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

[iBeng]

Im waiting for people like Eddie to claim Brisbane were draft tampering when we loaded up on our picks from 38 to 44 (Or around there) for the sake of having points.

The irony that he'd complain about a system he complained to get implemented would be awesome to behold.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Im waiting for people like Eddie to claim Brisbane were draft tampering when we loaded up on our picks from 38 to 44 (Or around there) for the sake of having points.

The irony that he'd complain about a system he complained to get implemented would be awesome to behold.

Even blind freddy could see the system is not perfect.

The current system is better than the old one, but the current system does over value late picks in the draft. If this was corrected a bit, then I think every body would be happy.

 

[coryne]

The draft order is


CARL 1. Carlton
BL 2. Brisbane Lions
MELB 3. Melbourne
ESS 4. Essendon
ESS 5. Essendon
GCFC 6. Gold Coast
MELB 7. Melbourne
CARL 8. Carlton
ADEL 9. Adelaide
GWS 10. Greater Western Sydney
CARL 11. Carlton
RICH 12. Richmond
ADEL 13. Adelaide
STK 14. St Kilda
HAW 15. Hawthorn
GCFC 16. Gold Coast
NMFC 17. North Melbourne
HAW 18. Hawthorn
CARL 19. Carlton
WB 20. Western Bulldogs
WB 21. Western Bulldogs
FRE 22. Fremantle
WCE 23. West Coast
ESS 24. Essendon
ESS 25. Essendon
NMFC 26. North Melbourne
COLL 27. Collingwood
NMFC 28.
GCFC 29. Gold Coast
WB 30. Western Bulldogs
WC 31. West Coast
PORT 32. Port Adelaide
SYD 33. Sydney Swans
GWS 34. Greater Western Sydney
FREM 35. Fremantle
SYD 36. Sydney Swans
SYD 37. Sydney Swans
BL 38. Brisbane Lions

The clubs who have academy or f/s selections coming through are

Sydney (Mills)
GWS (Hooper, Kennedy)
Brisbane (Hipwood, Keays)


Sydney's 1st selection is at #33. They will match ANY bid for Mills. FULL STOP

GWS's 1st selection is at #10 with their other picks being #34, #43, #53, #55, #58, #63, #64, #65, #70. To gain an unfair advantage (not requiring to use #10 on the academy kids) they would require (and assuming that a top 2 pick will not be bidded on Hooper or Kennedy) Melbourne, Essendon, GCS, Carlton and Adelaide to NOT bid on their players. Lets buy into the theory that Melbourne won't bid because they have a trading relationship with the GWS. Essendon have no such relation and will be desprate to get a quality midfielder into their side. They have both #4 and #5. What are the chances that they won't use either of these selections to bid on a great midfielder in Hooper ??? And what midfielder would be available at #10 who would be better than Hooper ??? Lets say a miracle happens and Essendon don't bid, the GCS's don't bid as they have an agreement with the GWS to NEVER bid on academy selections, Melbourne don't bid due to their trading relationship with the GWS and Carlton don't bid because of a handshake agreement with the GWS over "4:1" trade (although the Tomlinson trade falling through may have left a bitter taste in their mouth) why would Adelaide NOT bid on Hooper as a replacement for Dangerfield? There WILL be a bid on a GWS player BEFORE #10, meaning their picks will go towards academy kids.

For Brisbane they have pick #2 (never in contention for being used as a selection to pick up an academy kid) then #38. They have set themselves up to take Hipwood and Keays wherever they are bidded on.


This whole "Handshake deals to make sure that the Northern states get academy players cheap" BS is obvious if you look at how the respective teams have traded this year .........

 

[Milanista28]

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

But then the Swans on traded our Pick 23 to WCE, I hope Essendon bid on Mills if demons don't(I think they will)

 

[Theprofessional]

But then the Swans on traded our Pick 23 to WCE, I hope Essendon bid on Mills if demons don't(I think they will)

I think the belief is- The Swans entered to help out your trade with the belief you'd do us a solid back and not bid on Mills. I mean we got rid of Bird and only had about a 17 point upgrade by involving ourselves in that trade. At the same time I totally expect Melbourne to bid on Mills.

 

[Oscarman]

But then the Swans on traded our Pick 23 to WCE, I hope Essendon bid on Mills if demons don't(I think they will)

I think the belief is- The Swans entered to help out your trade with the belief you'd do us a solid back and not bid on Mills. I mean we got rid of Bird and only had about a 17 point upgrade by involving ourselves in that trade. At the same time I totally expect Melbourne to bid on Mills.

Yeah I'm pretty sure we will bid on Mills but no-one from GWS (after they did us a solid in the Bugg trade), and Essendon will bid on Hopper. St Kilda might bid on Kennedy if he is still available at their first pick.

 

[coryne]

I think the belief is- The Swans entered to help out your trade with the belief you'd do us a solid back and not bid on Mills. I mean we got rid of Bird and only had about a 17 point upgrade by involving ourselves in that trade. At the same time I totally expect Melbourne to bid on Mills.

What exactly is the net benefit in this ??? Are you expecting the bid to be at #6 (GCS) instead of #3/4 (Melbourne or Essendon) ??? The difference in points required to get Mills would be going from 1787 to 1502 points required to get Mills (after 20% discount). Considering that Sydney has picks #33, #36, #37, #44, #54 and #69 with points values of 563, 502, 483, 362, 220 and 49 respectively the difference between the bids at either positions would be that a bid at #3 would cost you picks #33, #36, #37 and a downgrade of #44 while at pick #5/6ish you would not have #44 effected.


Now why would Sydney effectively be involved in "draft tampering" to protect the value of #44 in a shallow draft ............

 

[Theprofessional]

What exactly is the net benefit in this ??? Are you expecting the bid to be at #6 (GCS) instead of #3/4 (Melbourne or Essendon) ??? The difference in points required to get Mills would be going from 1787 to 1502 points required to get Mills (after 20% discount). Considering that Sydney has picks #33, #36, #37, #44, #54 and #69 with points values of 563, 502, 483, 362, 220 and 49 respectively the difference between the bids at either positions would be that a bid at #3 would cost you picks #33, #36, #37 and a downgrade of #44 while at pick #5/6ish you would not have #44 effected.


Now why would Sydney effectively be involved in "draft tampering" to protect the value of #44 in a shallow draft ............

I don't buy into the theory of the handshake deals but I do think some clubs will look after each other- but the theory continues with all the Academy clubs won't bid on each others academy players. Meaning Mills would be bid at 7 in an ideal world for us. So I guess pick 7 instead of pick 3/4.

Again just what I've read around- with the ideal result being we have enough points to get Mills/Dunkley without going into next seasons points.

 

[Taylor]

Do you think they want their pick to be even later in, as you say, a shallow draft?

 

[coryne]

Do you think they want their pick to be even later in, as you say, a shallow draft?

Who me ??? I think their output from the draft will be Mills and Dunkley with a Rookie upgrade or a later selection to fulfill the required number of selections in the draft. I don't think they would risk sanctions for draft tampering to ensure that late picks are not reduced in value esp when they have multiple picks at roughly the same value.

 

[Theprofessional]

Who me ??? I think their output from the draft will be Mills and Dunkley with a Rookie upgrade or a later selection to fulfill the required number of selections in the draft. I don't think they would risk sanctions for draft tampering to ensure that late picks are not reduced in value esp when they have multiple picks at roughly the same value.

I completely agree. Would be mental to do anything dodgey for so little gain and so much to lose. Doubt we'd engage in that sort of stuff.

I do however believe that a few clubs would be doing each other favors if it's beneficial to both.

 

[coryne]

I completely agree. Would be mental to do anything dodgey for so little gain and so much to lose. Doubt we'd engage in that sort of stuff.

I do however believe that a few clubs would be doing each other favors if it's beneficial to both.

And there may be some "back scratching" going on but I doubt it would be to the point which will lead to a substantial difference in the top end of the draft. As I said a couple of posts above the only SUBSTANTIAL advantage would be if no-one bidded on a GWS academy kid until after selection #10, at which point I doubt they would actually be able to afford both kids anyway with the points left over ........

 

[replicant]

Even blind freddy could see the system is not perfect.

The current system is better than the old one, but the current system does over value late picks in the draft. If this was corrected a bit, then I think every body would be happy.

and i can't find a unicorn icon.

Read the academy threads. People aren't going to be happy until the academy kids are available to every club with no priority.

Think about what's happening. Sydney traded for picks. We still gave up our first and second round to do so, and in order to get the points for mills, we needed more than our third would provide.

So we are paying our first, second, third plus more to get a kid we've enticed from another code and developed at our expense (along with a few hundred others who won't make the AFL), who has played a grand total of 2.5 games this year. And you think the points system is overvaluing late picks? It's costing our entire draft to get one kid, even with the 20% discount.

If anything, the early picks are overvalued.

 

[coryne]

and i can't find a unicorn icon.

Read the academy threads. People aren't going to be happy until the academy kids are available to every club with no priority.

Think about what's happening. Sydney traded for picks. We still gave up our first and second round to do so, and in order to get the points for mills, we needed more than our third would provide.

So we are paying our first, second, third plus more to get a kid we've enticed from another code and developed at our expense (along with a few hundred others who won't make the AFL), who has played a grand total of 2.5 games this year. And you think the points system is overvaluing late picks? It's costing our entire draft to get one kid, even with the 20% discount.

If anything, the early picks are overvalued.

And there is not a single club in the league who would turn down the opportunity to run the academy if given the chance to ...... My suggestion would be to split the costs and running of the 4 academies between 4/5 clubs each which would then have priority access to the kids between them.

 

[The Major]

It's only tampering if no club above us don't make bids, enabling us to land a player outside our academy selections/preferences.

I can't see that happening.

 

[Giant Pete]

The draft order is


CARL 1. Carlton
BL 2. Brisbane Lions
MELB 3. Melbourne
ESS 4. Essendon
ESS 5. Essendon
GCFC 6. Gold Coast
MELB 7. Melbourne
CARL 8. Carlton
ADEL 9. Adelaide
GWS 10. Greater Western Sydney
CARL 11. Carlton
RICH 12. Richmond
ADEL 13. Adelaide
STK 14. St Kilda
HAW 15. Hawthorn
GCFC 16. Gold Coast
NMFC 17. North Melbourne
HAW 18. Hawthorn
CARL 19. Carlton
WB 20. Western Bulldogs
WB 21. Western Bulldogs
FRE 22. Fremantle
WCE 23. West Coast
ESS 24. Essendon
ESS 25. Essendon
NMFC 26. North Melbourne
COLL 27. Collingwood
NMFC 28.
GCFC 29. Gold Coast
WB 30. Western Bulldogs
WC 31. West Coast
PORT 32. Port Adelaide
SYD 33. Sydney Swans
GWS 34. Greater Western Sydney
FREM 35. Fremantle
SYD 36. Sydney Swans
SYD 37. Sydney Swans
BL 38. Brisbane Lions

The clubs who have academy or f/s selections coming through are

Sydney (Mills)
GWS (Hooper, Kennedy)
Brisbane (Hipwood, Keays)


Sydney's 1st selection is at #33. They will match ANY bid for Mills. FULL STOP

GWS's 1st selection is at #10 with their other picks being #34, #43, #53, #55, #58, #63, #64, #65, #70. To gain an unfair advantage (not requiring to use #10 on the academy kids) they would require (and assuming that a top 2 pick will not be bidded on Hooper or Kennedy) Melbourne, Essendon, GCS, Carlton and Adelaide to NOT bid on their players. Lets buy into the theory that Melbourne won't bid because they have a trading relationship with the GWS. Essendon have no such relation and will be desprate to get a quality midfielder into their side. They have both #4 and #5. What are the chances that they won't use either of these selections to bid on a great midfielder in Hooper ??? And what midfielder would be available at #10 who would be better than Hooper ??? Lets say a miracle happens and Essendon don't bid, the GCS's don't bid as they have an agreement with the GWS to NEVER bid on academy selections, Melbourne don't bid due to their trading relationship with the GWS and Carlton don't bid because of a handshake agreement with the GWS over "4:1" trade (although the Tomlinson trade falling through may have left a bitter taste in their mouth) why would Adelaide NOT bid on Hooper as a replacement for Dangerfield? There WILL be a bid on a GWS player BEFORE #10, meaning their picks will go towards academy kids.

For Brisbane they have pick #2 (never in contention for being used as a selection to pick up an academy kid) then #38. They have set themselves up to take Hipwood and Keays wherever they are bidded on.


This whole "Handshake deals to make sure that the Northern states get academy players cheap" BS is obvious if you look at how the respective teams have traded this year .........

The other consideration is we will have about two good young players leaving us each year for the next two years. Would be wise to do the right thing now by us.

 

[Lensen]

and i can't find a unicorn icon.

Read the academy threads. People aren't going to be happy until the academy kids are available to every club with no priority.

Think about what's happening. Sydney traded for picks. We still gave up our first and second round to do so, and in order to get the points for mills, we needed more than our third would provide.

So we are paying our first, second, third plus more to get a kid we've enticed from another code and developed at our expense (along with a few hundred others who won't make the AFL), who has played a grand total of 2.5 games this year. And you think the points system is overvaluing late picks? It's costing our entire draft to get one kid, even with the 20% discount.

If anything, the early picks are overvalued.

Next time the Swans get pick 3 then you'd be happy to trade it elsewhere for picks 14, 32 and 50 roughly?

 

[Redeye Rambler]

I don't see how this a new issue.
Replace the word "bid" with "draft" and the situation we had before the bidding system.

"we will agree to the trade that favors your team, if you don't draft player X" or
"tank your interviews with other clubs and don't try too hard during combine testing, and you will be able to be drafted to our club"

I'll concede that the potential for draft tampering is greater when bidding for academy players, because a single deal with the right club will make the bid one pick later, but there has always been the potential to manipulate the draft.

 

[The Major]

I don't see how this a new issue.
Replace the word "bid" with "draft" and the situation we had before the bidding system.

"we will agree to the trade that favors your team, if you don't draft player X" or
"tank your interviews with other clubs and don't try too hard during combine testing, and you will be able to be drafted to our club"

I'll concede that the potential for draft tampering is greater when bidding for academy players, because a single deal with the right club will make the bid one pick later, but there has always been the potential to manipulate the draft.

The traditionalists need their conspiracy theories.