News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[longdonkey]

It really depends on if you wanna keep watching a league where success is heavily linked to genetic luck. How many father sons have won premierships in the last 20 years? and if those teams didn't get those players on discount could they have built the list they won with?

But if its not that what happens whoever gets the most free agency players ends up winning premierships like during the Hawthorn years. If you get a free agency player the team that gets the player should be giving pick(s) to the losing team not get compo.

 

[mpal6]

I'm still making the point that you were able to use the arbitrage of draft point systems over a three year period with a mixture of current and future picks going back and forth to trade in Dunkley. For the sake of argument if you were forced to use a single pick for Dunkley you would have found a way to get a single pick just after pick 10ish for a similar net draft position, then traded that to us.

I think Dunkley as a footballer was worth more than that pick ~12 (having just come off winning our B&F that very season). But I'm just making the point you outlaid picks worth pick 12 yet still had the points to match 2+12 that very same season.

Nobody is saying that Brisbane shouldn't attempt within the system to maximise talent or recruit in such a way that maximises future wins. Every club would think the same way, and that just proves that for 10 years the DVI points curve was wildly incorrect in the true valuation of draft picks. Just that with more top-end F/S and Academy players, especially when considering matching Hipwood and Keays for junk picks in one year before and the other Ashcroft since, Brisbane were able to benefit probably the most of any club (with Dogs probably second).

And for our picks: Yes, I made clear in that post that I recognise thatthat:

I've conceded father son did give us a bit of luck in the recent past after 20 years of barren run. That's a given.

Our Academy producing top-line players? you're just taking the mickey with that statement. Hipwood is suddenly top liner? I can dredge out the ton of bigfooty posts that take the piss at him every time he plays as a so-called forward and not kick a goal. There was no one envying Lions signing Hipwood up on a 7 year deal, it was more like "are you sure?". Keays got delisted from Lions - thanks to his hard work and persistence, he's become the player he is today.

Harris Andrews (2nd round), Coleman (undrafted 2018), Coleman2 (second round - delisted now), Payne (50s pick), Reville (drafted as 22 year old), Gallop (third round) - does that look like top line to you during draft year? Marshall was all trumpeted up and got drafted around the last pick of first round last year (pick 25) ?

Our first ever genuine top 10 academy pick will be Annable this year. I'd even dispute that due to the shallowness of the draft exaggerating his production rate through the midfield. He'd be a solid mid-table first round pick in any other draft.

Us winning a premiership, getting our trades right over a period of time (Cameron, Ah Chee, Neale, Daniher, Dunkley, McCarthy etc) and also getting lucky with our drafting even in open picks like Morris (pick 31) is overstating the "rich getting richer" view. Lions academy production overall isn't at the level posters are carrying on in this thread but each to our own.

 

[Aarick13]

Get rid of the discount and only allow teams to use 2 maybe 3 (I haven't looked at how much the points have changed this year) picks to match a bid.

You win the premiership and need to match pick 1. Better go find a way to get pick 3 so you end up paying pick 3 and 18.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hipwood is suddenly top liner?

I'm not talking about Hipwood being a top liner or not, I'm talking about taking advantage of the fact that you were able to jump the draft position and get him at a discount.

Hipwood pick 14 and Keays pick 24 in the same draft for a bunch of almost worthless picks in the 40's, on top of the fact that it was the same draft you already had a pick 2 in the draft. So you in effect got a pick 14 for free.

So you were crap that year but your 'natural' picks were pick 2, early 20s and a bunch of random meaningful pick. The net result of that year of all your trades ins and outs was that you got Schache and Keays (your natural 1st and 2nd picks) so got a pick 14 for free.

I do not give a stuff about what Hipwood's career turned out to be. All that matters was the economic advantage on draft day itself. For the purposes of discussing draft day advantages it is irrelevant. Whether or not Keays became delisted is also irrelevant. The point remains is that you were able to use multiple picks in the 40s to jump up to a pick in the mid 20's.

This is what frustrates me about this discussion. It's not about how good the players become, it's how much of an advantage you get on draft day.

The Dogs benefitted more on draft day by getting Ayce Cordy than they did Tom Liberatore, Lachie Hunter or Mitch Wallis, because we got a more valuable discount, for instance. Ayce Cordy was considered a top 10 prospect we got with pick 14, and a jump for 14 to pick 8 is more valuable than us taking a roughly pick 25-30 rated Liberatore at pick 41.

May seem counter-intuitive but it's true, in the same way that you benefitted from Hipwood and Keays that year.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Ashman23]

And just quietly where was all this concern for equality in the competition when Geelong were getting Gary Ablett Junior for Pick 40 and Hawthorn were getting priority picks.

From Hawthorn's perspective is was a whooping two picks which we drafted Jarryd Roughead (Brett Deledio and Ryan Griffin also in that draft as priorities) and Xavier Ellis (Mark Murphy and Dale Thomas in that draft as priorities).

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Id love to know which clubs are fearful.

 

[mpal6]

I'm not talking about Hipwood being a top liner or not, I'm talking about taking advantage of the fact that you were able to jump the draft position and get him at a discount.

Hipwood pick 14 and Keays pick 24 in the same draft for a bunch of almost worthless picks in the 40's, on top of the fact that it was the same draft you already had a pick 2 in the draft. So you in effect got a pick 14 for free.

So you were crap that year but your 'natural' picks were pick 2, early 20s and a bunch of random meaningful pick. The net result of that year of all your trades ins and outs was that you got Schache and Keays (your natural 1st and 2nd picks) so got a pick 14 for free.

I do not give a stuff about what Hipwood's career turned out to be. All that matters was the economic advantage on draft day itself. For the purposes of discussing draft day advantages it is irrelevant. Whether or not Keays became delisted is also irrelevant. The point remains is that you were able to use multiple picks in the 40s to jump up to a pick in the mid 20's.

This is what frustrates me about this discussion. It's not about how good the players become, it's how much of an advantage you get on draft day.

The Dogs benefitted more on draft day by getting Ayce Cordy than they did Tom Liberatore, Lachie Hunter or Mitch Wallis, because we got a more valuable discount, for instance. Ayce Cordy was considered a top 10 prospect we got with pick 14, and a jump for 14 to pick 8 is more valuable than us taking a roughly pick 25-30 rated Liberatore at pick 41.

May seem counter-intuitive but it's true, in the same way that you benefitted from Hipwood and Keays that year.

You can't just zero in and argue on a singular view of "advantages on a draft day". This whole comp is giving inherent advantages to specific clubs on various scenarios and state of play. It's right down to having a facility to train, ability to retain players, ability to attract players due to their demographic, where grand final gets played etc etc. The list goes on.

If your gripe is about us getting early picks in Schache/Hipwood/Keays draft - as you've stated already, we were crap back then. 2/3 in those picks were bust for us, in spite of you saying how the player turns out doesn't matter - it absolutely does. Coz all of the naysayers here are trying to dial it up the other way as if every player coming through this academy system is a rolled gold star. They are not and how their career pans out absolutely counts towards whether or not the incumbent club committing an early pick is a smart/cunning idea or stupid idea.

 

[King Hansen]

Id love to know which clubs are fearful.

The ones that have top end academy and FS picks coming through obviously.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You can't just zero in and argue on a singular view of "advantages on a draft day". This whole comp is giving inherent advantages to specific clubs on various scenarios and state of play. It's right down to having a facility to train, ability to retain players, ability to attract players due to their demographic, where grand final gets played etc etc. The list goes on.

If your gripe is about us getting early picks in Schache/Hipwood/Keays draft - as you've stated already, we were crap back then. 2/3 in those picks were bust for us, in spite of you saying how the player turns out doesn't matter - it absolutely does. Coz all of the naysayers here are trying to dial it up the other way as if every player coming through this academy system is a rolled gold star. They are not and how their career pans out absolutely counts towards whether or not the incumbent club committing an early pick is a smart/cunning idea or stupid idea.

But the fairest way to measure it is the advantages you get on draft day, otherwise it becomes about club player development.

I don't care if the players eventually became a bust, that speaks to your development.

You were able to additionally get players that other clubs wanted at the time.

Other clubs bidded on Hipwood and Keays - and were willing to use their very live picks 14 and 24 and prepared to live with being able to draft them you not match - ergo, you were able to get players to the value of those picks.

You are spinning it around to try and make it seem like Brisbane hasn't gained a draft advantage when they have. You have. I'm the Dogs fan here shouting from the rooftops that we also got a significant draft advantage in drafting Ayce bloody Cordy. I'm not trying to minimise the advantage by pointing to his eventual highly underwhelming career.

 

[briztoon]

You shouldnt have been able to get all of Dunkley, Ashcroft and Fletcher for that price, that's the whole problem. Those first round picks are like 20+, it should have cost you all those picks basically for just Ashcroft.

I agree. And the AFL recognised this and changed the draft value index for this and in to the future. Yet, before we've even seen how the changes impact the draft, there's talk of changing the system again.

It was good list management made possible by the unbelievable leg up that is the points system for contending teams. The advantages of the system are overwhemingly weighted to contending teams which is why the gap between bottom and top is widening so much.

We're the only contending team that have benefitted from the old points system. Geelong hasn't, Collingwood hasn't, Adelaide hasn't. GWS hasn't. Nor has Hawthorn or Freo.

Free agency and being a well run team, or being a big name team, has been more of a leg up for the contending teams, than academies and father sons.

The draft is supposed to be a leveler helping bottom teams get elite talent to catch up the top teams who have to pay more for trading elite talent in. Instead, contending teams are getting continued access access to elite young talent while contending.

Who else, besides Brisbane?

Gold Coast is about to crack their first finals ever (maybe). While they've had a couple of good years of academy talent, they haven't been contenders.

Collingwood missed finals they got Nick, and haven't had any other top end free hits.

Bulldogs got Darcy, but have been a massive yoyo team, and not genuine contenders, and have only had JUH and Darcy as top picks.

While recently Sydney tend to miss finals the years they have decent academy talent come through.

GWS have had Tom Green as their most recent top end academy talent, and that was 6 years ago. Any time they've had high end picks, it's been on the back of losing quality players back to Victoria.

All of Geelong's most recent father sons who won them premierships have retired as OAP's.

Everyone's huffing and puffing about father sons and academy players only applies to one team, yet every team is potentially negatively impacted by a knee jerk reaction.

When the FA's overwhelmingly go to contending teams (by design) as well (also overwhelmingly Vic historically) it makes it very hard to rebuilding teams to get out off the bottom which is why we are in the situation we are in where there is such a gap between good and bad.

And there's the real issue.

Rebuilding through the draft isn't a quick fix.

You have to hit on multiple players over multiple drafts. You've got to have a good group of mid aged and mature aged players at the club at the same time as getting top draftees in, to bounce back quickly.

Lots of young talent isn't going to see a team bounce back fast. Gold Coast and North are examples of this. They have to play 100+ games and be in that 24 to 26 age group before they're ready to compete. That's 6 to 8 years just to be competitive. Not a contender. Not guaranteed finals. Just competitive.

That's the reality of rebuilding through the draft in todays AFL.

Anyone (including Gil) trying to sell you otherwise is selling false hope.

I'm fine with blocking off the first round for points bids, at the very least the top 10 of the draft should be barred for bidding for top 4 teams IMO, or, the cost made so exorbitant that actual hard decisions need to be made. It should be physically impossible to get Dunkley and Ashcroft in the same year as a top 4 team.

I say this knowing its going to be 15 years until the current inequalities naturally filter out.

 

[briztoon]

what happens to a team under those no compensation rules if they continually leak players while being unable to trade players in?

1. Make it near impossible to lose a required player up until they're restricted free agency year.

2. Both are restricted free agents, so they would have to be traded for.

3. If a player has done 8 years service at a club, they deserve the right to look around.

4. Fix your off field culture, and probably on field culture.

 

[briztoon]

They get better internally it’s not that hard

North and St Kilda are proof otherwise.

 

[briztoon]

It very, very rarely happens these days.
I doubt if any non Victorian clubs take any notice of it to be honest. The club holds the whip hand at the end of the day. No draftee is going to sit out of football for three years because an interstate club drafted him.

Get ****ed.

It's happened every draft for the past 7 or 8 drafts.

GWS's list manager went on Twomey's show in 2022 and said they were unable to draft some of the top Vic talent because those kids said they didn't want to leave Vic.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I agree. And the AFL recognised this and changed the draft value index for this and in to the future. Yet, before we've even seen how the changes impact the draft, there's talk of changing the system again.

We're the only contending team that have benefitted from the old points system. Geelong hasn't, Collingwood hasn't, Adelaide hasn't. GWS hasn't. Nor has Hawthorn or Freo.

Free agency and being a well run team, or being a big name team, has been more of a leg up for the contending teams, than academies and father sons.

Who else, besides Brisbane?

Gold Coast is about to crack their first finals ever (maybe). While they've had a couple of good years of academy talent, they haven't been contenders.

Collingwood missed finals they got Nick, and haven't had any other top end free hits.

Bulldogs got Darcy, but have been a massive yoyo team, and not genuine contenders, and have only had JUH and Darcy as top picks.

While recently Sydney tend to miss finals the years they have decent academy talent come through.

GWS have had Tom Green as their most recent top end academy talent, and that was 6 years ago. Any time they've had high end picks, it's been on the back of losing quality players back to Victoria.

All of Geelong's most recent father sons who won them premierships have retired as OAP's.

Everyone's huffing and puffing about father sons and academy players only applies to one team, yet every team is potentially negatively impacted by a knee jerk reaction.



And there's the real issue.

Rebuilding through the draft isn't a quick fix.

You have to hit on multiple players over multiple drafts. You've got to have a good group of mid aged and mature aged players at the club at the same time as getting top draftees in, to bounce back quickly.

Lots of young talent isn't going to see a team bounce back fast. Gold Coast and North are examples of this. They have to play 100+ games and be in that 24 to 26 age group before they're ready to compete. That's 6 to 8 years just to be competitive. Not a contender. Not guaranteed finals. Just competitive.

That's the reality of rebuilding through the draft in todays AFL.

Anyone (including Gil) trying to sell you otherwise is selling false hope.

None of my comments are a criticism of Brisbane. They are a criticism of your defense of the system using your examples and Brisbane as the subject. Yes, Brisbane, Pies, Sydney, Dogs, Gold Coast, GWS and Geelong have benefited greatly. Notice where all those clubs are in Australia and hence why most SA and WA peeps are fed up.

FA has tipped it all over the edge to be honest. A draft system that can be compromised so heavily is not supposed to be run with FA for all these reasons.

Draft points changes will make a difference, I am OK giving it a few years to play out but im certain it won't be fixed enough until the top end is locked from bids.

 

[briztoon]

I said it very, very rarely happens. That is only one example from about 1000 draftees which indicates that it is indeed rare.
And hypothetically if Brisbane or Port Adelaide or Fremantle drafted him, do you really think he would have stood out of football for three years?

Hobbs told recruiters the same. So did Jagga Smith. Nick Watson, Sheezel & Wardlaw, Tsatas, Perkins, Hobbs, Tanner Bruhn, Cerra, Worpel, Ed Richards. Sh!t Paddy Dow told recruiters he wanted to be drafted by North, and cried when Carlton drafted him.

It's not about a kid standing out of football. It's about potentially wasting a top pick on a kid, and then getting screwed in the trade when the kid wants to go home in two years.

Multiple Northern academy recruiters have spoken about having a list of kids every year that they deem not draftable because they don't want to leave their home state.

 

[danster168]

scrap it or put an asterisk on the premiership cup for teams like Dogs, Pies and Lions that wouldn't have won it without it. Simple.

 

[briztoon]

So if the AFL didn't need to fund Northern clubs and academies where would the money go?

To the remaining clubs.

And they would spend the extra money developing junior talent in their state.

Not QLD or NSW.

You come up with some bizarre arguments.

BIZARRE.

With a fair amount of self interest.

100% there's a heap of self interest in my posts, but your post is the bizarre post.

The AFL hands out money to every club.

You're club was let in to the AFL as the same time as mine. We exist for one purpose only, to prop up the VFL and bring in the media $$$.

The AFL had the chance to fund the Northern states junior pathways, and hand balled it off at the first opportunity. They said, here you do it.

Same as the AFL said to you, you guys are loaded, fund your own State.


Here's a bizarre question.

West Coast have reportedly $100m+ in the bank. Why aren't you spending it? resurface mineral park, or buy a private jet with max leg room.

 

[Elixuh]

scrap it or put an asterisk on the premiership cup for teams like Dogs, Pies and Lions that wouldn't have won it without it. Simple.

I’m happy to have a danster asterisk next to any flags the lions might win. Keep the current system.

 

[danster168]

I’m happy to have a danster asterisk next to any flags the lions might win. Keep the current system.

I'll go for the lions this post-season but it's probably a few asterisks this year with Fletchers form and Levi's.

 

[briztoon]

There is a hell of a lot of handwaving away?

You can't just say "oh we pushed back picks" when the inherent arbitrage of an exchange rate between live pick value and DVI pick value is precisely the criticism here

And being accused of bias I want to recognise we did the exact same thing with e.g. JUH and Treloar trade.

"but we had pushed picks from 2021 in to 2022 to help achieve this" is by its very nature the thing being criticised here.

Lets try and look at this objectivel.

What you ended up with vs. the natural draft position if no trades or no bidding element.

2021-2023 you came top 6, top 4 and top 2.

So you would have had three 1st round draft picks in the late teens and four 2nd round draft picks in mid 30's (McStay compensation).

All we can do is do a comparison if you had never made a trade or had any bidding eligible players

2021: Pick 16 (Wilmot). Ignoring Lohmann pick 20 as that was due to trading out a similar pick from 2020
2022: Pick 2, Pick 12, Dunkley (taking what you traded out as its reality worth and not its DVI worth, his trade value in a straight about pick 12 as well. I think objectively as a footballer he was worth more than that but we had a market of 1, out of contract, supply/demand etc. so take that pick 12 for what it is.)
2023: Pick 31: Morris

Lets cancel out one of the 1st round pick (Wilmot) and one of the best 2nd round picks (Morris, though you still upgraded this from your "natural" mid 30's 2nd round pick from being a finals team to pick 31, which is a non-finals team 2nd round pick value).

TL;DR

So in effect, for the price of:

2 late teens picks
3 mid 30's picks:

You were able to get pick 2, pick 12, and pick 12.

That's it. that's the reality.

You can hand wave it away but what occurred vs. the natural operation of the draft where you have your natural picks being bad as you finished top 6, top 4 and top 2 and shouldn't be getting good players anyway naturally if the draft operated 'purely' is kind of incredible.

You missed either the McStay compensation that was band 3 or the Gold Coast second round pick 25 (that was part of the Berry trade).

So yes, two late teen picks, plus 3 mid 30's picks and a mid 20's pick.

But yes, you're point stands.

 

[briztoon]

It doesn't happen. Perkins is just one example out of thousands of draftees from the past decade. But even then, he was never really tested.

There has not been one single instance of a player not going to his drafted club because he didn't want to leave his home state. Thats from 100 draftees (inc PSD and Rookie) per year over the past 20 years.

Some have walked after 1 year. Some after 2 years. Many after their second contract.

 

[briztoon]

How exactly is that making a team down the bottom of the ladder better?
what are they spending that spare cap space on?

Re-signing their own players to inflated contracts, and overpaying players from other teams.

 

[briztoon]

How are Carlton going to be when TDK and Silvagni leave with no compensation?

Why are TDK and Silvagni leaving?

You could offer them better contracts to keep them.

How are eagles going to be with Allen and no compensation.

Allen doesn't want to leave the Eagles. But they have offered him peanuts, to disincentivise him from staying.

Draper at the dons with no compensation

Its already taking longer from bottom to top for melb sides. This will only mean it takes even longer, these players are leaving mostly for successful sides (Only TDK is money)

Scrap FA entirely, PA wont allow it

In most other sporting competitions, if a player hasn't re-signed a longer contract a year out from their free agency, they get traded for value.

So if TDK hadn't re-signed last year, Carlton should have traded him then for a couple of first round picks. That's how most other sporting leagues work.

 

[briztoon]

It really depends on if you wanna keep watching a league where success is heavily linked to genetic luck. How many father sons have won premierships in the last 20 years? and if those teams didn't get those players on discount could they have built the list they won with?

Scrap everything, father son, academies, compensation picks, and the same problems will still exist. The big Melbourne clubs will still dominate. The Geelong's and Collingwood's of the world. Add Richmond.

The only reason Essendon and Carlton aren't listed with the above, is because they had SOS and Sivagni f***ing up their draft and trade periods for the best part of a decade.