Trading of future picks approved

[Ichabod Noodle]

Pick Protection stops this.

Also lets say a very talented list has a huge run of injuries to key players and finishes in the bottom 2 and because of pick protection they get to keep pick 2. Is it fair that they get that pick, + the player they traded in and a healthy list the next season.

Think if you take the risk you should pay the consequences if it doesn't come off.

Ok, so Club A is protected if they fall to the bottom - what happens to Club B's pick that they traded for? If the deal was - we give up player X for your first round pick next year and then you get to keep that first round pick, what happens to my pick that I've given up player X for? Do I slot in directly behind you at pick 3 - get an end of first round pick, a mid first round pick? I'm confused.

And you thought the draft was compromised when we came in - I see nothing but compromises (and confusion) with this new set up.

 

[Dogsman16]

Ok, so Club A is protected if they fall to the bottom - what happens to Club B's pick that they traded for? If the deal was - we give up player X for your first round pick next year and then you get to keep that first round pick, what happens to my pick that I've given up player X for? Do I slot in directly behind you at pick 3 - get an end of first round pick, a mid first round pick? I'm confused.

And you thought the draft was compromised when we came in - I see nothing but compromises (and confusion) with this new set up.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-20/plan-to-protect-clubs-from-trading-away-draft-future

It confuses me as well. Hence why I hate pick protection. But I think clubs having more assets to trade with is only a good thing. I cannot stand when the top clubs offer first rounder + steak knives for star players (because who wants to give up a best 22 player effectively robbing peter to pay paul).

 

[L_W_P]

On pick protection - It would just fall to the following year.

Eg Collingwood trade next years 1st rounder for James Aish.

If they finish in the bottom 3/4/5 (whatever the protected zone is) then they keep the pick for 2016 and the Lions get the first rounder for 2017.

A very fair way of doing things because it stops clubs trading out their top end future but it also helps teams spread their age profile and rebuild quickly.

I love it.

Really need live trading on draft night though...

 

[Furn2]

It was nothing to do with the players brought in even though you have got great value out of them.

It's the fact you have gone out and got a player or two every single year for the last 6 years and don't kind blowing your late 1st rounders in the process.

With the added flexibility of future picks, you can load up on someone better without giving up anything significant in return except draft picks. If you guys get O'Meara for etc, I'd expect a decent talent to go the other way, like a Hill, Breust etc plus the first rounder. Now you don't have to sacrifice much other than just draft picks as players with years of development that were once needed to finish deal won't be needed as deal sweeteners in order to keep topping up meaning you lose no established depth unless players are delisted or retire.

This year will work out perfectly for Geelong for etc who will only lose Motlop or veterans at the worst to get in Dangerfield and Henderson. Other clubs won't stand a chance. The only thing is Geelong won't be active the year after so other clubs have to strike then.

I see what youre saying but having 1 1st round pick in 6 years will take its toll eventually, and the cap has forced talent out, Buddy being the main one but others have left too and guys like Suckling, Langford and Hartung havent signed yet.

It does give the top sides a chance to stay up longer but it also gives the bottom sides a chance to rise quicker. Its a fine line to walk, we could have very easily missed the last 2 GFs which would put a very different light on some of those trades.

Also dont forget we got the likes of Hodge, Mitchell, Birchall and Lewis doing the opposite and trading established players for picks.

 

[HBFlanker]

Essendon and Norf will shoot themselves in the foot if they think they can push for a flag next year

spot on, I feel trade week could be very stressful for us

 

[cynical]

what a terrible move

coaches under pressure will sell out the clubs future to trade for the now

clubs who might be past their premiership window will sell out the future to have one last crack (resulting in a longer rebuild)

it'll also allow the powerful clubs better options for trade when a player inevitable chooses them but they don't really have a good trade (wonder who hawthorn will get this year, free agency + regular trading + future pick trading)

 

[dazbroncos]

Just means every player on the trading list doubled in value…

just what we needed….

Go Catters

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-20/plan-to-protect-clubs-from-trading-away-draft-future

It confuses me as well. Hence why I hate pick protection. But I think clubs having more assets to trade with is only a good thing. I cannot stand when the top clubs offer first rounder + steak knives for star players (because who wants to give up a best 22 player effectively robbing peter to pay paul).

Thanks for the link - doesn't exactly answer my question though as to what happens to the team who've traded a player for a pick they don't seem to get to use. That's trading a player for nothing (or at the very least, a lot less than what was agreed to)

And just say, you trade for a first round pick, the team finished second last, their pick 2 is protected so you get pick 3 instead, you'd have a rightly outraged, completely unrelated, club who finished third last, who didn't trade away their picks saying "but we finished 3 last but only get pick 4 - what's up with that?"

So you either don't get the pick that was included with the trade, or another club disadvantaged by something completely beyond their control. Either way, clubs are going to get screwed.

The mechanics of this need far more explanation before I can work out whether it's a good thing or not.

 

[Furn2]

Ok, so Club A is protected if they fall to the bottom - what happens to Club B's pick that they traded for? If the deal was - we give up player X for your first round pick next year and then you get to keep that first round pick, what happens to my pick that I've given up player X for? Do I slot in directly behind you at pick 3 - get an end of first round pick, a mid first round pick? I'm confused.

And you thought the draft was compromised when we came in - I see nothing but compromises (and confusion) with this new set up.

You get the pick the year after, so say you trade player x for 2 1st round picks which you think will be around 10 but that team has a bad year and finish 5th last, they keep pick 5 but you get there 1st pick the next year regardless. That pick could be pick 1 or 2 or 14 but protecting the pick doesn't always work out better.

Also it will probably be up to the teams as to whether a pick is protected or not so you can always say no thanks, we want your pick next year no matter what.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I endorse this move, greatly.

 

[carnthedons]

I don't think pick protection is necessary. Surely as with everything else related to drafting/trading it's just a bit of a gamble. Pick protection just introduces the concept that clubs might have to wait further for their payoff.

If, for instance, we traded Jake Carlisle to the Dogs for their 1st pick this year and next, i'd expect to receive just that. Irrespective of them finishing last or first next year. That's the gamble you take, both sides. Having to wait another year just because they were unexpectedly s**t is nonsense.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Just to clarify, it won't be the mid-aged gun to Hawthorn for 2015 and 2016 1st round picks that blows up and puts a club in the s**t....it'll be the desperate move to fix a problem - something like 'Dodgey 'Gun' key forward' to Brisbane for 2015 Second round and an unprotected 1st round for next year (purely an example) - 'future picks' tend to be far enough removed from the present that it gives clubs a bit of breathing room, they pull the trigger to get it done and hope it pays off in the short term.

'Dodgey 'Gun' key forward' rolls up, gets injured - Brisbane finish down the bottom again.

Trade for 'Dodgey 'Gun' key forward' turns into a second rounder and pick 1/2/3 - BAD DEAL and Brisbane would be reeling, the coach would sacked etc etc.

A similar scenario WILL happen at some stage soon.

 

[FallingLiefs]

If pick protection comes in I think we would need a lottery, even if it is heavily biased towards the reverse ladder order just a little chance to avoid tanking to keep a pick.

My idea would be a 3 team rolling lottery with 18th having 70% chance of pick 1, 17th - 20% and 16th-10%. If somehow 17th got pick 1 then lottery for pick 2 would be 18th-70%, 16th - 20%, 15th -10% and so on. Which effectively makes losing 1 game for tanking a huge risk as you could give a direct competitor effectively the same pick you were tanking for. While still assuring the bottom team a top 3 pick 97.3% of the time. Also avoids having a team like port Adelaide getting the number 1 pick this year.

 

[Shaneprice97]

No, don't think it works that way.

How would it work then? Bid for a f&s 12 months prior to there actual draft?

 

[Adz2332]

doesnt work as well as other codes like the NBA etc as players in the AFL have to agree to be traded.
Its not like the nba where a club gets an awesome deal and agrees to it and notifies a player youve been traded, goodbye.

 

[hutchy31]

doesnt work as well as other codes like the NBA etc as players in the AFL have to agree to be traded.
Its not like the nba where a club gets an awesome deal and agrees to it and notifies a player youve been traded, goodbye.

Good point. When governing bodies implement something that fundamentally changes a key pillar of the competition, they need to realise that these changes don't/can't occur in isolation.

I'm hopeful that these have been considered and proposals/plans are in place, but not reassured given recent history.

 

[The 747]

How would it work then? Bid for a f&s 12 months prior to there actual draft?

They have that points thing now, so you need to accumulate enough points to bid on your f/s. It isn't based on pick rounds like before IIRC

 

[Furn2]

How would it work then? Bid for a f&s 12 months prior to there actual draft?

FS will have a point system where bidding is done live at he draft, teams must match the value of the pick bid within 80% according to the set out points value.

 

[TheVelourFog]

I think there should be the option of protected and unprotected first round picks to trade. Because otherwise if I'm a team that has traded out assets this year in the hope of loading up for next years draft which you know is better than this years then you will be pretty pissed off when you get told that you're not allowed to use the pick you acquired.

 

[Wilfork]

They probably need to put limits on contract lengths to save some clubs from themselves (i.e. like the NBA).

Good move overall, though. Easy way to ramp up the trade period.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

FS will have a point system where bidding is done live at he draft, teams must match the value of the pick bid within 80% according to the set out points value.

Which means they won't wanting to be dealing with protected picks - they'll need the pick that year - not the next - to get the F/S (or in our case the academy kid)

 

[master bate]

We will still have the mess that is uncontracted players not being free agents (restricted or otherwise). Which I think really needs to be sorted out.

Players not under contract shouldn't have to be traded. It's fundamentally unfair for all parties.

Needs to be a system where players are locked in only until they become restricted free agents and eventually then unrestricted. I'm in favour of locking draftees in for 4-5 years until they become restricted free agents then 7-8 years to become unrestricted.

That way we don't have the situation where a player doesn't have a contract, can pick a club to be traded to and then the 2 clubs have to agree to a fair trade when the receiving club really isn't under any obligation to give fair value. The whole thing turns in to a public negotiation battle over which club bends first.

If Treloar picks Collingwood this year then even with the options of trading picks over the next 2 years I don't really see why Collingwood's hand is forced other than the PSD/ND loophole. I think it would be much better to call him a restricted free agent and allow GWS a mechanism to match a contract or sign a 1 year tender offer which then provides Collingwood with the obligation to trade. Young players might lose the ability to just up and select a new club but it balances it by making the trade process fair and as a trade off you could lower the free agency time by a year or two.

 

[Brasher]

We will still have the mess that is uncontracted players not being free agents (restricted or otherwise). Which I think really needs to be sorted out.

Players not under contract shouldn't have to be traded. It's fundamentally unfair for all parties.

Needs to be a system where players are locked in only until they become restricted free agents and eventually then unrestricted. I'm in favour of locking draftees in for 4-5 years until they become restricted free agents then 7-8 years to become unrestricted.

That way we don't have the situation where a player doesn't have a contract, can pick a club to be traded to and then the 2 clubs have to agree to a fair trade when the receiving club really isn't under any obligation to give fair value. The whole thing turns in to a public negotiation battle over which club bends first.

If Treloar picks Collingwood this year then even with the options of trading picks over the next 2 years I don't really see why Collingwood's hand is forced other than the PSD/ND loophole. I think it would be much better to call him a restricted free agent and allow GWS a mechanism to match a contract or sign a 1 year tender offer which then provides Collingwood with the obligation to trade. Young players might lose the ability to just up and select a new club but it balances it by making the trade process fair and as a trade off you could lower the free agency time by a year or two.

This is the problem in a nutshell. The AFL has implemented FA, trading and the draft as individual streams when all three from a list management perspective need to be considered as one thing....the ability to build a list based on where you think your club is at in the premiership window.

 

[1990crow]

So Dangerfield for the Cats first pick take it or leave it is a myth now?

 

[Lockyer24]

Just cos you can trade out of drafts doesn't mean you can't tradr back in later on. Good move