List Mgmt. 2022 List Management: Draft, Trade and FA Pt2: Electric Boogaloo

[Taylor]

I assume you were annoyed that the Dogs had to pay pick 2 for Sam Darcy and brisbane have to pay pick 1 or 2 this year for Will Ashcroft then?
You’d prefer if both got to their respective clubs as a start of third round pick 40/41 right? Because Hawkins and Ablett did 21 & 16 years ago respectively and those rules should never have changed….
I have read you (rightly in my opinion) highlight the inequitable way Hawkins got to Geelong in 2006 on many many occasions on this board.

How about just make the rules fair for everyone. Then at worst in 15 years, when darcy and Ashcroft and those guys are finished, we will finally have what everyone wants - an even and fair competition where no body was unfairly advantaged by an archaic rule

I am annoyed by both because the benefits of things like priority picks and father son and even academy concessions linger for a decade or more beyond when the rule was changed to no longer allow other clubs to enjoy them.

My point on this is clear, changing the rule into the future only disadvantages the clubs that haven't yet benefited, it doesn't make the system fairer - it makes it less fair.

Look into the clubs that have won a premiership in the last twenty years and how many of them had a player either taken with a priority pick or an academy player they got for below market value or a father son pick they got for below market value or a compensation pick based on some AFL rule.

We are in a constant struggle to just keep up with the list advantages that already exist within the system, just to be competitive. If there is a total reset done on the competition so no club is carrying that advantage anymore then we can have a fair process moving forward but that will never happen, if there is an equalisation draft pick points tax applied to clubs who are carrying the advantage effectively stripping them of a second round pick per player on their list from that era prior to the current points system then it would be fair moving forward - but that won't happen either.

It all means that tightening up the rules on father sons, which is the only concession we get now and haven't entered our window on that yet, will only hurt us when we have to pay through the nose to pick up a player that just ten years ago would have walked to us for almost nothing - and that opposition player could be lining up on our player in round one. List management laughing all the way.

Yes, I agree that it's not an even competition. Changing the rules without stripping out the existing advantage in the system will just make that existing advantage greater.

I think Freo deserves a turn at playing with a list boosted with father sons for cheap. The premiership cups are still worth the same when other teams had that benefit.

Far out, West Coast wins a flag with their norm smith medalist captain Shuey and Jack Darling a priority pick from over ten years ago - still enjoying those benefits.

 

[Hazelsnuts]

I assume you were annoyed that the Dogs had to pay pick 2 for Sam Darcy and brisbane have to pay pick 1 or 2 this year for Will Ashcroft then?
You’d prefer if both got to their respective clubs as a start of third round pick 40/41 right? Because Hawkins and Ablett did 21 & 16 years ago respectively and those rules should never have changed….
I have read you (rightly in my opinion) highlight the inequitable way Hawkins got to Geelong in 2006 on many many occasions on this board.

How about just make the rules fair for everyone. Then at worst in 15 years, when darcy and Ashcroft and those guys are finished, we will finally have what everyone wants - an even and fair competition where no body was unfairly advantaged by an archaic rule

There are ‘for’s and againsts’ no matter which way we look at it.
Like Taylor said, let time play out and have an evening effect on this rule, if it changed now it would be unjust to the teams - ourselves included that we can’t reap the benefit, and when you consider the FS pool, such a small portion actually make it or excel to become top line AFL players.

I have said it before, but I would really like to see clubs have access to zone selection players, of which one or two can be selected each year by the development club, sure there would be a cost - exactly the way bids are matched now, but if the value has been put into the players development, then the club that has done this can pay the price in the draft for this - none of the after 40 crap…. This builds tribalism, local pathways and stops an element of tampering of the draft.

 

[Dockeroo]

I am annoyed by both because the benefits of things like priority picks and father son and even academy concessions linger for a decade or more beyond when the rule was changed to no longer allow other clubs to enjoy them.

My point on this is clear, changing the rule into the future only disadvantages the clubs that haven't yet benefited, it doesn't make the system fairer - it makes it less fair.

Look into the clubs that have won a premiership in the last twenty years and how many of them had a player either taken with a priority pick or an academy player they got for below market value or a father son pick they got for below market value or a compensation pick based on some AFL rule.

We are in a constant struggle to just keep up with the list advantages that already exist within the system, just to be competitive. If there is a total reset done on the competition so no club is carrying that advantage anymore then we can have a fair process moving forward but that will never happen, if there is an equalisation draft pick points tax applied to clubs who are carrying the advantage effectively stripping them of a second round pick per player on their list from that era prior to the current points system then it would be fair moving forward - but that won't happen either.

It all means that tightening up the rules on father sons, which is the only concession we get now and haven't entered our window on that yet, will only hurt us when we have to pay through the nose to pick up a player that just ten years ago would have walked to us for almost nothing - and that opposition player could be lining up on our player in round one. List management laughing all the way.

Yes, I agree that it's not an even competition. Changing the rules without stripping out the existing advantage in the system will just make that existing advantage greater.

I think Freo deserves a turn at playing with a list boosted with father sons for cheap. The premiership cups are still worth the same when other teams had that benefit.

Far out, West Coast wins a flag with their norm smith medalist captain Shuey and Jack Darling a priority pick from over ten years ago - still enjoying those benefits.

I get your point but it is still to vague to leave to chance. It’s possible we don’t get a kid good enough to be a FS till 2050. Teams like the saints have been around forever and haven’t got any good kids via FS.
As for west coast getting priority picks, yeah it’s true but Shuey was pick 18 and darling pick 26. Also they were wooden spooners in 2010 and instead of getting pick 1 and 17 as would have been normal back then, they ended up with 4 and 26 due to the sun s coming into the comp but still picked the eyes out of that very ordinary draft crop with shrewd recruiting. By contrast, don’t forget we got a priority pick number 1 in the best draft of all time and processed to piss it all down the drain thanks to some of the most Shambolic list management ever seen in AFL history. That was nobody else’s fault but the Fremantle football club themselves.
We can only dream of what we could have become if the current recruitment team had access to our draft hand in 2001

 

[arsesmart]

The rules just need to stay the same long enough for every team to equally benefit from them. Trying to fix them because we haven't had the benefit of other teams on father sons won't make other teams with father sons have to retroactively pay more to keep them - they've already gotten them, they are enjoying that benefit.

Changing the rules to make it fairer only means we get less advantage when it's out turn.

Sam Darcy and Tom Hawkins are both father sons on their AFL lists. Both were the highest rated tall in their draft. Dogs had to match a bid at pick #2 and Cats got to take Hawkins at #41 with the added benefit of keeping their pick #7 that they used on Selwood.

Stop calling to change the rules or we are going to be paying a fortune for players who line up against guys other clubs got for nearly free in comparison. None of these rule suggestions make the existing advantages even, they just get more valuable.

One way you could retrospectively add an equalisation measure of sorts is to have a F/S credit points system, where you get X amount of points in your account which you can use to get F/S selections.

The amount of points in a clubs account would be tied to how many current F/S selections they currently have on the list. Maybe even include F/S selections over the past decade. You could also tie in recent ladder position (and premierships) as well.

So something like 100 F/S points needs to be added to draft capital to get a top 5 draftee, 50 points for 6-10, 25 points 11-20 etc etc. Without the F/S points you need to generate greater draft capital to secure the F/S picks.

 

[Taylor]

One way you could retrospectively add an equalisation measure of sorts is to have a F/S credit points system, where you get X amount of points in your account which you can use to get F/S selections.

The amount of points in a clubs account would be tied to how many current F/S selections they currently have on the list. Maybe even include F/S selections over the past decade. You could also tie in recent ladder position (and premierships) as well.

So something like 100 F/S points needs to be added to draft capital to get a top 5 draftee, 50 points for 6-10, 25 points 11-20 etc etc. Without the F/S points you need to generate greater draft capital to secure the F/S picks.

That's a fair way to do it. Perhaps games played from your father sons count against your points?

 

[arsesmart]

That's a fair way to do it. Perhaps games played from your father sons count against your points?

Yeah, using a points bank like that you can configure and/or tweak it any number of ways to get fairer outcomes. I like the ladder position addition as essentially that's the whole idea of the draft.

 

[Polo342]

I reckon Father Son rules are fine. Its the academy rules i legit cant stand!!! Seriously what is the point in a team like us having an academy if we cant match picks until after 40. Players like Mitch Edwards next year we just lose and players like Steven Motlop

6

Steven Motlop

Age

33

Ht

183cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.5

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

12.0

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

5.6

3star

M

2.9

3star

T

1.7

3star

G

0.9

4star

D

7.4

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

2.4

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

.

Whats the point in pouring money in when we dont get the advantage.

 

[Taylor]

The academies are best for the clubs that don't have generations of players coming through for father sons.

Here is a previous post on the issue:

Alright, I'm going to post this here so the data is available without people taking a dump on the criteria to dismiss what the data clearly shows.

Criteria I've used is that the average age of men becoming a father is 27 - plus 18 years for their son to reach draft age is 45, so I've allowed the daddy window to start there and extend to the age of 70. During the course of collating this data I did notice a few very recent father sons who aren't captured here but it's very small and almost entirely Indigenous dads if you're interested in quirks of data like that.

Here is the data for all clubs:

Average excluding the two recent expansion clubs is 36 per team.

That's why Fremantle (-78%), Gold Coast (-100%) and GWS (-100%) should have priority access academies with their total at less than 25% of average.

Adelaide, Port and West Coast are in the next bracket up.

 

[Paracleet]

100 games is too little for F/S IMO. It should be 150 (With maybe minimum 8 seasons service and 100 games for the perennially injured to be fair). As the current rules stand you could be at a club for as little as 5 years, another for 10 years and your son could nominate for the former. Ludicrous.

Not that I think it should be changed now as we'd obviously be disadvantaged as discussed above (maybe any changes could be grandfathered?)

 

[Taylor]

Jeremy Sharp ran third in GC's time trial this morning.

 

[Paracleet]

The academies are best for the clubs that don't have generations of players coming through for father sons.

Here is a previous post on the issue:

Alright, I'm going to post this here so the data is available without people taking a dump on the criteria to dismiss what the data clearly shows.

Criteria I've used is that the average age of men becoming a father is 27 - plus 18 years for their son to reach draft age is 45, so I've allowed the daddy window to start there and extend to the age of 70. During the course of collating this data I did notice a few very recent father sons who aren't captured here but it's very small and almost entirely Indigenous dads if you're interested in quirks of data like that.

Here is the data for all clubs:

Average excluding the two recent expansion clubs is 36 per team.

That's why Fremantle (-78%), Gold Coast (-100%) and GWS (-100%) should have priority access academies with their total at less than 25% of average.

Adelaide, Port and West Coast are in the next bracket up.

We can hardly complain we are in a tier below Port when they were founded 2 years afterwards.

 

[Taylor]

We can hardly complain we are in a tier below Port when they were founded 2 years afterwards.

We can complain alongside Port about the clear divide between us and Victorian sides when it comes to justifying why our clubs should have academy access.

 

[maccamk]

Jeremy Sharp ran third in GC's time trial this morning.

So the same as last year if Corbett was running again this year.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[apuchar]

Shame Jarren Carr doesn't seem to be a potential F&S for this year. No talk about him anyway.

 

[Docker82]

The academies are best for the clubs that don't have generations of players coming through for father sons.

Here is a previous post on the issue:

Alright, I'm going to post this here so the data is available without people taking a dump on the criteria to dismiss what the data clearly shows.

Criteria I've used is that the average age of men becoming a father is 27 - plus 18 years for their son to reach draft age is 45, so I've allowed the daddy window to start there and extend to the age of 70. During the course of collating this data I did notice a few very recent father sons who aren't captured here but it's very small and almost entirely Indigenous dads if you're interested in quirks of data like that.

Here is the data for all clubs:

Average excluding the two recent expansion clubs is 36 per team.

That's why Fremantle (-78%), Gold Coast (-100%) and GWS (-100%) should have priority access academies with their total at less than 25% of average.

Adelaide, Port and West Coast are in the next bracket up.

Seems a bit old tbh given we potentially have Isiah Hayden coming next year. Roger Hayden was born in 1980.

Heath Black’s (born 1979) son was in the draft a few years ago but wasn’t picked up.

Would’ve thought that 40-60 is a more normal sort of age range for fathers of draft eligible Father Sons.

Did we even ever have a player born in the 1950s? Peter Bell was an original docker and was born in 1976.

 

[Taylor]

Seems a bit old tbh given we potentially have Isiah Hayden coming next year. Roger Hayden was born in 1980.

Heath Black’s (born 1979) son was in the draft a few years ago but wasn’t picked up.

Would’ve thought that 40-60 is a more normal sort of age range for fathers of draft eligible Father Sons.

Did we even ever have a player born in the 1950s? Peter Bell was an original docker and was born in 1976.

There are exceptions who fall outside the range, particularly the indigenous men who are quite prolific early (high five) and the age range prior to Freo existing is the primary reason there are more players in that age range who have qualified for father son.

 

[DragoDelph]

Just allow inaugural players to be eligible for father son.

 

[SupermanCapes]

Don't Adelaide and Port get F/S from SANFL players? That's a clear advantage that they have over Freo.

 

[Sewell21]

Did we even ever have a player born in the 1950s? Peter Bell was an original docker and was born in 1976.

Well Neesham would have pulled on the boots as Captain/Coach if given the chance.

We’d have had a 35/36 year old debutant if we had a player born in the 1950’s play in 1995.

Andrew McGovern was our oldest Foundation player born in 1968.

 

[Docker82]

Well Neesham would have pulled on the boots as Captain/Coach if given the chance.

We’d have had a 35/36 year old debutant if we had a player born in the 1950’s play in 1995.

Andrew McGovern was our oldest Foundation player born in 1968.

Those born in from 1950-1959 would be between 63 and 72.

I’m nearly 30 now and I’m pretty damn sure none of my mates that are a similar age have parents in their 70s even now. That’s twelve extra years. Having a kid even in your late 30s is old as ****.

Feels a convenient measure to show how hard done by we are when the father sons coming through now are mostly the sons of players I grew up watching born in the 1970s and even early 1980s. Daicos is a little bit older.

It’s more the sh**e concessions we were given in 1995 than a generation thing imo. It meant we had few good youngsters when we started up.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Don't Adelaide and Port get F/S from SANFL players? That's a clear advantage that they have over Freo.

We get them from wafl.

There just isn't many pkayers

 

[Purple Suit]

The academies are best for the clubs that don't have generations of players coming through for father sons.

Here is a previous post on the issue:

Alright, I'm going to post this here so the data is available without people taking a dump on the criteria to dismiss what the data clearly shows.

Criteria I've used is that the average age of men becoming a father is 27 - plus 18 years for their son to reach draft age is 45, so I've allowed the daddy window to start there and extend to the age of 70. During the course of collating this data I did notice a few very recent father sons who aren't captured here but it's very small and almost entirely Indigenous dads if you're interested in quirks of data like that.

Here is the data for all clubs:

Average excluding the two recent expansion clubs is 36 per team.

That's why Fremantle (-78%), Gold Coast (-100%) and GWS (-100%) should have priority access academies with their total at less than 25% of average.

Adelaide, Port and West Coast are in the next bracket up.

This is the past though. From now on, we have equal access to F/S as they are old enough to start coming. The difference is you also need to be lucky that they are gun footy players.

We’re going to have a lot of tickets in the future but it doesn’t mean we will win anything.

 

[Westy2487]

The only consistent thing in life is death. Suicidal thoughts are important. Think about the good times.

 

[stax on the mull]

Don't Adelaide and Port get F/S from SANFL players? That's a clear advantage that they have over Freo.

In SA, their eligibility for f/s used to be 200 games - something to do with there being more SANFL teams from SA compared to WAFL where the number of games required at the time was 150.

Bryce Gibb's father played over 250 games for Glenelg but his son wasn't eligible to play for the Crows because only 191 of those were played prior to Adelaide joining the competition. (Gibbs snr also played about 5 years of WAFL for West Perth before crossing to SA).

The rules have changed quite a few times where even the AFL hasn't been able to keep up with its own changes. I can recall one ruling was made some time after West Coast picked up Mitch Morton with f/s, where AFL said they he really shouldn't have been eligible for the same reason as the Gibbs ruling above. Morton snr's tally of games included the WAFL games he played after West Coast entered the competition.

WC's first father/son pick was Ashley McIntosh - where pretty much all sons of WAFL players were aligned to WCE - even though McIntosh snr played VFL for St. Kilda. Don't know what the qualifications were back then because McIntosh played 146 WAFL games for Claremont and 51 VFL for St Kilda. Maybe they included his state games?

We've had Brett Peake f/s, and I think at one stage we had nominated a Lester-Smith (son of Neil) but didn't end up drafting him. Maybe someone else, but I can't recall atm.

 

[Rob]

Looks like we dodged a bullet with AMT.