List Mgmt. 2015 Trade, Draft, Rookie Draft and FA Megathread

[SaintsSeptember]

He'll be a restricted free agent, one who actually loves his club, if he goes it's for big coin. There's no chance on band 2 as we'd match the offer during contract discussions so it'd never get to the point of him walking

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced Jack Steven will walk, even if he's only offered chickenfeed. Did the other players set him on fire or something?

 

[Periphery]

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced Jack Steven will walk, even if he's only offered chickenfeed. Did the other players set him on fire or something?

Not having a signed contract for a player eligible for free agency will cause people to speculate.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced Jack Steven will walk, even if he's only offered chickenfeed. Did the other players set him on fire or something?

No, he exceeded the height limit.

 

[Defacto]

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced Jack Steven will walk, even if he's only offered chickenfeed. Did the other players set him on fire or something?

not sure either mate

 

[dewah07]

Not having a signed contract for a player eligible for free agency will cause people to speculate.

It's called letting the market dictate your value, I assume saints are okay in this since last year wasn't the Steven we all know

 

[Periphery]

It's called letting the market dictate your value, I assume saints are okay in this since last year wasn't the Steven we all know

Why would you assume that? They could really want to keep him but at this point the player has all the power in deciding if they sign the contract or not. Not signing is a clear indication that the player is willing to leave and is more interested in money than staying with the team. The majority of players that put of contract talks to let the market dictate their value leave.

Steven could have every intention of staying and they could just be slowly working through his new contract, but the longer the delay goes the less likely that becomes.

 

[dewah07]

Why would you assume that? They could really want to keep him but at this point the player has all the power in deciding if they sign the contract or not. Not signing is a clear indication that the player is willing to leave and is more interested in money than staying with the team. The majority of players that put of contract talks to let the market dictate their value leave.

Steven could have every intention of staying and they could just be slowly working through his new contract, but the longer the delay goes the less likely that becomes.

Of coarse it's all about money for Steven, he knows his stock is low at the moment and is backing himself in to get his money. Saints in he he other hand want to make sure he can get back to that level, we haven't also signed players this early into the year and often waited.

 

[ike2112]

Brisbane has had a go about the new academy and F/S rules here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-28/bidding-changes-kneejerk

This would be solved if pick compensation did not go on to to future years. That way even if another Heeney type comes along the club can still make their 3 required draft picks using the academy without causing any major issues. Obviously a problem arises if the club gets 2 Heeney's in one year though... Maybe their should be a cap?

I'm not sure the academy system needs a massive overhaul.

The main issue is really that they can get top-6 talent with a pick in the high teens.
They could even have a kid coming through who is top-6 talent, trade away their first-rounder, and pick up that player with a pick in the 20s or 30s. If they had 2 top-15 talents coming through, they could conceivably pick one of them with a pick in the 40s.

The current system I feel works fairly well for a single first-round talent. They should only be able to secure one player who another club was willing to offer a first rounder for.
If there's then another player, with another club willing to offer a third, they should have to pick them in the third, or not at all.
If another club is willing to offer a first rounder for a second academy grad, then the academy club will miss out on that player, as they already used their first-rounder. No getting to use your next pick instead.

That still gives clubs the incentive to have an academy system, but not the chance to consistently pick talent at a round or two lower than their genuine value, which is really the thing I think irritates the most.

 

[felsty]

I'm not sure the academy system needs a massive overhaul.

The main issue is really that they can get top-6 talent with a pick in the high teens.
They could even have a kid coming through who is top-6 talent, trade away their first-rounder, and pick up that player with a pick in the 20s or 30s. If they had 2 top-15 talents coming through, they could conceivably pick one of them with a pick in the 40s.

The current system I feel works fairly well for a single first-round talent. They should only be able to secure one player who another club was willing to offer a first rounder for.
If there's then another player, with another club willing to offer a third, they should have to pick them in the third, or not at all.
If another club is willing to offer a first rounder for a second academy grad, then the academy club will miss out on that player, as they already used their first-rounder. No getting to use your next pick instead.

That still gives clubs the incentive to have an academy system, but not the chance to consistently pick talent at a round or two lower than their genuine value, which is really the thing I think irritates the most.

I feel like that actually works. Good post!

 

[TheJackal]

I'm not sure the academy system needs a massive overhaul.

The main issue is really that they can get top-6 talent with a pick in the high teens.
They could even have a kid coming through who is top-6 talent, trade away their first-rounder, and pick up that player with a pick in the 20s or 30s. If they had 2 top-15 talents coming through, they could conceivably pick one of them with a pick in the 40s.

The current system I feel works fairly well for a single first-round talent. They should only be able to secure one player who another club was willing to offer a first rounder for.
If there's then another player, with another club willing to offer a third, they should have to pick them in the third, or not at all.
If another club is willing to offer a first rounder for a second academy grad, then the academy club will miss out on that player, as they already used their first-rounder. No getting to use your next pick instead.

That still gives clubs the incentive to have an academy system, but not the chance to consistently pick talent at a round or two lower than their genuine value, which is really the thing I think irritates the most.

I tend to disagree with the last statement. Put simply, Heeney was top 5 talent, some put him as high as one. Swans got him for what, 17?

The issue this year is that Mills could easily go top 5 again, but would likely go around 17 again. On top of that you have Dunkley who is probably close to top 10 at the moment - who would go to the Swans for their second rounder.

Note that Dunkley is a father son kid, not academy.

With the old system, academy and father son bidding occurred before trade period so a team couldn't actually trade away their top pick. The old system was flawed also in that regard, I'll cite the Luke MCDonald case as an example. West Coast bidded on him with a pick that they didn't even use in the draft as they traded it away after the bid, so there is no such thing as a perfect system.

I think the main issue here is that a lot of pressure is being put on the AFL by Victorian clubs upset that the Swans are getting far too much assistance for an established club.

It started when they drafted Tippett, and I believe it got worse when they drafted Buddy. I reckon the AFL were upset that he didn't go to Giants - just speculation. The COLA issues, then the bans on trading followed by the change to the academy/father son rulings, all designed to peg them back but all AFL rules.

I actually feel sorry for Sydney because as far as I know, they have always worked within the parameters of the AFL rules. If anyone wants to be upset re the rules, don't blame the Swans. The AFL are trying to make it hard for them to draft the two guns this year. But it's happened before, look at the Dogs. They picked up Wallis and Libba for much much less that they are or were worth.

I am not saying the academy system doesn't need to be overhauled, I hope the new system does make the Swans pay top dollar in draft terms. AFL is Sydney is no doubt a delicate topic, if keeping the kids in Sydney is a priority, then spending a million a year on an academy program is enough reason to keep kids in Sydney who would otherwise be lost to the game. Just make it fair which I think is what is going to happen - I hope.

 

[ike2112]

I feel them getting a player rated around 5, for a pick around 16, is the benefit to them of having put in the work on the academy. At the end of the day it's really just ten to twelve places between where people think someone should be taken, and where they are taken. To me it's like, in the years they've a really good player coming through, they're guaranteed a slider. People get good players in the teens all the time, personally I don't see that as a travesty.

However I don't agree with them getting to pick first round talent with second or third round picks. That is just outright unfair as it's like all their picks are worth more than everyone else's.

At the same time a NSW kid who is a talent rated in the 60s, shouldn't miss out on an AFL dream just because Swans already picked a kid or two from the academy already.
We have to remember also, Swans picking predominantly from an academy, it's a very narrow-minded development. Those players aren't getting the same exposure to the highest quality opposition that the Victoria lads get. And they aren't as closely scrutinised for weaknesses.

I say just stop the picking first round players with a third round pick, but leave the rest as it is. I'm not convinced the other benefits are that great.

 

[CursingFijian]

I feel them getting a player rated around 5, for a pick around 16, is the benefit to them of having put in the work on the academy. At the end of the day it's really just ten to twelve places between where people think someone should be taken, and where they are taken. To me it's like, in the years they've a really good player coming through, they're guaranteed a slider. People get good players in the teens all the time, personally I don't see that as a travesty.

However I don't agree with them getting to pick first round talent with second or third round picks. That is just outright unfair as it's like all their picks are worth more than everyone else's.

At the same time a NSW kid who is a talent rated in the 60s, shouldn't miss out on an AFL dream just because Swans already picked a kid or two from the academy already.
We have to remember also, Swans picking predominantly from an academy, it's a very narrow-minded development. Those players aren't getting the same exposure to the highest quality opposition that the Victoria lads get. And they aren't as closely scrutinised for weaknesses.

I say just stop the picking first round players with a third round pick, but leave the rest as it is. I'm not convinced the other benefits are that great.

Imagine the uproar if Collingwood or West Coast, who both could probably afford to run an academy, were allowed the same dispensations. I love the f/s rule, I think it is one of the games nuances that truly sets it apart from every other sport in the world. However, an academy that simply signs emerging players, then claims to be solely responsible for their development is a farce IMO. In all my experience with youth in sport by the time a kid is gaining entry to an academy the groundwork has already been done, usually by a club and parents. An academy simply educates and provides exposure to other athletes and more training resources with a view to enhancing the liklihood of a player advancing to higher levels. But his ability is pre-existant. The academies, in their current format, are simply a mechanism whereby the Swans and Lions can effectively 'draft' kids from a very early age without paying them a wage and without guaranteeing them an opportunity for a career.

The only way for this to be equal is to allow all other clubs to have academies (not just f/s academies), or to make every academy product who is not a genuine f/s fair game in the draft system.

Could the Saints invest in a NZ academy and claim first rights to all talent emerging from there? Could the Hawks run one in Tassie?

Ridiculous.

 

[ike2112]

Without getting into a sports science debate (which I would enjoy but would bore the hell out of others), that's not really true. It's correct to a point, in that nurturing begins at a young age, and those progressing into elite sport need to have had good guidance in early years (not necessarily in the sport they end up in).

But those academies exist to nourish the best young talent in other states, who otherwise would be far more likely to focus on other sports once they reached the specialisation period of their development.
It's also offset by the fact that at least half of Vic kids drafted to qld or NSW are considered risks for going home, and every year every Vic club has a list of the local kids playing interstate and they go after them, often working over the other club. Especially if the player declares a favoured club, the interstate club almost never gets good value. They get screwed. We talk about it on here - we're all excited about poaching the next Victoria giant who might be thinking of fleeing.

They need more qld and NSW kids playing, quantity pushes quality, and get those kids from those States playing AFL in those States.

 

[Nutsngum]

No system where a team who just played in a premiership is allowed access to potentially a number 1 draft pick is fair in the slightest. I am well prepared to allow father/son rules due to the restricted nature of them and the concept is a good one in my opinion, but an organization that would already be actively recruiting high grade juniors is just far too advantageous.

Look at it this way, it could almost guarantee that Sydney or Brisbane has access to the best draftee in their respective state no matter where they finish on the ladder. Every year.

 

[CursingFijian]

I didn't say stop developing the kids, by all means keep doing that. If that means there is a large number of QLD/NSW/ACT/WA draft prospects being snapped up every year by Victorian clubs then that effectively skews back in favour of the interstate teams.

I think it has been proven that a successful club culture will retain talent. To argue that NSW, QLD and WA teams need special assistance because they can't develop the mechanisms to retain talent is reaching, as every club suffers from the same stresses.

Interestingly, prior to now, the Swans and Lions have been prepared to outlay their precious dollars because they know that this system is heavily skewed in their favour. As soon as an equalization policy is proposed, they start screaming about the money! Hand the academies over to the AFL I say.

Under the current academy system the Swans would have got Jude Bolton and Lenny Hayes!

 

[Defacto]

my view on the new father son/academy rules is that they are a move in the right direction and remove the level at which the draft is compromised but they do also threaten the growth of the game in the northern states. i think swan has a valid point, why would a team like brisbane who are under very serious financial pressure invest in an academy that will have reduced benefits, sure they get a discount but i dont think the money they have to spend justifies the benefit/discount? they'd be choosing to run at a loss or reduced profit which means a reduction in how much debt they can abolish, all for what is it a 15% discount

i think these rules need to be coupled with increased AFL funding with the acadamies. for instance, the AFL could off-set brisbane etc concerns by allocating them money to operate the acadamies. maybe chuck in a bonus for each player that is drafted. this would off-set greg swans concerns and ensure the acadamies remain, all whilst reducing the level at which the draft is compromised

the other thing i would say is using the heeney example the swans still get an absolute bargain. basically under the new system, if melbourne bid pick 2 on heeney then the swans have to match it and get pick 2 for themselves and push melbourne back a pick. this done by using the new bidding rules that would see the swans obtain pick 2 by trading picks 18, 37 and 38 for pick 70. so in essence:
Pick 2 (heeney) and Pick 70 for Picks 18, 37, and 38

if you look at that trade alone its a massive win to sydney. i mean we wouldnt trade pick 1 for 2 picks inside 10

so i'm not sure why people think its still unfair

what is unfair is the recent father son bargains under the current rules:
viney
daniher
moore

viney was pretty much draft tampering

 

[sonnywalters]

Both questions yes, if theirs one thing I know it's my local talent of the past few drafts.

Avoid
Liam sumner
Taylor Grace
Tom lamb
Get
Harly balic

Now im getting excited... Great name too.
If we sign up Steven long term this year, get Balic then go for a gun midfielder FA at the end of 2016 we should be in a good place in 2017.

 

[Defacto]

http://www.subiacofc.com.au/club-news/2021-subi-s-clark-thrives-at-us-camp.html

good article on one of WAs best prospects in the next draft. been pumping up this kids tyres for 2-3 years now.

 

[Periphery]

Pick 2 (heeney) and Pick 70 for Picks 18, 37, and 38

if you look at that trade alone its a massive win to sydney. i mean we wouldnt trade pick 1 for 2 picks inside 10

This is exactly why all the talk coming from the academy clubs is just bullshit posturing. They still get a good deal, it's just not as good as it used to be. They wont abandon the academies if the new system comes in and they know it.

lol at the Lions saying they might not be able to fund it when the AFL wouldn't let them fall over anyway.

 

[Defacto]

This is exactly why all the talk coming from the academy clubs is just bullshit posturing. They still get a good deal, it's just not as good as it used to be. They wont abandon the academies if the new system comes in and they know it.

lol at the Lions saying they might not be able to fund it when the AFL wouldn't let them fall over anyway.

i wouldnt under-estimate how bad things are for the lions. i wouldnt blame them for turning their back on the academies. reality is, it doesn't produce much for them. the market is further behind than sydney. they need help

 

[hayes]

Academies are a crock. Between priority picks, father sons and academies the AFL are just obsessed with compromising the draft in as many ways as possible. That is all.

 

[Periphery]

i wouldnt under-estimate how bad things are for the lions. i wouldnt blame them for turning their back on the academies. reality is, it doesn't produce much for them. the market is further behind than sydney. they need help

They get help from the AFL financially already and are in no risk of going under as the AFL wouldn't let that happen.

Their academy is already producing players and next year will produce a first round talent in Keays. They would be stupid to abandon their academy. Not only will it produce direct benefits for them now, but as the game grows in those states the quality of talent they will have access to will improve.

You just highlighted how even with the new system they are getting a good deal. Why would they turn that down? They wont. All the s**t coming out of the academy clubs at the moment is just posturing to try and get the AFL to increase the discount they are getting.

 

[Ads734]

Exactly Joe Daniher could've just as easily gone to Sydney the team that premiership would've been really unfair if the no 1 prospect went to the premiers

No system where a team who just played in a premiership is allowed access to potentially a number 1 draft pick is fair in the slightest. I am well prepared to allow father/son rules due to the restricted nature of them and the concept is a good one in my opinion, but an organization that would already be actively recruiting high grade juniors is just far too advantageous.

Look at it this way, it could almost guarantee that Sydney or Brisbane has access to the best draftee in their respective state no matter where they finish on the ladder. Every year.

 

[Navy2005]

i think it was the correct one. lets remember taking dustin would have cost us our first rounder maybe our 2nd rounder at best, i dont think psd would have been an option.

that means we pass on one of billings or dunstan or acres

Mate have to disagree while I am rapt that we have those guys let not forget. Dustin was in the All Australian squad last year he would have given us another ready made star that can take pressure off both our midfielders and forwards. He is also quite young and would be a great pairing act with Steven in midfield for at least the next 5-6 years doubt we'll get him anyway but would sure like it if we could.

 

[Defacto]

Mate have to disagree while I am rapt that we have those guys let not forget. Dustin was in the All Australian squad last year he would have given us another ready made star that can take pressure off both our midfielders and forwards. He is also quite young and would be a great pairing act with Steven in midfield for at least the next 5-6 years doubt we'll get him anyway but would sure like it if we could.

so who would you give up for him then? dunstan? billings? acres?