Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2025 List Management II šŸ“ƒ

šŸ„° Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coona Blues said:
I think the AFL will renege on the briefly touted ā€œtwo picks in the roundā€ decree. If a player goes one, will need two top tens, and that will become all but impossible.

Not right to deny a kid wedded to his fatherā€™s team the right to get there. No father son has yet been denied the opportunity to get to his family club. It is part of the fabric of our game. The multiple academy picks that the Suns in particular have banked is a much bigger issue than F/S. We have made massive moves, trading out a ā€œsuperstarā€ to get a second first rounder next year. That should be sufficient. We should be allowed to make up any shortfall with later picks or a future pick.
Click to expand...
doubt they do, hope so though

Can we use 3x 1sts to match? Or could they possibly allow us to go into 1st round deficit in 2027? Highly doubt they backflip completely to help Carlton after making a rule which teams have just traded with it in mind
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

jd2010 said:
doubt they do, hope so though

Can we use 3x 1sts to match? Or could they possibly allow us to go into 1st round deficit in 2027? Highly doubt they backflip completely to help Carlton after making a rule which teams have just traded with it in mind
Click to expand...

It won't be a complete backflip... but they clearly didn't think it through properly.

Having an only 2 picks to match rule makes it near impossible to get a player bid on at pick 1 and very difficult if the bid is at pick 2.

Even if you get them, no one knows who fa band 1 compo goes to until like a week before trade period starts, so you might have the right picks, but then they get pushed back anyway...

When you have a system where, you don't know where the bid is going to come and you don't know where your picks are going to land until the start of trade period makes a 2 picks only rule near impossible to plan for.

No doubt the AFL put this to the clubs and they got hit with a bunch of "what ifs" that the AFL can't answer hence the delay in announcing changes.

They'll come up with something, it won't remain as it is this year, but I doubt 2 picks only to match remains.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
It won't be a complete backflip... but they clearly didn't think it through properly.

Having an only 2 picks to match rule makes it near impossible to get a player bid on at pick 1 and very difficult if the bid is at pick 2.

Even if you get them, no one knows who fa band 1 compo goes to until like a week before trade period starts, so you might have the right picks, but then they get pushed back anyway...

When you have a system where, you don't know where the bid is going to come and you don't know where your picks are going to land until the start of trade period makes a 2 picks only rule near impossible to plan for.

No doubt the AFL put this to the clubs and they got hit with a bunch of "what ifs" that the AFL can't answer hence the delay in announcing changes.

They'll come up with something, it won't remain as it is this year, but I doubt 2 picks only to match remains.
Click to expand...

Thats my thinking too. Plus Tassie in 27 will compound the impact of picks getting pushed down.

Part of the reason for the current system is it provides flexibility. They need to find a way of maintaining that flexibility, while evening up the cost and still making bid matching achievable.

Probably impossible to do if you want clubs paying 100% market rate but you can get close, and if clubs end up getting players at a slight discount I think thats ok.

They need to get this idea out of their heads that clubs should only be using really high picks to match really high picks. Forcing clubs into getting those isnt realistic as it is reliant on a willing trade partner.
 
bluesDeluxe said:
To me it makes no sense to use future assets to trade up in this draft.

Better to just take Dean and ison and see what we can get in the futures market.
Click to expand...
Personally Iā€™d be trying to get Collingwoodā€™s future first but doubt they do it. But say pick 11 for future first and 39.
Essendon is a good side to target because it allows Dean to most likely slip to 10 in the draft. Say 9 and a 2027 second for 27, 30 and a 2026 future second.

With GC and Brisbaneā€™s picks where they are they will easily come in enough for us to match with no deficit and possibly hold 3 first rounders next season and a pick in the ~25 range.

I donā€™t think either of these clubs do these trades but thatā€™s the sort of things I hope we are trying.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
It won't be a complete backflip... but they clearly didn't think it through properly.

Having an only 2 picks to match rule makes it near impossible to get a player bid on at pick 1 and very difficult if the bid is at pick 2.

Even if you get them, no one knows who fa band 1 compo goes to until like a week before trade period starts, so you might have the right picks, but then they get pushed back anyway...

When you have a system where, you don't know where the bid is going to come and you don't know where your picks are going to land until the start of trade period makes a 2 picks only rule near impossible to plan for.

No doubt the AFL put this to the clubs and they got hit with a bunch of "what ifs" that the AFL can't answer hence the delay in announcing changes.

They'll come up with something, it won't remain as it is this year, but I doubt 2 picks only to match remains.
Click to expand...
I hope commonsense prevails

Something like a carve out that says ā€œin the event of a player going top 10, then 2x top 25 picks must be used to match the bidā€ then remove all point values from top 10 picks, use the points system for picks 11+. The reason why I say 2x top 25 picks is it gives a huge window for clubs picks being pushed out by additional FA picks. Also then adds significant value to the picks that bottom clubs hold at start of the second round, to give them an additional leg up in equalisation. For example Brisbane win flag have a father son in top 10, they are forced to go to WCE to pay overs for their first pick in round 2. Brisbane use those 2 picks to go father son & WCE get an awesome deal on a second round pick
 
Blue_Fusion said:
It won't be a complete backflip... but they clearly didn't think it through properly.

Having an only 2 picks to match rule makes it near impossible to get a player bid on at pick 1 and very difficult if the bid is at pick 2.

Even if you get them, no one knows who fa band 1 compo goes to until like a week before trade period starts, so you might have the right picks, but then they get pushed back anyway...

When you have a system where, you don't know where the bid is going to come and you don't know where your picks are going to land until the start of trade period makes a 2 picks only rule near impossible to plan for.

No doubt the AFL put this to the clubs and they got hit with a bunch of "what ifs" that the AFL can't answer hence the delay in announcing changes.

They'll come up with something, it won't remain as it is this year, but I doubt 2 picks only to match remains.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m guessing a 100% tax on the deficit after two picks.
It really should never be too much anyway but it encourages teams to get as close as possible while matching a bid which is their main aim but still allows teams guaranteed access for the player.

Either that or just something like two picks with say ~200pt deficit limit.
 
Brezsa said:
I hope commonsense prevails

Something like a carve out that says ā€œin the event of a player going top 10, then 2x top 25 picks must be used to match the bidā€ then remove all point values from top 10 picks, use the points system for picks 11+. The reason why I say 2x top 25 picks is it gives a huge window for clubs picks being pushed out by additional FA picks. Also then adds significant value to the picks that bottom clubs hold at start of the second round, to give them an additional leg up in equalisation.
Click to expand...

Saying you must have picks in a certain range again opens the door for FA picks to push your picks out, then you need to find a willing trade partner where you'd be paying overs to get that additional top 25 pick because they know you need it.

I'd rather a system where you must provide 1 pick in the equivalent round and then you can only use picks in the equivalent or subsequent round to match.

So, let's say for argument sake, a bid comes at pick 1 and let's assume there's also going to be "bands" for discounts so a top 4 team receives 0% discount.

That's 3000 points required.

example: Brisbane = Premiers -> pick 20 (after a couple b1 compo picks)

pick 20 = 757 points and is still classified as round 1 so it can be used.

But now Brisbane have to find 2243 points.

Now, they can do that with as many picks as they want, but any pick they use must be only in round 1 or round 2.

They'd be looking at getting 4+ 2nd rounders to combine with their own first to match the bid.

I'd say that's a fair enough price to pay, to obtain that many picks in those ranges will be difficult, but still manageable.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Blue_Fusion said:
--2015

Weitering
McKay
Curnow
Cuningham
J.Silvagni

--2016

Petrevski-Seton
Fisher
Macreadie
Polson
Williamson
Kerr

--2017

Dow
O'Brien
De Koning
Schumacher
Garlett

--2018

Walsh
Stocker
O'Dwyer
B.Silvagni

--2019

Kemp
Philp
Ramsay

Only the bold remain on an AFL list...

Only 4 draft picks still at Carlton from Stephen Silvagni...

Only another 6 are still on an AFL list at another club... 4 of those are at St Kilda... Silvagni's new home...
Click to expand...
SOS had the strategy but just terrible talent ID, particularly with midfielders.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
Saying you must have picks in a certain range again opens the door for FA picks to push your picks out, then you need to find a willing trade partner where you'd be paying overs to get that additional top 25 pick because they know you need it.

I'd rather a system where you must provide 1 pick in the equivalent round and then you can only use picks in the equivalent or subsequent round to match.

So, let's say for argument sake, a bid comes at pick 1 and let's assume there's also going to be "bands" for discounts so a top 4 team receives 0% discount.

That's 3000 points required.

example: Brisbane = Premiers -> pick 20 (after a couple b1 compo picks)

pick 20 = 757 points and is still classified as round 1 so it can be used.

But now Brisbane have to find 2243 points.

Now, they can do that with as many picks as they want, but any pick they use must be only in round 1 or round 2.

They'd be looking at getting 4+ 2nd rounders to combine with their own first to match the bid.

I'd say that's a fair enough price to pay, to obtain that many picks in those ranges will be difficult, but still manageable.
Click to expand...
To play devils advocate now Iā€™m WCE I have pick 1, take a player, my father son goes at pick 9. I donā€™t naturally have a second pick in round 1 to cover that pick, then use others for points.

So now as you put it clubs know Iā€™m desperate to get back in later in round 1 & the same thing occurs over paying to get one

In this hypothetical I prefer a situation where a top team is overpaying than a bottom 4 club.

To fully solve the pick slide the rule instead of top 25. Could be ā€œyou must use two picks in the first round until round 2a. You split round 2 natural selections into the bottom 6 (round 2a) & the rest (round 2b) so if you finish in the bottom 6 your natural selection pick can be used, if you donā€™t it canā€™t. Gives higher trade value to the bottom 6 clubs, that pick number then shifts yearly rather than a fixed point, based on FA picks etc. so one year it might be top 25, next itā€™s top 32 etc
 
Last edited:
Brezsa said:
To play devils advocate now Iā€™m WCE I have pick 1, take a player, my father son goes at pick 9. I donā€™t naturally have a second pick in round 1 to cover that pick, then use others for points.

So now as you put it clubs know Iā€™m desperate to get back in later in round 1 & the same thing occurs over paying to get one

In this hypothetical I prefer a situation where a top team is overpaying than a bottom 4 club
Click to expand...

That's true and no system will be perfect. Bottom teams will receive discount, top 4 won't. So there's that benefit to make it easier for them too.

Let's take an extreme example, WCE have pick 1 and their F/S - NGA player goes at pick 3.

WCE's options are now to either use pick 1 on anyone they want and then figure out a way to get another first rounder or take their highly rated kid with their first pick.

If we take your example, they use pick 1 on the best available. They know they have a top 15 talent they want as well, then the onus is on them to get an additional first. They could look at splitting pick 1, trading future picks etc. options are there.

Bottom line is, bad luck, you want two of the best kids in the draft, you have to pay for them. But a system where another team can be pricks and make you pay overs for say pick 23 isn't a good approach imo.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
That's true and no system will be perfect. Bottom teams will receive discount, top 4 won't. So there's that benefit to make it easier for them too.

Let's take an extreme example, WCE have pick 1 and their F/S - NGA player goes at pick 3.

WCE's options are now to either use pick 1 on anyone they want and then figure out a way to get another first rounder or take their highly rated kid with their first pick.

If we take your example, they use pick 1 on the best available. They know they have a top 15 talent they want as well, then the onus is on them to get an additional first. They could look at splitting pick 1, trading future picks etc. options are there.

Bottom line is, bad luck, you want two of the best kids in the draft, you have to pay for them. But a system where another team can be pricks and make you pay overs for say pick 23 isn't a good approach imo.
Click to expand...
Any attempt to retrofit the existing system to accommodate anomalies is destined to be unfair.
I wrote a proposal about how the AFL should recreate the list management system from scratch (including list composition and salary cap, the draft and player trading/free agency).
I welcome your thoughts.
 
I think people are ignoring what the AFL are trying to achieve. Top picks for top players.
Itā€™s pretty simple really. If you canā€™t trade up than that shows the value of those picks (as this changes every draft)
 

šŸ„° Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Blue_Fusion said:
That's true and no system will be perfect. Bottom teams will receive discount, top 4 won't. So there's that benefit to make it easier for them too.

Let's take an extreme example, WCE have pick 1 and their F/S - NGA player goes at pick 3.

WCE's options are now to either use pick 1 on anyone they want and then figure out a way to get another first rounder or take their highly rated kid with their first pick.

If we take your example, they use pick 1 on the best available. They know they have a top 15 talent they want as well, then the onus is on them to get an additional first. They could look at splitting pick 1, trading future picks etc. options are there.

Bottom line is, bad luck, you want two of the best kids in the draft, you have to pay for them. But a system where another team can be pricks and make you pay overs for say pick 23 isn't a good approach imo.
Click to expand...
To throw the entire system out and start again might be the best option.

Now work with me here as this is something I havenā€™t thought through.

Letā€™s take Academy & FS out of the draft. Letā€™s push trade week back a week. You have your draft order set.

You prelist your academy & father sons. The AFL with their secret herbs and spices goes to to the prelist

Brisbane - ok so you want father son A. You have pick 18, pick 36 etc.
AFL goes to Brisbane he is a top 10 prospect - you can have him, your pick 18 this year is gone, your 36 is gone and your next year first slides to end of first round

Brisbane takes it or leaves it

GC you have listed 2 players in the top 10 of the draft, we are taking your next 2 firsts and this years second

GC takes it or leaves it.

Or

You list the players the AFL comes back with a point value on the players. You then have the trade period to sort out those points & the picks that it takes up are removed prior to draft night.

Or
Carlton list Cody Walker, we are willing to give up for him Pick 13 + 16. AFL goes no we want your second too, Carlton no we will give you are 3rd. AFL okie dokie.

There are clear problems with this too, but if they are never in the pool, itā€™s sorted by trade period everyone knows what they need and the draft night is less of a farce of bids and slides etc and itā€™s all clean.

Youā€™d almost need a board where 18 clubs sit around it to discuss the players value or an AFL recruiting department that access values.

Problem is itā€™s open to serious manipulation by the AFL based on which way the wind is blowing each year
 
Would like us to keep McGovern and play him at CHF with H at FF. Donā€™t think Oā€™Keefe is ready for that responsibility and is not a natural forward.

H, Gov, Moir, Ainsworth, Hayward, Williams, Motlop is a well rounded forward line with plenty of options.

Recruit a ready-made KPF via Free Agency in 2027/28.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
--2015

Weitering
McKay
Curnow
Cuningham
J.Silvagni

--2016

Petrevski-Seton
Fisher
Macreadie
Polson
Williamson
Kerr

--2017

Dow
O'Brien
De Koning
Schumacher
Garlett

--2018

Walsh
Stocker
O'Dwyer
B.Silvagni

--2019

Kemp
Philp
Ramsay

Only the bold remain on an AFL list...

Only 4 draft picks still at Carlton from Stephen Silvagni...

Only another 6 are still on an AFL list at another club... 4 of those are at St Kilda... Silvagni's new home...
Click to expand...
what a shitty legacy to leave, that's woeful drafting
 
Brezsa said:
To throw the entire system out and start again might be the best option.

Now work with me here as this is something I havenā€™t thought through.

Letā€™s take Academy & FS out of the draft. Letā€™s push trade week back a week. You have your draft order set.

You prelist your academy & father sons. The AFL with their secret herbs and spices goes to to the prelist

Brisbane - ok so you want father son A. You have pick 18, pick 36 etc.
AFL goes to Brisbane he is a top 10 prospect - you can have him, your pick 18 this year is gone, your 36 is gone and your next year first slides to end of first round

Brisbane takes it or leaves it

GC you have listed 2 players in the top 10 of the draft, we are taking your next 2 firsts and this years second

GC takes it or leaves it.

Or

You list the players the AFL comes back with a point value on the players. You then have the trade period to sort out those points & the picks that it takes up are removed prior to draft night.

Or
Carlton list Cody Walker, we are willing to give up for him Pick 13 + 16. AFL goes no we want your second too, Carlton no we will give you are 3rd. AFL okie dokie.

There are clear problems with this too, but if they are never in the pool, itā€™s sorted by trade period everyone knows what they need and the draft night is less of a farce of bids and slides etc and itā€™s all clean.

Youā€™d almost need a board where 18 clubs sit around it to discuss the players value or an AFL recruiting department that access values.

Problem is itā€™s open to serious manipulation by the AFL based on which way the wind is blowing each year
Click to expand...

Yeah not sure they'll scrap and go with a board... that would open the door to way too many conflicts...

I think either way, the harder they make it to match, the more we'll see F/S rated as "top 20-30" talents instead of top 5... clubs will manipulate it anyway.
 
Blue_Fusion said:
Yeah not sure they'll scrap and go with a board... that would open the door to way too many conflicts...

I think either way, the harder they make it to match, the more we'll see F/S rated as "top 20-30" talents instead of top 5... clubs will manipulate it anyway.
Click to expand...
I probably have the most unpopular opinion on all of this. But outside of GWS & GC all clubs have been around long enough for Father Sons. So personally think itā€™s luck of the draw, you pay nothing. They go on your list prior to draft. No matching, no manipulation.

Then the entire academy system is a farce. If you are in an area likely to create a heap of talent you will invest heavily in it, if you arenā€™t you wonā€™t. The AFL has enough money, there shouldnā€™t be GWS, GC, Carlton academies, there should be AFL academies. Dotted across the country, no matter your background you good enough you get into these, thatā€™s your draft pool right there & the AFL have been training them & getting them ready for 3-4 years
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Jimmae
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Thread
Replies
12
Views
1K
Stamos
Stamos
swuzzlebubble
List Mgmt. Mid Season Draft 2025 - Wed 28th May
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
771
Views
49K
swuzzlebubble
swuzzlebubble
GalaxyBlue
Injury 2025 AFLW Injury List
Replies
11
Views
1K
BluesForEternity
B
jj1978
News Welcome to Carlton Chris Davies General Manager of Football
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
129
Views
9K
Blue_Fusion
B
Aphrodite
Brownlow 2025 Brownlow šŸ…
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
330
Views
8K
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
AFL Grand Final 2025 AFL Grand Final - Congratulations Brisbane 2025 Premiers šŸ†
30 31 32 33 34
Replies
847
Views
17K
lukep_86
lukep_86
Revenant1995
Analysis 2025 Season Review
Replies
22
Views
1K
Moon
M

šŸ„° Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top