Trading of future picks approved

[blue harvest]

Thanks for all the replies, so basically it introduces a further element of gambling to the draft, on top of the gamble the draft already is.

 

[Shaneprice97]

Collingwood will probably be trading off there 2016 first round pick then, Josh Daicos will be a F&S pick, and if he looks likely to be first round talent, then we will make the effort to only use a 2nd round pick. Especially with Adam Treloar on our radar.

 

[Rob]

I'm not opposed to it, but I can see the gaps between the best and worst teams widening. The rubbish teams are going to trade to stockpile future picks and be worse in the short term, the best teams are going to offer future picks for experienced players to push for a flag and will be better in the short term. Long term the positions will be reversed.

 

[Sausages]

It's rubbish. Further proof that the league is trying fix things by....not fixing things.

 

[Suma Magic]

Collingwood will probably be trading off there 2016 first round pick then, Josh Daicos will be a F&S pick, and if he looks likely to be first round talent, then we will make the effort to only use a 2nd round pick.

That assumes that the bidding system is inefficient (it may be - I'm not sure). Interested in why you think it is inefficient?

 

[Nutsngum]

Be funny when this backfires and a club who bends over and gives up 2 1st rounders for a gun declines horribly the next year, finishes in the bottom 4 and misses out on that gun draftee.


More player power to get to where they want to go however, can see Hawthorn topping up year after year after year with this to stay at the top.

The picks will be protected at that point in the draft to stop an estimated 15ish pick dropping all the way to a top 5 for example. Not sure how they will do this but you wont have to worry about it THAT much.

 

[NathanMX]

Already given up on McCartin and Billings?

Haha more so as replacements for Roo and Joey, they aint gonna be around as long as Pendles and Darcy. I have a lot of faith in our draft team, unlike some teams we are not in the habit of picking duds with the top pick, so Paddy will be right

 

[JasRulz63]

The picks will be protected at that point in the draft to stop an estimated 15ish pick dropping all the way to a top 5 for example. Not sure how they will do this but you wont have to worry about it THAT much.

Protected picks = extra incentive to tank? Happens in the NBA.

 

[go you pups]

Protected picks = extra incentive to tank? Happens in the NBA.

Yes, that's a problem too

I say scrap the protective pick though, more incentives to perform should be encouraged somehow.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Protected picks = extra incentive to tank? Happens in the NBA.

I wonder if they will need a Stepien rule?

 

[go you pups]

I can see something like a club doesn't want to trade a 1st rounder for a solid player but not an absolute star also, their worth is 2nd rounders, club trades 2 2nd rounders for that player to get it done and hold onto their prized first rounders.

 

[blueiris]

There's a fail safe put in place by the AFL that you won't lose a top 5 pick if your team finishes in the bottom 5 teams would be interesting if a team like Geelong traded their first pick and next years first pick to Adelaide for Dangerfield and they finished bottom 5 next year would Adelaide still be compensated

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

I had a feeling that date in Back to the Future meant something

Here are the indicative dates for the 2015 NAB AFL free agency and trade periods.

Friday October 9 - NAB AFL restricted free agency offer and unrestricted free agency period begins

Monday October 12, 10am - NAB AFL Trade Period begins

Sunday October 18, 5pm - Close of NAB AFL restricted free agency offer and unrestricted free agency period

Wednesday October 21 - NAB AFL restricted free agency matching offer three-day period ends

Thursday October 22, 2pm – NAB AFL Trade Period closes

 

[manboob]

So... when poorly run clubs inevitably mortgage the future for a packet of magic beans, do they get special dispensation to avoid five years of a bleak future ?

Thankfully you can only trade picks for this year and next. So no Freo offering 10 first rounders for Tarrant.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Interesting stuff...

They need to introduce a clause that no team that has traded a future pick can turn around and apply for priority pick when it all goes **** up.

Guaranteed to be the usual suspects.

 

[NathanMX]

Interesting stuff...

They need to introduce a clause that no team that has traded a future pick can turn around and apply for priority pick when it all goes **** up.

Guaranteed to be the usual suspects.

Reckon it would go the other way, top teams topping up with fringe players knowing their future pick will be 15-18 so wont lose much, kind of like the Hawks with McEvoy. Not sure how many players are worth a top 3 future pick, most lower teams would not entertain such a thing unless it came with a superstar and his loyalty.

 

[Van_Dyke]

In all seriousness imagine Freo circa 2004 with this. We'd still be a mess now as a result potentially.

 

[DERIBERATE]

There's a fail safe put in place by the AFL that you won't lose a top 5 pick if your team finishes in the bottom 5 teams would be interesting if a team like Geelong traded their first pick and next years first pick to Adelaide for Dangerfield and they finished bottom 5 next year would Adelaide still be compensated

Typically when this sort of ambiguity exists it pays to er on the side of caution and just fine Adelaide half a million dollars and ban us from a couple of drafts.

 

[NathanMX]

In all seriousness imagine Freo circa 2004 with this. We'd still be a mess now as a result potentially.

On the plus side you would have traded away your top pick and never gotten Jack Watts

 

[Altum Volantes]

Reckon it would go the other way, top teams topping up with fringe players knowing their future pick will be 15-18 so wont lose much, kind of like the Hawks with McEvoy. Not sure how many players are worth a top 3 future pick, most lower teams would not entertain such a thing unless it came with a superstar and his loyalty.

Nah it's always the poorly run clubs that get themselves into strife and try and dig themselves out of mediocrity by trading away their future picks.

 

[NathanMX]

Nah it's always the poorly run clubs that get themselves into strife and try and dig themselves out of mediocrity by trading away their future picks.

given our history with the top pick I doubt St Kilda would ever entertain the thought. Top 3, possibly, I mean would you give away the 3rd pick in the draft for someone like Dangerfield on a 3 year contract?
If they make it protected like in the NBA, that top 3 picks cannot be touched then that is enough to stop teams bottoming out with bad decisions and frankly when you look at the best two teams, Hawthorn and your team are there really that many players that would warrant trading a high pick for anyway?

 

[DrEvil_]

Reminds me of derivatives trading... someone is going to be massively burned.

 

[Quinz]

This will allow incompetent administrations to put their club a decade backwards through mismanagement.

 

[justbetter]

Hate protected picks, wouldn't like to see a team tank as hard as the Golden State Warriors did.

 

[go you pups]

It's rubbish. Further proof that the league is trying fix things by....not fixing things.

Yep, can see you guys and Melbourne being a constant development ground in the future with player/agent power and the AFL constantly changing rules helping more player movement these days.

Restricting player movement (drafting/rookieing only, rookies had age limitations also and small week long trade windows) which was the case during the Jackson days and clubs noticing the draft was the best way to build lists up etc Geelong, Brisbane, Hawthorn was the way to go. This helps a constant cycle of clubs bottoming out then improving on once those draftees get older. You get old or have injury riddled seasons then you fall, yes tanking was bad but a system that limited constant player movement helped a natural cycle of being competitive to contending then declining to rebuilding.

Look at all the players stay in the system easier now or can get to other clubs just by ways of signing a contract now etc free agency and delisted free agency, minimal compensation awarded to the team that loses out and the team that gain the player only has to make room for that player in their salary cap, they don't lose draft picks or anything. The pre-season draft which was designed as a last resort for trades that couldn't be agreed on or to make up for list deficiencies or draft howlers is plain useless now.

Clubs at the top will stay at the top, unless the brave clubs from below who nail their drafting and are strong with list management and are prepared to make the most of a short term sacrifice for long term gain are the ones who will buck the trend and I can only think of 4 teams in Port, Collingwood, St Kilda and The Dogs who are any chance of being top 4 again in the short-medium term who have had to rebuild, nailed the draft and made those sacrifices in order to do so. Collingwood have been a little bit of a mixed bag implementing some rule advantages and have been a lot more competitive since expansion than the other 3 but there's enough similarities to put them in this group compared to say a Geelong.

Hawthorn, Adelaide, North, Sydney, Richmond and Geelong have all used this new system since expansion to their advantage at minimal cost. West Coast and Fremantle are strong off the back of good list management and either good drafting/trading pre-expansion with those core players in their prime currently. Essendon and Carlton have regressed due to different factors but have still used the system to their advantage originally, while GWS and Gold Coast initially started the system and will obviously benefit from it in due time.

What do Melbourne and Brisbane do to get themselves out of it? Both clubs stand to lose young prospects this year in Jeremy Howe and James Aish and have lost key players over the last couple of years, both try to counter the problem through trading in experience to replace who walks out on them but why can't these players stay? Is it cultural (Neeld and Voss didn't help with that but they're both gone now), is it salary cap issues or success issues? I personally think the manufactured ways to encourage player movement has been detrimental to their list management and has been a very easy way out for players from two struggling, underperforming sides since expansion who have since requested for priority picks as compensation to help them out.