News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[Lore]

Is there a record anywhere of the picks officially used by the GC (and others) when matching an academy bid? I.e. when GC matched the bid on pick 2 for Uwland, what were the picks did they give up?

Ridiculous that this isn't listed on the AFL website.

Not a record tmk but when I was updating the draft order during the draft they always had a pick within a few spots, or two picks within several that would be used to match.

 

[danster168]

I think people are missing the fact that it's not just the points value, it's not just picks moving up, it's the fact that when you operate in two different currencies, that have value for each selection, the club that does the most trades is the ones that get the most arbitrage value.

If buying a loaf of bread cost AU$4. GB£1.50 and US$3 and you started with US$10 in your pocket and you were only allowed to buy one loaf of bread per currency, you would transfer US$5 to AUD, buy one loaf of bread in AUD, keep the AUD, transfer some to GB£1.50, buy another loaf of bread, and keep the leftover AUD to buy some peanut butter to make the whole toast nicer.

At the top end, this arbitrage can be extremely valuable. In some years, the difference between pick 1 and pick 4 or whatever is not that great, and you'd expect to get 90% of the value of pick 1 with pick 4. Other years, pick 1 is an out and out gun, and pick 4 is only worth 55% of pick 1. Either way, DVI currently values it at about 65%, so you can arbitrage in either direction (trade pick 4 for points when pick 1 is a gun, trade pick 1 for points when pick 4 is almost as good as pick 1). In either circumstance you're gaining hundreds of DVI points in this exchange rate, and those hundreds of points over several trades, bid matching, points moving up when picks disappear, the inaccuracy of the curve before this year, teams opening up 7-8 list spots for points when they wouldn't naturally take 7-8 live draft selections, etc. etc. etc. all add to this distorting of the idea of "to match a bid you need to pay 90% of the economic worth of the bid" where all of these factors allow it to be far less than 90%.

Each individual trade is incremental - the advantage in arbitrage is not obvious im a trade in and of itself, but when you're executing literally dozens of trades, but a few DVI points here and in every one of those dozens trade adds up. With future picks and picks layering on top of each other. For example: 50 DVI points (worth pick 50) advantage gained in every trade, over 20 trades over 2-3 years = 1000 points or effectively manufacturing pick 15 out of thin air.

You can artificially open list spots. Very rarely do teams have, 6, 7, 8, 9 list spots open for 6, 7, 8, 9, draft slots, but if you're operating in points and you force the market to accept your 2-1 trade, that's another arbitrage opportunity (as an aside why I think your 1st bid should be max 3 picks and every subsequent bid max 2 picks but anyway).

They can effect this arbitrage in a "weak draft". They traded away Flanders, Ainsworth, Budarick, got some picks back in Petracca trade, all because those picks if they were used for live selections are not that valubale (weak draft), but maintain a fixed points value. Different currencies.

On top of all of this, clubs generally overpay for current picks and undervalue future 1sts, generally. Given that Gold Coast know that they need the points in the future years, they can get the value of other clubs valuing current-year actual draftable talent, and undervalue the idea of a draft asset being a year away in realising its on-field value, while Gold Coast don't care - they need the points, not the idea of a pick = 1 player.

Lastly, if you do smart draft day trades, all of the above applies to teams panicking on draft day itself and the opportunities for this arbitrage remain.

Knowing as early as 2022-23 that they would probably have a big 2025 draft haul, it started long ago, and there are several trades that get them to point when they all stack on each other.

In 2019: Get non-bid access to certain academy players, get mid-first-round pick in 2020, get end of 1st round pick in 2021 (all tradable assets beyond the natural early picks they get for being a bad team)

In 2022 draft:

• Get a 2023 4th round pick (worth points) in Ben Long trade
• Get a 2023 2nd round pick (worth points) in Tom Berry trade
• Get a 2023 4th round pick (worth points) in Josh Corbett trade
• Get a 2023 3rd round pick (worth points) in Izak Rankine trade
• Get a 2023 3rd round pick (worth points) in Jack Bowes trade

Right. So lots of players in and out in those trades and actual picks for the 2022 draft, but they massively improved their 2023 draft haul, being able to work in multiple currencies for 2023 draft (picks/points) with massively points-overvalued 2nd-4th round picks. Emphasis on pushing value gained into the future and closer to when they can cash them all in in a year where they have a monster academy haul

In 2023 draft:

• Get a 2024 1st rounder (worth points) in Western Bulldogs pick swap, trading down the actual value of pick 6 (Sanders) for the points that they're worth (aribtrage).
• Trade down pick 11 to pick 14 and later picks, for points
• Trade down Chris Burgess + 14 for two picks worth more in the 20s
• Trade pick 18 for a 2024 end of 1st round compensation, ie, pushing more draft value to closer to the year where they have academy prospects (2025)
• Trade Elijah Hollands, upgrade a 2024 4th rounder to a 3rd rounder (worth points)
• Get a 2024 2nd rounder (worth points) in Mabior Chol trade
• Trade down pick 23 + 27 + 38 for pick 30, 40, 42, 46, 54, 60, 63, 65 on draft night. (worth a lot of points + more as bids come in).
• Trade pick 51 for a 2024 4th rounder (closer to 2025 academy year)

In 2024 draft:

• Trade out Rory Atkins and pick 13, 29, 50 for Noble, 39, and two 2025 1sts
• Get Daniel Rioli for pick 6 + 23 but get back 51, 61, 70, 76 for points
• Trade out pick 47 + 58 for a 2025 3rd and 2025 4th

In 2025 draft:

• Get pick 51 for the cost of Malcom Rosas Jr and 62 -> 69 downgrade (worth points)
• Get pick 7 for Flanders
• Get pick 29 for Ainsworth
• Get pick 37 for Budarick
• At the cost of pick 7, 8 and a future 1st downgrade future 2nd for Petracca, they were able to get pick 24 and 28 back (worth points but given weak draft not worth much in live draft selection).
• About another 4 trades involving about 10 picks on draft night this year.

By my count, they executed about 30 trades involving over 100 picks and players (edited for brevity above), all with an eye to maximising the currency of DVI points (as opposed to the currency of either actual on-field players, or the value of a single draft pick for a single player being as early as possible to be able to draft a player earlier than other clubs).

Even if each of those players/trade for 100 players/points got them 30 points of arbitrage value - 30 being the value of pick 53, and less than the difference of moving up from 25 to 24 - over 100 players/points, that's how you can effectively materialise pick 1 out of thin air.

I made a long post, but it's effectively a hidden factor with incremental gains, of which the benefit is clear in a year that you have a weak draft but lots of bid eligible DVI players.

I could make a similar post for Brisbane and their Ashcroft/Dunkley/other academy players too.

Dude, you go for the Dogs. A club who got Pick 1 for basically nothing (Ugle-Hagan) and Jordan Croft and oh yeah a guy called Sam Darcy for crazy discounts. Throw in Rhylee West, Liberatore and your entire list is built on a BS Father/son rule. Otherwise you would be a bottom 4 team. So you are the last person who should be talking.

Dogs, Pies, Bris and Gold Coast fans should not be talking on this issue.

Elixuh Look at how ahead of the curve I am. I've been whingeing about the ridiculous academy and f/s rules for maybe 6-10 years. I should be running the AFL at the point. But a shame on other people for taking this long to realise. Like these conversations should've been happening years ago. How are people so slow to realise the impact. It's embarrassing. Almost more of a joke than the academy/father-son rules themselves.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Dude, you go for the Dogs. A club who got Pick 1 for basically nothing (Ugle-Hagan) and Jordan Croft and oh yeah a guy called Sam Darcy for crazy discounts. Throw in Rhylee West, Liberatore and your entire list is built on a BS Father/son rule. Otherwise you would be a bottom 4 team. So you are the last person who should be talking.

Dogs, Pies, Bris and Gold Coast fans should not be talking on this issue.

When have I ever suggested the Dogs didn't get a massive advantage with our bid system?

Am I not allowed to discuss it? If anything I'm in more of a position to discuss it because I've actually spent more time thinking about this because it's relevant to my club more than others over the last 15 years, so it's forced me to think about the specific mechanics of how the Dogs are getting a massive advantage.

The fact that the AFL allowed multiple picks to be used in the 2020 draft because clubs had to confirm delistings before they knew what the size of lists would be, with COVID cuts, meaning that the Dogs used about 7 draft picks (including the value of points of picks that other clubs literally passed over) with 2 list spots open to effectively get Jamarra pick 1 for the value of pick 15 was absurd. That's obvious though.

This doesn't undermine the other shitty elements of Dogs' disadvantage like how we get the rough end of the stick with fixturing far more than probability randomness.

 

[Stamos]

I think people are missing the fact that it's not just the points value, it's not just picks moving up, it's the fact that when you operate in two different currencies, that have value for each selection, the club that does the most trades is the ones that get the most arbitrage value.

I don't think anybody is missing it

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think anybody is missing it

I think far too much focus is made on what goes on, on this year itself, rather than how the advantages gained layer upon themselves over the past 3-4 years.

In some respects Gold Coast were able to get their talent now because of the extremely generous assistance package back in 2019. I've virtually not seen that discussed by anyone or anyone in the media, other than in reference than that assistance packaged help them win finals this year (but not in the context of continuing to help benefit their draft hand even beyond that finals win).

 

[danster168]

When have I ever suggested the Dogs didn't get a massive advantage with our bid system?

Am I not allowed to discuss it? If anything I'm in more of a position to discuss it because I've actually spent more time thinking about this because it's relevant to my club more than others over the last 15 years, so it's forced me to think about the specific mechanics of how the Dogs are getting a massive advantage.

The fact that the AFL allowed multiple picks to be used in the 2020 draft because clubs had to confirm delistings before they knew what the size of lists would be, with COVID cuts, meaning that the Dogs used about 7 draft picks (including the value of points of picks that other clubs literally passed over) with 2 list spots open to effectively get Jamarra pick 1 for the value of pick 15 was absurd. That's obvious though.

This doesn't undermine the other shitty elements of Dogs' disadvantage like how we get the rough end of the stick with fixturing far more than probability randomness.

I don't think any dogs fans should be talking about unfairness in the comp, no. Not unless you were mentioning it in the last 5-10 years when your club was getting royally gifted. If you were, then that's fine. But I doubt you were.

You can't complain about fixturing surely. If the Dees got half as much access to the top end talent as the dogs you could send us to Alice every 2nd week and I wouldn't care.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think any dogs fans should be talking about unfairness in the comp, no. Not unless you were mentioning it in the last 5-10 years when your club was getting royally gifted. If you were, then that's fine. But I doubt you were.

You can't complain about fixturing surely. If the Dees got half as much access to the top end talent as the dogs you could send us to Alice every 2nd week and I wouldn't care.

Dude, you can literally go through my post history where I make the exact point 5-10 years ago. Don't assume.

Search results for query: advantage

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Mat Mann]

Good work. Answers my post above. Where did you get this from?

I think a rule that says that to match a bid, the bids you're matching with need to include one worth at least X% (maybe 50%) of the bid pick would help. So, matching on pick 2 and 3 would likely require something in the top 10; pick 5 something early teens etc. It forces clubs who want to match high-end picks to work their way up the draft.

2025 AFL Draft Order Including Actual Draft - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

 

[Jirik13]

No they didnt. They were able to trade out 2 top 10 picks and still match 4 r1 bids with non r1 picks. The system is broken deliberately.

Suns did not trade out pick 15 and 18. The other 2 first round picks they used on Petracca plus F1.

The system was better this year. I sure understand outrage from fans but at least people should get correct facts.

Suns picks did not come from nowhere.

Suns were preparing for this for several years. Traded out Luko for F1, got F1 from Noble deal, got plenty of 2nd round picks, let go 5 mature guys, got pick 7 for Flanders. They cleaned out 2026 draft picks.

Let's see how clubs will enjoy next year rules if AFL implement them as predicted. Already looking forward to it if Carlton and Port will have to come up with only 2 picks to match picks 1-2.

Thanks God Suns loaded up in the last 3 years. Apparently, not much in Suns academy in the next 2 years and no F/S yet.

Interestingly, I did not see any whinging when Suns were developing farm for other clubs.

 

[ctwenty1]

here we go

PICK 2 - WC bid for Zeke Uwland matched (Academy) using picks 14, 18, 24
PICK 3 - WC bid for Harry Dean matched (Father-Son) using picks 20, 23, 25
PICK 5 - Rich bid for Dylan Patterson matched (Academy) using picks 24, 29, 31, 32
PICK 6 - Rich bid for Daniel Annable matched (Academy) using picks 22, 23, 39
PICK 14 - GWS bid for Harry Kyle matched (Academy) using picks 26, 27
PICK 17 - WC bid for Jai Murray matched (Academy) using picks 31, 32
PICK 18 - WC bid for Beau Addinsall matched (Academy) using picks 39, 40, 44, 46

who is making any of those trades?

Carlton gave up 12 and 14 last year to get 3
Carlton gave up 9 and 11 this year to get points to match pick 3, although appreciate that all of 9 and 11 didnt go into 3

Clubs will trade out strong picks for points in order to match bids, and often have to let go/lose players to garner those picks, which you should also show

I think the above is also a legacy of the prior system

From an F/S perspective, its something that we value in Aussie Rules so it will remain, just need to ensure that its not a free kick and clubs are forced to pay the right price, which includes maybe enabling live trading of drafted players on the night. Clubs will be more likely to offer more up for a player as they would for a pick

 

[Stamos]

I think far too much focus is made on what goes on, on this year itself, rather than how the advantages gained layer upon themselves over the past 3-4 years.

In some respects Gold Coast were able to get their talent now because of the extremely generous assistance package back in 2019. I've virtually not seen that discussed by anyone or anyone in the media, other than in reference than that assistance packaged help them win finals this year (but not in the context of continuing to help benefit their draft hand even beyond that finals win).

Everyone knows the system has been a rort though.

They made dramatic changes for this year, but there is some lag on the affect of those changes due to futures trading.

 

[Elixuh]

just one top ten academy pick............. on the back of 3 the year prior, in the knowledge of 5+ the year to come. all with out using close to equivalent price paid for any of them.

It's just self-interest that sees you think this is acceptable

I don’t get this self interest line. I would be more than happy, thrilled even, if the Saints properly funded and properly ran their academy and produced some talent.

 

[Elixuh]

Dude, you go for the Dogs. A club who got Pick 1 for basically nothing (Ugle-Hagan) and Jordan Croft and oh yeah a guy called Sam Darcy for crazy discounts. Throw in Rhylee West, Liberatore and your entire list is built on a BS Father/son rule. Otherwise you would be a bottom 4 team. So you are the last person who should be talking.

Dogs, Pies, Bris and Gold Coast fans should not be talking on this issue.

Elixuh Look at how ahead of the curve I am. I've been whingeing about the ridiculous academy and f/s rules for maybe 6-10 years. I should be running the AFL at the point. But a shame on other people for taking this long to realise. Like these conversations should've been happening years ago. How are people so slow to realise the impact. It's embarrassing. Almost more of a joke than the academy/father-son rules themselves.

I think this is the first time we have ever disagreed on something Danny. I love the fact that the Demons have an academy and have access to FS talent. I would be thrilled if the Demons were able to access many top end academy and fs picks.

I want what’s best for the competition.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don’t get this self interest line. I would be more than happy, thrilled even, if the Saints properly funded and properly ran their academy and produced some talent.

The Saints cannot have the control over players that enter their academy in the same way that Brisbane do though, they're never playing dozens of games in Saints colours or getting weekly training from Saints employed coaches. They're still playing their Coates league, school, Vic Metro/Country controlled footy.

 

[danster168]

I think this is the first time we have ever disagreed on something Danny. I love the fact that the Demons have an academy and have access to FS talent. I would be thrilled if the Demons were able to access many top end academy and fs picks.

I want what’s best for the competition.

but we did have one. Mac Andrew. Oh wait, the corrupt afl got involved.

 

[Elixuh]

The Saints cannot have the control over players that enter their academy in the same way that Brisbane do though, they're never playing dozens of games in Saints colours or getting weekly training from Saints employed coaches. They're still playing their Coates league, school, Vic Metro/Country controlled footy.

Do that and also play them in the VFL. Or fund your academy properly via private sponsorship (like the lions do) so that you can have a dedicated academy team.

All I hear from clubs is complaints. Reasons why it’s unfair and why the world is against them.

Instead of using your mission tortilla chip sponsorship money to fund whatever it is the dogs spend their money on, you could spend it on an academy team.

It’s up to you to make a difference for the league. But will you? But will you indeed.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Do that and also play them in the VFL. Or fund your academy properly via private sponsorship (like the lions do) so that you can have a dedicated academy team.

All I hear from clubs is complaints. Reasons why it’s unfair and why the world is against them.

Instead of using your mission tortilla chip sponsorship money to fund whatever it is the dogs spend their money on, you could spend it on an academy team.

It’s up to you to make a difference for the league. But will you? But will you indeed.

But you can't just "also play them in the VFL". That's not how the system is set up for any club in Victoria. They're obligated to keep playing for their school and/or Coates league team. It's a literal impossibility with how the rules are set up.

Getting private sponsorship to "spend it on the academy team" would do stuff all because you don't actual have practical control over things like (for instance) the positions they play in games for the purposes of developing them solely for your team. You have to leave that up to the coaches of teams you don't control.

 

[Elixuh]

But you can't just "also play them in the VFL". That's not how the system is set up for any club in Victoria. They're obligated to keep playing for their school and/or Coates league team. It's a literal impossibility with how the rules are set up.

Getting private sponsorship to "spend it on the academy team" would do stuff all because you don't actual have practical control over things like (for instance) the positions they play in games for the purposes of developing them solely for your team. You have to leave that up to the coaches of teams you don't control.

All of what you’ve said is wrong, I’m afraid.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

All of what you’ve said is wrong, I’m afraid.

Kye Fincher played 9 games for Sandringham Dragons this year, 4 for Vic Metro and 1 for Sandringham. St Kilda had control for 1 of 15 games that Fincher played competitively this year for the purposes of controlling his talent development for the benefit of St Kilda (rather than having to balance his talent development with the fairness of all the other kids playing those games).

Daniel Annable played 3 Games for Brisbane Lions in the Coates League, 2 games for Brisbane Lions in the Division 2 Nationals, 8 games for Lions VFL team and 4 games for Allies. Brisbane had control over 13 of the 17 competitive games that Annable played this year, and knowing that he would be their highest draft pick this year out of the academy, did not have to balance his talent development relative to the other kids in the academy games for those years - they could prioritise Annable's development in those games.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I don’t get this self interest line. I would be more than happy, thrilled even, if the Saints properly funded and properly ran their academy and produced some talent.

We’ve produced more talent in our academy than most of the other 13 clubs with NGA’s (Owens, Windhager and Cam McKenzie in particular and now Fincher), but the pool we have to pick from is minute compared to the enormous pools the 4 northern clubs have to pick from, given those 4 clubs have what I imagine is about half a state or more to choose from each, with no restrictions on the nationality or background of those they can add to their academy from those huge zones.

We on the other hand have a vastly smaller zone, and can only pick those who are indigenous, were born overseas, or who’s parent or parents were born overseas- and only from certain countries.

So we and the other 13 NGA clubs have these huge restrictions on who they can choose from their zone, while the 4 northern clubs have huge zones, with no restrictions.

The AFL abolished zones when they brought in the draft, but now 4 clubs effectively have an unrestricted zone like clubs had pre-draft, while also having full access to the draft.

It’s a farce. At least from an equalisation POV.

A bonanza if you barrack for one of the 4 northern state teams though.

 

[Elixuh]

Accountability in this country is at an all time low.

 

[aussierulesrules]

I’ve got nothing, so I’ll just throw some mud.

Throw away son.

 

[Elixuh]

Throw away son.

Editing posts is a crime on this website. Sad!

 

[Toump Ass]

I did not see any whinging when Suns were developing farm for other clubs.

What a load of crap.

You lost players because you had a shit coach and a shit culture.

Same reason Dees lost Petracca and Oliver, but we won't see us putting our hands out asking for priority picks like Gold Coast Handouts did.

 

[Bird Man]

Team that finished in a semi final ended up with pick 2,5 17, 18, 28, 46 and still had points to spare. The draft this years was an absolute joke. The AFL isn't interested in equalization.