List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II 📃

[Aphrodite]

 

[El Topo]

The Tassie concessions which were put to the clubs, seems like the perfect avenue to influence DVI changes. Club should have kicked up a stink and used it to get the 2 pick rule pushed back a couple of years. Seems obvious and a very solid argument. AFL would have wanted club support for those concessions, giving perfect grounds to negotiate.

Unfortunately I get the feeling our club is to gutless to do that. More interested in playing nice with the AFL.

Unless the delayed announcement is because the clubs are indeed pushing back

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Up the top of the order where the curve is really steep getting bumped 2-3 spots makes a massive difference.

That’s what I mean. If you have pick 3 and it gets knocked back to pick 5 than if you need to match a bid than your now pick 5 should be valued at your original pick 3 in points.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The Tassie concessions which were put to the clubs, seems like the perfect avenue to influence DVI changes. Club should have kicked up a stink and used it to get the 2 pick rule pushed back a couple of years. Seems obvious and a very solid argument. AFL would have wanted club support for those concessions, giving perfect grounds to negotiate.

Unfortunately I get the feeling our club is to gutless to do that. More interested in playing nice with the AFL.

cant help but think 3 picks is a decent half way point - 2 is too much in the short term. i must admit i had missed the 10% discount element - which softens the pain a little - but the trick is to ensure he doesnt go pick one.... which needs picks 6 & 14 - pick 2 needs pick 6 and 23 - which is almost palatable

a 3 pick option for pick 1 would need something along the lines of pick 10 pick 14 and pick 32 or pick 6, 25 & 28 - which again are doable and fairish

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It's too restrictive, because until a bid actually comes, a club has no idea what they will need to match.
There is a complete lack of flexibility, clubs can be put over a barrel, and it decreases liquidity for trading, which hurts everyone during the trade period.

What justification is there for only being able to use 2 picks to match a bid?

I agree that you don’t know where the bid will come so it makes it hard to plan. I personally think you should just get a 100% tax on the points deficit after the two matching picks are used.
I think at the top end though you only have to be within 5 picks or something and than your next two natural selections cover it. If your pick is further away than that then you should have to trade up.
The reason for two picks is so it burns picks closer to the value of the player. That hasn’t been happening and that’s why it’s a joke and you see teams like West Coast picking at 30 instead of 19.
You need a system where good picks are used on good players. Matching with two picks is probably the best way of doing so

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

I still don’t see the problem with having to match with two picks.
Really what is the downside of it? One club has to make the decision on a player, it has little effect on the other 17 clubs. This is exactly how it should be. Having some sides just getting lucky is just stupid.
It is horrible timing for us but it is the right decision imo

FA compo is still the biggest problem.

I dont think clubs should have to sacrifice multiple drafts to acquire a father son, also forcing a club to trade with other clubs to acquire the picks high enough to match just ensures the club will get reamed. Its also not right that we would need to guess where Cody is going to be selected to enable us to trade in the picks required, unless we did live trading on draft day which ensures we would get reamed. Clubs should not be losing.

 

[Opium]

Agree its similar to when Treloar left Collingwood for Dogs, has it worked out well for the Dogs is unclear.

Grundy too

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

cant help but think 3 picks is a decent half way point - 2 is too much in the short term. i must admit i had missed the 10% discount element - which softens the pain a little - but the trick is to ensure he doesnt go pick one.... which needs picks 6 & 14 - pick 2 needs pick 6 and 23 - which is almost palatable

a 3 pick option for pick 1 would need something along the lines of pick 10 pick 14 and pick 32 or pick 6, 25 & 28 - which again are doable and fairish

The top picks should be in a band
1-5 - Needing 1 x top 10 + 2nd rounder
6-10 - 1 x top 20
11-20 - 1 x first round or 2 x 2nd round.

I also think an independent panel should rank them and categorise them in the band.

 

[Ninja Worrier]

It's too restrictive, because until a bid actually comes, a club has no idea what they will need to match.
There is a complete lack of flexibility, clubs can be put over a barrel, and it decreases liquidity for trading, which hurts everyone during the trade period.

What justification is there for only being able to use 2 picks to match a bid?

100% this. If you are required two use two first round picks you should at least be able to lean in with your next pick

 

[Jimthegreat]

If they want Charlie, and given Flanders is under contract, tell Flanders, if he leaves, he goes to Carlton with Humphrey. Then we might have a deal.

 

[Opium]

If they want Charlie, and given Flanders is under contract, tell Flanders, if he leaves, he goes to Carlton with Humphrey. Then we might have a deal.

I think gold coast want JUH. My question is can they fit them all in the salary cap?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I dont think clubs should have to sacrifice multiple drafts to acquire a father son, also forcing a club to trade with other clubs to acquire the picks high enough to match just ensures the club will get reamed. Its also not right that we would need to guess where Cody is going to be selected to enable us to trade in the picks required, unless we did live trading on draft day which ensures we would get reamed. Clubs should not be losing.

They don’t have to lose, that’s the entire point. They are making the decision. Why do 17 clubs have to lose so one club can win ?

 

[Stamos]

I agree that you don’t know where the bid will come so it makes it hard to plan. I personally think you should just get a 100% tax on the points deficit after the two matching picks are used.
I think at the top end though you only have to be within 5 picks or something and than your next two natural selections cover it. If your pick is further away than that then you should have to trade up.
The reason for two picks is so it burns picks closer to the value of the player. That hasn’t been happening and that’s why it’s a joke and you see teams like West Coast picking at 30 instead of 19.
You need a system where good picks are used on good players. Matching with two picks is probably the best way of doing so

There's just no need to make it so convoluted and complicated.
All you need is to set the DVI correctly, and everything else works out.
Who knows if the DVI is now right, but it's infinitely better than it was, and like I said, if it had been how it is from the start, I don't think people would be too worried about it.

 

[Stamos]

If they want Charlie, and given Flanders is under contract, tell Flanders, if he leaves, he goes to Carlton with Humphrey. Then we might have a deal.

Why?
We don't want Flanders.

 

[Stamos]

They don’t have to lose, that’s the entire point. They are making the decision. Why do 17 clubs have to lose so one club can win ?

Other clubs don't lose by missing players that they were not entitled to.

The way that other clubs lose is by FA compo picks. They screw 16 clubs at a time.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

They don’t have to lose, that’s the entire point. They are making the decision. Why do 17 clubs have to lose so one club can win ?

The father son kids are not really in the draft in the first place so the other 17 clubs are not losing out on this kid. Remove them from the draft all together and have an independent panel decide the price a club needs to pay to acquire the father son.

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

Band 2 compo pick 19 for Jack apparently

 

[Aphrodite]

Band 2 compo pick 19 for Jack apparently

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Other clubs don't lose by missing players that they were not entitled to.

The way that other clubs lose is by FA compo picks. They screw 16 clubs at a time.

Of course it does. If Brisbane could only afford Ashcroft than Fletcher and Dunkley might be playing somewhere else
Also if a team has to use two top 20 picks to match a bid at say 4 than pick 19 than becomes pick 18. If they use mid second rounders pick 20 becomes 21.

 

[My Hat]

The top picks should be in a band
1-5 - Needing 1 x top 10 + 2nd rounder
6-10 - 1 x top 20
11-20 - 1 x first round or 2 x 2nd round.

I also think an independent panel should rank them and categorise them in the band.

IMO bands are bad because a relatively small difference (e.g. between 5 and 6 in your example) has a relatively large impact on the outcome. Creates all kinds of perverse incentives and perceived inequities. Same goes for other ideas where the discount depends on where you finish on the ladder.

A fair system is one where there's a smooth gradient, i.e. as your position gradually improves, your draft hand gradually gets weaker. Which is exactly what we have where finishing last gets you pick 1, second last gets you 2, etc.

Trying to retrofit an entirely separate mechanism on top of that is inevitably going to be messy and complicated and horrible. I'm with Stamos: all you need to do is keep the pick system we have now as the foundation, adjust the DVI as needed to balance things appropriately, and you're done.

 

[Uncle Fester]

IMO bands are bad because a relatively small difference (e.g. between 5 and 6 in your example) has a relatively large impact on the outcome. Creates all kinds of perverse incentives and perceived inequities. Same goes for other ideas where the discount depends on where you finish on the ladder.

A fair system is one where there's a smooth gradient, i.e. as your position gradually improves, your draft hand gradually gets weaker. Which is exactly what we have where finishing last gets you pick 1, second last gets you 2, etc.

Trying to retrofit an entirely separate mechanism on top of that is inevitably going to be messy and complicated and horrible. I'm with Stamos: all you need to do is keep the pick system we have now as the foundation, adjust the DVI as needed to balance things appropriately, and you're done.

happy with the DVI system - the finding the points in 2 picks is the hard part, allowing 3 picks for a top 5 pick may be enough to get the whole thing to work fairly - as i said - we are running the risk of turning this into a father and son tax

 

[Stamos]

Of course it does. If Brisbane could only afford Ashcroft than Fletcher and Dunkley might be playing somewhere else
Also if a team has to use two top 20 picks to match a bid at say 4 than pick 19 than becomes pick 18. If they use mid second rounders pick 20 becomes 21.

Again, if the DVI is set correctly then that resolves the issues.
Brisbane wouldn't have been able to do the Dunkley trade under the 2025 DVI.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Hypothetical trade
Picks 9, 10 (Sydney pick for Charlie) & 19 (JSOS compo) to WCE for Pick 2 & Campbell Chesser..

No idea who we would take with pick 2 but allows us to get in front of any Harry Dean bid

 

[marcmurphy3]

Hypothetical trade
Picks 9, 10 (Sydney pick for Charlie) & 19 (JSOS compo) to WCE for Pick 2 & Campbell Chesser..

No idea who we would take with pick 2 but allows us to get in front of any Harry Dean bid

Thats way overs plus we'd have no points to match Dean bid.

 

[Bluebag13]

Hypothetical trade
Picks 9, 10 (Sydney pick for Charlie) & 19 (JSOS compo) to WCE for Pick 2 & Campbell Chesser..

No idea who we would take with pick 2 but allows us to get in front of any Harry Dean bid

Way overs, and then how would we get dean

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Thats way overs plus we'd have no points to match Dean bid.

We will get more than pick 9 for Charlie, so will be able to manipulate it to make it work. Can trade a future 2nd in to get enough points for Dean.