Rumour Real concern from some clubs about 'deals' that could see GWS academy stars go without bids early on

[go_the_dockers]

Worth a discussion.

 

[leeloo]

Reminds me of Survivor, building alliances. Those alliances could come back to bite them on the arse in years to come.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Was asked of a few talking heads during the trade period, what happens to the Giants list manager if no teams make early bids on their academy players and they traded away top ten picks for nothing?

 

[baz_machine]

Was asked of a few talking heads during the trade period, what happens to the Giants list manager if no teams make early bids on their academy players and they traded away top ten picks for nothing?

He gets traded to Carlton

 

[SterlingArcher]

Was asked of a few talking heads during the trade period, what happens to the Giants list manager if no teams make early bids on their academy players and they traded away top ten picks for nothing?

By same token, what would have happened to the Giants list manager if he didn't have enough points to match bids on Hopper and Kennedy (as well as getting enough points for next years crop too)...GWS didn't want to take that risk I guess

 

[doug85]

Worth a discussion.

Draft tampering.

Simple.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old?

Basically the fear is the new system allows for possible draft tampering.

GWS gets in the ear of the clubs that they know are keen on their Academy prospects and convinces them "some way" not to bid early for them.

Means GWS don't need to pay market value for their Academy players if true.

An example using last yrs system would be say North who originally got Luke McDonald inside the top ten. Has words with the Eagles and brisbane who were keen on him and they don't bid first round. North can then take their first pick and get another high rated player because they haven't been forced to match for McDonald yet. He's protected by father son rules so they know he will get to North anyway.

 

[Taylor]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old?

That GWS gave Melbourne a pick upgrade and a player so they wouldn't use their pick 3 on bidding for their players.

GWS gave #7 and Bugg for pick #10 and late picks.

 

[Oscarman]

That GWS gave Melbourne a pick upgrade and a player so they wouldn't use their pick 3 on bidding for their players.

GWS gave #7 and Bugg for pick #10 and late picks.

Hasn't Sydney done the same with Essendon and St Kilda?

 

[Taylor]

Hasn't Sydney done the same with Essendon and St Kilda?

Yep.

Gave up pick #14 and a player for St Kilda to get Carlisle... Oh, and don't bid on our players with pick 4 or 5.

 

[Giant Pete]

On the other side of the coin is the fact that a club like, say Melbourne, could bid on both Hopper and Kennedy with a pick 3, forcing us to match and use more of our points than we otherwise would... As neither of these boys are worth a pick 3 under normal circumstances. These clubs know we are very keen to draft these boys, therefore they can bid on them knowing we are going to match.

 

[Taylor]

On the other side of the coin is the fact that a club like, say Melbourne, could bid on both Hopper and Kennedy with a pick 3, forcing us to match and use more of our points than we otherwise would... As neither of these boys are worth a pick 3 under normal circumstances. These clubs know we are very keen to draft these boys, therefore they can bid on them knowing we are going to match.

That was the situation before the "one-sided" trades went through.

 

[Giant Pete]

That was the situation before the "one-sided" trades went through.

What do you mean?

 

[Taylor]

What do you mean?

GWS don't rate their academy players any different, the option was always there for a bid. What has changed during the trade period?

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

By same token, what would have happened to the Giants list manager if he didn't have enough points to match bids on Hopper and Kennedy (as well as getting enough points for next years crop too)...GWS didn't want to take that risk I guess

Also it's not a one person decision. There would be more than just the list manager deciding that the points trading is the way to go.

 

[PhatHQ]

On the other side of the coin is the fact that a club like, say Melbourne, could bid on both Hopper and Kennedy with a pick 3, forcing us to match and use more of our points than we otherwise would... As neither of these boys are worth a pick 3 under normal circumstances. These clubs know we are very keen to draft these boys, therefore they can bid on them knowing we are going to match.

I'll put money on the Bombers bidding on both of those guys & mills if Melbourne don't. They both need quality mids before anything else

 

[M Malice]

wouldn't be good for the lions if GWS have done deals with certain clubs not to bid for their young talent. would that mean bids for hipwood and keays could come a lot earlier than expected, if so surely a draft tampering case could be lodged considering no one at all has judged hipwood and keays above hopper and kennedy? would be very surprised if any deals this obvious were agreed to.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

wouldn't be good for the lions if GWS have done deals with certain clubs not to bid for their young talent. would that mean bids for hipwood and keays could come a lot earlier than expected, if so surely a draft tampering case could be lodged considering no one at all has judged hipwood and keays above hopper and kennedy? would be very surprised if any deals this obvious were agreed to.

Not exactly in Brisbane's interests when they'd be wanting to do similar deals in future.

 

[Giant Pete]

I'll put money on the Bombers bidding on both of those guys & mills if Melbourne don't. They both need quality mids before anything else

They need forwards as well

 

[replicant]

Worth a discussion.

Funny. I've got real concerns the AFL will get in the ear of Melbourne and and Essendon, and make sure they bid on as many of the Academy kids as possible.

This thread assumes the clubs are corrupt. Whereas we know for sure the AFL are.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Funny. I've got real concerns the AFL will get in the ear of Melbourne and and Essendon, and make sure they bid on as many of the Academy kids as possible.

This thread assumes the clubs are corrupt. Whereas we know for sure the AFL are.

We might do this to Sydney, but not to GWS unless the AFL is really forcing our hand. Our trading history with GWS has netted us Jesse Hogan, Dom Tyson, Christian Salem, Sam Frost, Alex Neal-Bullen, Oscar McDonald, Tomas Bugg, and Pick 3. We definitely wouldn't want to compromise that relationship.

 

[1970crow]

Surely nearly all clubs bid on good academy players. You can't do shonky deals with all 17 other clubs. I don't know who we at the AFC will get with our pick 9, but if there's an acadamy player who's worth pick 4, I'd expect us to have bid our puck 9. I'd expect the same from nearly every club with a pick that is less than where they value the player.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Tbh Carlton should be bidding on all of the elite academy players at pick 1. Before the trade period there may have been a risk of the academy clubs calling their bluff. After the trade period though that risk has pretty much evaporated. Sydney and GWS didn't trade way out of the first round so they could take a bunch of players in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. They want to draft one or two quality players and they have enough points to cover pretty much any scenario. They will match the bid no matter what. It's the same with as at pick 3, we should be bidding for the academy players (except maybe GWS) there to make sure their clubs are paying top price.

Brisbane have 2046 points NOT including pick 2. If we bid for Hipwood or Keays at 3 they have to pay 2234 - 25% = 1675.5 points. They'd much rather take one of those players and have ~400 points left (a pick in the mid 40s) than make us take Hipwood/Keays at 3 so they can use picks 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 instead. Heck even if Carlton bid for one of them at pick 1 they'd only be coughing up 2250 points (3000 - 25%). 2250-2046 = 204 points that they're missing. Pick 2 is worth 2517, so if they have to take 204 points out of that they're left with 2313 points. Pick 3 is worth 2234 points, so Brisbane wouldn't even be losing their place in the draft, they'd stay at pick 2.

Since I made this post I'm starting to think that the academy bidding thing possibly doesn't work like this, but the rest stands.

 

[Nutsngum]

Surely nearly all clubs bid on good academy players. You can't do shonky deals with all 17 other clubs. I don't know who we at the AFC will get with our pick 9, but if there's an acadamy player who's worth pick 4, I'd expect us to have bid our puck 9. I'd expect the same from nearly every club with a pick that is less than where they value the player.

I think its only an issue with picks in the top 5 or 6 spots as their point values are quite high, forcing GWS/etc to spend more points to match that specific bid.

Pick 5 is 400 points more then pick 9 for example which can still add up when youre talking about multiple academy players.