News Changes to Father Son/Academy Bidding

[robbieando]

Hannebery to St Kilda for pick 1 would have to be the kind of deal to make mills realistic

No it doesn't, because your not including the discount we get for Mills. We don't need Pick 1 to make it realistic.

 

[Millky95]

Well say Dunkley is a player expected to go around pick 10. It is a massive risk if your club has pick 3 and decides to bid on him.

Yeah that's fair.

Question: Say Saints have pick 1 and Melbourne have pick 2. Saints bid on Mills but Melbourne also want him, can they do the same draft dealings to get him just without the discount?

 

[robbieando]

Well say Dunkley is a player expected to go around pick 10. It is a massive risk if your club has pick 3 and decides to bid on him.

BINGO

Mills might drop out of the Top 3 as the Victoria, SA and WA kids push their claims closer and the needs of clubs with the first few picks become known. I'm confident that we'll match bids for both players even though it will impact on out draft in 2016.

 

[robbieando]

Yeah that's fair.

Question: Say Saints have pick 1 and Melbourne have pick 2. Saints bid on Mills but Melbourne also want him, can they do the same draft dealings to get him just without the discount?

Nope once a club bids (or if this during the draft - drafts) on a player the club who hold his rights have the right of response to match the bid. Only one club can bid and that is by draft order

 

[RUNVS]

No it doesn't, because your not including the discount we get for Mills. We don't need Pick 1 to make it realistic.

Actually I don't think it works like that. We could also use the additional 750 points of pick 1 (since no one could use pick 1 to bid) on getting Dunkley as well. With pick 1 we could in theory get Mills and Dunkley with something like pick 1 and a 3rd rounder.

 

[Dan87]

No it doesn't, because your not including the discount we get for Mills. We don't need Pick 1 to make it realistic.

Ok, true. Picks 1-5

 

[robbieando]

Actually I don't think it works like that. We could also use the additional 750 points of pick 1 (since no one could use pick 1 to bid) on getting Dunkley as well. With pick 1 we could in theory get Mills and Dunkley with something like pick 1 and a 3rd rounder.

That's true, but I was debunking the can't get Mills without Pick 1 claim.

 

[Dan87]

That's true, but I was debunking the can't get Mills without Pick 1 claim.

That's not what I said mate

 

[Superstar swan]

If we traded hanners for pick 1,we could theoretically draft the best player at pick 1 and go into draft debt or use all our picks that equate to mills price. We could essentially get picks 1 and 2 in the draft

 

[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.

 

[swansfan51]

I think the system is pretty good. You're all melting down over it due to the Mills and Dunkley scenario, but it works perfectly fine for any players that are not top 5 prospects.

Lets say in a year we had a #10 prospect (like Dunkley), plus a late 2nd rounder like Hiscox, and someone rated a late 3rd rounder. We would easily be able to get guaranteed access to all of them, no worries. Essentially we get both guaranteed access to preferred players without having to worry about someone taking them earlier in the draft, and a 25% discount.

#10 - 1,395
#36 - 502
#53 - 233

2130 - 25% = 1598

We could get those 3 players with picks 17, 38 and 63. You're getting guaranteed access to multiple players at lower picks.

As for the very top 3-4 picks, they are a premium for a reason. Would you seriously argue that you wouldn't exchange 18, 37 and 38 for pick 2 and 70? No club would offer us that deal, and we'd take it in a heartbeat if they did.

 

[Millky95]

I think the system is pretty good. You're all melting down over it due to the Mills and Dunkley scenario, but it works perfectly fine for any players that are not top 5 prospects.

Lets say in a year we had a #10 prospect (like Dunkley), plus a late 2nd rounder like Hiscox, and someone rated a late 3rd rounder. We would easily be able to get guaranteed access to all of them, no worries. Essentially we get both guaranteed access to preferred players without having to worry about someone taking them earlier in the draft, and a 25% discount.

#10 - 1,395
#36 - 502
#53 - 233

2130 - 25% = 1598

We could get those 3 players with picks 17, 38 and 63. You're getting guaranteed access to multiple players at lower picks.

Which is all fine and dandy but isn't it just a bit suspicious that this system comes in where we finally get 3 potentially good players in 2 years? I don't wanna sound like "the world is out to get Sydney" but after the trade ban can you blame me?

 

[alanlau34]

Which is all fine and dandy but isn't it just a bit suspicious that this system comes in where we finally get 3 potentially good players in 2 years? I don't wanna sound like "the world is out to get Sydney" but after the trade ban can you blame me?

And mysteriously reviewed and watered down when it impacts a big club...

 

[RW]

It isn't a bad system, but when I read "endorsed by Melbourne University's department of economics" I couldn't help but think WTF does that have to do with footy. It sounds like it was developed by someone who's drunk all the Kool-Aid. A smart club (which will probably be Sydney) will come up with a way to "game" the points system to their advantage, Eddie will whine and then we'll be back where we started.

 

[nottenthagain]

No club will bid out of spite, the cost is higher them then it is for us as we get the discount. With all signs everything will be done on the night of the draft - spite is just too much of a risk for a club to play if they don't want a player, bid on him and we don't match.

Oh, I think differently. I think bidding will now become much more strategic and a big part of that is in forcing our hand. Every club will benefit if we take an academy or F/son player as we'll need to drop down the list, so you're effectively upgrading your future picks too and taking one of the best recruiting teams out of the equation - that's a discount (to them and every other club) in itself and opens the way for a bit of collusion between the other teams too.

 

[nottenthagain]

It isn't a bad system, but when I read "endorsed by Melbourne University's department of economics" I couldn't help but think WTF does that have to do with footy. It sounds like it was developed by someone who's drunk all the Kool-Aid. A smart club (which will probably be Sydney) will come up with a way to "game" the points system to their advantage, Eddie will whine and then we'll be back where we started.

As long as 'gaming' the system doesn't mean tanking....

I'm haven't totally got my head around this at yet, I have a few questions, does anyone know the answers?

If it's only a minor differential to make up does it have to come via your very next pick, or could you use a later round pick if it equals the differential.

Does that mean it's effectively the old system once we get beyond the zero value positions?

Does it change anything in the rookie draft? can we nominate pre rookie draft and still take them in the last round?

 

[MickyG]

I think we'll take Mills and Dunkley (if he's interested), and live with the debt next year. It will be very sad for the other Academy players - we nominated three this year. Would other Academy players still be left at the end of the draft or more likely to be rookies anyway? We've done very well with rookies so think that's worth remembering. Other clubs will need to consider go home factor more if they pick up Academy players. Also with a lot of retirements there has been speculation that we may hit the free agency market at the end of 2016.

 

[Wayne Swan]

I've had a good look at the points system and the way it will work at the National Draft and it appears basically ok to me. The only problem I have is the steep rise in points towards the top picks.

The 25% discount is very fair for the expenditure we put into our academy and very workable in our favour during the trade period and ND. We get players at a 25% discount to their "actual" worth so that is a bonus. Other clubs may also be a little wary of using a pick at that "actual" worth on an academy player who having been immersed in our club for 6 years could go home after just two seasons for far less than the bidding club paid for him.

Our problem is the probability that Mills could be number 1. On the above scenario, I don't think he will be. He'd would have to be clearly better than the best Victorian midfielder for say St.Kilda to risk their No1 pick on him and that is highly unlikely. As shown at the last draft, a number of players are likely to be around the mark and a through and through dyed in the wool Swan in Mills is not going to be picked before similar home state players.

If the 2014 draft was done under the news rules, Melbourne would not have bid pick 2 or pick 3 on Heeney, they would have gone with the two local players they did take Petracca and Brayshaw.

So Heeney would not have cost us 2517 (1888) points, at most he would have cost pick 4 2034 (1526). We can only hope that Mills slips to be just in the top mix and not a clear number 1 and that Dunkley rates mid teens say pick 15 1112 (834) equivalent to pick 22.

In a dream scenario, could you get pick 1 from St.Kilda for say Hanneberry, gives you pick 1 worth 3000 points. You then draft Mills with pick 1 (2250) leaving you 750 points to upgrade your pick 18 worth 985 points to pick 7 1644 points and 91 points left over to upgrade your pick 36 502 points to pick 32. Select a KPD player you want at pick 7 then use pick 32 and later picks to get Dunkley at pick 15.

So it's Hanners out, Mills, Dunkley and KPD at pick 7 in!

This system will work for us guys and then Eddie will start complaining about the 25% discount

 

[Swansujelly]

just means some of current and future rookies will have to come on. Not a fan of this system, but what can you do when fat eddies got a bug up his ass.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

I started reading and was nodding along and then...

...

In a dream scenario, could you get pick 1 from St.Kilda for say Hanneberry

...

WTF?! Dream scenario? Really... we have to get rid of one of our superstars to pick up a kid who may or may not live up to the same standard as said departing superstar? Risky if you ask me.

It's draft tampering at the highest level to make the majority of fans & clubs (in VIC/SA/WA) happy that the AFL "is doing something about big scary evil cheating Sydney"... This is nothing more than what seems to me to be jealous VFL/SANFL/WAFL clubs interests making the "AFL" react to our last decade of success (like they did to Brissy after theirs). Why can't they attract these players/coaches? Why can't they have this mythical super powerful culture that wins flags? Why do they have to bottom out while we don't? Why do sponsors keep wanting to support our club and not theirs?...

The simple reason is we support the greatest club in the AFL. We have a passionate, determined and smart club who (unlike those other foundation clubs) have moved with the times and tried to stay one step ahead instead of revelling in our history and past success. We strive for professionalism in our playing group and our club. Most importantly we stand up and fight and never give in. I don't expect anything different this time round. Throw draft obstacles in our way and watch as we build a bridge over them and charge forward again.

I don't think we need to get rid of anyone who wants to stay. I get the feel Hanners wants to stay (of course I wouldn't know otherwise) and we shouldn't let this draft tampering impact on our vision, strategy and plans (as much as possible). If Mills & Dunks wants to play for us they will (eventually). Likewise any player in the draft. We just need to focus on becoming the club of choice for those players and ultimately we will have the players we want. Buddy is a great example of what a club image & list management can do for recruiting into the future. If they want to play for us they will, make no mistake, the draft is their entry into the AFL, it's not their destination a lot of the time.

 

[FreeAgent1]

I started reading and was nodding along and then...



WTF?! Dream scenario? Really... we have to get rid of one of our superstars to pick up a kid who may or may not live up to the same standard as said departing superstar? Risky if you ask me.

It's draft tampering at the highest level to make the majority of fans & clubs (in VIC/SA/WA) happy that the AFL "is doing something about big scary evil cheating Sydney"... This is nothing more than what seems to me to be jealous VFL/SANFL/WAFL clubs interests making the "AFL" react to our last decade of success (like they did to Brissy after theirs). Why can't they attract these players/coaches? Why can't they have this mythical super powerful culture that wins flags? Why do they have to bottom out while we don't? Why do sponsors keep wanting to support our club and not theirs?...

The simple reason is we support the greatest club in the AFL. We have a passionate, determined and smart club who (unlike those other foundation clubs) have moved with the times and tried to stay one step ahead instead of revelling in our history and past success. We strive for professionalism in our playing group and our club. Most importantly we stand up and fight and never give in. I don't expect anything different this time round. Throw draft obstacles in our way and watch as we build a bridge over them and charge forward again.

I don't think we need to get rid of anyone who wants to stay. I get the feel Hanners wants to stay (of course I wouldn't know otherwise) and we shouldn't let this draft tampering impact on our vision, strategy and plans (as much as possible). If Mills & Dunks wants to play for us they will (eventually). Likewise any player in the draft. We just need to focus on becoming the club of choice for those players and ultimately we will have the players we want. Buddy is a great example of what a club image & list management can do for recruiting into the future. If they want to play for us they will, make no mistake, the draft is their entry into the AFL, it's not their destination a lot of the time.

I heard about this potentially being the system whilst doing my thesis (in Economics) last year. My real gripe is that clubs know the amount of points each clubs have and can influence a players value to distort it (i.e. last year Heeney was prob pick 4 ) but the dees can do exactly what they did, knowing that he is wayy better than the swans are likely to get at 18 and as a result make them pay XXX% more.

Sure some on BF may say they are taking on risk, but they aren't really, as the Swans would have to want to hurt the Dees more than help their own team out. Where I think it really works (the other way) and ironcially i think this system would have helped the pies and im not entirely sure that D'Arcy was a pick 5, they just wanted to make sure the pies didnt get him at a steal.....

will be interesting regardless. Who knows game theory specialist with phD's in Economics may join the footy clubs before long

 

[Punts]

No way would I give up Hanners for Dunkley. I see G Swan has weighed in , article AFL.com

 

[FreeAgent1]

No way would I give up Hanners for Dunkley. I see G Swan has weighed in , article AFL.com

To be fair I think he was saying hanners for dunkley and pick 7 (which with our midfield depth I would probably do... id have to know more about dunkley tbh) but it also prob helps future cap pressure from parker.

Also i think we will just take the hit this year and say cool we will start next with with sweet F-All points and then trade into the draft, rather than being put over a barrel this year.

 

[S120]

I think it's hard to argue that the whole thing isn't a knee-jerk reaction to our last few years (on field and the Franklin/Tippett signings). Add in the expansion clubs that altered quite a few drafts from their normal progression and the Victorian clubs were up to their ears with it and behind Newbold/Eddie, they had a whinge of epic proportions to get their way.

With that said, I agree with swansfan51 that it seems like a pretty decent system to me when I look at it objectively. That isn't to say that clubs will find smart ways to improve their lots in the system but the smart clubs (Sydney, Hawthorn, Geelong) have done that for quite a while now while the consistently average/poorly-run clubs (Melbourne, Carlton) continually flounder and make bad decisions.

In the discussion of Mills and Dunkley specifically, it's a shame that it will make it difficult to get both but hey, we got Heeney for unders, we'll surely not allow Mills to be anything but a Swan and our Academy is churning out very talented players. All while we have a very good side that is making the pointy end of finals ear after year. Things aren't so bad and allowing Dunkley to go to another club isn't going to be the thing that prevents us from winning premierships soon.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

No way would I give up Hanners for Dunkley. I see G Swan has weighed in , article AFL.com

Hahah amazing how someone opinion changes when they are on the effected side.