2015 Draft Discussion

[BangyBangy]

Optimistically hoping for similar honourable losses for the remainder of the season.

 

[BuntonRules]

Schache takes another strong mark in front of goal. Leads superbly. Kicks his 6th. I want this kid bad.

It is 5 months before the draft & he has come out & told the world "I WANT TO GO TO BRISBANE" Give him the number 16 already.

 

[Big Lion]

It is 5 months before the draft & he has come out & told the world "I WANT TO GO TO BRISBANE" Give him the number 16 already.

Yes do that plus add Miranda Kerr and Jennifer Hawkins phone numbers in as well......we want him to be comfortable while he settles in.

 

[BangyBangy]

It is 5 months before the draft & he has come out & told the world "I WANT TO GO TO BRISBANE" Give him the number 16 already.

Call me cynical, but for mine this wasn't just a feel good story that happened to mention the Lions. I know there was a line in the story that said 'of course he'll be happy to go anywhere & wear whatever colours of the team that drafts him', but is this the first time a potential top 5 pick has been pre-emptive & indicated in the media where he wanted to go? I recall that Wingard told teams during interviews that he wanted to go to Port, but has it ever been taken to the media? Just curious.

 

[John_Proctor]

Unfortunately the new rules as I understand them state we can't carry over points like that - happy to be corrected though

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-...ed-for-fatherson-and-northern-academy-players

The example on here indicates sydney would have had to use 4 picks to match for heeney with the last pick sliding from 57 to 66.

So i was a bit lazy and said we'd carry over 160 points from the first bid but actually after the first bid we'd be given a pick worth 160 points (pick 59) and that pick and its points would presumably then be available to us in matching the second offer.

So someone bids pick 19 for keays and we have 20, we match with 2 and the spare points give us pick 59 (so pick 20 for pick 19 and 59 which sounds like a pretty sweet quirk of the system!! Made possible by the 20% discount in points value when matching a bid)

The second one would be effectively trading picks 38,56,59 for pick 20 (hipwood) and enough spare points for pick 66.

I'm happy to be corrected especially on that weird first scenario I've described above where we seemingly could get 19+66 for 20.

 

[John_Proctor]

^ think I might have answered my own question.

The heeney example has them shuffle down picks to make up the difference in a bid. In my example we get given a pick with spare points... Possibly not allowed.

That would get complicated!!

One thing that is interesting is that we could potentially trade picks to maximise our matching flexibility. Look alike we could trade pick 20 for picks 38 and 39 and have the same number of matching points... Would be a good trade for a team going in wih only a 2-3 live picks in the draft. A hawthorn type trade to make.

 

[SizeMatters]

I'll be highly surprised if we have carry over points to next year. Would have to get top 10 bids on both Hipwood and Keays, and a top 30 bid on Buzza/Chol/William which is extremely unlikely atm.

 

[pulpdriver]

^ think I might have answered my own question.

The heeney example has them shuffle down picks to make up the difference in a bid. In my example we get given a pick with spare points... Possibly not allowed.

That would get complicated!!

One thing that is interesting is that we could potentially trade picks to maximise our matching flexibility.

I can't be bothered doing the maths but it might make sense for us to trade pick 20 for picks 30 and 31.

Would still rather have the higher pick. There's still a chance other clubs opt to draft someone else with the picks ahead of your pick. There's a possibility someone else we rate is still there to take still allowing us to take that player and then the academy boys with later picks. Although it also depends how many of the Academy boys we plan to actually take. Once it gets outside the first round though matching bids seems pretty painless.

 

[John_Proctor]

^ agree

but to further clarify my point 38/39 are the lowest pick combo that matches the points of oick 20.

Could do 20 for 25/35 and be well ahead in points and still have a decent pick if the academy boys slide on draft night.

 

[WA Lion]

Yeah having live draft after the trade period makes it much easier to make informed trade decisions. Able to plan what you are prepared /need to pay for academy kids and can trade picks accordingly

^ think I might have answered my own question.

The heeney example has them shuffle down picks to make up the difference in a bid. In my example we get given a pick with spare points... Possibly not allowed.

That would get complicated!!

One thing that is interesting is that we could potentially trade picks to maximise our matching flexibility. Look alike we could trade pick 20 for picks 38 and 39 and have the same number of matching points... Would be a good trade for a team going in wih only a 2-3 live picks in the draft. A hawthorn type trade to make.

 

[Hollow Knight]

It is 5 months before the draft & he has come out & told the world "I WANT TO GO TO BRISBANE" Give him the number 16 already.

Well if the predictions about Leuenberger being somewhere else next year are correct, Schache will be able to get his hands on the #23 worn by his old man.

 

[BigCat2]

Just a general question: last year we had to first nominate players we wanted to select via the academy and f/s bidding early on, before the actual bidding process at the start of trade period. One thing we had to consider here was not nominating players who we didn't think would be picked up in the main draft instead slipping to the rookie draft (eg Hammelmann), and run the risk we would miss out on him, if a club had picked him up in the main draft.

This year with the live bidding, would these players have to be nominated in advance also?

 

[theteamtobeat]

Hopefully we finish last this season and get Dixon cheap. Screw over the Gold Coast.

 

[dlanod]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-...ed-for-fatherson-and-northern-academy-players

The example on here indicates sydney would have had to use 4 picks to match for heeney with the last pick sliding from 57 to 66.

So i was a bit lazy and said we'd carry over 160 points from the first bid but actually after the first bid we'd be given a pick worth 160 points (pick 59) and that pick and its points would presumably then be available to us in matching the second offer.

So someone bids pick 19 for keays and we have 20, we match with 20 and the spare points give us pick 59 (so pick 20 for pick 19 and 59 which sounds like a pretty sweet quirk of the system!! Made possible by the 20% discount in points value when matching a bid)

The second one would be effectively trading picks 38,56,59 for pick 20 (hipwood) and enough spare points for pick 66.

I'm happy to be corrected especially on that weird first scenario I've described above where we seemingly could get 19+66 for 20.

You look pretty good here other than a typo which confused me.

^ think I might have answered my own question.

The heeney example has them shuffle down picks to make up the difference in a bid. In my example we get given a pick with spare points... Possibly not allowed.

That would get complicated!!

One thing that is interesting is that we could potentially trade picks to maximise our matching flexibility. Look alike we could trade pick 20 for picks 38 and 39 and have the same number of matching points... Would be a good trade for a team going in wih only a 2-3 live picks in the draft. A hawthorn type trade to make.

You were right here.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

I've actually been making the wrong assumptions. In the Darcy Moore example 249 points go wandering off into the ether. I think that's pretty shit unless those points can be maintained to use on other academy selections, because otherwise a club can easily end up overpaying - in that case Collingwood would've missed out on pick 52, which could have been used on other prospects.

Just a general question: last year we had to first nominate players we wanted to select via the academy and f/s bidding early on, before the actual bidding process at the start of trade period. One thing we had to consider here was not nominating players who we didn't think would be picked up in the main draft instead slipping to the rookie draft (eg Hammelmann), and run the risk we would miss out on him, if a club had picked him up in the main draft.

This year with the live bidding, would these players have to be nominated in advance also?

The nominations are still the same AFAIK.

1. You nominate anyone you are interested in matching in the ND (Dawson and Andrews last year).
2. You nominate anyone you are interested in prelisting as a rookie if they make it through the ND and PSD (basically everyone else last year, of whom we took Hammelmann).
3. Trade period and draft go ahead as expected.

 

[BigCat2]

Thanks dlanod. Seems plenty for our recruiters to ponder this year. Potential academy selections:

B Keays - midfielder
E Hipwood - KPF/KPD
C Wagner - midfielder
N Dennis - ruck
R William - midfielder / flanker
W Buzza - KPF/ruck
M Chol - KPF/ruck
N Weller - midfielder / flanker

Perhaps 1 or 2 others also.

Now assuming we rate them all highly (likely not), we can't take them all even if we wanted. It risks us unbalancing our list, and limits spots for talent from other states.

History shows the majority of draftees come outside of Queensland - although this may slowly change thanks to the academy. History also shows that we won't pick up players who we don't think are good enough (Tickner, Uebergang, Conway as a rookie only).

 

[Cooties]

I just hope we can sneak Wylie Buzza onto the list... great name

 

[dlanod]

You were right here.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

I've actually been making the wrong assumptions. In the Darcy Moore example 249 points go wandering off into the ether. I think that's pretty shit unless those points can be maintained to use on other academy selections, because otherwise a club can easily end up overpaying - in that case Collingwood would've missed out on pick 52, which could have been used on other prospects.

After a closer look I think that document is contradictory.

In order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club’s next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required.

Collingwood's pick 6 should drop to 52 to satisfy that. Their comment that the "remaining 249 pts are not used by Collingwood" may refer to Collingwood not using a pick above 48, in which case they really should make it clear rather than leave it ambiguous that points may be disappearing into the ether, i.e. "the remaining 249 points give Collingwood pick 52, with which they then pass".

 

[SizeMatters]

Over on the drafting boards some of the most prominent draft watchers are saying Schache could be the best forward going around once he is in his prime. Not just in the top 10 but the best. When you factor in Cameron, Daniher and Boyd he must be pretty darn good.

I'm expecting a late season surge of 3-4 games won and we end up with pick 3 and miss out on both Weitering and Schache.

 

[BigCat2]

dlanod, that "in order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club's next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required"...looking at the document should read "next available pick move forwards in the draft order to the value of the points", then followed by "if the points required are greater than the value of the next available pick, the remaining points are subtracted from the Nominating Club's next selection and so on, until all points are paid".

Example:
Melbourne bids pick 2 on Isaac Heeney (pick 2 = 2517 points, or 2013 points with 20% discount)
Sydney matches bid
Sydney's next available pick (18) moves forwards in the draft order to the value of the points. Sydney receives pick 2.
Sydney's other picks are moved back (37 to 88, 38 to 88, 57 to 64).

No?

The "249 points are not used by Collingwood" is indeed ambiguous. It is not clear whether the "excess" points are rewarded to the Nominating Club in the form of a later draft pick, or excess points are just lost.
If the former, it ensures clubs are fairly compensated (after 20% discount) for overpaying on bids
If the latter, their rationale may be that any excess points generated via the 20% discount are regarded as anomalies, and are therefore discarded.

I hope it's the former...as the 20% discount is to encourage clubs to continue to invest in academy and f/s prospects. If the benefit of the discount can be lost just through someone using a bid immediately before / very close to your next available selection, then the discount is not applied uniformily, and becomes counterproductive.

Is there someone at AFL we can ask about this...Callum Twomey?

 

[dlanod]

dlanod, that "in order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club's next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required"...looking at the document should read "next available pick move forwards in the draft order to the value of the points", then followed by "if the points required are greater than the value of the next available pick, the remaining points are subtracted from the Nominating Club's next selection and so on, until all points are paid".

Example:
Melbourne bids pick 2 on Isaac Heeney (pick 2 = 2517 points, or 2013 points with 20% discount)
Sydney matches bid
Sydney's next available pick (18) moves forwards in the draft order to the value of the points. Sydney receives pick 2.
Sydney's other picks are moved back (37 to 88, 38 to 88, 57 to 64).

No?

The "249 points are not used by Collingwood" is indeed ambiguous. It is not clear whether the "excess" points are rewarded to the Nominating Club in the form of a later draft pick, or excess points are just lost.
If the former, it ensures clubs are fairly compensated (after 20% discount) for overpaying on bids
If the latter, their rationale may be that any excess points generated via the 20% discount are regarded as anomalies, and are therefore discarded.

I hope it's the former...as the 20% discount is to encourage clubs to continue to invest in academy and f/s prospects. If the benefit of the discount can be lost just through someone using a bid immediately before / very close to your next available selection, then the discount is not applied uniformily, and becomes counterproductive.

Is there someone at AFL we can ask about this...Callum Twomey?

Reviewed it further and the process as described, the Billy Stretch and the Zaine Cordy examples all align in only downgrading a pick. The Darcy Moore example is the exception to the rule, so can either be read as "Collingwood wouldn't have used to the pick" or discarded as a **** up.

 

[BigCat2]

That's fine. Given we might get a pick in the teens for Aish (assuming we don't trade it away) and our second rounder being in the early 20's - and we have highly rated academy prospects Keays and Hipwood in that region, it'd be nice to know that we get to maintain the 20% discount regardless of bidding positions.

 

[jackess]

Champion data thinks we'll finish 17th.

 

[Cooties]

Champion data thinks we'll finish 17th. View attachment 147869

0.07% chance of making finals - well maybe the season isn't looking that bleak after all

 

[SizeMatters]

Suns will take Weitering if they get wooden spoon I would think. Thompson, May and Weitering as defenders is pretty hard to pass up. If Dixon goes elsewhere though it may be another matter. Lynch, Wright and Schache is also hard to pass on.

Day won't be there next year IMO, and if we don't get Dixon I could see us having a close look but I don't rate him that highly. Athlete over footballer absolutely clueless.

 

[Sherrinator]

Hopefully we finish last this season and get Dixon cheap. Screw over the Gold Coast.

That plan is so evil and vindictive, it might just work.

We need to start losing by more though.