New academy bidding system

Remove this Banner Ad

whatboutbob

whatboutbob

Serial Avatar Troll
Veteran 10k Posts Ex-Moderator Brisbane Lions - 2013 Daniel Rich Player Sponsor Brisbane Lions - 2013 Sam Mayes Player Sponsor Brisbane Lions - Ryan Lester 2012 Player Sponsor Brisbane Lions - Tom Rockliff 2011 Player Sponsor Shiny Penny
Mar 10, 2007
12,662
9,089
Under a bridge
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
AFL set to introduce live bidding for father-son picks
Under the proposal, with a 25 per cent discount applied as Heeney is an academy player, the Swans would now owe 1888 points (pick two in the draft is rated at 2517 points) and would have to use their first, second (owing 903 points) and third (owing 420 points) round selections. But they would not entirely lose these second and third-round selections – they would shift to the end of the draft.
Click to expand...

Whaddayallthink?
 
That Heeney equation seems fair enough. If he's worth pick 2. I wonder if Sydeny would've picked him if they had no right to him and had picks 2 and 22 as their first 2 picks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thought it was 18, 37 and 38 for pick 2. I guess I am not sure, it just seems a high risk/price for a kid who could be boom or bust.

Be interested to see what happens with FA compensation picks and how that is factored in to the equation - I haven't thought it through but will that distort the value system?
 
I dont think it is as simple as others might make it out to be. If you look at the Heeney 'calculations' they are similar to the numbers that Port had to give to acquire Ryder with an extra second rounder thrown in for Heeney under that system. So let me put it to others here, Ryder or Heeney? One is a proven player at the highest level and the other hasn't even been played one game of AFL. I think it is way too much to pay for an untried player and again the clubs that have pumped money into these young players then have to pay again by giving up so many picks (in this case).
 
The 25% discount thing means this system will function a lot like the old system most times: your next pick will usually get it done, I assume.

It'd be interesting to figure out how the Dawson/Andrews scenario worked. It might be we would've had left over points from the Dawson pick that could go towards Andrews. So again, it might be there's no change.

It feels a bit like a Rube Goldberg machine. A huge great complicated structure to achieve a fairly small outcome.
 
Or 39, 46 & 70 for Kennedy and McGlynn.

Or, let's compare the value of trades related to an issue that academies are designed to combat - the go-home factor.

"Against" us: pick 22 & change for Polec (former pick 5), pick 33 for Docherty (former pick 12) etc.

"For" us: 5, 25 & Crisp for Beams.
 
Surly Boy said:
Seems a lot to give for an untried 18 year old.... But apparently it has been signed off by economists so it must be fair!
Click to expand...

This is the key word in all of this mass hysteria...these are kids with the potential to play footy. That's all, potential.

If, in their wisdom, these super smart talent assessors feel that a certain player is worth x and they turn out to be proved wrong in coming years; I think the club that drafted that particular player needs to be reimbursed all draft picks or positional movements apart from the first pick used :cool:
 
I think it's silly, we pay for the academies and train them.

To then have to "Trade" for them?

I don't see anything wrong with the current system, you could tweak it I guess but this is just giving into more of Eddie's demands.
 
We may see a fair bit more cautious bidding by teams

1. Nominating teams may have to pay much more therefore more likely to pass

2. As it is live bidding teams will know what is left on the board and may not see the risk worth the reward

The old player or players parent telling other teams that if they bid too high and get them they will just leave after first contract may finally work in our favour for once
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Still feels like they're using a semi trailer to plug a tiny leak in a dam wall
 
That is just confusing as s**t. Why the hell is pick 2 worth exactly '2517' points? How the hell do they work out the points or is it just arbitrary? What if a club had 3 players rated in the top 5? Is this just for the academy or will this pertain to father-son picks as well? Do we get points back when 5 players decide they wanted to go home or is it tough luck? Will the AFL give us the middle finger when we ask for the thousands of dollars in compensation for bringing up a prospect through our youth system but an insterstate club screws us and drafts our academy player because we ran out of points or whatever? Just leave it as it is nobody gave a s**t when the bulldogs got Viney with a 2nd round pick and the pies got Moore.
 
It seems fair enough. You only really have to pay with heaps of draft picks if the player is rated a really top end talent and your first pick is nowhere near it. If a player is nominated at pick 50 and you only have pick 60, you don't have to throw much more in.

So it's going to make it harder to get absolute steals on the top guys or when you have two guys rated as first round prospects coming through in the same year (like Sydney do this year).

I think the best bit is that it's done after trade week, so if you know you have a player that's going to command a pick much higher than you currently have, you can try and move your first round pick up during trade week if you don't want to give up multiple picks in the later rounds. It gives you some list management options.
 
They'll over complicate the whole system to please a few whinging Melbourne Clubs. The Swans have just been lucky with having a few highly rated kids in their academy of late. There will be a cycle there always is in footy. We will just have to ride it out.
 
On face value I don't have a great problem with the theory of it. Where it's going to get ridiculously convluted for list managers with trades. One impact will be a lot less movement via trades which may bring the PSD back into the picture a little more.

If only the AFL put as much work into preventing homesick young out-of-conract players from nominating their club of choice. Or at least making sure the affected clubs are compensated through a similar system.
 
So if club A has its eyes on more than one kid & has its picks relegated to the back of the draft, say the next kid is bid on at, say, pick 22, club A wants him, gets a virtual upgrade from the back ended pick & has some carryover to work on next season? Could work.
 
*Sigh* the thing that sh*&s me the most is this line

"Sydney is the first club set to be stung. The Swans have access to Josh Dunkley (son of former star Andrew) and academy gun Callum Mills (rated a possible No. 1 pick)"

Why do they get all the academy guns!?
 
what would happen if you have pick 4 for instance and you select a non academy/father son selection but a team with pick 6 bids on an academy player that your club has rights to? Would that mean you would have to use your second, third and possibly 4th picks on him? Hmm... might be more beneficial to just select them with pick 4, especially if the draft is rated as a strong one. But I suppose live bidding will do that I guess. Risky if you have a highly rated academy selection and your club has a high picks.
 
The obvious thing missing from that supporting information document on the AFL website is examples where a team wants to take multiple players in one draft through the academy system. Such as ourselves last year.

I’ll have a stab at figuring out how it would work:

Richmond bid pick 33 (31 downgraded after compensation picks awarded) on Liam Dawson – Pick 33 has a points value of 563, minus 25% = 422.25
At this point, Brisbane are given the option of coming up with 422.25 points of value. After the trade period and the awarding of compensation picks they hold picks 44 (362 pts), 61 (135 pts), 65 (90 pts) and 73 (9 pts).

The obvious way to get to that figure of 422.25 is to use pick 44, which is valued at 362 points. That leaves a shortfall of 60.25 pts, which we can get by downgrading another pick, probably pick 65 to 71. 65 is worth 90 pts and 71 is worth 29 points, so that gives us 61 points (90-29 = 61).

So to get Dawson we use pick 44 and pick 65 is downgraded to 71, leaving us with an extra .75 of a point.

Now, having just done all of that maths, three picks later North bid pick 36 on Harris Andrews. Pick 36 is worth 502 pts, or 376.5 pts with the 25% discount.
Our remaining picks are 61 (135 pts), 71 (29 points) and 73 (9 points) and we’ve got that .75 left over. The total value of that is only 175.75, leaving us 200.75 points short in that year.

I think that means the following season we have to cough up 200.75 points of value in some way. Say we finish twelfth in 2015 and hold picks 7, 25, 43, and 61, the easiest way would be to downgrade pick 43 (378 pts) to pick 58 (170 pts).

So essentially it works like this:

Existing system:
Brisbane receive: Dawson and Andrews
Brisbane lose: picks 44 and 61

New system:
Brisbane receive: Dawson, Andrews, two picks at end of 2014 draft, pick 58 in 2015 draft
Brisbane lose: picks 44, 61, 65, 73 in 2014 draft, pick 43 in 2015 draft.

Geez. No wonder the AFL didn’t include that example in the supporting information. It seems pretty bloody complicated.

I’m really not sure the system was designed with that circumstance in mind. But I’ll bet it won’t be the last time two academy players are taken fairly close together in the same draft.

In general I don’t think this system passes the common sense test for mid second round to third round picks. No one seems to be grumbling about northern states clubs getting slight concessions here at the moment, and yet if someone bids a second or third round pick on an academy player and the linked club doesn’t happen to have a pick within six or seven spots, then we go through this elaborate process of downgrading other picks and possibly dipping into the next season.

It would be much simpler if we just restrict this system, or any system, to players on whom top 20 picks are bid.

Apologies for the essay. I’m struggling with this one.
 
I think you nailed it Ironmonger. Good calculations.

Also funny they didn't include the calculations for the beloved "omg mills and dunkley 1 and 2" conspiracy theory. If the Swans finish top two again they'll only have 3,618 points of draft value, or 4,824 after factoring in the 25% discount. That's supposed to pay for the alleged 5,517 to 6,000 points of value they're getting... so basically people are still going to whinge. I do suspect it will end up with fewer teams bidding. Melbourne may not have rated Heeney above Petracca but Roos was just playing silly buggers, knowing Sydney would always match. If they pull that now, they might just end up with Heeney if the Swans only rated him around pick 5 or 6 given the massive drop off in points between pick 2 and pick 5.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ZoBlitz
News 2023 Trade News Compendium
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Mr Ripper
Mr Ripper
Nickimus Rex
News New Era player-designed caps
Replies
6
Views
762
WhiteLionFeva
WhiteLionFeva
ZoBlitz
News 2022 Trade News Compendium
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
9K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top