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

[threenewpadlocks]

Really? Because Port managed to get one in a superdraft with trading that started with giving up Jared Polec, Jasper Pittard and a bunch of late crap.

And eventually got pick 5 and a guy who was a top 10 selection, for pick 6, pick 35 and a future third.

On the flipside the Bulldogs had to give up pick 10, pick 17 and a future first-rounder just to trade up for pick 6 most recently to get Ryley Sanders.

That's what we're talking about here.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

But by this logic no team should have ever had to pay more because Geelong got Hawkins top 3 prospect with a third-round pick or that Sydney got Heeney top 3 prospect with pick 18. Why try to improve things because it's been less perfect in the past?

Sydney developed Isaac Heeney as a player because they had access to him. And they still paid a 1st round pick. If they didn't have access to him, they don't develop him and no one in the AFL gets Isaac Heeney.

And hows the shit blokes move from Geelong calling for Father-Son to be scrapped after the way they benefitted from that rort.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

On the flipside the Bulldogs had to give up pick 10, pick 17 and a future first-rounder just to trade up for pick 6 most recently to get Ryley Sanders.

That's what we're talking about here.

So your club did a rubbish job at getting more out of Gold Coast when they were desperately trying to get more points for matching three first round Academy kids?

This is why Gold Coast didn't pay "a fair price" for their Academy kids. I mean, the Dogs were dumb enough to hand them 3 first round picks for pick 4.

Clubs could've not done the trades, Pick 4 would've been eaten up by the bid on Walter at 3. They wouldn't have had the picks to match Read at 10, or Rogers at 14.

But then the Dogs wouldn't have been able to use 17 anyway since it would've been eaten up by the bid on Croft. Which you ignore in this comparison.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So your club did a rubbish job at getting more out of Gold Coast when they were desperately trying to get more points for matching three first round Academy kids?

This is why Gold Coast didn't pay "a fair price" for their Academy kids. I mean, the Dogs were dumb enough to hand them 3 first round picks for pick 4.

You do realise the need to trade pick 17 for us was to also get points to match a Croft bid?

 

[mpal6]

But by this logic no team should have ever had to pay more because Geelong got Hawkins top 3 prospect with a third-round pick or that Sydney got Heeney top 3 prospect with pick 18. Why try to improve things because it's been less perfect in the past?

You have to draw the line in the sand at some point, if you keep going back to what previously happened then it will never change. ATM its oh they got Darcy, they got Daicos, they have Ashcroft, tomorrow it will be they got Walker, they got Bewick.

Enough is enough. I'm glad the AFL are finally willing to address the rort. Top 5 kids in the draft is where the AFL should be targeting. That way clubs still have incentives to develop F/S or academies but those kids who are the cream at the top should be available to the bottom sides struggling.

The issue with this drawing the line on the sand is AFL doing a classic flipflop for the greater good of the game when the next big "Victorian" father son shows up in the radar - as it'll be a travesty for the said last name to be kicking footy in some other jumper other than their dad's one. Let's flip the rule again as "it'll be good for the footy" whatever the heck that means.

They've done the same flipflop with NGA as well, robbing Demons off Mac Andrew and then flipping back 2 years later to a free for all now.

You asked for a points system DVI which has just been implemented but whether or not it's effective - it doesn't matter. You want more changes and swing the pendulum the other side extremely until the whole thing is broken. Classic knee jerk all around and AFL is just responding to it which is pretty pathetic/crazy overall.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The issue with this drawing the line on the sand is AFL doing a classic flipflop for the greater good of the game when the next big "Victorian" father son shows up in the radar - as it'll be a travesty for the said last name to be kicking footy in some other jumper other than their dad's one. Let's flip the rule again as "it'll be good for the footy" whatever the heck that means.

They've done the same flipflop with NGA as well, robbing Demons off Mac Andrew and then flipping back 2 years later to a free for all now.

You asked for a points system DVI which has just been implemented but whether or not it's effective - it doesn't matter. You want more changes and swing the pendulum the other side extremely until the whole thing is broken. Classic knee jerk all around and AFL is just responding to it which is pretty pathetic/crazy overall.

Nobody's saying that the AFL shouldn't have different procedures to make changes that what's being reported in the media, bloody hell, or that they're making fixes in the best way forward.

 

[Profop]

Eh the Saints need to make a big song and dance about this to distract their fans from the fact that a bunch of teams dealing with the same ‘unfair’ system are sailing past them at a rate of knots

 

[JTTheKing]

If clubs are desperate for these FS or academies, there's nothing stopping them from trading for them after they are drafted.

In fact, I'd be happy for live player trading on draft night too.

Last year for example, if Melbourne pick Levi Ashcroft at 5, Brisbane had 5 minutes to come up with a trade that Melbourne will accept. This means they pay real market value, not multiple 2nd or 3rd picks, and also means clubs don't dummy bid as they are actually picking a player they will have to keep.

FS / academies are then treated like any other player.

Clubs can hardly even get normal trades done within the trade period and you seriously think they’d be able to get what you propose done in 5 minutes?

Please.

Ridiculous idea.

 

[JTTheKing]

Eh the Saints need to make a big song and dance about this to distract their fans from the fact that a bunch of teams dealing with the same ‘unfair’ system are sailing past them at a rate of knots

I think the funniest part about the Saints moaning is that they then go and throw 1.8 mil a year at TDK and all we get is a compo pick.

Now I happen to think the compo system is silly. However it is funny how cooked the whole trade system is.

If it was an American sport for example like the NBA and TDK was refusing to sign a new contract because he’s after a giant one, his club could ship him off for a proper trade haul.

Part of the rort is that clubs have no power to do what they want with a valuable asset.

We saw it last year with Geelong and Bailey Smith. A top 4 side can just bully the Dogs into giving up a great talent for a bag of chips essentially.

Everyone complains about rort this, rort that. The reality is there’s flaws in every system in the AFL.

Make some amendments to the father sons and academies. But FFS it’s tiring hearing any club moaning about a lack of success and blaming it on either.

Teams continue to prove that if you make some smart trades, signings and some decent draft picks (particularly value ones) and have good coaching and instil a good culture, you will go back up the ladder. Just look at Hawthorn. They could have gone to the bottom after that flag era and pissed and moaned about unfairness. They didn’t though. They did all sorts of smart things and quickly rose back up the ladder.

Meanwhile a team like North has just seemed to draft a bunch of midfielders and other random players with no real direction and you wonder why they’re still on the bottom. That isn’t because of father sons or academies. They continue to make silly decisions.

 

[juddy_Like]

Pre-academies was this an issue?

Yes it was basically the over generous priority picks where the middle of the table teams were disadvantaged.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Croms have a first round father son rort, thank goodness. Inshallah the 20ish year streak of a rort team winnning the flag will continue

And he was an actual rort. Father-Son for a guy that never played for them, and his Dad only played 211 games (in SANFL counting) over 12 years.

And see SANFL counting includes the night series games, which the AFL has previously stated don't count for Father-Son.

Yes it was basically the over generous priority picks where the middle of the table teams were disadvantaged.

And guess where the clubs that got all of those are located...

 

[Elixuh]

And he was an actual rort. Father-Son for a guy that never played for them, and his Dad only played 211 games (in SANFL counting) over 12 years.

And see SANFL counting includes the night series games, which the AFL has previously stated don't count for Father-Son.


And guess where the clubs that got all of those are located...

The best kind of rort

 

[HBFlanker]

Simple solution to the Free agency circus at the moment.

If you finish top 4 you can't bring in a free agent that year.

I cannot believe this hasn't been introduced yet.

 

[Elixuh]

Simple solution to the Free agency circus at the moment.

If you finish top 4 you can't bring in a free agent that year.

I cannot believe this hasn't been introduced yet.

Clubs like WCE would argue that is unfair to them as Bris is giving them pick 2.

I'd personally get rid of free agency. We can't copy what other sports do because other sports don't have half the competitions teams in one city.

 

[Miller1971]

No club stays top 4 forever.

Geelong have been Top 4 in 15 of the last 19 seasons.

They don't do this via rorts in the draft or Father/sons (anymore)

They do this as the only Victorian club with a genuine home deck advantage against both local oppo and interstate oppo.

they do it via salary cap rorting and probably most importantly, they do it via success breeding interest in being part of more success - which really isn't a rort at all!

 

[HBFlanker]

Clubs like WCE would argue that is unfair to them as Bris is giving them pick 2.

I'd personally get rid of free agency. We can't copy what other sports do because other sports don't have half the competitions teams in one city.

They would get pick 2 compo if he went to any club though?

 

[Elixuh]

They would get pick 2 compo if he went to any club though?

Does any club want him and are willing to pay band 1 compo?

 

[mpal6]

Clubs like WCE would argue that is unfair to them as Bris is giving them pick 2.

I'd personally get rid of free agency. We can't copy what other sports do because other sports don't have half the competitions teams in one city.

I'm happy to keep free agency but will get rid of priority picks. Instead of giving picks and hoping these bottom clubs will get it right during drafting, I'd give them a bigger salary cap boost.

If TDK is going to St.Kilda for 1.7M over 8 years, guess what Carlton - you get $1.7M as a add-on boost in your cap ! If West Coast is losing Oscar Allen for 6 years at say a $1M - West Coast gets that $1M as add-on boost in their cap !

Go for your life and attract premium talent as part of your additional cap boost now - players get bigger salary so they'll be happy. Clubs get top line high profile players due to their cap boost so the rebuild is suddenly fast tracked. Happy days and win win for everyone.

We have levelled the playing field so top clubs are suddenly struggling to compete with these bottom half ladder who all have bigger cap for losing their premium players.

 

[HBFlanker]

Does any club want him and are willing to pay band 1 compo?

Hawthorn were.

Thats not the point though. Free agents going from the worst team arguably in history to the top team, whilst captain, isnt how this should work.

Make it top 4 cant bring in a free agent for that year, and then make the compo picks start at pick 20, so that the owning club are better off matching the pick and forcing a trade. It also protects the first round which is what we all want in the draft.

 

[Elixuh]

Hawthorn were.

Thats not the point though. Free agents going from the worst team arguably in history to the top team, whilst captain, isnt how this should work.

Make it top 4 cant bring in a free agent for that year, and then make the compo picks start at pick 20, so that the owning club are better off matching the pick and forcing a trade. It also protects the first round which is what we all want in the draft.

I suspect the AFL don't mind the rule as is. They can give the bad teams quasi priority picks with limited accountability and the talent is going to the teams competing for flags which is the primary product.

 

[Tom14]

Simple solution to the Free agency circus at the moment.

If you finish top 4 you can't bring in a free agent that year.

I cannot believe this hasn't been introduced yet.

Why would the players agree to a rule that limits the market for their free agency services by 4 teams, thus potentially depressing contract value?

Free agency is something that the players bargained for and got, it is in the CBA. It's not something the AFL can unilaterally change!

 

[Duckimus Prime]

they do it via salary cap rorting and probably most importantly, they do it via success breeding interest in being part of more success - which really isn't a rort at all!

Geelong's Success was built on Father-Son rorting. Far more aggregious than anything Brisbane is currently doing. Before that, they hadn't won a flag in 44 years.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Why would the players agree to a rule that limits the market for their free agency services by 4 teams, thus potentially depressing contract value?

Free agency is something that the players bargained for and got, it is in the CBA. It's not something the AFL can unilaterally change!

Bargained for with the argument that Free Agency will allow fringe players to move from the top teams to lower ones for more opportunity, thus helping to equalise the competition.

Has this actually happened at all?

Of course its completely busted by the salary cap floor, which prevents teams at the bottom from being able to bank more money to be able to buy players out of the top sides.

 

[HBFlanker]

Why would the players agree to a rule that limits the market for their free agency services by 4 teams, thus potentially depressing contract value?

Free agency is something that the players bargained for and got, it is in the CBA. It's not something the AFL can unilaterally change!

Its about keeping a level playing field.

The players have far too much power at the moment. Clubs are getting stitched up apart from a handful at the top.

There needs to be a middle ground reached.

 

[Tom14]

Bargained for with the argument that Free Agency will allow fringe players to move from the top teams to lower ones for more opportunity, thus helping to equalise the competition.

Has this actually happened at all?

Of course its completely busted by the salary cap floor, which prevents teams at the bottom from being able to bank more money to be able to buy players out of the top sides.

That argument was always stupid though, just something useful for the AFL to say while players got a major win to their freedom of movement and AFL media got more content.

I've always been of the view that free agency is too late in a players career to do anything other than advantage the best teams. You aren't moving to West Coast if you are 26/27 and haven't had any success in your career.

Go to mandatory draft contracts of 3-4 years (Clubs won't want to guarantee 4 years for players outside the first round though) and then have free agency early when a player is 23/24. Will give more of an opportunity to throw money at players and get them to buy into a longer build.