Official Club Stuff Carlton Academy - Next Gen & Father/Son/Daughter Discussion II

[juzza316]

I still can't believe we are going to basically lose 2 first round picks by selecting Walker.

And four other clubs are incentivised to GAIN an extra first rounder to screw us.

This game is beyond a joke. Did we p1ss off Greg Swann when he left us?

 

[BlueBlood15]

If Twomey’s leaks are correct re the 2026 draft changes and factoring in the draft changed for 2025, we have effectively been short changed two top 10 picks compared to the pre 2025 rules. Dean cost around picks 9 and 11. Walker will cost around pick 4 and 17 (assuming that is where us and Sydney finish). Absolutely not what we need given the need for young talent and with Tassie incoming.

Oh and the kicker is our North second round pick we paid up for will be diluted 4-5 picks due to rubbish compensation picks that incentivise the Cody bid.

Swann is an embarrassment.

 

[Bluebag13]

You are damn disgrace GSwann

Can you imagine finishing 6th last, you'd absolutely get shafted. Ridiculous

 

[josephone]

I think his point is if we dont match Walker and a Cochrane bid comes before our pick, we would get a free end of 1st round pick (assuming we are bottom 5).

So in effect matching Walker isnt just costing us our 1st plus swans 1st (points to match). It's also costing us the extra end of 1st round pick we could have gotten.

I would have thought we'd still be entitled to a compo pick if, say, we have pick 4 but Cochrane is bid on at 1 and Walker at 2.

Because while we end up with a higher pick, our original pick value drops in that our first pick moves back from 4 to 5 and thus we have fewer points to match a Walker bid.

So the scenario where Cochrane goes 1 is actually OK for us, assuming we end up with the compo pick.

 

[Opium]

If Twomey’s leaks are correct re the 2026 draft changes and factoring in the draft changed for 2025, we have effectively been short changed two top 10 picks compared to the pre 2025 rules. Dean cost around picks 9 and 11. Walker will cost around pick 4 and 17 (assuming that is where us and Sydney finish). Absolutely not what we need given the need for young talent and with Tassie incoming.

Oh and the kicker is our North second round pick we paid up for will be diluted 4-5 picks due to rubbish compensation picks that incentivise the Cody bid.

Swann is an embarrassment.

Legal challenge is the only acceptable outcome.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Legal challenge is the only acceptable outcome.

Would love to see it but this club is so gutless.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I would have thought we'd still be entitled to a compo pick if, say, we have pick 4 but Cochrane is bid on at 1 and Walker at 2.

Because while we end up with a higher pick, our original pick value drops in that our first pick moves back from 4 to 5 and thus we have fewer points to match a Walker bid.

So the scenario where Cochrane goes 1 is actually OK for us, assuming we end up with the compo pick.

If Walker isn’t bid on at 1 it won’t be a massive issue as the points drop off massively. The thing is Richmond will bid on someone and they can just play us against Port to see who they can get the most out of to not bid on their player.

If Port work with them better than us (which will be worth it considering pick 3 is about 800pts less than 1) we are stuffed. Assuming we finish bottom 5, Realistically the only way we cannot lose three picks for Walker is by not taking him or to give Richmond something very good.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

I think his point is if we dont match Walker and a Cochrane bid comes before our pick, we would get a free end of 1st round pick (assuming we are bottom 5).

So in effect matching Walker isnt just costing us our 1st plus swans 1st (points to match). It's also costing us the extra end of 1st round pick we could have gotten.

So we make a deal with the Tiggs to incentivise them to bid on Cochrane - makes no difference to them who they bid on if Carlton and Port have the points to cover a bid at pick 1. Both clubs will match the bid.

Offer up the Swan's 1st rounder basically for free - ie something like Swan's 1st in exchange for Tigg's 2027 2nd.

 

[chickendippas]

I think we should look at splitting ~Pick 3 or 4 with this change in mind. We should be asking for a premium due to the extra end of 1st likely attached.

Teams would be mad not to cough up 2 x mid 1sts for a top 5 pick and a free end of 1st compensation pick.

Let’s say we get 2 x mid firsts back for a similar points return. This allows us to hold onto the Sydney 1st and just carry a small deficit into next year (due to points taken for your 1st 2 picks only).

We don’t really lose out as we keep the value (points wise) for our pick, we just protect the other 1st this year by spreading it over 2 picks instead.

 

[Poorman53]

You can't incentivise bottom 5 teams to bid on FS / academy kids to get themselves extra picks. Surely even the AFL can't be that dumb. Any kid even close to top 10 will suddenly get a top 5 bid.

To bring in changes with no notice in a system with 2 years future trading is insane.

Especially when you consider with a player identified as a top liner years out that club has therefore put so much investment into them, of course they will take them. Walker the prime example, he's been training this whole season with us. We'd feel obligated to take him at a pick 1 bid regardless.

It's a bit different for players deeper in the draft.

 

[marcmurphy3]

I think we should look at splitting ~Pick 3 or 4 with this change in mind. We should be asking for a premium due to the extra end of 1st likely attached.

Teams would be mad not to cough up 2 x mid 1sts for a top 5 pick and a free end of 1st compensation pick.

Let’s say we get 2 x mid firsts back for a similar points return. This allows us to hold onto the Sydney 1st and just carry a small deficit into next year (due to points taken for your 1st 2 picks only).

We don’t really lose out as we keep the value (points wise) for our pick, we just protect the other 1st this year by spreading it over 2 picks instead.

I think thats the play so long as the bonus pick is tied to the pick, not the club.

 

[DZ4]

Essendon more or less have that. A big bunch of middling first rounders without any top 3 picks. How's that working out for them? The 'more is better' approach isn't any safer than trading up for better talent IMO.

The real issue is the lack of success with our picks from 20+, or the MSD. We've found competent role players but haven't unearthed the Errol Gulden-esque hidden gem. Carroll looking like he might buck that trend, hopefully he's the first of many!

Essendon is a pox club like us. Look at Melbourne.

Langford, Pickett, Pickett, Tholstrup, Lindsay, Jefferson, Windsor, Van Rooyen. They’d have half the quality young talent if they’d turned two picks into one top 3 selection.

Different circumstances I know. If we hit we’re laughing. But they have to hit.

 

[Blue and Silver]

AFL addicted to adding to the first round to solve whatever issue.

(Also have to make sure draft night 1 has enough content)

 

[Bletch]

Problem: The draft is too compromised.
Fix: Compromise it further by adding 5 picks.

Genius.

 

[LKJHMNBV]

The new rules look ok as long as there are no top FS/Academy prospects tied to bottom clubs. This year it’s a complete mess because there’s two, with at least one linked to a bottom team. Bizarrely this provides us with an incentive to not match a bid.

Assuming we finish in the bottom 5 there are 3 options:

1. Trade for pick 1. I haven’t seen any draft write ups that suggest there’s a JHF/HReid level standout for pick one this year. Setting aside Walker & Cochrane it looks like there are multiple contenders for top pick and that moving down a couple of spots from pick 1 might not be such an issue for whoever gets the spoon. We’d have to pay overs (might be a lot) but could then bid on Cochrane at 1, pushing a Walker bid out to pick 3 at the earliest and we also get the end of first round bonus pick. Our trading partner also gets a bonus pick.
2. Match the bid whenever it comes, trading down to another club with multiple firsts if there are any or push a pick into 2027 (same process as last draft just with less potential trading partners).
3. Pass on Walker when they bid. Someone would then bid on Cochrane (or we do that ourselves) to get the bonus pick. While this might not be a realistic option given how long the clubs been linked to him so publicly, is Walker that much better than the other top prospects that you’d take him over one of the others plus a free player in the 20-25 range? If you take the emotion out of it, I suspect this would be better than option 2 in the long run.

 

[Bletch]

We really don't want to finish outside the bottom 5 now. If, for instance, we finish 13th. We want to trade with Richmond to get pick 1. They'd then lose access to the new free pick. So our deal would have to take that into account (i.e. add in the equivalent of an extra pick 19).

 

[Graffy4242]

We really don't want to finish outside the bottom 5 now. If, for instance, we finish 13th. We want to trade with Richmond to get pick 1. They'd then lose access to the new free pick. So our deal would have to take that into account (i.e. add in the equivalent of an extra pick 19).

Not sure if that's a choice TBH

 

[Bletch]

Not sure if that's a choice TBH

Conspiracy theory... maybe it has been a choice all year! Ok boys, just make the second half look a bit like we're trying.

 

[josephone]

It's going to be very Carlton when we win the last four games on the trot to finish 13th.

 

[Blue and Silver]

AFL addicted to adding to the first round to solve whatever issue.

(Also have to make sure draft night 1 has enough content)

At some point, I think it makes more sense to move to a bidding system for the whole draft.

Ladder position determines amount of points each club is assigned (same amount you would get under the current index)

Each pick is then bid on at draft night.

So, if you really want pick 1 and finished 12th you can bid more than any other team is willing to match (say 4,000 points, rather than the 3,000 it currently is).

Teams trade points rather than picks. AFL can provide assistance in the form of extra points. Draft night trading will become about importing points from future drafts.

It's not perfect, but it gives clubs a lot more flexibility and stops the constant pick shuffling of bid matching.

 

[chickendippas]

I think thats the play so long as the bonus pick is tied to the pick, not the club.

I think even if not, clubs will be keen to trade into the top end of the draft as this is the last uncompromised draft before Tassie comes in.

As long as we get equal value points-wise, the benefit for us is splitting 1 pick into 2 and taking the small deficit next year instead where we still have 2 firsts. Nobody is going to do us a favour and bid on Cochrane 1st when they know we get a free pick out of it. At least this way we might get lucky and attract a bid on Cochrane at 1 rather than Cody.

As an example, a bid on Cody at 2 would cost us 2,232 points with a 10% discount. Thats the equivalent of matching with Pick 11 and Pick 14, which is a reasonable return for Pick 4 in most years.

Means we go into this draft with Cody, Pick 17/18 (Sydney) and 2 x 2nd rounders (North/Gold Coast). We still maintain our draft hand next year, albeit with a small deficit.

 

[Poorman53]

I think even if not, clubs will be keen to trade into the top end of the draft as this is the last uncompromised draft before Tassie comes in.

As long as we get equal value points-wise, the benefit for us is splitting 1 pick into 2 and taking the small deficit next year instead where we still have 2 firsts. Nobody is going to do us a favour and bid on Cochrane 1st when they know we get a free pick out of it. At least this way we might get lucky and attract a bid on Cochrane at 1 rather than Cody.

As an example, a bid on Cody at 2 would cost us 2,232 points with a 10% discount. Thats the equivalent of matching with Pick 11 and Pick 14, which is a reasonable return for Pick 4 in most years.

Means we go into this draft with Cody, Pick 17/18 (Sydney) and 2 x 2nd rounders (North/Gold Coast). We still maintain our draft hand next year, albeit with a small deficit.

I'd be very disappointed if we went down this path.

Hope the club doesn't swim between the flags on this one and brings at least one of our 27' picks forward. I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at pick 1 this year. I reckon it can only be done though if we finish bottom 5 though. The AFL love creating more problems.

If we get pick 1 we can bid on Cochrane, that gives the other bottom 5 clubs their extra compo pick. Essendon have a gun FS next year, bit of a wink wink not to bid on Walker. A bid could then come at 4 or 5 which is obviously a lot less points required than at pick 1.

Going hard for Pick 1 works on so many levels.

 

[josephone]

OK here is the plan. It's a slow work day and I've fixed it. The club can thank me later.

Assuming we finish 15th, Swans lose the GF. North finish 14th, Suns lose in the semi final. So we have picks 4, 17, 23, 31.

We trade with Richmond for pick 1, give up pick 4, 17 and maybe a later round pick.

We bid on Cochrane, then take best available non-Cody player at 2.

We trade pick 23 and Sydney's 2027 first rounder for pick 12.

Cody is bid on at 3 or 4, which we match with 12 and 31 (slight deficit).

Night one finishes, we then start night 2 with the first pick again.

So we leave the draft with pick 2, Cody Walker, pick 19 and our own 3rd rounder if required.

It's all complete fantasy, of course, but there's worse ways to spend half an hour.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I'd be very disappointed if we went down this path.

Hope the club doesn't swim between the flags on this one and brings at least one of our 27' picks forward. I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at pick 1 this year. I reckon it can only be done though if we finish bottom 5 though. The AFL love creating more problems.

If we get pick 1 we can bid on Cochrane, that gives the other bottom 5 clubs their extra compo pick. Essendon have a gun FS next year, bit of a wink wink not to bid on Walker. A bid could then come at 4 or 5 which is obviously a lot less points required than at pick 1.

Going hard for Pick 1 works on so many levels.

Only way we're getting Pick 1 in a trade is if we start with Pick 2.

If we assume Walker and Cochrane are genuine Pick 1 candidates, then the club with Pick 1 is already looking at getting the third best prospect in the draft. If we offer them Pick 4 or 5, they're getting the 6th or 7th best prospect, and that's a pretty steep drop in most drafts.

The suggestion of a handshake deal not to draft the player they want at 1(3) only works if we can give them the next live pick so they can be sure nobody else is going to nab their guy.

I think trading down is the more likely scenario, as suggested by chickendippas. Melbourne look the most likely candidate on that front, and I think it'll appeal to them. Their current top 4 position is likely unsustainable and they're far more likely to finish in the 8-12 range as their youngsters fade later in the year. They also have GC's first round which I think probably ends up in the mid teens. Call it 10 and 14 or thereabouts.

Picks 10 and 14 for
Pick 3 (will end up as 5 post bid-matching) and a freebie at the end of the first round (call it ~24) for having that early pick slide due to the bid(s).

10 and 14 covers a bid at Pick 2, or leaves us with a 400pt deficit to carry into 2027 if we have to match a bid at Pick 1. Assume we're shit again next year and that's probably moving our first rounder back 1 or 2 positions only. If we finish last in 2026 we don't move back at all!

Picks 5 and 24 landing in Melbourne's lap are valued slightly higher than 10 and 14, and given they're moving into the top 5 I think that scale should top slightly the other way, so maybe we can get something extra back from them too. They don't have a second rounder as yet, not sure we care overly much for a third rounder, though who knows, maybe this is the last year they'll be worth using for a while. Could try for a future second knowing it'll be sliding back into the 40s or even 50s. Could also try for a player. - they've got some smalls not getting games who might slot in for us (Matthews and Laurie), or tall forward Jefferson who was an early pick but hasn't yet cracked the seniors in a major way.

 

[chickendippas]

I'd be very disappointed if we went down this path.

Hope the club doesn't swim between the flags on this one and brings at least one of our 27' picks forward. I'd be throwing the kitchen sink at pick 1 this year. I reckon it can only be done though if we finish bottom 5 though. The AFL love creating more problems.

If we get pick 1 we can bid on Cochrane, that gives the other bottom 5 clubs their extra compo pick. Essendon have a gun FS next year, bit of a wink wink not to bid on Walker. A bid could then come at 4 or 5 which is obviously a lot less points required than at pick 1.

Going hard for Pick 1 works on so many levels.

No disagreement from me - getting our hands on Pick 1 would be a terrific outcome and we should be aggressive.

Just looking at different ways to minimise the impact from the changes which I have no doubt the club are also working through.