2015 Draft Discussion

[Bucking Beads]

I just hope we have a 2nd round pick to use on a non-academy player

Think there could be some gems in there before pick #30

Should be the case with Leuey and Redden likely to get us picks in the first 25.

I highly doubt we will have any spare picks if we are bringing in Bell, Astbury and Jansen that we will have spare picks in the 20-30 range.

 

[Roylion]

If other clubs bid a first round DP, we can match that with our next pick after that, which is most likely going to be a second round DP.

If say a bid by another club for Hipwood comes in at #14 (1,161 pts) we get a 20% discount (232 pts) which leaves 929 points, which will cost us essentially our second round DP, (which moves to the back of the draft) pick 20 (912 points) and a slight downgrade of Pick 21 (possible Leuenberger compensation) to Pick 22 to pay off the remaining 15 points.

If the bid made by another club is made in the second or subsequent rounds, the academy discount is a fixed 197 points.

 

[Eons]

I highly doubt we will have any spare picks if we are bringing in Bell, Astbury and Jansen that we will have spare picks in the 20-30 range.

We could use future picks to bring in some of those players.

 

[Eons]

Depends on what other clubs bid for them. If they bid a first round DP, we can match that with a second round DP.

If say a bid by another club for Hipwood comes in at #14 (1,161 pts) we get a 20% discount (232 pts) which leaves 929 points, which will cost us essentially our second round DP, (which moves to the back of the draft) pick 20 (912 points) and a slight downgrade of Pick 21 (possible Leuenberger compensation) to Pick 22 to pay off the remaining 15 points.

If the bid made by another club is made in the second or subsequent rounds, the academy discount is a fixed 197 points.

That's the part I forgot, the discount. Cheers.

 

[Panthera]

I highly doubt we will have any spare picks if we are bringing in Bell, Astbury and Jansen that we will have spare picks in the 20-30 range.

I will lose my **** if any player mentioned above costs us a pick in the 20 - 30 range

 

[Eons]

I will lose my **** if any player mentioned above costs us a pick in the 20 - 30 range

Bell is worth a pick in that 25-30 range in a weak draft. They say that every year though.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I will lose my **** if any player mentioned above costs us a pick in the 20 - 30 range

Brace yourself. I'd say Bell would be closing in on the pick 25-30 worth given the year he had an being under contract.

 

[Panthera]

Bell is worth a pick in that 25-30 range in a weak draft. They say that every year though.

They can keep him then

 

[dlanod]

dlanod can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that scenario would require Carlton to use pick one to push back the Lions' first rounder next year. My vague recollection is they made a change so that pick from the relevant round is pushed back the following year.

I'm second guessing myself now though...

I believe it's based off the round of the bidding pick (mainly because I can't be arsed digging up references at this exact point in time ), not the matching pick. Otherwise a second round bid that ends up being matched by a fourth rounder + debt due to trades would only need to take points off the following year's fourth rounder, which seems to defeat the point of the concession.

 

[Jman78]

The thing with nuisance bids is say Bombers use there 1st rounder to push Hipwood up, we dont match and they then miss out on their player. Could you imagine the backlash from the supporters... Anyway if any academy prospects get bid on early it'll be GWS boys I would think.

 

[BRAB]

If Keays was bid on at 7 and Hipwood at 25 that would take out our 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks and we'd still be in the red. (-365)

 

[Roylion]

I believe it's based off the round of the bidding pick (mainly because I can't be arsed digging up references at this exact point in time ), not the matching pick.

It's the nominating clubs next available pick that is used to pay off the bid by another club. So if a bid was made by another club at Pick 7, then Brisbane would begin paying off the points value of the bid with their next available pick. (for example Pick 20)

 

[Fatcat08]

It's the nominating clubs next available pick that is used to pay off the bid by another club. So if a bid was made by another club at Pick 7, then Brisbane would begin paying off the points value of the bid with their next available pick. (for example Pick 20)

I think they were talking about the debt carryover for the following year. If a second round bid is made for a player and we've already used our second round and third round picks to match an earlier bid, we then use our fourth this year and then our second round pick next year starts getting pushed back to make up the shortfall. So yes the answer relating to using next years picks to make up deficit is that the round is related to the bid, not the match.

 

[Roylion]

I think they were talking about the debt carryover for the following year. If a second round bid is made for a player and we've already used our second round and third round picks to match an earlier bid, we then use our fourth this year and then our second round pick next year starts getting pushed back to make up the shortfall. So yes the answer relating to using next years picks to make up deficit is that the round is related to the bid, not the match.

The points required carry over to the club's first selection next year and the club cannot participate in the bidding for the next draft.

So if Brisbane had the No. 1 draft pick next year, the points required would be deducted from that pick and the draft pick pushed back to whatever value of that pick is left after the deduction.

Brisbane will be keen to pay off any "debt" this year.

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

The only way a team could really use a nuisance bid to a strategic advantage, If they have picks close together wedged by a nominated clubs pick.

An example could be GWS and Collingwood last year.

If GWS rated DeGeoy ahead or Marchbank, they could have bid on Moore to try and get Collingwood to match with their pick 5, leaving them to choose Pickett and DE Goey.

(not the best example as GWS had a raffle on the top 10 again, the end result for GWS would have been DeGoey for Ahern)

Any other circumstance the bidding teams stand to gain nothing extra in return

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

It isn't ideal but if Allison is bid on at pick 5 he is worth our pick so I don't see the point in stressing for them. This is the new system so we must deal with it.

If Allison is a consensus pick 5 and we have pick 5 next year, we'd be better of looking to trade it out for a Dom Tyson type of deal.

Pick 5 > Decent player + second rounder.
We would then match Allison bid with 2 x Seconder rounders.
This is the type of flexibility the new system has, lots of options for us

 

[dlanod]

It's the nominating clubs next available pick that is used to pay off the bid by another club. So if a bid was made by another club at Pick 7, then Brisbane would begin paying off the points value of the bid with their next available pick. (for example Pick 20)

As Fatcat08 said, we were talking about any debts left at the end of the year.

The points required carry over to the club's first selection next year and the club cannot participate in the bidding for the next draft.

So if Brisbane had the No. 1 draft pick next year, the points required would be deducted from that pick and the draft pick pushed back to whatever value of that pick is left after the deduction.

That's wrong on several counts.

Any deficit from a bid results in the points being taken off the club's corresponding round selection the following year if possible. For example, if someone bids a third rounder on Chol and we match, even though it sends us into deficit, those points will come off our third rounder the following year. This was a recent change to not penalize clubs who want to match late bids but would otherwise not do so as it would downgrade their following year's first rounder.

The club can only not participate in bidding for the next draft if the deficit they carry into the draft is larger than the sum of their draft picks in that draft. e.g. if you have a deficit of 2000 points and your draft picks only total 1700, they all get moved to the end of the draft but because you still have a deficit of 300 points you cannot take part in bidding. If the deficit is 1000 points, you end up with 700 points in remaining draft value and can still take part in bidding.

 

[Fatcat08]

The points required carry over to the club's first selection next year and the club cannot participate in the bidding for the next draft.

So if Brisbane had the No. 1 draft pick next year, the points required would be deducted from that pick and the draft pick pushed back to whatever value of that pick is left after the deduction.

Brisbane will be keen to pay off any "debt" this year.

No this is incorrect, changes were made recently to avoid this scenario. The only time this would be accurate is if a player was bid with a first round pick and after matching it we were still short after sacrificing all our picks this year. Then yes our first round pick next year would be moved back to make up the shortfall.

 

[dlanod]

Further links for reading:

Clubs can go into deficit by accessing future draft picks or 'points' to match bids for their academy players under the new set-up, creating a potentially huge advantage that allowing future trading for all clubs would help alleviate.

...

The balance of the points required would in this instance be subtracted from the clubs' 2016 allocation.

Clubs must have a positive points balance in any draft to be able to participate in the bidding process – ie, they must pay off their debt if they choose to go into deficit – but that balance could be as small as just nine points.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-eyes-draft-system-kinks-20150617-ghqky4?skin=smart-phone

THE AFL has closed a possible loophole in its new bidding system that will stop clubs from being able to trade out early picks and start matching bids for top-rated players with late draft selections.

...

It has led to the AFL setting a points deficit limit for clubs bidding on father-son and academy players.

The limit will be set at 1723 points, which is the equivalent of the group of picks that will be assigned to the premiership team each year: selections No.18, 36, 54 and 72.

If a team trades future draft picks in or out, their deficit limit will be altered according to how many selections they hold.

For instance, if a team acquires an extra first-round pick for the following year they have a deficit limit of 2708 points (the standard 1723 plus 985 points, the value for pick No.18).

Conversely if a club trades out its future second-round pick, it will have a deficit limit of 1221 points (1723 minus 502 points, the value for pick No.36).

The move guarantees academy clubs will pay back their deficit in one year and cannot access future picks two years down the line compared to every other club's access to just one draft into the future.

It also ensures clubs will not be allowed to take their points debt into the following year's draft on a consistent basis, which could have seen them be in a never-ending cycle of owing points for highly-rated players.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-12/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole

THE AFL has added a safeguard to its complicated draft bidding system to protect the future first-round picks of clubs who want to take a father-son or academy player late in the draft.

The League made the change to the academy bidding system to ensure clubs weren't deterred from choosing father-son or academy prospects late in the draft because of the risk that repaying any outstanding points the following year may have altered the position of their first pick.

...

Any points incurred for these later round players can be repaid in the round the bid is received, after the AFL tweaked its new set of rules so that a first-round draft position was only altered if a bid came in the previous year’s first round.

If a player attracts a bid in the third round and is then chosen by the club with first access to the academy or father-son prospect later that round, the club has to find points the following year to pay for that player.

Under the slightly revised system the club will be able to recover those points from its third round selection rather than the first round allocation as was originally planned.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-08/league-adds-safety-net-to-draft-future-picks

 

[Roylion]

Further links for reading:



http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-eyes-draft-system-kinks-20150617-ghqky4?skin=smart-phone



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-12/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-08/league-adds-safety-net-to-draft-future-picks

Ok. Thanks. Makes much more sense. Obviously I was going off older information from a PDF file on the AFL website.

 

[captainrich]

I sense the Academy bidding is going to be the new Dayne Beams is a free agent questions this trade period, brace yourselves

 

[AFLQLD]

All good info and the whole bidding and points system is starting to make more sense.

The way the points work though, is there I wonder, a sweet spot in the draft order where we get the best value? Do the points reduce in a linear manner from first pick or is it more sophisticated and deliberate than that?

 

[Panthera]

I sense the Academy bidding is going to be the new Dayne Beams is a free agent questions this trade period, brace yourselves

I just don't worry about it as there in no hope of working out what a player will actually cost us until draft night (when bids come for them)

 

[neg99]

All good info and the whole bidding and points system is starting to make more sense.

The way the points work though, is there I wonder, a sweet spot in the draft order where we get the best value? Do the points reduce in a linear manner from first pick or is it more sophisticated and deliberate than that?

The points are specifically designed to ensure a high price is paid for first round and higher for early first round talent. After that it gets pretty easy to match and obviously from 3rd round onwards it's more like the old system where we just pick them up with really late picks.

The other dynamic that's interesting from a bidding perspective is it's unlikely academy holding teams will bid on each other's players and ditto for father son you'd think so where picks end up after trades could have an enormous impact on how high bids are (e.g. If GWS do manage to stockpile a bunch of picks we're far more likely to have Keays and Hipwood slide right down the order). Likewise the more academy/FS picks that go before ours the better as the point reduction in the pick used for bidding is higher than how much our later picks slide.

It's a truly complex system and it will be hard to predict where the bids will come until the final draft order is decided.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Royboys44]

If Keays was bid on at 7 and Hipwood at 25 that would take out our 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks and we'd still be in the red. (-365)

Yes, however we will have Aish and Redden and Leuy picks to use too.