List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Jewelsbon]

No issue with the changes if they get them right and don’t need to change it every year it’s fine. The points curve was horrible every person knew that if this has made this curve better that’s good. You can’t have junk 30 picks equaling a top 3 pick.

And that's the big problem, they NEVER get ANYTHING right!
Every change they make to every aspect of the game is a knee jerk reaction that is never thought through and 9 times out of 10 doesn't fix the problem but creates more.

I agree the value curve needs adjusting, but I'll bet my guts for garters the changes will be for the academies and father/son will be untouched because, you know, that's tradition.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Does anyone know what the proposed changes actually are? Seems a lot of this and that.

Only thing mentioned is an overhaul (ie. increase) in the draft points system, and ensuring clubs have a pick in the same round as the bid to match, so you have to pay more for the player(s).

Maybe a change to the discount is also on the cards, but wasn't mentioned.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Only thing mentioned is an overhaul (ie. increase) in the draft points system, and ensuring clubs have a pick in the same round as the bid to match, so you have to pay more for the player(s).

Maybe a change to the discount is also on the cards, but wasn't mentioned.

Look I agree with having a pick in the round that should have been in years ago but can we please fix the curve that’s the biggest issue top 5 picks should be double what they are now

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Nope. Would assume it's a combination of things e.g.

• NGA bid matching moves up a bit to placate other clubs
• Academy and F/S selections in the first round or all rounds have a lower discount
• Maybe a discount on only 1 Academy player in first round per year, to placate other clubs dismayed at Gold Coast's 2023 haul

Well the GC haul was farcical so I am happy they are doing something to stop that again. No issue with NGA moving up to start of second round rather than a set pick like it is now (pick 40). No discount would be better and should go across all of these. The ability to match is the discount and it should be close to impossible to match at the top 3-5

 

[Crust]

Win the flag, lose the academy. Nothing more certain.
Other clubs, supporters and most importantly, the VFL media will say:

Gulden
Heeney
Blakey
Mills
Campbell
Wicks

Yes I know Wicks was a rookie but the VFL media won't care.
Without the academy we don't win the flag.

 

[Bloods86]

Well the GC haul was farcical so I am happy they are doing something to stop that again. No issue with NGA moving up to start of second round rather than a set pick like it is now (pick 40). No discount would be better and should go across all of these. The ability to match is the discount and it should be close to impossible to match at the top 3-5

I'm glad you're not in charge. Big win for non Northern clubs, followed by a big loss to Northern clubs despite them funding the academies, having little other way to get homegrown talent.

GC haul was only farcical if you ignore the constant plundering of the expansion sides, plus the other Northern clubs if they have a bad run.

I'm fine with tightening the rules/discount around getting several players in a single year, or reducing the academy and F/S discount a bit e.g. to 15%, but I wouldn't be going too far.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm glad you're not in charge. Big win for non Northern clubs, followed by a big loss to Northern clubs despite them funding the academies, having little other way to get homegrown talent.

GC haul was only farcical if you ignore the constant plundering of the expansion sides, plus the other Northern clubs if they have a bad run.

I'm fine with tightening the rules/discount around getting several players in a single year, or reducing the academy and F/S discount a bit e.g. to 15%, but I wouldn't be going too far.

Whether you like it or not it’s changing and good. You shouldn’t have 4 in the top bracket whilst matching with a grand total of ZERO first rounders. The curve is diabolical have said it for years. I have no issue them getting Walter but they should have paid with their first rounder to get the bloke. Then add 3 more top tier talents on top and you see why clubs and ai assume ours too were beyond annoyed

It should be no more than 5%, however most would be happy with one discount of 10%, then 0 every other one in the draft. It’s a fair compromise.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think that is a tad dramatic.

A fairer bidding system for northern academies and f/s should have been in place years ago.

As long as it is just a revaluing of what higher picks are actually worth - e.g. Pick 1 is not equal to a handful of selections in the 30s - then it will be fairer for everyone.

Exactly go and ask West Coast to trade pick 1 last year for 3 picks in the mid 30’s! Right now it’s worth more. That’s the number 1 issue with all this bidding it’s not the discount it’s the curve! You should have to pay two years worth of picks for a top 3 pick and then go into deficit if you want more like GC.

 

[Bloods86]

Whether you like it or not it’s changing and good. You shouldn’t have 4 in the top bracket whilst matching with a grand total of ZERO first rounders. The curve is diabolical have said it for years. I have no issue them getting Walter but they should have paid with their first rounder to get the bloke. Then add 3 more top tier talents on top and you see why clubs and ai assume ours too were beyond annoyed

It should be no more than 5%, however most would be happy with one discount of 10%, then 0 every other one in the draft. It’s a fair compromise.

I know there will be changes, I outlined what I thought some of them might be.

I think the changes will likely have an element of knee-jerk reaction based on a great academy year for Gold Coast though.

And it would be entirely driven by non Northern clubs. We may be jealous of Gold Coast's haul, but we would understand that likely changes will hurt us more than non Northern clubs.

If the AFL doesn't want many players from Qld or NSW, or the northern clubs to be able to offset go home factor, via club funded academies, then cracking down harshly on discounts and limits is the way to go.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

From today's Gettable

Ollie - clubs believe he will now stay, negotiating a 4-5 year extension

Will - will "play out over some time"

Logan - likely to stay, whether it's 2 or 4 years is probably the question now

(all from Cal T)

GETTABLE: Pies' chase on, Bombers make free agent big offer, do Dogs 'want out'?

Riley Beveridge and Cal Twomey discuss the latest trade and draft news and put each other to the test in Draft Lottery

www.afl.com.au

 

[Cadsky]

For those of you talking about fs/academy changes

AFL’s big ‘overhaul’ of draft system, shift to unlock trade standoffs

AFL’s big ‘overhaul’ of draft system explained — and the shift to unlock trade standoffs

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Bloods86]

For those of you talking about fs/academy changes

AFL’s big ‘overhaul’ of draft system, shift to unlock trade standoffs

AFL’s big ‘overhaul’ of draft system explained — and the shift to unlock trade standoffs

www.foxsports.com.au

Really don't know how the "you must have a pick in the same round" rule would be enforced.

Let's say you're a northern club with a player likely to be bid on mid first round, so you've had to predict beforehand where the bid will come and made sure you have a mid-late 1st to use to match (which may be difficult enough to do, you can't force other clubs to trade 1st rounders).

Draft night comes, but a bid doesn't come until just after your 1st rounder. But the bid does come in the 1st round still. No-one is willing to trade with you so you can get another 1st to match, or you run out of time. So you lose the player despite trying to plan for it. Now you could say the club should just pick their player with their first rounder, but then you're saying they should pay above market value for a player they've paid to develop.

Same for any round really, though clubs are generally more willing to trade out picks from later rounds.

Obviously depends on discount changes as to how unfair this is.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

We are stuffed. So much for Dillon and his interest in Northern Clubs. No footy in Sydney for three weeks and consigning the four Clubs to wasteland. Between Dillon and the unmitigated disaster that is Laura Kan(e)ga I am truly depressed about the prospects of game in Qld and NSW.

 

[liz]

Really don't know how the "you must have a pick in the same round" rule would be enforced.

Let's say you're a northern club with a player likely to be bid on mid first round, so you've had to predict beforehand where the bid will come and made sure you have a mid-late 1st to use to match (which may be difficult enough to do, you can't force other clubs to trade 1st rounders).

Draft night comes, but a bid doesn't come until just after your 1st rounder. But the bid does come in the 1st round still. No-one is willing to trade with you so you can get another 1st to match. So you lose the player despite trying to plan for it. Now you could say the club should just pick their player with their first rounder, but then you're saying they should pay above market value for a player they've paid to develop.

References to 'rounds' of picks is silly (as I commented in another context, in another thread).

I don't have an issue with a slight recalibration of the cost of matching bids, but if they are going to designate a certain pick has to be used as part of the match, it makes sense to make it a pick within x picks of the bid, rather than designating a round.

If the premier has potential access to a highly rated player, saying they can match either a pick 1 bid or a pick 15 bid with their nominal pick 18 doesn't actually reflect the difference in value between the two matching opportunities. But if they need a pick within, say, 10 picks of the bid, that would make it hard to match a bid in the top handful (they would need to trade up, possibly at a premium, rather than at the second discount that is obtained now by trading down), but easy to match a bid from the middle of the first round onwards.

Philosophically I think a discount of some degree can be justified, firstly as an incentive to the northern clubs for the time they invest in their academies, but also because the right to match a bid at a pick does not have quite the same value as the pick itself (and also provides some antidote towards clubs bidding on a player they wouldn't actually chose at that selection because they know the host club is committed to matching).

 

[Adnico26Parker]

An early Draft Power Rankings (ESPN):

Draft Power Rankings: Mids, father-sons dominate the list

The 2024 draft crop is already looking stacked with midfielders, while a number of father-son prospects also feature in the top 20. Plus yet another Suns Academy product in the top 10, writes Jasper Chellappah.

www.espn.com.au

These are the players already linked to clubs:

3. Levi Ashcroft (Brisbane F/S)
8. Leonardo Lombard (Gold Coast)
10. Malakai Champion (West Coast NGA)
12. Tyler Welsh (Adelaide F/S)
14. Ben Camporeale (Carlton F/S)
19. Lucas Camporeale (Carlton F/S)

 

[anotherletdown]

An early Draft Power Rankings (ESPN):

Draft Power Rankings: Mids, father-sons dominate the list

The 2024 draft crop is already looking stacked with midfielders, while a number of father-son prospects also feature in the top 20. Plus yet another Suns Academy product in the top 10, writes Jasper Chellappah.

www.espn.com.au

These are the players already linked to clubs:

3. Levi Ashcroft (Brisbane F/S)
8. Leonardo Lombard (Gold Coast)
10. Malakai Champion (West Coast NGA)
12. Tyler Welsh (Adelaide F/S)
14. Ben Camporeale (Carlton F/S)
19. Lucas Camporeale (Carlton F/S)

Marshall from Brissy academy must be in the next 5 picks as well.

 

[caesar88]

How blessed in life do you have to be to be born with the name Leonardo Lombard?

If AFL doesn't work out for him he should definitely command an armada across the Mediterranean and conquer some lands.

 

[Bloods86]

References to 'rounds' of picks is silly (as I commented in another context, in another thread).

I don't have an issue with a slight recalibration of the cost of matching bids, but if they are going to designate a certain pick has to be used as part of the match, it makes sense to make it a pick within x picks of the bid, rather than designating a round.

If the premier has potential access to a highly rated player, saying they can match either a pick 1 bid or a pick 15 bid with their nominal pick 18 doesn't actually reflect the difference in value between the two matching opportunities. But if they need a pick within, say, 10 picks of the bid, that would make it hard to match a bid in the top handful (they would need to trade up, possibly at a premium, rather than at the second discount that is obtained now by trading down), but easy to match a bid from the middle of the first round onwards.

Philosophically I think a discount of some degree can be justified, firstly as an incentive to the northern clubs for the time they invest in their academies, but also because the right to match a bid at a pick does not have quite the same value as the pick itself (and also provides some antidote towards clubs bidding on a player they wouldn't actually chose at that selection because they know the host club is committed to matching).

I don't think they are going back to the single pick matching e.g. like we had for Mitchell, Heeney, Mills.

If it had a "same round" rule, you would still have to match the required points, you would just need to have at least one of the picks used to match, in the same round as the bid.

Still I don't think it's a good idea and requiring a pick within X picks is better.

Or just reduce the discount a bit overall, and say that if you want multiple players in a 1st round, you only get discount for 1. For every player more than 2 players in first round (very rare), you must use at least 1 pick within X picks in current or future draft.

 

[Bloods86]

How blessed in life do you have to be to be born with the name Leonardo Lombard?

If AFL doesn't work out for him he should definitely command an armada across the Mediterranean and conquer some lands.

Sounds like he'd be useful for Tassie or us in the Battle of the < censored >.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Marshall from Brissy academy must be in the next 5 picks as well.

Definitely, yes

 

[rustycrate]

Win the flag, lose the academy. Nothing more certain.
Other clubs, supporters and most importantly, the VFL media will say:

Gulden
Heeney
Blakey
Mills
Campbell
Wicks

Yes I know Wicks was a rookie but the VFL media won't care.
Without the academy we don't win the flag.

Collingwood Father/Sons
Nick Daicos
Will Kelly
Tyler Brown
Josh Daicos
Callum Brown
Darcy Moore

Without the father/sons Collingwood don't win the flag.

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Collingwood Father/Sons
Nick Daicos
Will Kelly
Tyler Brown
Josh Daicos
Callum Brown
Darcy Moore

Without the father/sons Collingwood don't win the flag.

And Quaynor via their NGA

 

[caesar88]

From today's Gettable

Ollie - clubs believe he will now stay, negotiating a 4-5 year extension

Will - will "play out over some time"

Logan - likely to stay, whether it's 2 or 4 years is probably the question now

(all from Cal T)

GETTABLE: Pies' chase on, Bombers make free agent big offer, do Dogs 'want out'?

Riley Beveridge and Cal Twomey discuss the latest trade and draft news and put each other to the test in Draft Lottery

www.afl.com.au

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I'm actually at the point where I think Melican should be a priority signing ahead of Florent & Hayward.

We sort of take one step forward and two steps backward with our key defender stocks if we lose Melican this year.

 

[bedford]

Collingwood Father/Sons
Nick Daicos
Will Kelly
Tyler Brown
Josh Daicos
Callum Brown
Darcy Moore

Without the father/sons Collingwood don't win the flag.

Brown'hasn't played there for 2 years has played at Marcellin sadly and Box Hill

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I'm actually at the point where I think Melican should be a priority signing ahead of Florent & Hayward.

We sort of take one step forward and two steps backward with our key defender stocks if we lose Melican this year.

I rest my case have backed him from day 1

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I'm actually at the point where I think Melican should be a priority signing ahead of Florent & Hayward.

We sort of take one step forward and two steps backward with our key defender stocks if we lose Melican this year.

Not unpopular at all, 100% agree!

Media seemed focused on the free agents and the "headline" players for clicks, not realising there are 14 other players OOC!