News Port Adelaide's Next Generation Academy

[King Patty]

Seems pretty simple. A first round bid needs a first round pick to match it. Whether that is pick 1 or pick 18 should be irrelevant. If they want to get technical, make it that it has to be your original 1st rd pick, not one that you have traded in.

Thats what it used to be (before could trade first round picks).

Essendon got Daniher but lost pick 10. (bid at Pick 7 by Port, after they bid on Jack Viney)

Swans got Heeney (bid pick2 Demons) before Petracca Swans lost pick 18

 

[bringbackbucky]

Thats what it used to be (before could trade first round picks).

Essendon got Daniher but lost pick 10. (bid at Pick 7 by Port, after they bid on Jack Viney)

Swans got Heeney (bid pick2 Demons) before Petracca Swans lost pick 18

They should reinstate that system. The trading of picks should be irrelevant. If you don't have a first round pick, you don't get the player. Simple.

 

[King Patty]

They should reinstate that system. The trading of picks should be irrelevant. If you don't have a first round pick, you don't get the player. Simple.

maybe like if bid in in first round it's matched with your first round pick.
if your pick is outside 10 picks then add your second rounder as well.

so like in Heeney example would need to use 18+36.

 

[bringbackbucky]

maybe like if bid in in first round it's matched with your first round pick.
if your pick is outside 10 picks then add your second rounder as well.

so like in Heeney example would need to use 18+36.

I don't mind that, but I'm fearful the AFL are gong to over correct.

IMO no draftee, an effectively unproven commodity, should cost more than - for example - what a club like Collingwood paid for Dan Houston...

 

[RossFC]

SANFL commentator Phil Aspinall reckons Mark Clayton is coming back to Port in a Next Gen Academy coaching role.

Was recently South Adelaide U18s coach.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Another tough son of a gun comes back to Port

 

[Duckimus Prime]

They should reinstate that system. The trading of picks should be irrelevant. If you don't have a first round pick, you don't get the player. Simple.

The system was actually that you matched with your next available pick.

It doesn't go close to working with current trading rules.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I think matching requiring at least 1 pick within the next 18 picks is reasonable. That's a round worth of picks, even if it goes into the next round.

You can't really do it by round, what if he's bid on at pick 17 and you don't have pick 18?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Lefti93]

**** the system.

 

[Rising Power]

This is like that cycle of hope and disappointment.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Absolute amateur hour down at HQ. Wait till the trade and draft period is over then announce changes for the next season. Leaving clubs with no ability to make list management decisions prior, or prepare for those changes.

Shambles once again is the upper AFL management.

 

[jackag24]

I think matching requiring at least 1 pick within the next 18 picks is reasonable. That's a round worth of picks, even if it goes into the next round.

You can't really do it by round, what if he's bid on at pick 17 and you don't have pick 18?

This makes too much sense.

I'm guessing the AFL will go with something like "Well if it's pick 17 and you haven't already drafted him yourself, then you don't have access to him"

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Reviewing the points discount is fine if they go slowly on the picks you can use for matching.

The issue everyone has is how much the system is pumping up the northern clubs. But the AFL doesn't want to lose their potential to steal players from rugby for "the look". It's the multiple GC first round picks that jacked people off this year.

But don't belt clubs who put in just as much work for bugger all return most of the time, then finally get lucky.

 

[scotty13]

The AFL should limit the amount of kids you can pick up as academy/fs.

Perhaps 1 kid per round. GC would have been forced to choose which first round kid they wanted. The rest go to whoever drafts them.

 

[scotty13]

This makes too much sense.

I'm guessing the AFL will go with something like "Well if it's pick 17 and you haven't already drafted him yourself, then you don't have access to him"

Imagine having pick 3, and the AFL demanding you use that pick to draft a kid who may or may not fall inside the first round or second.

Yep, given their pathetic history wouldn't surprise me if they made this the rule.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If they're simply reducing the discount for next year, that's a win compared to some of the bullshit that's been suggested before now. No enforced 1st round picks, no limit of how many picks you can use to match. That's a big relief.

I'd bite their hand off for that to be the only rule change for the next 2 seasons. It means we'll get all 4 of our targets.

 

[Coobk001]

If they're simply reducing the discount for next year, that's a win compared to some of the bullshit that's been suggested before now. No enforced 1st round picks, no limit of how many picks you can use to match. That's a big relief.

I'd bite their hand off for that to be the only rule change for the next 2 seasons. It means we'll get all 4 of our targets.

Agreed.

For mine we know,
1. Currently the points system just isn't working because pick 1 isnt worth 5x pick 40s. So teams must pay more.
2. The concept of paying 2 firsts to get a player you're entitled to, just seems off. Its almost unrealistic to expect that a team could get those picks.

My left field suggestion
The existing points scale stays as is.
For any pick match from any round, all picks used that come from the same round get a 20% discount
For all picks used to match from the round after the current one, theres a 10% to no discount
For all picks used 2 rounds after the current, there is no discount, and in fact a premium is added.

At the same time, put a limit on how many picks a team can hold, ie. Dont allow a team to stockpile 11x4th rounders to match a bid. Maybe clubs can hold a maximum of 2 picks more than selections they can make.

And ultimately, dont fully match the amount and cop a deficit the next year.

Or some sort of variation to all this, which effectively means clubs have to pay more if they dont match with reasonably close selections, and they cant stockpile crap picks for matching top picks.

I think if you take our example of Dougie. We'd be incentivised to grab a couple late firsts, or at least use a first and try and get a couple seconds.

 

[philthy05]

it doesn’t need to be so complicated

The problem - teams bundling lots of later low value picks to combine points to pay for highly rated juniors

I’ve said all along, the solution is so simple. You can only use picks in the round and following round (of a bid) to pay for a bid.

Simple. Clear. Solves the problem absolutely. No one would ever get shafted out of getting their player, they just won’t be able to bundle late picks to use on gun juniors.

 

[Sleezy]

At the same time, put a limit on how many picks a team can hold, ie. Dont allow a team to stockpile 11x4th rounders to match a bid. Maybe clubs can hold a maximum of 2 picks more than selections they can make.

This limit already exists. You can only hold as many picks as list spots.

Its why clubs delist players and then redraft them at the back end of the ND and RD: to open up more list spots so they can carry extra picks into the draft for matching purposes.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

This limit already exists. You can only hold as many picks as list spots.

Its why clubs delist players and then redraft them at the back end of the ND and RD: to open up more list spots so they can carry extra picks into the draft for matching purposes.

Pretty sure they reversed this rule a bit back didn’t they? That’s why GC were able to match using an unlimited number of picks. Don’t think they’re limited by list spots any more?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This limit already exists. You can only hold as many picks as list spots.

Its why clubs delist players and then redraft them at the back end of the ND and RD: to open up more list spots so they can carry extra picks into the draft for matching purposes.

And that is counter balanced by trading picks in and out on draft night.

GC had 6 picks and drafted 5 kids all from their academy but by manipulating picks on draft night they got 4 first round picks, plus having enough points to draft a kid from Tassie at pick 28 and fifth academy pick was at 46.

 

[Addy23]

Pretty sure they reversed this rule a bit back didn’t they? That’s why GC were able to match using an unlimited number of picks. Don’t think they’re limited by list spots any more?

Yep

AFL makes changes to draft points system

Clubs matching bids on Academy and father-son players will be able to use the points from picks they didn't plan to use

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

 

[Coobk001]

This limit already exists. You can only hold as many picks as list spots.

Its why clubs delist players and then redraft them at the back end of the ND and RD: to open up more list spots so they can carry extra picks into the draft for matching purposes.

They reversed that. It doesn't apply at the moment.

 

[It Just Is]

This limit already exists. You can only hold as many picks as list spots.

Its why clubs delist players and then redraft them at the back end of the ND and RD: to open up more list spots so they can carry extra picks into the draft for matching purposes.

They reversed that. It doesn't apply at the moment.

Presumably an example of the AFL knowing the system wasn’t working but being bullied by player managers or the AFLPA into reopening a loophole.