List Mgmt. Father/Son Eligible Kids List

[Elite Crow]

At a guess it means the AFL wants 50, but someone is pushing strongly for 1

Collingwood have one coming up but his dad played less than 50, can't remember his name

 

[WheresGroomgone]

The simple answer in that Jarman is massively overhyped at the moment. I think he's a good chance to be drafted but i don't have him in the first two rounds for now. He didn't make the afl level one academy either. The midfielders/smalls selected in the squad - Scharenberg is playing league. Graham reserves, Slimming 18s but I don't know why; he's a genuine gun. Jarman has been good in the 18s and excellent twice, not every game. You look at the successful South Australian draftees over time and how they tracked in their bottom age year and often they push reserves; league for the best. North are strong but Jarmans just gotta push up (which he likely will given the absences created by the state team over the next month) and take his chance when he gets it and prove himself at a higher level.

I like him, but at the moment he's, at best, a billy stretch type range player imo

Hey Skippos out of interest have you seen Kym Lebios play at all for North U18's? Keen to hear your observations on how he's travelling, cheers.

 

[Dan2352]

Seriously. He would probably still get 20 touches.

To be fair, he was best on ground and picked up a lazy 45+ touches in the final of the NR cup last year... He would probably be Best on Ground if we brought him in to cover Jaensch

 

[Rusty Crow]

Weed Jnr if it is Jake is about 15.

 

[Vader]

His wiki page says he had a son in 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_Johnson

Happy to add him to the list if anyone knows his name.

 

[Bacon8]

Happy to add him to the list if anyone knows his name.

"Oskar was born to Kane and his parner Charis."

http://chilab.com.au/blog/2015/1/19/blog-post-1

 

[Vader]

"Oskar was born to Kane and his parner Charis."

http://chilab.com.au/blog/2015/1/19/blog-post-1

Thanks. OP has been updated accordingly.

Might have to add a few more names if the AFL reduces the eligibility criteria down to 50 games.

 

[Vader]

So, looking at the new F/S bidding system..

Clubs receive a 20% discount for a 1st round bid. After that, it's a fixed discount of 197points. I think that's a pretty fair system.

 

[xchadders]

So, looking at the new F/S bidding system..

Clubs receive a 20% discount for a 1st round bid. After that, it's a fixed discount of 197points. I think that's a pretty fair system.

i disagree. if you win the premiership (first pick is 18) but someone who qualifies for F/S for your club is top 5 ranked for the draft, you will give up all your picks for the year (rnd 2-rnd 'N' being moved to picks 100+ or thereabouts), then you will also move down the draft the following year to finish 'paying' it off. so for 1 gun, you get no other players in that draft and lose ground the next year.

i understand that kind of scenario will not always take place, but i'd prefer the normal picks as you can get some quality players into the 3rd round. i'd take that over 1 gun and 3 rookie quality players...

is that a correct understanding Vader?

 

[JP Sauce]

"Oskar was born to Kane and his parner Charis."

http://chilab.com.au/blog/2015/1/19/blog-post-1

Ugh.

 

[Danoz]

Happy to add him to the list if anyone knows his name.

I couldn't find anything aside from the wiki page. Also asked the Tiggers board if anyone knows anything.

 

[Vader]

Worst case scenario, is that the club with the #1 pick selects the F/S player and the nominating club wins the flag.

As premier, they would have picks #18, #36, #54 and #72. There is nothing to prevent them from trading to improve their draft position. They may also have selections received as FA compensation.

Pick #1 is worth 3000pts. A 20% discount applies, so the nominating club would owe 2400pts.
Pick #18 is worth 985pts, so they still owe 1415pts. Pick #18 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #36 is worth 502pts, so they still owe 913pts. Pick #36 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #54 is worth 220pts, so they still owe 693pts. Pick #54 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #72 is worth 19pts, so they still owe 674pts. Pick #72 moves to the end of the draft.

The 674pts would then result in their 1st round selection in the next year's draft being moved back as well.

Most clubs would probably trade a mid-range player, for a 1st or 2nd round pick, to give them sufficient points. It seems a lot, but they are getting the player rated as the best in the draft.

Note that there is a massive difference between pick #1 (3000pts), pick #2 (2517pts) and pick #3 (2234pts). You pay a premium for picking up the very best players in the draft.

 

[Pdub]

Worst case scenario, is that the club with the #1 pick selects the F/S player and the nominating club wins the flag.

As premier, they would have picks #18, #36, #54 and #72. There is nothing to prevent them from trading to improve their draft position.

Pick #1 is worth 3000pts. A 20% discount applies, so the nominating club would owe 2400pts.
Pick #18 is worth 985pts, so they still owe 1415pts. Pick #18 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #36 is worth 502pts, so they still owe 913pts. Pick #36 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #54 is worth 220pts, so they still owe 693pts. Pick #54 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #72 is worth 19pts, so they still owe 674pts. Pick #72 moves to the end of the draft.

The 674pts would then result in their 1st round selection in the next year's draft being moved back as well.

Most clubs would probably trade a mid-range player, for a 1st or 2nd round pick, to give them sufficient points. It seems a lot, but they are getting the player rated as the best in the draft.

Note that there is a massive difference between pick #1 (3000pts), pick #2 (2517pts) and pick #3 (2234pts). You pay a premium for picking up the very best players in the draft.

Wouldn't be a smart thing for a club to do, spend pick #1 on a player who will resent you for not letting him play at the same club as his dad.

 

[xchadders]

Worst case scenario, is that the club with the #1 pick selects the F/S player and the nominating club wins the flag.

As premier, they would have picks #18, #36, #54 and #72. There is nothing to prevent them from trading to improve their draft position. They may also have selections received as FA compensation.

Pick #1 is worth 3000pts. A 20% discount applies, so the nominating club would owe 2400pts.
Pick #18 is worth 985pts, so they still owe 1415pts. Pick #18 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #36 is worth 502pts, so they still owe 913pts. Pick #36 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #54 is worth 220pts, so they still owe 693pts. Pick #54 moves to the end of the draft.
Pick #72 is worth 19pts, so they still owe 674pts. Pick #72 moves to the end of the draft.

The 674pts would then result in their 1st round selection in the next year's draft being moved back as well.

Most clubs would probably trade a mid-range player, for a 1st or 2nd round pick, to give them sufficient points. It seems a lot, but they are getting the player rated as the best in the draft.

Note that there is a massive difference between pick #1 (3000pts), pick #2 (2517pts) and pick #3 (2234pts). You pay a premium for picking up the very best players in the draft.

my point exactly, a crap outcome.
so basically if bunji's kids are awesome, we're boned for a year or two

 

[Vader]

Wouldn't be a smart thing for a club to do, spend pick #1 on a player who will resent you for not letting him play at the same club as his dad.

If anything the player should be hating on his Dad's club, for refusing to pay the asking price. If he's the #1 draft pick, then he should know he's going to get nominated at #1. Whether his Dad's club chooses to match it or not is entirely up to them.

my point exactly, a crap outcome.
so basically if bunji's kids are awesome, we're boned for a year or two

You're not boned, you just don't get them for free (or nearly free). If it means we have to cough up a mid-late 1st round pick and a middle of the road player, in order to get the best player in the country, then I'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

[baldandbroke]

If anything the player should be hating on his Dad's club, for refusing to pay the asking price. If he's the #1 draft pick, then he should know he's going to get nominated at #1. Whether his Dad's club chooses to match it or not is entirely up to them.

You're not boned, you just don't get them for free (or nearly free). If it means we have to cough up a mid-late 1st round pick and a middle of the road player, in order to get the best player in the country, then I'd do that in a heartbeat.

Yep, and the animosity from this change is retrospective ...

Which clubs would have had access to father-sons that they were denied based on the new eligibility, and which clubs got the most out of the old system compared to what it would have cost them in the new (fairer) system.

Maybe there should be a draft pick adjustment made for the clubs that have existing father-sons on the list ... taking into account the new costs?

 

[Danoz]

If anything the player should be hating on his Dad's club, for refusing to pay the asking price. If he's the #1 draft pick, then he should know he's going to get nominated at #1. Whether his Dad's club chooses to match it or not is entirely up to them.

You're not boned, you just don't get them for free (or nearly free). If it means we have to cough up a mid-late 1st round pick and a middle of the road player, in order to get the best player in the country, then I'd do that in a heartbeat.

What this opens up is the possibility that teams will trade players for top 70 picks if they know they'll have to pay more for upcoming f/s or academy players. Trade period will be a bit more interesting, I think.

 

[Vader]

If the eligibility criteria is dropped to 50, that would add a further 34 players to our eligible fathers list. Of those, 10 are currently on our list, plus Knights & Maric who are both on Richmond's list.

As far as I can remember, none of the 34 have had sons who were drafted. Koster & Weidemann have sons who are eligible to be drafted in the near future.

If the SANFL eligibility criteria were also reduced (to 100 games), then there would probably be a whole host of players retrospectively becoming eligible. Bryce Gibbs is the first one that springs to mind.

I can't be bothered checking other club lists.

Clubs to have benefited most from the old system are Footscray (Wallis & Libba in the same draft), Melbourne (Viney), Sydney (Heeney), Geelong (Hawkins) and Essendon (Daniher).

 

[Vader]

What this opens up is the possibility that teams will trade players for top 70 picks if they know they'll have to pay more for upcoming f/s or academy players. Trade period will be a bit more interesting, I think.

I agree - clubs will have more incentive to trade, if they know that they will be getting a gun player in return. They will have even more incentive to trade if the AFL reintroduces zones/academies for all 18 clubs.

 

[Danoz]

Geelong (Hawkins)

Plus Scarlett and Ablett (x2)

 

[Redleg Crow]

The simple answer in that Jarman is massively overhyped at the moment. I think he's a good chance to be drafted but i don't have him in the first two rounds for now. He didn't make the afl level one academy either. The midfielders/smalls selected in the squad - Scharenberg is playing league. Graham reserves, Slimming 18s but I don't know why; he's a genuine gun. Jarman has been good in the 18s and excellent twice, not every game. You look at the successful South Australian draftees over time and how they tracked in their bottom age year and often they push reserves; league for the best. North are strong but Jarmans just gotta push up (which he likely will given the absences created by the state team over the next month) and take his chance when he gets it and prove himself at a higher level.

I like him, but at the moment he's, at best, a billy stretch type range player imo

Makes sense given he didn't make the SA Under 18 50 player squad
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2015-05-21/sa-u18s-to-open-carnival

 

[radiojake]

If the eligibility criteria is dropped to 50, that would add a further 34 players to our eligible fathers list. Of those, 10 are currently on our list, plus Knights & Maric who are both on Richmond's list.

As far as I can remember, none of the 34 have had sons who were drafted. Koster & Weidemann have sons who are eligible to be drafted in the near future.

If the SANFL eligibility criteria were also reduced (to 100 games), then there would probably be a whole host of players retrospectively becoming eligible. Bryce Gibbs is the first one that springs to mind.

I can't be bothered checking other club lists.

Clubs to have benefited most from the old system are Footscray (Wallis & Libba in the same draft), Melbourne (Viney), Sydney (Heeney), Geelong (Hawkins) and Essendon (Daniher).

From what I read on the main board about the changes, Essendon would pay the same for Daniher under the new system based as what they did under the old system.

In reality, using the Heeney example has made the whole new system seem way more extreme than it really is - I also think the new system will make clubs think more about their bids on other teams F/S and Academy players. At the moment it feels like teams bid just to keep the other clubs 'honest'. Melbourne could bid #2 for Heeney with relative immunity because they knew for certain Sydney would match it with #18. Would they have been willing to bid #2 on him if they thought Sydney would baulk on the high price they'd have to pay for him? Did they think he was a genine pick #2?

 

[Danoz]

From what I read on the main board about the changes, Essendon would pay the same for Daniher under the new system based as what they did under the old system.

In reality, using the Heeney example has made the whole new system seem way more extreme than it really is - I also think the new system will make clubs think more about their bids on other teams F/S and Academy players. At the moment it feels like teams bid just to keep the other clubs 'honest'. Melbourne could bid #2 for Heeney with relative immunity because they knew for certain Sydney would match it with #18. Would they have been willing to bid #2 on him if they thought Sydney would baulk on the high price they'd have to pay for him? Did they think he was a genine pick #2?

Yes, they would have. The safety is there because Sydney were going to take him at 18 regardless. But they were genuine about taking him with pick 2.

 

[Vader]

Plus Scarlett and Ablett (x2)

Not so much. From memory neither of the Ablett boys were rated as Round 1 draft selections at the time. Not sure about Scarlett. Hawkins was rated the #1 player in his draft.

From what I read on the main board about the changes, Essendon would pay the same for Daniher under the new system based as what they did under the old system.

Probably not too far off the mark. From memory he was rated around #4 in the draft. That would have made him worth 2034 - 20% = 1627pts. Essendon used pick #10 to claim him. Under the new system, they still would have given up pick #10 (1395pts) and their 2nd round pick would have gone back from #28 to #40.

In reality, using the Heeney example has made the whole new system seem way more extreme than it really is - I also think the new system will make clubs think more about their bids on other teams F/S and Academy players. At the moment it feels like teams bid just to keep the other clubs 'honest'. Melbourne could bid #2 for Heeney with relative immunity because they knew for certain Sydney would match it with #18. Would they have been willing to bid #2 on him if they thought Sydney would baulk on the high price they'd have to pay for him? Did they think he was a genine pick #2?

Heeney is definitely an extreme example - a top-2 player who was taken by a team which played in the Grand Final. Very few clubs will find themselves in a position that extreme.

In the past, most clubs have bid just to keep the nominating club honest. If the nominating club has pick #12 and the player is rated top-10, then the club with pick #11 will make a bid. Melbourne's bid for Heeney was exceptional, in that they bid pick #2 when the nominating club only had pick #17. Yes, I do think he was a genuine pick #2.

 

[GROTTO]

Our Club will be shafted with these new F/S rules not to mention the pressure of giving up precious picks to grab them.

At the very least, the AFL should have allowed for the first F/S at the remaining Clubs to be given a free hit to grabbing one without having to pay for it heavily.