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

[danster168]

Salty? Mate, you used the same talent funneling channel (North to South) to bridge a major gap in full back in your list. In that process you got a premiership as well. Massive asterisk, you are nothing but same as other clubs who did the same over the last few years so please stop with the we did the hard way, legit way etc.

2022 premiership * - Geelong - Jeremy Cameron
2021 premiership * - Demons - Steven May
2020 premiership * - Richmond - Lynch/Prestia

All borrowed talents from northern clubs to benefit Victorian clubs. No wonder we were only having talent drain conversations back then but it stayed as noise as the VFL was gaining either way.

lol. tell me what the cats and dees paid to acquire these players and compare it to what Brisbane paid to get 2x no.1 picks

you're like completely missing the point. Normal clubs paid proper value for their acquisitions whereas Brisbane got gift wrapped elite talent for next to nothing. Mentioning clubs that traded for another player couldn't be more irrelevant if you tried.

Steven May: pick 6

Ashcroft x 2, Fletcher: junk picks.

Also, how do you think we got pick 6? We had to finish low on the ladder to get it. 1 season of pain to acquire it. How did the Lions acquire 2x no.1 picks and another 1st round pick for Fletcher? Oh that's right you didn't. You got gifted the picks by a flawed Points system.

Don't be defensive, just acknowledge that your club alongside the dogs and Gold Coast is one of the 3 nepo clubs.

The fact that you even mentioned that you think Pick 6 for Steven May was robbery just highlighted that you have 0 idea about trade value. That was considered fair and reasonable trade value for a 25 year old at the time. If anything, it was considered slightly pricey.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

The sooner this gets rectified the better. Gold Coast are fixed to make a mockery of both the AFL and AFLW drafts.

And I don't even blame them for it, they're using the busted system that the incompetent AFL has laid out for them and others.

 

[Yoda_]

well you can make it fair. by getting rid of it. Tell me, does anyone actually care that Jack Sillvagni went to StKilda? Are Carlton fans devastated over it? No. How about when Taj Woewodin got delisted? Were the dees fans sooking about it? How about when Lachie Hunter went to the dees, were the dogs fans needing to be consoled? The romance of the father/son is one of the biggest myths in footy.

Essendon fans were bitterly disappointed when Joe Daniher left, even after sitting on the fence (literally) for the 18 months preceding the move

 

[Viceregal]

Interestingly every single one of the trades that the Suns did (for which they increased their point/draft hand) worked in favour of the folks they were trading with.

Some teams (the ones who happened to have F/s, NGA, Academy picks of high value that year) valued points higher than they valued picks and they made deals with other teams (who didn't happen to have F/s, NGA or Academy picks of high value that year) who valued picks higher than they valued points so effectively you had a win win situation. Team A gets pick 5 and Team B gets points worth pick 3 (but which would never be swapped for pick 3) and both get nice things and while who gets to be Team B varies from year to year anyone can plan around being Team A ... well before the new changes that made the process a lot less likely to take place and remove a pathway for lower teams to improve their draft hands...

Two speed economy ... sure ... but one with swings and roundabouts in it. If our expected top biddable asset next year was in the 30-40 range we would value our pick (hopefully) 18 more than the points it came with ... Essendon had a pick near where someone might bid and could have played poker but chose to trade it out.

Absolutely having Will, and Jaspa and Levi come into the team helped as did the planning around knowing they were coming but it was still a pretty good team without them ... but making policy decisions on the basis of corner cases and outliers is never a good idea and the already anticipated collateral damage will probably fall on the heads of your Carlton and Port types.

 

[danster168]

Essendon fans were bitterly disappointed when Joe Daniher left, even after sitting on the fence (literally) for the 18 months preceding the move

yeah, because he was a good player. Didnt hear a peep out of the fans when the Davey son was given the flick. So its got nothing to do with loyalty.

 

[Purple Suit]

Interestingly every single one of the trades that the Suns did (for which they increased their point/draft hand) worked in favour of the folks they were trading with.

Some teams (the ones who happened to have F/s, NGA, Academy picks of high value that year) valued points higher than they valued picks and they made deals with other teams (who didn't happen to have F/s, NGA or Academy picks of high value that year) who valued picks higher than they valued points so effectively you had a win win situation. Team A gets pick 5 and Team B gets points worth pick 3 (but which would never be swapped for pick 3) and both get nice things and while who gets to be Team B varies from year to year anyone can plan around being Team A ... well before the new changes that made the process a lot less likely to take place and remove a pathway for lower teams to improve their draft hands...

Two speed economy ... sure ... but one with swings and roundabouts in it. If our expected top biddable asset next year was in the 30-40 range we would value our pick (hopefully) 18 more than the points it came with ... Essendon had a pick near where someone might bid and could have played poker but chose to trade it out.

Absolutely having Will, and Jaspa and Levi come into the team helped as did the planning around knowing they were coming but it was still a pretty good team without them ... but making policy decisions on the basis of corner cases and outliers is never a good idea and the already anticipated collateral damage will probably fall on the heads of your Carlton and Port types.

This is a laughable take. It sounds like you are against increasing tax on the super rich as it might cost a few servants some income. Especially when the super rich have a different taxation system to the rest of us.

 

[Viceregal]

This is a laughable take. It sounds like you are against increasing tax on the super rich as it might cost a few servants some income. Especially when the super rich have a different taxation system to the rest of us.

Maybe re-read ... pretty much the exact opposite!

 

[danster168]

Maybe re-read ... pretty much the exact opposite!

I will say that the notion of 'swings and roundabouts' is one of the biggest myths in footy. My team has had only 1 highly rated F/S and 0 nga's in 30 years. If a swing takes 30 years to come back, that ain't no swing.

And getting 3 first rounders, and 2 of them being no1 prospects, that's equivalent to about 200+ years of good fortune given the history/bad luck that other clubs have had.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So they were smart and strategic in acquiring the neccessary assets to match bids within the current rules.

You call it 'manipulation', where I might call it 'strategic'. Spending several years making small trades with competing clubs to increase your bid matching hands seems bloody smart and forward thinking, and pretty ironic that those clubs that complete those hundreds of trades with them might be upset at the end outcome?'

Meanwhile, we have a wooden spooner, who won a flag only 7 years ago and has more money than most clubs who can't even operate a basic draft simulator on draft night, when a 10 year old could probably get Chat GTP to build them one on excel in 10 minutes to do what it needs to do.

It's manipulating regardless of whether its 'strategic' manipulating or not and it should have been outlawed years ago (across the board for every club) but the afl is useless.

 

[Choppers]

I will say that the notion of 'swings and roundabouts' is one of the biggest myths in footy. My team has had only 1 highly rated F/S and 0 nga's in 30 years. If a swing takes 30 years to come back, that ain't no swing.

And getting 3 first rounders, and 2 of them being no1 prospects, that's equivalent to about 200+ years of good fortune given the history/bad luck that other clubs have had.

Admittedly only a cat B........but at least you got 1.....

Ricky Mentha​

#39 Melbourne Demons
Age: 19yr 3mth Games: 0 Born: September 4, 2006 Origin: Gippsland Power
Height: 178cm Position: Defender, Forward
Drafted: 2025 Category B Rookie: Next Generation Academy selection (Indigenous)

 

[danster168]

Admittedly only a cat B........but at least you got 1.....

Ricky Mentha​

#39 Melbourne Demons
Age: 19yr 3mth Games: 0 Born: September 4, 2006 Origin: Gippsland Power
Height: 178cm Position: Defender, Forward
Drafted: 2025 Category B Rookie: Next Generation Academy selection (Indigenous)

yeah, we're talking about highly rated f/s and nga's. not token takes

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Interestingly every single one of the trades that the Suns did (for which they increased their point/draft hand) worked in favour of the folks they were trading with.

Some teams (the ones who happened to have F/s, NGA, Academy picks of high value that year) valued points higher than they valued picks and they made deals with other teams (who didn't happen to have F/s, NGA or Academy picks of high value that year) who valued picks higher than they valued points so effectively you had a win win situation. Team A gets pick 5 and Team B gets points worth pick 3 (but which would never be swapped for pick 3) and both get nice things and while who gets to be Team B varies from year to year anyone can plan around being Team A ... well before the new changes that made the process a lot less likely to take place and remove a pathway for lower teams to improve their draft hands...

Two speed economy ... sure ... but one with swings and roundabouts in it. If our expected top biddable asset next year was in the 30-40 range we would value our pick (hopefully) 18 more than the points it came with ... Essendon had a pick near where someone might bid and could have played poker but chose to trade it out.

Absolutely having Will, and Jaspa and Levi come into the team helped as did the planning around knowing they were coming but it was still a pretty good team without them ... but making policy decisions on the basis of corner cases and outliers is never a good idea and the already anticipated collateral damage will probably fall on the heads of your Carlton and Port types.

Pigs fly too. Fair on earth it’s not the first one they matched that’s relatively “okay”, it’s the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ones. The curve wasn’t near enough. Go to a market and see if any club would give you that junk for pick 5 let alone the other two in the first round.

The two pick rule solves most of the issues unfortunately we all know why the AFL was “slow” putting it in. I blame the AFL, not GC and not any other clubs.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's manipulating regardless of whether its 'strategic' manipulating or not and it should have been outlawed years ago (across the board for every club) but the afl is useless.

Yeah, purely in a "the football department makes decisions that helps lead us to success", what Gold Coast have done is impressive, commendable, intelligent, intellectually interesting.

It is also a complete barstidisation of the AFL's intent with the DVI system is that if a player gets bidded on, you have to pay the generally accepted, average market value of that bid with your own collective draft assets that the the same generally, accepted market values at 90% (formerly 80%) of that bid.

That's the AFL's intent. We can all agree on that. But through poor implementations, clubs are effective in preventing that intent to be achieved, and teams are practically getting a far greater discount than that 10%. In practice, it becomes more like 50%, maybe less.

Gold Coast fans etc. still say "oh, we did this we traded this future first, we lost this player". I don't disagree, and I'm not saying that GC got those players for zero - they just got them at a huge discount. Losing Ainsworth, Budarick and future firsts etc. all are part of the asset loss that was still 50% of the draft value. If 50% of pick 3 is pick 9+10 (or whatever), nobody is saying that they didn't pay pick 10 (ie, Ainsworth + future 1st or whatever), just that pick 10 represents 50% of the value of pick 3.

Whereas in reality, if the system was that they had to pay 90%, they would have had to find a way to gain some combination of two picks that adds up to pick 90% of pick 3 - pick 9 and 12, pick 8 and 14, pick 7 and 16, pick 6 and 19, pick 5 and 24, pick 4 and 30. These (or better) are effectively the only trades that the open market would accept for pick 90% of pick 3, so these should be the only combination of picks that GC should be allowed to use to match pick 3.

However, in reality, you get a situation where you are allowed to use pick 19 and 28 for pick 3 (or whatever), those being your starting picks (once you trade out a player or two), but those picks essentially being upgraded 1 or 2 slots every time you make an incremental trade (like Suns trading for Petracca but getting back picks in the late 20s, the principle of it), which essentially allows you to move that pick 19 and 28 all the way up to the pick 9 and 12 that is required to match pick 3, for free.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Pigs fly too. Fair on earth it’s not the first one they matched that’s relatively “okay”, it’s the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ones. The curve wasn’t near enough. Go to a market and see if any club would give you that junk for pick 5 let alone the other two in the first round.

The two pick rule solves most of the issues unfortunately we all know why the AFL was “slow” putting it in. I blame the AFL, not GC and not any other clubs.

It's not just the curve, its the principle of using multiple picks for one player though, when that's not reflective of market value.

For the sake of argument, lets say DVI is accurate. Pick 10 and pick 22+23 are worth equally as much as each other, and because every team takes at least 2 picks in the draft, teams have zero preference on which of the two is better - pick 10 + last pick in the draft, or pick 22 + 23. If you asked AFL clubs "which of these two packages are better and likely to produce more AFL wins for your club", you'd have an even split and everyone saying both are as good as each other.

The issue is that bidding is not a 2-for-1 where every club has value for at least two live draft picks. Teams delist different amount of players.

When you match a bid, you are effectively making a "trade", where you trade a bunch of later draft picks for one earlier draft pick at market value. But instead of the "market" being one club in an ordinary trade, you are effectively "trading" with all 17 clubs at once, because the movement up/down the draft order is absorbed by one club (ie, when you match with pick 31, every pick from 32 onwards moves up one spot. Of course the benefit is most gained by the club that has pick 32, 2nd most pick 33, but over the long run it averages up over all clubs and therefore a bid match is a trade with all 17 other clubs "evenly").

So we have that out of the way: lets look at the trades that Gold Coast did:

2025 AFL Draft Order Including Actual Draft - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

So that's a 4-for-13 trade

2, 5, 17, 18 for 14, 18, 24, 24, 29, 31, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44, 46.

Cross out 18s

2, 5, 17 for 14, 24, 24, 29, 31, 31, 32, 39, 40, 44, 46.


Lets put aside the fact that picks gain points value by sliding up with earlier bids (another economic issue), and look at the fact - do the 17 clubs on average value a trade where they have 3 top picks and they would trade it down for 12 picks?

Of course ****ing not. Teams aren't carrying 9 list spots open in the draft.

If they carry, say, 5 list spots open in the draft, we can disregard the final 4 picks - 39, 40, 44 and 46 were gifted to Gold Coast for free, because the "market" was forced to accept its value in a 4-for-13 trade, when they had no use for the final 4-5 picks in that trade.

If you add those picks together, those 4 picks have DVI value to equivalent to pick 22.

Never mind arbitrage in trades and never mind the DVI system being inaccurate, even if Gold Coast truly delisted 13 players to claim all those picks and were willing to make 9 draft picks at the end of the draft (they weren't, but for the sake of the argument is), the issue is that other clubs weren't, but you're forcing them to value draft picks as if they were to the valuation of GC's valuation of those draft picks. And through virtue of forcing the market, the 17 other clubs to value this, you're effectively gifting GC another top draft pick - a free pick around pick 20 - because of this.

Conceptually, it's actually a bit hard to understand, but my econometric principles are actually sound here, and it's an element of the bidding system that's not thought through, but adds to the issues here.

 

[danster168]

Yeah, purely in a "the football department makes decisions that helps lead us to success", what Gold Coast have done is impressive, commendable, intelligent, intellectually interesting.

It is also a complete barstidisation of the AFL's intent with the DVI system is that if a player gets bidded on, you have to pay the generally accepted, average market value of that bid with your own collective draft assets that the the same generally, accepted market values at 90% (formerly 80%) of that bid.

That's the AFL's intent. We can all agree on that. But through poor implementations, clubs are effective in preventing that intent to be achieved, and teams are practically getting a far greater discount than that 10%. In practice, it becomes more like 50%, maybe less.

Gold Coast fans etc. still say "oh, we did this we traded this future first, we lost this player". I don't disagree, and I'm not saying that GC got those players for zero - they just got them at a huge discount. Losing Ainsworth, Budarick and future firsts etc. all are part of the asset loss that was still 50% of the draft value. If 50% of pick 3 is pick 9+10 (or whatever), nobody is saying that they didn't pay pick 10 (ie, Ainsworth + future 1st or whatever), just that pick 10 represents 50% of the value of pick 3.

Whereas in reality, if the system was that they had to pay 90%, they would have had to find a way to gain some combination of two picks that adds up to pick 90% of pick 3 - pick 9 and 12, pick 8 and 14, pick 7 and 16, pick 6 and 19, pick 5 and 24, pick 4 and 30. These (or better) are effectively the only trades that the open market would accept for pick 90% of pick 3, so these should be the only combination of picks that GC should be allowed to use to match pick 3.

However, in reality, you get a situation where you are allowed to use pick 19 and 28 for pick 3 (or whatever), those being your starting picks (once you trade out a player or two), but those picks essentially being upgraded 1 or 2 slots every time you make an incremental trade (like Suns trading for Petracca but getting back picks in the late 20s, the principle of it), which essentially allows you to move that pick 19 and 28 all the way up to the pick 9 and 12 that is required to match pick 3, for free.

dogs have been in the same boat. got ugle-hagan and Darcy for cheap. nowhere near close to value. Chuck in Croft, Liberatore, Hunter, etc. The dogs, Gold Coast, Brisbane and Collingwood are in a league of their own in terms of giftings. They should have their own premiership cup to go for.

 

[Yoda_]

yeah, because he was a good player. Didnt hear a peep out of the fans when the Davey son was given the flick. So its got nothing to do with loyalty.

what are you on about, fans only give a shit when they are highly rated or good players. See Gary Ablett Jnr, see Joe Daniher etc.

 

[Yoda_]

dogs have been in the same boat. got ugle-hagan and Darcy for cheap. nowhere near close to value. Chuck in Croft, Liberatore, Hunter, etc. The dogs, Gold Coast, Brisbane and Collingwood are in a league of their own in terms of giftings. They should have their own premiership cup to go for.

do better with development and you might bear fruits of it all, this "woah me" is small club syndrome.

Essendon i know poor more money than any other Melbourne based club into there NGA zone, the fruits of it have been sown since Nguyen, Kako were 12 (6 - 7 years ago) and are likely going to continue with more over the next 2 - 5 years. (Im not including 100-gamer David Rodan's son, Tevita either).

You only get out what you put in

 

[Elixuh]

Essendon fans were bitterly disappointed when Joe Daniher left, even after sitting on the fence (literally) for the 18 months preceding the move

Didn’t realise he literally sat on the fence for 18 months. That’s crazy.

 

[Obeanie1]

I will say that the notion of 'swings and roundabouts' is one of the biggest myths in footy. My team has had only 1 highly rated F/S and 0 nga's in 30 years. If a swing takes 30 years to come back, that ain't no swing.

And getting 3 first rounders, and 2 of them being no1 prospects, that's equivalent to about 200+ years of good fortune given the history/bad luck that other clubs have had.

Exactly.

The AFL pretended to care by restricting the access number of nga's based on ladder position.

But it didn't think of applying some form of handbreak when a club playing and winning grand finals tops up with multiple gun father sons on top of academy access.

Now they have finally addressed what clubs pay for priority access to gun kids.

Just need to put up with the Lions and Suns dominating the comp for the next 5 years.

At least my club isn't contending and is rebuilding. Would be ropeable if these nepo clubs knocked my side out in finals.

 

[Miller1971]

The key mistake here is the weird assumption that the AFL or any rulemaker is expecting clubs to pay 'market value'.

If that was the expectation, then there is no point in having a system - as market value is determined by the draft and the order the names are read out.

Once you put to bed the stupid assumption that it should be market value, you can accept that the system is improving.

Even 'fair value' is a misonomer as thats really another way of saying 'market value'.

The point of the system is ensuring a F/S or Academy player can get to their aligned club, but ensuring that club now has to give up something in return (rather than the Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

37

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

situation) - there is no system where that can be market value or fair value, other than just having no system at all.

If you would like clubs to retain the ability to get the F/S or Academy talent (which is a concept I personally don't mind, despite being a long suffering Sainter) then the system simply needs to be designed to at least make them have to work hard to match a bid, or a series of bids. Eg. the Lions didn't do enough to get themselves into a position to match a bid on Prindable (assuming they wanted to?)

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

So Uwland went for 2 first rounders and an early second rounder. I personally think thats pretty fair. Sure, I doubt many clubs would accept 14,18 and 24 for Pick 2 (maybe a few would?) but I think its still a pretty high price for an 18 year old kid.

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

So Patterson went for the princely sum of 4 x 2nd round picks. Thats still a pretty high price. If you traded a 4th year player for 4 x 2nd rounders, they would have wanted to have a good first 50 games of AFL footy.

Probably slightly unders, but hardly daylight robbery

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

a late first round pick, matched with 2 mid range 2nd rounders. Again, probably slightly unders - but not robbery either.

Pick 17 in 2023 was James Leake, in 2022 it was Max Michalanney and in 2021 it was Tom Brown.

I reckon if any club came along and offered Picks 31 and 32 for them, their respective clubs would consider taking the deal (except the Crows to be fair)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

This one is probably one that shouldn't have got through, but I don't think those picks actually do add up to enough points do they? Didn't they go into a points deficit for 2026 to match this?

 

[danster168]

The key mistake here is the weird assumption that the AFL or any rulemaker is expecting clubs to pay 'market value'.

If that was the expectation, then there is no point in having a system - as market value is determined by the draft and the order the names are read out.

Once you put to bed the stupid assumption that it should be market value, you can accept that the system is improving.

Even 'fair value' is a misonomer as thats really another way of saying 'market value'.

The point of the system is ensuring a F/S or Academy player can get to their aligned club, but ensuring that club now has to give up something in return (rather than the Tom Hawkins situation) - there is no system where that can be market value or fair value, other than just having no system at all.

If you would like clubs to retain the ability to get the F/S or Academy talent (which is a concept I personally don't mind, despite being a long suffering Sainter) then the system simply needs to be designed to at least make them have to work hard to match a bid, or a series of bids. Eg. the Lions didn't do enough to get themselves into a position to match a bid on Prindable (assuming they wanted to?)

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

So Uwland went for 2 first rounders and an early second rounder. I personally think thats pretty fair. Sure, I doubt many clubs would accept 14,18 and 24 for Pick 2 (maybe a few would?) but I think its still a pretty high price for an 18 year old kid.

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

So Patterson went for the princely sum of 4 x 2nd round picks. Thats still a pretty high price. If you traded a 4th year player for 4 x 2nd rounders, they would have wanted to have a good first 50 games of AFL footy.

Probably slightly unders, but hardly daylight robbery

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

a late first round pick, matched with 2 mid range 2nd rounders. Again, probably slightly unders - but not robbery either.

Pick 17 in 2023 was James Leake, in 2022 it was Max Michalanney and in 2021 it was Tom Brown.

I reckon if any club came along and offered Picks 31 and 32 for them, their respective clubs would consider taking the deal (except the Crows to be fair)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

This one is probably one that shouldn't have got through, but I don't think those picks actually do add up to enough points do they? Didn't they go into a points deficit for 2026 to match this?

Nah you've missed the point. It shouldn't be market value. It should cost clubs market value + 20%. Not a discount. It should be extra. A club is getting priority access to a player that they don't deserve. So if they want the player it should cost them overs.

And this is why the system is so flawed. It's improving yes but the system has gone from straight up corruption to laughably compromised. Much more needs to be done.

 

[Jirik13]

The key mistake here is the weird assumption that the AFL or any rulemaker is expecting clubs to pay 'market value'.

If that was the expectation, then there is no point in having a system - as market value is determined by the draft and the order the names are read out.

Once you put to bed the stupid assumption that it should be market value, you can accept that the system is improving.

Even 'fair value' is a misonomer as thats really another way of saying 'market value'.

The point of the system is ensuring a F/S or Academy player can get to their aligned club, but ensuring that club now has to give up something in return (rather than the Tom Hawkins situation) - there is no system where that can be market value or fair value, other than just having no system at all.

If you would like clubs to retain the ability to get the F/S or Academy talent (which is a concept I personally don't mind, despite being a long suffering Sainter) then the system simply needs to be designed to at least make them have to work hard to match a bid, or a series of bids. Eg. the Lions didn't do enough to get themselves into a position to match a bid on Prindable (assuming they wanted to?)

2 for 14, 18, 24 (Uwland)

So Uwland went for 2 first rounders and an early second rounder. I personally think thats pretty fair. Sure, I doubt many clubs would accept 14,18 and 24 for Pick 2 (maybe a few would?) but I think its still a pretty high price for an 18 year old kid.

5 for 24, 29, 31, 32 (Patterson)

So Patterson went for the princely sum of 4 x 2nd round picks. Thats still a pretty high price. If you traded a 4th year player for 4 x 2nd rounders, they would have wanted to have a good first 50 games of AFL footy.

Probably slightly unders, but hardly daylight robbery

17 for 31, 32 (Murray)

a late first round pick, matched with 2 mid range 2nd rounders. Again, probably slightly unders - but not robbery either.

Pick 17 in 2023 was James Leake, in 2022 it was Max Michalanney and in 2021 it was Tom Brown.

I reckon if any club came along and offered Picks 31 and 32 for them, their respective clubs would consider taking the deal (except the Crows to be fair)

18 for 39, 40, 44, 46 (Addinsal).

This one is probably one that shouldn't have got through, but I don't think those picks actually do add up to enough points do they? Didn't they go into a points deficit for 2026 to match this?

No deficit. Suns actually still had 2 picks available in 2nd round, something like 48, 49.

As part of current system, a lot of picks generated extra points as they moved up with so many bids and matching.

 

[Miller1971]

ok, now I understand your thoughts on the subject, its not really worth further discussion.

the position that they should pay more is completely absurd

 

[Jirik13]

ok, now I understand your thoughts on the subject, its not really worth further discussion.

the position that they should pay more is completely absurd

Yeah, if Suns would have to pay extra for academy kids (no benefit from academy), they would not be running academy (unless forced by their owner, AFL).

They would just draft non-academy kids for less, haha. Yeah, absurd.

 

[danster168]

do better with development and you might bear fruits of it all, this "woah me" is small club syndrome.

Essendon i know poor more money than any other Melbourne based club into there NGA zone, the fruits of it have been sown since Nguyen, Kako were 12 (6 - 7 years ago) and are likely going to continue with more over the next 2 - 5 years. (Im not including 100-gamer David Rodan's son, Tevita either).

You only get out what you put in

lol. we literally won a flag and had 2x top 4 finishes with no help from the afl. In fact, the opposite. The afl ripping players like Mac Andrew from our academy. Hilarious hearing about 'woah is me' from an essendon fan. Kako and Nguyen ain't moving the needle mate.