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

[RUNVS]

AFL set to introduce live bidding for father-son picks
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ding-for-fatherson-picks-20150127-12zb9b.html

The AFL could introduce live bidding during this year's national draft for father-son and academy selections if a proposal put to clubs on Tuesday is passed.

Under the plan, the league would establish a draft value index that assigns a points value for each selection. These points are calculated using statistical analysis of player salaries from 2000 to 2014, which the league says shows the relative market value of players at each draft.

The No.1 pick is rated at 3000 points, with the last pick — No.74 — not having a score. Clubs also must determine whether a 25 per cent discount is applied to both father-son and academy selections, or a 15 per cent discount applied to father-son selections and 25 per cent to academy selections.

The present bidding system is retained, with clubs bidding or nominating for father-son or academy picks. But rather than a rival club securing the player only with its next available pick, which drew criticism last year, the nominating club must use one or more subsequent picks using the value of the points rating.

For instance, Melbourne last year bid its first pick, No.2 overall, for promising Swans' academy midfielder Isaac Heeney, rated a top-three selection by club recruiters. This meant the Swans had to use their first pick, but that was a relatively low 18th pick overall because of where the Swans finished on the ladder. Heeney's selection was dubbed a "steal" by rival clubs.

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.

If a team has leftover points or is in debt, this would carry over to the next year.

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.

The idea was developed in conjunction with the player movement advisory group and endorsed by Melbourne University's department of economics.

If introduced, the new system could lead to clubs having the opportunity to exchange future draft picks – that is, in drafts outside of the immediate one.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and Hawthorn counterpart Andrew Newbold last year urged AFL chief Gillon McLachlan to change the bidding system for academy and father-son players.

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the league wanted to introduce a more equitable system, all the while ensuring the northern-state clubs continued to invest in their academies.

"The draft is in place to ensure equitable access to player talent for all 18 AFL clubs, while acknowledging that we do wish to encourage investment in the development academies and preserve the tradition of allowing players to follow their fathers and play at the same club.

"A revised bidding system would seek to provide consistent and objective compensation for father-son and academy selections, while continuing to incentivise clubs to select father-son players and invest in their local academies to continue to grow the overall talent pool for the AFL."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ding-for-fatherson-picks-20150127-12zb9b.html

So for the Swans if someone bids pick 1 on Miles that is 3000 points, with a 25% discount that is 2250 points to get Miles so either we will have to use our first 3 draft selections in 2015 to get him or we will have to trade for whatever pick comes closest to the score of 2250 points.

It also means that F/S selections are no longer worth anywhere near as much as they used to be.

 

[gillo94]

That's good

Interesting this season how
Jack Silvagni & Jordan Matera get rated

 

[Crows4Eva]

It's an interesting system. Will put a stop to clubs getting potential top 3 pick players for much cheaper because of academy and f/s selections.

I'd wonder how often f/s selections in particular that don't end up at their fathers ex club under this system because it'd cost the club too much end up asking for trades after 2 years to get there anyway.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

If it's on Ebay, can I bid........?

 

[suspect footskills]

The draft will become much more interesting if they allow trading of future picks as detailed in the article. Lots to like about these changes.

 

[Fluro Boots]

What a s**t idea. 1st 2nd and 3rd pick for Heeney and they still think this is a good idea? that is so much overs it makes the bargain they got look negligible. Surprised they didn't manage to get a bit of calculus or trigonometry in there either. "They don't lose those selections they move to the end of the draft" so you can keep picking players after everyone finished can you? so it's much like every other draft. This appears to be like the interchange area rule, taking a very minor problem and making it a major cockup.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

What a s**t idea. 1st 2nd and 3rd pick for Heeney and they still think this is a good idea? that is so much overs it makes the bargain they got look negligible. Surprised they didn't manage to get a bit of calculus or trigonometry in there either. "They don't lose those selections they move to the end of the draft" so you can keep picking players after everyone finished can you? so it's much like every other draft. This appears to be like the interchange area rule, taking a very minor problem and making it a major cockup.

Lets be real lets just rename it to the Sydney rule.

 

[RUNVS]

This explains things slightly better

CLUBS will be forced to pay what the AFL says is a fairer price for father-son and academy players under proposed radical changes.
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) and could need to cash in a multitude of picks — possibly over two seasons — to secure the pair.
Bidding would shift from the start of trade period to live on draft night under the scheme tabled to clubs late on Tuesday.

The new system could be ticked off at the AFL Commission meeting in March, before Round 1.

The Moneyball-style concept allocates draft picks a declining points value, with No. 1 worth 3000 points.

Recruiters say Gippsland Power’s Dunkley — if he chooses the Swans — could command a pick in the 10-25 range.

That could see the Swans charged about 3000 points for him and Mills.

They would have to build a “points bank” by trading in picks to cash in on draft night, or potentially roll their leftover debt into 2016. The debt would have to be paid, by shifting one or more picks to the back of the draft queue, before the trade period.
When Geelong handed Adelaide picks 14 and 35 for No. 10 and 47 last year the draft value index showed the Cats were the slimmest of winners, 1711 points to 1682.

Under the new system, after Adelaide bid pick 29 for Billy Stretch last year the Demons would have needed to buy that pick to use on Stretch and then pay it off by shifting No. 42 to 51 and having No. 40 tossed to the end of the draft.

But the current system simply allowed them to select Stretch with pick 42.

PAYING THE PRICE
How the Isaac Heeney case would have played out under the AFL’s proposed new father-son/academy bidding system
— Melbourne bids pick No. 2 (worth 2517 points) for Swans academy member Heeney.
— Sydney matches the bid and lands player, but “owes” 1888 points (2517 points, discounted by 25 per cent) to the draft.
— Points are matched to Sydney’s original first pick, No. 18 (985 points), and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 903 points.
— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 37 (483 points) and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 420 points.
— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 38 (465 points). The 45 leftover points entitles Sydney to “buy” pick No. 70 rather than go to the back of the line.
— Sydney would have effectively sold picks 18, 37 and 38 for 2 (Heeney), 70, 88 and 89. The Demons then would have taken Christian Petracca and Angus Brayshaw at No. 3 and 4.
— Last year they were able to select Heeney at No. 18 and retain picks No. 37 and 38. They selected two more academy players, excluded from this scenario.

AFL DRAFT VALUE INDEX

Pick 1: 3000 points (Start of Round 1)
Pick 19: 948 points (Start of Round 2)
Pick 37: 483 points (Start of Round 3)
Pick 55: 207 points (Start of Round 4)
Pick 73: 9 points (Start of Round 5)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...on-academy-stars/story-fni5f22o-1227198697857

 

[QuietB]

Lets be real lets just rename it to the Sydney rule.

My reading is that would barely make any difference to Sydney in the Heeney deal. Sydney would still give up pick 18, pick 38 becomes 40, and presumably 39 becomes 41 or 57 becomes 59. Is that right? If it is big deal?

 

[RUNVS]

Here is the full list of what each pick is worth in points. There is a huge gap between pick 1 and pick 2 and by the time you reach pick 4 you are down almost 1000 points

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

 

[scaryness]

My reading is that would barely make any difference to Sydney in the Heeney deal. Sydney would still give up pick 18, pick 38 becomes 40, and presumably 39 becomes 41 or 57 becomes 59. Is that right? If it is big deal?

According to AFL.com.au:

"If the proposed changes had been in place for the 2014 draft, the Sydney Swans would have had to give up picks No.18 and No.37, and its pick No.38 would have slid back to pick No.70 in order to secure highly-rated academy graduate Isaac Heeney."

 

[Fluro Boots]

According to AFL.com.au:

"If the proposed changes had been in place for the 2014 draft, the Sydney Swans would have had to give up picks No.18 and No.37, and its pick No.38 would have slid back to pick No.70 in order to secure highly-rated academy graduate Isaac Heeney."

it's like saying $50 is a bit cheap, so instead we'll charge you $1000

 

[QuietB]

Here is the full list of what each pick is worth in points. There is a huge gap between pick 1 and pick 2 and by the time you reach pick 4 you are down almost 1000 points

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

So they have assessed pick 1 as 50% better than pick 4

It appears reducing down to zero is a big problem. The curve is bending the wrong way

 

[QuietB]

According to AFL.com.au:

"If the proposed changes had been in place for the 2014 draft, the Sydney Swans would have had to give up picks No.18 and No.37, and its pick No.38 would have slid back to pick No.70 in order to secure highly-rated academy graduate Isaac Heeney."

Ouch. That is insane

 

[GUMBLETRON]

My concern was how you would stop clubs trading out picks before FS/academy bidding, but at first read the "debt" concept seems to resolve that neatly enough.

it's like saying $50 is a bit cheap, so instead we'll charge you $1000

You wouldn't give up 18, 37 and 38 for 2 and 70?

So they have assessed pick 1 as 50% better than pick 4

It appears reducing down to zero is a big problem. The curve is bending the wrong way

Why? It follows the distribution of the talent pool. A few standouts, a rapid falloff and a long tail.

 

[RUNVS]

Ouch. That is insane

Well Heeney is clearly 3 players in 1, or at least the AFL thinks he is.

 

[QuietB]

Well Heeney is clearly 3 players in 1, or at least the AFL thinks he is.

That is the dumb thing, you would have been required to give up the whole draft save for the dregs for one player

The ratings seem to be a convex curve when the should be concave

 

[scaryness]

If they really want to monitor these picks, I would be more in favour of a system where if you take an academy or father-son player you lose a pick of the same round next season.

E.G. Sydney got Heeney & Collingwood got Moore with 1st round picks. Next year Sydney and Collingwood won't have 1st round picks.

Just throwing an idea out, but that seems much more reasonable to me than giving up 3 or more picks for an untried commodity.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Apparently the numbers have to pass a "common sense" test. I guess the question would be, do you want to give up three picks for one player and have your first live pick in the 70s?

 

[RUNVS]

That is the dumb thing, you would have been required to give up the whole draft save for the dregs for one player

The ratings seem to be a convex curve when the should be concave

It also means that if the Swans take the risk on a player rated in the top 3 (the top 3 picks are worth way more than the others) and it doesn't pan out which does sometimes happen with even high rated players then it means it will almost certainly be a completely wasted draft. It is really putting all your eggs in a single basket and desperately hoping it works out since there will be no backup plan at all.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The ratings seem to be a convex curve when the should be concave

The distribution of talent is convex. The gap between 1 and 20 is far greater than between 61 and 80.

 

[Furn2]

That's the exact idea I posted on here around trade time last year right down to the 3000 points fro pick 1.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

That's the exact idea I posted on here around trade time last year right down to the 3000 points fro pick 1.

It's almost like you both lifted it from the NFL.

 

[Fluro Boots]

You wouldn't give up 18, 37 and 38 for 2 and 70?

Not usually no. I think the solution is much worse than the problem.

 

[Furn2]

What a s**t idea. 1st 2nd and 3rd pick for Heeney and they still think this is a good idea? that is so much overs it makes the bargain they got look negligible. Surprised they didn't manage to get a bit of calculus or trigonometry in there either. "They don't lose those selections they move to the end of the draft" so you can keep picking players after everyone finished can you? so it's much like every other draft. This appears to be like the interchange area rule, taking a very minor problem and making it a major cockup.

You wouldn't trade 18,37 and 55 for 2,70 and 71 ?