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

[Donflicted]

Before Dons win a final.

so year 4800

 

[Juddernaut08]

so year 4800

ahahaha

 

[Dramoth]

Of course they will, which shows the rules are broken when they're meant to be about ensuring that clubs pay a fair price.

I'm staggered by how stupid they are.

Strangely, I'm not. They've ****ed the VFL up royally. Instead of making a proper second teir competition for the Northern clubs, they've lumped them all into the VFL and created the situation where the Bullants get deregistered as a football club because it's "uneconomical" to keep them afloat. While bringing in Tasmania... which they will spend millions on getting them up and running as a competatitve AFL and VFL side. What a ****ing joke.

 

[Opium]

They could bid on walker at pick 1 and then just select cochrane with the pick after

No point for Port to do that. They won't get any extra picks.

 

[Bletch]

No point for Port to do that. They won't get any extra picks.

Yes they would - assuming no-one else bids for Cochrane in between.

 

[Coona Blues]

Yeah, the DVI is now completely unfit for purpose.
If the AFL want to keep it as 2 picks to match, they should completely scrap the points, and make it a pick within however many.
ie a pick within 5 or a pick within 10 and a pick within 20 to match.

DVI calculated under completely different rules doesn't work anymore.

They have the “perfect” system with the girls. Pick within 10 spots of the bid. Fathers only have to have played one game for daughter to be eligible. Similar for Academy. STRANGELY Gold Coast received a monster academy haul last draft, including our Sunny Lappin. They did part with some excellent mature players (2 to us) to facilitate.

Given all of the bonus/compo picks accumulated in most drafts, I don’t think we need loading for finals teams, always some end of first/start of second additions.

The DVI is not fit for purpose. Yes there is the romance of father/son, but even for someone with as much exposed form as Cody, a top 5 pick and another first rounder is too much, particularly if forced to add an excess from next years draft. The ado made about offers for proven stars of the game highlights the ridiculous nature. Plenty of kids have not lived up to reputation or expectation.

A fair price is essential. The romance is a positive feature of our game as are the academies (with a few tweaks) No issue with paying a top 5 pick, but should be it. (There should be little to no scope of trading “natural” pick to mitigate price or get ahead of a bid)

Edit: A system that makes teams seriously consider tanking or “hiding” players is detrimental to the game.

 

[Stamos]

They have the “perfect” system with the girls. Pick within 10 spots of the bid. Fathers only have to have played one game for daughter to be eligible. Similar for Academy. STRANGELY Gold Coast received a monster academy haul last draft, including our Sunny Lappin. They did part with some excellent mature players (2 to us) to facilitate.

Given all of the bonus/compo picks accumulated in most drafts, I don’t think we need loading for finals teams, always some end of first/start of second additions.

The DVI is not fit for purpose. Yes there is the romance of father/son, but even for someone with as much exposed form as Cody, a top 5 pick and another first rounder is too much, particularly if forced to add an excess from next years draft. The ado made about offers for proven stars of the game highlights the ridiculous nature. Plenty of kids have not lived up to reputation or expectation.

A fair price is essential. The romance is a positive feature of our game as are the academies (with a few tweaks) No issue with paying a top 5 pick, but should be it. (There should be little to no scope of trading “natural” pick to mitigate price or get ahead of a bid)

Edit: A system that makes teams seriously consider tanking or “hiding” players is detrimental to the game.

Really, what we had last year was close to perfect (FA compo and the West Coast - Brisbane assistance pick aside).
It may have required a tweak to the DVI after a few years, but otherwise provided everything want for drafting and for trading.

 

[SLCv2]

Really, what we had last year was close to perfect (FA compo and the West Coast - Brisbane assistance pick aside).
It may have required a tweak to the DVI after a few years, but otherwise provided everything want for drafting and for trading.

Harry was the best example of it working perfectly. How the head honchos could see that and think it needed far stricter rules, is at best dubious

 

[DangerousD]

Feel free to correct me here. But why is paying 12, 14, 31 and Owies for Smith not a big deal, but paying 2700 points at the very most, for Walker the end of world?

12, 14 and 31 was worth 3035 points and that wasn’t even for pick 1, it was for pick 3.

We would be getting Walker for 335 points less at a minimum.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

Harry was the best example of it working perfectly. How the head honchos could see that and think it needed far stricter rules, is at best dubious

True.

The problem was how the suns got their academy kids. Yes they gave up Ainsworth, Flanders, etc. which was significant but then all of those trades for picks in the 30s which gave them bonus points was what the AFL are trying to stop.

But it's gone from paying a significant but fair price to now paying an almost unpayable price.

 

[Stamos]

Feel free to correct me here. But why is paying 12, 14, 31 and Owies for Smith not a big deal, but paying 2700 points at the very most, for Walker the end of world?

12, 14 and 31 was worth 3035 points and that wasn’t even for pick 1, it was for pick 3.

We would be getting Walker for 335 points less at a minimum.

That’s not quite what the deal for Jagga was (12+14+73+Owies for 3+63+68).

And the very most is now 3600 points for Cody, not 2700.

 

[Stamos]

True.

The problem was how the suns got their academy kids. Yes they gave up Ainsworth, Flanders, etc. which was significant but then all of those trades for picks in the 30s which gave them bonus points was what the AFL are trying to stop.

But it's gone from paying a significant but fair price to now paying an almost unpayable price.

The “problem” could easily be resolved with only one of the changes that they’ve brought in, either 2 pick matching, or a limit of live picks to match list spots.

Having both of those, compounding with changes to the discount, penalties, incentivising bidding, bonus picks and a reduced deficit by two thirds brought in with immediate effect is diabolical.

 

[Bluebag13]

True.

The problem was how the suns got their academy kids. Yes they gave up Ainsworth, Flanders, etc. which was significant but then all of those trades for picks in the 30s which gave them bonus points was what the AFL are trying to stop.

But it's gone from paying a significant but fair price to now paying an almost unpayable price.

They also have only a 3rd or4th rounder this year that’s it.
They played up a fair bit to get in trac and their draftees

 

[DangerousD]

That’s not quite what the deal for Jagga was (12+14+73+Owies for 3+63+68).

And the very most is now 3600 points for Cody, not 2700.

You can’t ignore the 2nd round pick we gave to Hawthorn in order to get their 1st round pick

 

[Stamos]

You can’t ignore the 2nd round pick that we gave to Hawthorn to get their 1st round pick

Yeah, we were happy to give up F1+F2 from a year we expected to be better for 14 in what we projected to be a better draft, aside from the trade to get Jagga.

Using the points from future picks in calculations is a bit flawed though, because future picks have lower trade values.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

They also have only a 3rd or4th rounder this year that’s it.
They played up a fair bit to get in trac and their draftees

Yeah I am agreeing with you. They definitely paid a significant price.

It's just those deals to swap into the 2nd round which gave them bonus points is what the AFL is eliminating.

We ended up trading picks 13 and 15 for 21, 27 and 30 to bump up the points.

But ultimately I think anyone would agree that 13+15 for Harry Dean is pretty fair deal.

I think everyone agrees that the AFL has gone way too far now and will walk it back as soon as GC have another bounty of first rounders.

 

[DangerousD]

Yeah, we were happy to give up F1+F2 from a year we expected to be better for 14 in what we projected to be a better draft, aside from the trade to get Jagga.

Using the points from future picks in calculations is a bit flawed though, because future picks have lower trade values.

I think it was a little excessive but more my point being, we love Smith, he looks a ripper, not many are still complaining we gave up two first round picks (and a F2) to get that deal done.

At the end of the day, I think we will pay less than 2700 for Walker and it will still be good business

It feels like, it’s only a big deal because it’s our turn to cash in and we miss out,

 

[Stamos]

Yeah I am agreeing with you. They definitely paid a significant price.

It's just those deals to swap into the 2nd round which gave them bonus points is what the AFL is eliminating.

We ended up trading picks 13 and 15 for 21, 27 and 30 to bump up the points.

But ultimately I think anyone would agree that 13+15 for Harry Dean is pretty fair deal.

I think everyone agrees that the AFL has gone way too far now and will walk it back as soon as GC have another bounty of first rounders.

They were picks 9+11.
Sure they blew back after clubs matched bids, including us matching for Dean when those picks had slid back one spot to 10 and 12, but they selected the 9th and 11th available players.

The thing with the trades for later picks with extra points is, somebody else is benefiting from being able to get up the draft board. In our trades we benefited, but so did Essendon and North.

Trading is good.
It is going to be so much more clogged up now. I really don’t think the AFL have thought it through.

 

[ferrisb]

I really don’t think the AFL have thought it through.

If I had a dollar...

 

[marcmurphy3]

I think it was a little excessive but more my point being, we love Smith, he looks a ripper, not many are still complaining we gave up two first round picks (and a F2) to get that deal done.

At the end of the day, I think we will pay less than 2700 for Walker and it will still be good business

It feels like, it’s only a big deal because it’s our turn to cash in and we miss out,

If we start trade period short on points we are going to have to pay way over 2700 total points to get 2700 worth of points with our first 2 picks.

I dont think anyone has an issue paying 2700 points for walker, but being able to do that with as many picks as you like vs only 2 (as per the new system), isnt the same thing.

 

[teddy-hopkins]

They were picks 9+11.
Sure they blew back after clubs matched bids, including us matching for Dean when those picks had slid back one spot to 10 and 12, but they selected the 9th and 11th available players.

The thing with the trades for later picks with extra points is, somebody else is benefiting from being able to get up the draft board. In our trades we benefited, but so did Essendon and North.

Trading is good.
It is going to be so much more clogged up now. I really don’t think the AFL have thought it through.

Agreed. 9+11 before the draft started.

I guarantee the rules will be loosened the next time GC are due to take 5 kids in the first round. Cast iron guarantee on that one.

 

[Jimmae]

Feel free to correct me here. But why is paying 12, 14, 31 and Owies for Smith not a big deal, but paying 2700 points at the very most, for Walker the end of world?

12, 14 and 31 was worth 3035 points and that wasn’t even for pick 1, it was for pick 3.

We would be getting Walker for 335 points less at a minimum.

That’s not quite what the deal for Jagga was (12+14+73+Owies for 3+63+68).

And the very most is now 3600 points for Cody, not 2700.

Important to note that the two people responsible for this are no longer employed by the Carlton football club.

Between that and the limited manoeuvring before and in the aftermath of the Dean bid, I think that sealed their fate.

We're lucky the mid-round picks have panned out ok recently, because everything we've done with our top 30 draft hand in the last 6 drafts has been stooped in mediocrity.

 

[RPCB]

Agreed. 9+11 before the draft started.

I guarantee the rules will be loosened the next time GC are due to take 5 kids in the first round. Cast iron guarantee on that one.

Let’s hope that happens in 2028 and 2029 when we have our next father/sons we will probably want to draft.

 

[Sydney Blue]

Feel free to correct me here. But why is paying 12, 14, 31 and Owies for Smith not a big deal, but paying 2700 points at the very most, for Walker the end of world?

12, 14 and 31 was worth 3035 points and that wasn’t even for pick 1, it was for pick 3.

We would be getting Walker for 335 points less at a minimum.

I think the main concern for Walker is the potential cost of trading up to limit the deficit if we make top 10.

If we win a final, end up say 7th, Swans premiers, picks 12 and 18 perhaps 14 and 20 after free agency compensation picks, means we have only 1781 points and 1219 points short of the 3000 points we would need for Walker bid at 1 (encouraged by the crazy 2nd rounders).

That scenario has us needing to substantially trade up pick 14 or 18 when clubs have us over a barrel knowing we can only get Walker if we limit the deficit to 412 points. That’s effectively under duress to upgrade pick 20 to get pick 6 (or better) to pair with our pick 14, or upgrade pick 14 to get pick 4 (or better) to pair with pick 20. In both cases there’s also a push back of next year’s first round pick by the deficit remaining. (Someone please correct me if my use of DVI is flawed)

We probably don’t have to deal with this scenario, but the thought that any draftee is worth more than 3 first round picks shows the overreaction of the AFL. Carlton and/or Port may be the only teams that ever pay the equivalent of 3 or 4 first round picks to draft a F/S or Academy player, when others achieve similar for 3 or 4 second rounders.

That’s why I’ll be conflicted if we put together a strong season now. Hope this explains the uncomfortable scenarios that might unfold, but not something we can do much about. Any collaboration with Cody would end up labelled draft tampering with draft penalties applied. Nor can you ask players or coaches to underperform. Just a crazy AFL system, that won’t last long.

 

[Stamos]

It feels like, it’s only a big deal because it’s our turn to cash in and we miss out,

I don’t agree at all.
That happened to us last year, we paid the most that anyone has paid for Dean and nobody had a problem with it. It was fair and the system worked.

That’s completely different to the absurd rule changes for this year, which have been made without any consideration for what they actually mean.