Moved Thread 2023 AFLW Supplementary Draft Discussion April

[Lore]

I intend to keep this up to date throughout the draft. You can use the tabs to see an overview of the order for each state, or the pick summary.

 

[Lore]

Could you potentially make it about 05-born players and just allow any relevant mature-age player discussion?

That's what I mean yeah. The thread started off as a game thread for the U17 futures game a couple months back, which should be the 05 babies (there were some underage players making up the numbers as well)

 

[FoopyNerd]

This seems like a grim outcome but is this maybe what the league wants? Good clubs can't afford to hold players because they've grown out of their current salary tier and can get more elsewhere, so they are traded to bottom clubs for picks that are worthless.

If that happens then the talent becomes spread because for example the good clubs aren't really swapping out say a Tyla Hanks for a Charlotte Baskaran, they're swapping Hanks for a Jaide Anthony type (with all due respect to Jaide, but she's a back end player on a young/bad team).

Obviously, the biggest worry for the AFL is if the lower clubs lose good players for useless draft picks. What if this is the year that Georgia Patrikios or Alyce Parker say they are fed up with losing and move to a good club for essentially nothing in return?

 

[Lore]

This seems like a grim outcome but is this maybe what the league wants? Good clubs can't afford to hold players because they've grown out of their current salary tier and can get more elsewhere, so they are traded to bottom clubs for picks that are worthless.

If that happens then the talent becomes spread because for example the good clubs aren't really swapping out say a Tyla Hanks for a Charlotte Baskaran, they're swapping Hanks for a Jaide Anthony type (with all due respect to Jaide, but she's a back end player on a young/bad team).

Obviously, the biggest worry for the AFL is if the lower clubs lose good players for useless draft picks. What if this is the year that Georgia Patrikios or Alyce Parker say they are fed up with losing and move to a good club for essentially nothing in return?

Given that there aren't a lot of multi-year contracts in AFLW, the clubs can't really expect to keep players long term.

Unfortunate reality of the system as it stands atm.

Next CBA will be interesting

 

[Teen Wolf]

GWS are never getting fair trade value for Alyce Parker if she ever decided to leave. It's just the flipside to giving up low NSW picks (i.e essentially nothing) for Isabel Huntington.

The trade implications of the recent draft announcement only really apply to Vic clubs. And in the hypothetical of Patrikios leaving: why would St Kilda trade her to a strong team for essentially nothing in return? They would sooner let her walk to the draft, where she'd be taken by a weak team.

 

[FoopyNerd]

GWS are never getting fair trade value for Alyce Parker if she ever decided to leave. It's just the flipside to giving up low NSW picks (i.e essentially nothing) for Isabel Huntington.

The trade implications of the recent draft announcement only really apply to Vic clubs. And in the hypothetical of Patrikios leaving: why would St Kilda trade her to a strong team for essentially nothing in return? They would sooner let her walk to the draft, where she'd be taken by a weak team.

Literally just picked random names, nothing behind it.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Literally just picked random names, nothing behind it.

I know, but... If the hypothetical is instead Jasmine Fleming wanting to leave, there's no difference. Why would Hawthorn trade her to a strong team for essentially nothing in return?

 

[FoopyNerd]

I know, but... If the hypothetical is instead Jasmine Fleming wanting to leave, there's no difference. Why would Hawthorn trade her to a strong team for essentially nothing in return?

The pick will still be worth more than literally nothing. Every single player in the top-up draft might have a 2-year career at most (many will be gone after 1, and a small few may well make a decent career) but you might as well have the first few picks in your state if there is no possible way to retain the player. Even in a deal where a lesser player comes back the clubs will either not make the deal and lose their girl for nothing or just take the lesser player and a pick that isn't worth much.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The pick will still be worth more than literally nothing. Every single player in the top-up draft might have a 2-year career at most (many will be gone after 1, and a small few may well make a decent career) but you might as well have the first few picks in your state if there is no possible way to retain the player. Even in a deal where a lesser player comes back the clubs will either not make the deal and lose their girl for nothing or just take the lesser player and a pick that isn't worth much.

How is a Hawthorn or St Kilda etc getting the "first few" picks in the state if they lose a star player to a strong team (who only have something like the 9th/10th Vic pick to give up)?

The strong team is going to be motivated to trade out some decent players if a Fleming/Patrikios etc wants to join them. We're not talking about a Kim Rennie situation, in which the original club is overrating an average player and the new club knows they'll be able to draft her with a 2nd rounder.

 

[FoopyNerd]

How is a Hawthorn or St Kilda etc getting the "first few" picks in the state if they lose a star player to a strong team (who only have something like the 9th/10th Vic pick to give up)?

Picks in the first few would be a better wording. You'd obviously prefer 1, 10 and 11 over 1, 11 and 21, no matter how bad the draft pool is.

The strong team is going to be motivated to trade out some decent players if a Fleming/Patrikios etc wants to join them. We're not talking about a Kim Rennie situation, in which the original club is overrating an average player and the new club knows they'll be able to draft her with a 2nd rounder.

Exactly, they'll be motivated to trade out players. How good they are is debatable but chances are they won't be of a similar value to the guns at bad teams. Which is my original point, that the worst-case scenario of this top-up draft for the AFL is that these players do want to leave and the bottom clubs aren't adequately compensated creating a wider talent gap.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Picks in the first few would be a better wording. You'd obviously prefer 1, 10 and 11 over 1, 11 and 21, no matter how bad the draft pool is.

It's more likely that these lower teams will be given plenty of priority picks. In that case, they aren't going to need (and therefore it would be strange to accept) superfluous draft picks in exchange for losing a young star player.

Exactly, they'll be motivated to trade out players. How good they are is debatable but chances are they won't be of a similar value to the guns at bad teams. Which is my original point, that the worst-case scenario of this top-up draft for the AFL is that these players do want to leave and the bottom clubs aren't adequately compensated creating a wider talent gap.

Even with a normal draft, Hawthorn aren't getting similar value for Fleming if she's traded to a strong team for picks.

 

[Biggie]

A flutter of 16/17 yr olds in here too

Summer Squad Selected for State 18’s Female Footballers

A squad of 30 has been named to begin training for the 2023 season and prepare for the 18’s State Academy program. Players were invited into the squad based on their 2022 WAFLW league or Rogers Cup seasons as well as performances in State Academy programs. WAFC Talent Specialist – Female...

www.wafc.com.au

 

[Pie 4 Life]

Back into the swing of things at work and currently in the process of completing 50+ features from the SANFLW ahead of the season, as well as a new countdown of the Top 23 Players Under 23 for the season ahead. Starting mid next week, I'll be having the same countdown for the WAFLW leading into that season.

 

[Ligma]

I'm not too sure if she is eligible for this years draft but one to watch is Chiara Nardo from the Knights, a bit on the lowkey side of things but she's a beast

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

Sorry I’m still confused at which draft is which and who counts as what but some academy stuff

AFL Victoria - Play AFL

www.aflvic.com.au

 

[philthy05]

I’m still confused as to the changes in the draft regarding over agers.

So this draft is just overagers? Port cannot add young Sa star Lauren young in this draft? We have to wait until next years draft?

 

[Teen Wolf]

I’m still confused as to the changes in the draft regarding over agers.

So this draft is just overagers? Port cannot add young Sa star Lauren young in this draft? We have to wait until next years draft?

That is correct. Though "next year's draft" could be held in, say, December 2023.

 

[Caputo]

There could be a positive for the expansion clubs in that they give most of the initial choices and younger players the extra 12 months to prove themselves. For Port maybe a good evaluation of the Cockatoo-Motlap twins.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I’m still confused as to the changes in the draft regarding over agers.

So this draft is just overagers? Port cannot add young Sa star Lauren young in this draft? We have to wait until next years draft?

That is correct. Though "next year's draft" could be held in, say, December 2023.

One major addendum to this from the news today:

Port Adelaide

• Can sign one underage player during PSP
• That underage player is eligible to play during the season

So as long as Lauren Young is willing and available, she will indeed be playing for Port Adelaide THIS year.

 

[Lore]

Key Dates & Terms for AFLW Season 2023 Supplementary Draft Player Movements

Priority Signings (AFLW) 01/03 - 08/03 Chloe Malloy (Collingwood) signs with Sydney Swans Ashleigh Woodland (Adelaide) signs with Port Adelaide Emily Bates (Brisbane) signs with Hawthorn Greta Brody (Brisbane) signs with Hawthorn Matilda Scholz (Glenelg) + Janelle Cuthbertson (Fremantle) sign...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

One major addendum to this from the news today:

So as long as Lauren Young is willing and available, she will indeed be playing for Port Adelaide THIS year.

Another concession for an expansion side? I wonder if they'll do the same for struggling Vic sides, especially if they lose players again?

Edit: Wow, we can actually lose another player with no compensation, and a heap of unsigned players will be signed before we get a look in. We are being forced to the bottom very quickly.

 

[weltschmerz]

Dogs are bracing to lose another star for nothing in return

 

[Lore]

Another concession for an expansion side? I wonder if they'll do the same for struggling Vic sides, especially if they lose players again?

See sticky thread confirming details. The four expansion sides have different amounts of help depending on how crap they are.

Carlton and some others can't lose more than 1 player to expansion sides, but the top 4 finalists can lose up to 5, and 5th-8th can lose 2. So ultimately that should mean that Carlton has a better chance next year than they do now, and shouldn't lose a heap of fan favourites.

There is the possibility that sides could poach more players via trade, but trading for what sounds like being an over-age draft pick is probably not that enticing, and the player doesn't get much by changing clubs either as the tiers are staying the same and the clubs aren't being forced to cut anyone (the minimum 3 list changes rule will not be enforced).

Means that destination clubs don't necessarily have a lot to offer salary wise, other than what they're calling a "Secondary Relocation Reimbursement / Payment" which sounds like a signing bonus but only if you move interstate...

The interesting thing is Sydney and Port Adelaide will have extra list spots so possibly they'll have more spots at the higher tiers as well, rather than just more Tier 4 players, and Sydney can also offer a long term contract. I'd say the latter is the biggest carrot of them all.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

See sticky thread confirming details. The four expansion sides have different amounts of help depending on how crap they are.

Carlton and some others can't lose more than 1 player to expansion sides, but the top 4 finalists can lose up to 5, and 5th-8th can lose 2. So ultimately that should mean that Carlton has a better chance next year than they do now, and shouldn't lose a heap of fan favourites.

There is the possibility that sides could poach more players via trade, but trading for what sounds like being an over-age draft pick is probably not that enticing, and the player doesn't get much by changing clubs either as the tiers are staying the same and the clubs aren't being forced to cut anyone (the minimum 3 list changes rule will not be enforced).

Means that destination clubs don't necessarily have a lot to offer salary wise, other than what they're calling a "Secondary Relocation Reimbursement / Payment" which sounds like a signing bonus but only if you move interstate...

The interesting thing is Sydney and Port Adelaide will have extra list spots so possibly they'll hav more spots at the higher tiers as well, rather than just more Tier 4 players, and Sydney can also offer a long term contract. I'd say the latter is the biggest carrot of them all.

The start up concessions were significant as far as genuine draft picks and ability to take players from other clubs. West Coast, St Kilda and Carlton are as bad as any of those clubs but can lose another player. If we do, the compensation is coming from a mature age draft, if at all.

 

[Teen Wolf]

If we do, the compensation is coming from a mature age draft, if at all.

Compensation picks will be for next year's draft.

 

[Lore]

The start up concessions were significant as far as genuine draft picks and ability to take players from other clubs. West Coast, St Kilda and Carlton are as bad as any of those clubs but can lose another player. If we do, the compensation is coming from a mature age draft, if at all.

I'm kind of surprised that they're doing more expansion-based concessions. I thought there would be equalisation which would generally benefit Sydney etc and perhaps also the other non-finals clubs (which would benefit Essendon to a lesser extent than West Coast), while targeting the finalists and top 4 to a greater extent, but not specifically 'the expansion clubs'.

That said, because the competition isn't a complete round robin, the ladder isn't wholly representative of what each list is capable of. Would require further analysis to see what is really going on which I don't think is available anywhere atm... I might have a go at it later.

As it is the expansion clubs can collectively poach 13 players from other clubs, but the number of players that can leave existing clubs is somewhere around 32 players, which means there's every possibility that a club like Brisbane could retain all of their players and not lose any again, even though in theory they can "lose up to 5".