

So they've based the draft position value on salaries which are partly based on draft position. Kind of circular. I would have used CD rankings or something.

Very true. SC points maybe? Joke...

 

[telsor]

Several interesting points from this, but overall, I like it.

1) It looks like F/S & Academy will be worked out in the draft itself "It is envisaged that clubs would be given greater time in the draft count to determine whether they would bid for a father-son or academy player, potentially adding more drama to the night.". Presumably clubs will bid on players and if they qualify for F/S or academy, the club with those rights would have the option of a counter-bid.

2) Not so sure on F/S having a lower discount that academy selections, I'd do it the other way....That said, it does give potential to 'phase out'/reduce the impact of academies by reducing the discount as time goes on.

3) For those saying multiple picks wouldn't be worth it, fine...Don't make a counter bid. It's a lot fairer than having Melbourne want a player with pick 2, and Sydney being able to counter with pick 18, while Collingwood would have needed to use pick 9 for the same player.

4) I wonder how these points will affect trading, and if/when/how they'll get into FA compensation.

 

[AlibiMonday]

For anyone wanting to work out the value of each pick, this looks to be the function for valuing the picks:

Draft Pick Value = (-697) * ln(Pick Number) + 3000

Sample for Pick 25/26

Value of pick 25 = (-697) * ln(25) + 3000 = -2244 + 3000 = 756 draft points
Value of pick 26 = (-697) * ln(26) + 3000 = -2271 + 3000 = 729 draft points

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

How does the academy have a bigger discount than father son selection ?
This was suppose to even out the system but unless the academy and father son have the same discount it still seems like an advantage to 4 clubs .
It is probably to cater for multiple academy selections until the northern teams have a high % of locals on their lists

Also what is to stop young players especially f/s pulling a chad wingard and saying dont bid on me as I will just turn my back on you in 2 years !

Their is nothing wrong with the father son system now ! Why does it have to get lumped in with the academy system .

If the 4 northern clubs want to have access to academy's they should have to forfeit their rights to F/s so no double dipping occurs

 

[AstonSouffle]

Judging by the Swans poster's reactions, the academies are just about getting players on the cheap and nothing to do with growing the game in NSW at all.

But we all knew that.

Judging on what they've really said, they've said it's a good idea and should be implemented but paying the first three rounds for one player is massive overs.

You've always got a raging hard-on ready to hit Swans fans with when it comes to this topic, so calm the bias and read properly.

 

[grimlock]

For anyone wanting to work out the value of each pick, this looks to be the function for valuing the picks:

Draft Pick Value = (-697) * ln(Pick Number) + 3000

Sample for Pick 25/26

Value of pick 25 = (-697) * ln(25) + 3000 = -2244 + 3000 = 756 draft points
Value of pick 26 = (-697) * ln(26) + 3000 = -2271 + 3000 = 729 draft points

What's the significance of -697?

 

[GUMBLETRON]

What's the significance of -697?

It's the number required to bottom out at pick 74.

Which suggests the whole "modelled on the distribution of salaries" part is trending towards complete bollocks. Someone in the UniMelb Econ department has pulled a swifty.

 

[Iason]

Give every club an academy
Get rid of F/S
Let clubs have the ability to trade future draft picks
I miss tim tams

 

[grimlock]

It's the number required to bottom out at pick 74.

Which suggests the whole "modelled on the distribution of salaries" part is trending towards complete bollocks. Someone in the UniMelb Econ department has pulled a swifty.

And probably charged the AFL a nice sum for it too. All for a simple logarithmic scale, something a year 11 student could have come up with

 

[Big_Birdy]

The idea of the father son is that is supposed to be unfair when a pick is taken in isolation. But fair as a whole for all clubs as they will get their turn eventually.

Now this is a problem apparently.

If the AFL are still having so many problems with the draft after all these years, then just get rid of the f@#$ thing and go back to zones.

 

[Art Corvelay]

No one is forcing teams to match the bid, I thought father son was about family ?

Suddenly paying close to the actual value of a player is too much.

FS was always about bargains though really wasn't it ?

Since when you are required to use 3 picks for other top talent in the draft?

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Since when you are required to use 3 picks for other top talent in the draft?

When you want to trade up to pick 2 but your best pick is 17.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Don't have a problem with it if they can also do something about ensuring clubs get fair trade value for trades. In simple terms the benefits of the Academies offset the issue of clubs losing out when homesick players leave, both in terms of draft picks and time invested in developing players.

 

[Pykie]

Sounds like a good system.

Hopefully it's implemented before this draft.

Dunkley and Miles will cost Sydney everyone of their picks............

 

[Furn2]

Since when you are required to use 3 picks for other top talent in the draft?

Since when do you finish 2nd and get pick 2 ?

Look at it the other way.

If you had pick 2 what picks would you want from the runners up along with pick 18 ?

 

[Pykie]

Don't have a problem with it if they can also do something about ensuring clubs get fair trade value for trades. In simple terms the benefits of the Academies offset the issue of clubs losing out when homesick players leave, both in terms of draft picks and time invested in developing players.

You act as if only acadamey sides have this issue?

I'm sure Geelong would of liked the system this offseason when you nabbed Christensen.....

 

[doona]

I don't know if I agree with the current proposal put out (The higher picks are massively weighted, ie. 1 to 2,....) but in reality mixed with future picks it is a good idea.

In reality for example with Mills & Dunkley fair price in my view for the drafting is:

- 2015 draft (1st, 2nd rounders)
- 2016 draft (1st, 2nd rounders)

We still get a bargain for Mills but I think it is more realistic as we still need to draft/upgrade 3 players each year and there should be some advantage to be able to get a couple of players. (There are lots of cases like the bulldogs with libba and wallis where multiple players would go to a club).