2015 Draft Discussion

[FRANK STALLONE]

I usually tend to not look too hard into hypotheticals, and this possibly belongs in the trade thread, but.....
Assuming we are really into Schache, and if we indeed do go onto winning several games and ending up with pick 4 or 5.... And Carlton have pick 1. Perhaps a Dom Tyson like trade, aish and pick 4 or 5 for pick 1. Would obviously also maybe hinder an offer for Dixon, but aside from dixon do people view this as a fair trade? Kind of sounds overs from us, but remember the way aish is performing, he is essentially only a late first round value at present.

 

[pulpdriver]

I usually tend to not look too hard into hypotheticals, and this possibly belongs in the trade thread, but.....
Assuming we are really into Schache, and if we indeed do go onto winning several games and ending up with pick 4 or 5.... And Carlton have pick 1. Perhaps a Dom Tyson like trade, aish and pick 4 or 5 for pick 1. Would obviously also maybe hinder an offer for Dixon, but aside from dixon do people view this as a fair trade? Kind of sounds overs from us, but remember the way aish is performing, he is essentially only a late first round value at present.

I want Schache at the Lions but that's giving up too much IMO, he'll take a few years to be ready and we need a ready made KF ASAP. I'd be astonished if we couldn't get more value with a separate Aish trade and pick 4/5. I don't think Aish's value is anywhere near steak knives even if he's had an unimpressive second year. Dixon priority one and best available at our pick, if it's Schache, awesome but I think it's an immediate need and even if Schache ends up better than Dixon in the long run I'd take Dixon and the chance to get someone else in the top 5.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Too many hypotheticals TBH. i really don't see us winning that many games for the rest of thesseason. I think Beams is likely to be put on ice which will impact our chances of winning. Green is out for the year as well.

 

[cotter101]

14. Collingwood - Knightmare. He rates Hipwood very highly

I like Knightmare's work, and if he currently isn't scouting, he'd do well at it. But when it comes to some of the Academy players, he tends to have a bit of an agenda. It looks as if he pumps them up so much so the rest of the footy world thinks we're getting bargains from the academy left, right and centre.

 

[Caiphus]

It's not the end of the world if we have to let players slip through to other clubs. It's an advantage to the whole league to have a better balance of talent and increase the ratio of non-local players on footy state club lists... We head closer to true equalisation when that happens.

Sure I'll probably engage in a bit of schadenfreude if a big club drafts them, develops them and they come home for cheap but in the bigger picture the more local kids making success and the more there is even representation in the league the less Melbourne-centric the game becomes. When there is less need to be supported by the leagues equalization measures then we can stop worrying about what loud w***ers try to take away from us. It's a pipe dream but it should be the ultimate goal.

 

[WA Lion]

I like Knightmare's work, and if he currently isn't scouting, he'd do well at it. But when it comes to some of the Academy players, he tends to have a bit of an agenda. It looks as if he pumps them up so much so the rest of the footy world thinks we're getting bargains from the academy left, right and centre.

One thing is for certain - Hipwood is very much dividing opinion.

Some reasonably well informed people have him late 20's, others at the edge of the top 10!

Keays on the other hand seems locked in somewhere from 12-18

 

[askdotcom]

lets hope carlton and goldcoast also win most of their games so we end up last with 6 wins or something.

 

[xplo]

For those counting their chickens re getting both Hipwood & Keays .... beware.

In the Big Footy Phantom Draft Trial, Hipwood was just selected at Pick 14.

Using that selection as an example, we would need to have traded in picks (multiple - qty/value dependent on how low the next Academy Nomination falls - which you would expect to be Keays) in order to avoid missing participation in the 2016 Bidding Process (if the next selection is matched)...... i.e. no claim to Allison & others as Academy Nominations next year.

Without additional picks coming in, the next selection that we could match and avoid the 2016 issue would be 4th Round and beyond. And in this Mock scenario that won't be Keays.

(Note: 2nd & 3rd Rnd picks would be surrendered to move to 14 to take Hipwood, with two picks made available at the end of this Draft).

Come the real thing, it will be very difficult for Brisbane to take both Hipwood & Keays (without some magic applied in the Trade period), especially if we Trade in the likes of Dixon (and others), as has been mentioned.

Crusha, if we came to the crunch, and had to choose between Keays and Hipwood, you think they'd definitely go for Keays? (Assuming they could get Wagner and Allison to console themselves).

 

[dlanod]

For those counting their chickens re getting both Hipwood & Keays .... beware.

In the Big Footy Phantom Draft Trial, Hipwood was just selected at Pick 14.

Using that selection as an example, we would need to have traded in picks (multiple - qty/value dependent on how low the next Academy Nomination falls - which you would expect to be Keays) in order to avoid missing participation in the 2016 Bidding Process (if the next selection is matched)...... i.e. no claim to Allison & others as Academy Nominations next year.

Without additional picks coming in, the next selection that we could match and avoid the 2016 issue would be 4th Round and beyond. And in this Mock scenario that won't be Keays.

(Note: 2nd & 3rd Rnd picks would be surrendered to move to 14 to take Hipwood, with two picks made available at the end of this Draft).

Come the real thing, it will be very difficult for Brisbane to take both Hipwood & Keays (without some magic applied in the Trade period), especially if we Trade in the likes of Dixon (and others), as has been mentioned.

Not the case - prior to the 2016 trade period we have to pay off any debt from 2015. If we still have point debts after that (incredibly unlikely as we'd have to have a debt of thousands to still be in debt after giving up all our picks) then we're excluded from the 2016 bidding process. If our draft picks are sufficient to cover the 2015 debts and leave us with a positive set of picks we can take Allison and whoever we want and go into debt again.

4. Is there a 'maximum points debt' a club can carry from year to year? Could a club permanently live in deficit points?
There's no maximum deficit, and clubs can go into deficit as much as they want. They have to pay back the points debt the next year. That theoretically could mean they lose all of their picks the next year and have them all pushed to the end of the draft. If they still haven't paid all of their points back then, and remain owing points, they will not be allowed to participate in the next draft's bidding system. That means they couldn't place a bid, and couldn't match a bid if they had a father-son or academy player tied to their club.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-10/10-questions-on-the-fatherson-and-academy-bidding-system

If a Nominating Club does not have enough points to secure a F/S or Academy selection in a given draft, the points required will carry over to the Club’s first selection the following year.
o In this case, points will be deducted prior to the trade period to ensure the Nominating Club pays it points debt, rather than trades picks away.
o Clubs will not be eligible to participate in the bidding system if they still owe points going into the next draft.

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

 

[xplo]

Not the case - prior to the 2016 trade period we have to pay off any debt from 2015. If we still have point debts after that (incredibly unlikely as we'd have to have a debt of thousands to still be in debt after giving up all our picks) then we're excluded from the 2016 bidding process. If our draft picks are sufficient to cover the 2015 debts and leave us with a positive set of picks we can take Allison and whoever we want and go into debt again.



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-10/10-questions-on-the-fatherson-and-academy-bidding-system



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

Nice one dlanod. So, in theory we could take anyone - it's just down to whether we want to pay the price?

 

[dlanod]

Nice one dlanod. So, in theory we could take anyone - it's just down to whether we want to pay the price?

Sydney could hypothetically get themselves into a situation where they're omitted from bidding next season if they finish very high both seasons and Mills and Dunkley both get nominated in the top five picks. We'd probably need Keays and Hipwood to be nominated in the top five this year and then finish in the top four next year to get omitted from bidding (can't be arsed figuring out the exact figures).

 

[WA Lion]

For those counting their chickens re getting both Hipwood & Keays .... beware.

In the Big Footy Phantom Draft Trial, Hipwood was just selected at Pick 14.

Using that selection as an example, we would need to have traded in picks (multiple - qty/value dependent on how low the next Academy Nomination falls - which you would expect to be Keays) in order to avoid missing participation in the 2016 Bidding Process (if the next selection is matched)...... i.e. no claim to Allison & others as Academy Nominations next year.

Without additional picks coming in, the next selection that we could match and avoid the 2016 issue would be 4th Round and beyond. And in this Mock scenario that won't be Keays.

(Note: 2nd & 3rd Rnd picks would be surrendered to move to 14 to take Hipwood, with two picks made available at the end of this Draft).

Come the real thing, it will be very difficult for Brisbane to take both Hipwood & Keays (without some magic applied in the Trade period), especially if we Trade in the likes of Dixon (and others), as has been mentioned.

Have they got their numbers right with the phantom draft or have I overlooked something here?

If a club bids with pick 14 (1161 Points) for Hipwood then once you apply the 20% discount to first round picks we need only 929 to match that bid. As it stands our 2nd pick is pick 19 which is worth 948. So we essentially match that bid with our next pick as we would have under the old system.

Lets then assume worst case scenario, someone bids for Keays with the next pick (15). Pick 15 is worth 1112 points, minus the 20% first round discount again it means we need 889 to match the bid. Our 2rd round pick as it stands (pick 37) is worth 483 points. Our 4th round pick (currently pick 55)is worth 207 points. Combine those and we have 690 points. That leaves us only 199 points in deficit which would at the very worst drop us about 2 places in the 1st round in next years draft.

There is also the spare 19 points from the Hipwood bid which we may or may not be able to put towards Keays (bit hazy on that one) not to mention it wouldn't take too much to get a 4th round pick from the Aish trade as a sweetener. The additional points from that 4th rounder would ensure we don't have a deficit.

 

[cotter101]

Crusha, if we came to the crunch, and had to choose between Keays and Hipwood, you think they'd definitely go for Keays? (Assuming they could get Wagner and Allison to console themselves).

For what it's worth, I'd quit my job if we opted for Hipwood over Keays.

 

[xplo]

For what it's worth, I'd quit my job if we opted for Hipwood over Keays.

Haha, fair call, cotter.

I've certainly seen far to little of either to make any valuable call. Just working on the difficulty in finding a 'talented forward to a talented mid'.

 

[dlanod]

Have they got their numbers right with the phantom draft or have I overlooked something here?

If a club bids with pick 14 (1161 Points) for Hipwood then once you apply the 20% discount to first round picks we need only 929 to match that bid. As it stands our 2nd pick is pick 19 which is worth 948. So we essentially match that bid with our next pick as we would have under the old system.

Lets then assume worst case scenario, someone bids for Keays with the next pick (15). Pick 15 is worth 1112 points, minus the 20% first round discount again it means we need 889 to match the bid. Our 2rd round pick as it stands (pick 37) is worth 483 points. Our 4th round pick (currently pick 55)is worth 207 points. Combine those and we have 690 points. That leaves us only 199 points in deficit which would at the very worst drop us about 2 places in the 1st round in next years draft.

There is also the spare 19 points from the Hipwood bid which we may or may not be able to put towards Keays (bit hazy on that one) not to mention it wouldn't take too much to get a 4th round pick from the Aish trade as a sweetener. The additional points from that 4th rounder would ensure we don't have a deficit.

I think he misread the bidding info as saying that taking any deficit into the next year's offseason (before draft picks are allocated), even the 199 points, means no taking part in bidding that year, rather than it meaning that we'd have to be taking a deficit into the actual draft to be excluded from bidding (after draft picks are allocated). I can see why though, as the PDF wording did make me do a double take initially.

 

[cotter101]

Haha, fair call, cotter.

I've certainly seen far to little of either to make any valuable call. Just working on the difficulty in finding a 'talented forward to a talented mid'.

I think Hipwood has a long, long way to go. There's lots to like but there's things that he needs to continue to improve. I see him as someone you'd have to wait for what feels like an incredibly long time before he started performing well consistently, the type you'd need to stick with a little longer than usual before making a call on him. He'll show glimpses, and I hope he would have a 'Andrews' like impact in his first year, but when it comes to Hipwood, I preach patience.

Whereas when I look at Keays, I see someone who'll step straight in, perform well. I see someone who'll stop at nothing to achieve his goal and I see leadership. His on a different level to Hipwood at the moment in my opinion.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think he misread the bidding info as saying that taking any deficit into the next year's offseason (before draft picks are allocated), even the 199 points, means no taking part in bidding that year, rather than it meaning that we'd have to be taking a deficit into the actual draft to be excluded from bidding (after draft picks are allocated). I can see why though, as the PDF wording did make me do a double take initially.

So it all looks pretty good then?

I haven't taken the time to really explore the system and have been relying on the analysis of others.

 

[BlackGun1]

I think Hipwood has a long, long way to go. There's lots to like but there's things that he needs to continue to improve. I see him as someone you'd have to wait for what feels like an incredibly long time before he started performing well consistently, the type you'd need to stick with a little longer than usual before making a call on him. He'll show glimpses, and I hope he would have a 'Andrews' like impact in his first year, but when it comes to Hipwood, I preach patience.

Whereas when I look at Keays, I see someone who'll step straight in, perform well. I see someone who'll stop at nothing to achieve his goal and I see leadership. His on a different level to Hipwood at the moment in my opinion.

I tend to agree there. What Keays might lack in terms of tangible assets (lack of speed, not massive size) that may hold him back somewhat from having a high ceiling, his temperament and leadership is next to none and once the clubs really get into the interviews I think that will really come to the fore. Hipwood is alot less safe and a lot more unknown but I feel like if the gamble were to pay off he could be something special. If the club cant have both its going to be a really, really hard decision.

 

[KissKiss]

For those counting their chickens re getting both Hipwood & Keays .... beware.

In the Big Footy Phantom Draft Trial, Hipwood was just selected at Pick 14.

Using that selection as an example, we would need to have traded in picks (multiple - qty/value dependent on how low the next Academy Nomination falls - which you would expect to be Keays) in order to avoid missing participation in the 2016 Bidding Process (if the next selection is matched)...... i.e. no claim to Allison & others as Academy Nominations next year.

Without additional picks coming in, the next selection that we could match and avoid the 2016 issue would be 4th Round and beyond. And in this Mock scenario that won't be Keays.

(Note: 2nd & 3rd Rnd picks would be surrendered to move to 14 to take Hipwood, with two picks made available at the end of this Draft).

Come the real thing, it will be very difficult for Brisbane to take both Hipwood & Keays (without some magic applied in the Trade period), especially if we Trade in the likes of Dixon (and others), as has been mentioned.

Have they got their numbers right with the phantom draft or have I overlooked something here?

If a club bids with pick 14 (1161 Points) for Hipwood then once you apply the 20% discount to first round picks we need only 929 to match that bid. As it stands our 2nd pick is pick 19 which is worth 948. So we essentially match that bid with our next pick as we would have under the old system.

Lets then assume worst case scenario, someone bids for Keays with the next pick (15). Pick 15 is worth 1112 points, minus the 20% first round discount again it means we need 889 to match the bid. Our 2rd round pick as it stands (pick 37) is worth 483 points. Our 4th round pick (currently pick 55)is worth 207 points. Combine those and we have 690 points. That leaves us only 199 points in deficit which would at the very worst drop us about 2 places in the 1st round in next years draft.

There is also the spare 19 points from the Hipwood bid which we may or may not be able to put towards Keays (bit hazy on that one) not to mention it wouldn't take too much to get a 4th round pick from the Aish trade as a sweetener. The additional points from that 4th rounder would ensure we don't have a deficit.

Also note that with Mills bid assumable matched by Sydney their pick moves forward so that is actually pick 15. There is also a GC compo bid so we have pick 20. The points are a bit wrong.

 

[Crusha]

I think he misread the bidding info as saying that taking any deficit into the next year's offseason (before draft picks are allocated), even the 199 points, means no taking part in bidding that year, rather than it meaning that we'd have to be taking a deficit into the actual draft to be excluded from bidding (after draft picks are allocated). I can see why though, as the PDF wording did make me do a double take initially.

He did ...... and I took double also .......

Did not think this was the case until reading through the PDF ........

 

[WA Lion]

Also note that with Mills bid assumable matched by Sydney their pick moves forward so that is actually pick 15. There is also a GC compo bid so we have pick 20. The points are a bit wrong.

No doubt numbers and finishing positions will vary between now and then, but my point is more that our 2nd, 3rd & 4th round picks will be more or less enough to get both keays and hipwood, even if they are both subject to bids in the teens

 

[Crusha]

No doubt numbers and finishing positions will vary between now and then, but my point is more that our 2nd, 3rd & 4th round picks will be more or less enough to get both keays and hipwood, even if they are both subject to bids in the teens

Yes ...but still leave us with a deficit for 2016.
But thanks to "Don's" explanation, that will not preclude us from Bidding in 2016, just push our first Rnd pick out (which is what I thought was the case before reading that bloody PDF).

 

[WA Lion]

Yes ...but still leave us with a deficit for 2016.
But thanks to "Don's" explanation, that will not preclude us from Bidding in 2016, just push our first Rnd pick out (which is what I thought was the case before reading that bloody PDF).

True but only a minor deficit that pushes us back maybe 2 spots at worst. One additional 4th round pick from aish trade would mean no deficit

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Fortunately for us, QLD players can fade off the radar a little in the back end of the season as everyone returns to club/TAC after the champs. In all likelihood our best academy prospects will spend a fair bit of time in the NEAFL against men where they'll look worse than they're southern counterparts who'll be playing against people their own age largely.

One thing that's clear though is that draft night is going to hold much more anxiety now for us. Instead of just looking ahead to our next pick, we'll spend the whole first and second rounds following every pick closely and, I imagine, celebrating quietly with each pick that passes without a bid.

 

[BrizzyBandit]

Fortunately for us, QLD players can fade off the radar a little in the back end of the season as everyone returns to club/TAC after the champs. In all likelihood our best academy prospects will spend a fair bit of time in the NEAFL against men where they'll look worse than they're southern counterparts who'll be playing against people their own age largely.

One thing that's clear though is that draft night is going to hold much more anxiety now for us. Instead of just looking ahead to our next pick, we'll spend the whole first and second rounds following every pick closely and, I imagine, celebrating quietly with each pick that passes without a bid.

The Academy selections are finalised before the main draft night aren't they?