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

[FB19]

North obviously have to trade the 2 f1 end of first rounders. They will either use that for established players like Dylan stephens

15

Dylan Stephens

Age

24

Ht

184cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.3

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.3

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.7

4star

CL

0.0

1star

D

10.3

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.3

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.7

3star

CL

0.0

1star

D

10.3

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.3

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.7

4star

CL

0.0

1star

or to trade up for 1, suns r1 or one of the teams with multiple firsts. We all expect 2/3 then they have 14,19 plus what we expect to be 2,19,20,22 next year for finishing 17th again. They have to trade 19/20. So my question is for the AFL - what do the AFL do after setting this precedent if they are totally poor again?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

No it's ridiculous. Concessions should be about making an uncompetitive team competitive quicker. North already have a good group of talented kids. They'll be competitive with time. Throwing them more picks which they'll use to pick up more kids isn't going to speed up their climb, it's just going to make them better once they become competitive. Give them extra salary cap space and cash to splash to buy some mature Free Agents or trade some ohter mature players in - that'd speed up thier climb.

Give us 3 more Harry Sheezel's please. I promise we will be competitive.

 

[faible]

If Kangas bid on Walter at 2 and the Suns match the next pick is still no.2 and is made by the Kangas. The Suns simply match Walter with their ensuing picks.

Isn’t that exactly what happens now, labelling it as Pick 2 or 3 is irrelevant.

North will draft the 3rd player in the draft if they bid on Walter and it’s matched. They’ll use Pick 2 to do that.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

2nd round has started at the following picks 2022 working back....

...22, 21, 26, 23, 23, 19, 21, 23, 22, 20, 24, 31, 27, 18

 

[HairyO]

We have no idea what picks GCS will use to get their 3 players expected to all go inthe top 12 or 13.

So its a complete guess how far picks will move out.

Also, picks in the 30s will likely move up a HEAP.

 

[Chadwiko]

West Coast needs as much new talent as possible to rejuvenate its list.

Trade the #1 pick for more top 12~ picks then?

 

[.Shotties.]

That doesn’t happen in a comp skewed as it is with 10 sides based in Victoria. So your answer is never just keep the academy system in place. Which I am ok with provided the bid matching rort is corrected to make everyone pay fair value for matching not junk picks. Under my proposal which allows only 2 picks to match, if Blakey was in the draft and bid at pick 8, your 23 and 31 isn’t quite enough so you would either have to trade up or let him go.

Paying fair 'value' assumes fair odds at home-state talent. The odds of the Swans getting access to first-round home-state talent is, what, one every 3 years? If we can't take Blakey at that point that's our chance gone, three years till the next attempt. In any given draft, if a Victorian team wants a quality Victorian player in the first round, the chances are there's one within 2 picks of their own. Slightly worse for SA and WA teams.

I do think that when there are high-quality players from NSW outside the Riverina who we're realistically able to take and as a result NOT have to build our list constantly from players we have historically had to overpay to keep, then yeah, work out the transition plan then.

 

[bzparkes]

Trade the #1 pick for more top 12~ picks then?

Why didn't North do this with their early picks, instead of begging the AFL for handouts?

Utterly incompetent?

Nah, this was their 'strategy' to begin with.

WCE already split their first rounders the last 2 years.

 

[bzparkes]

Give us 3 more Harry Sheezel's please. I promise we will be competitive.

That's how North got into this mess, by drafting the same type of player in consecutive drafts.

 

[garlic munchers]

North obviously have to trade the 2 f1 end of first rounders. They will either use that for established players like Dylan stephens or to trade up for 1, suns r1 or one of the teams with multiple firsts. We all expect 2/3 then they have 14,19 plus what we expect to be 2,19,20,22 next year for finishing 17th again. They have to trade 19/20. So my question is for the AFL - what do the AFL do after setting this precedent if they are totally poor again?

Good question, now add WC to the equation because we have been historically bad the last 2 years (53% this year is wow bad) and are not likely to be improving anytime soon as many posters and AFL commentators have taken great delight in pointing out.

I just know I am going to love precedents when we finish bottom 2 in 2024/25 and will have gone through historically the worst preforming period in AFL history.

With apologies to Cuba, "show me the precedents"!!!!!

The other flip side of all this, is that Saints and Bombers have screwed themselves trying to stay competitive.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

That's how North got into this mess, by drafting the same type of player in consecutive drafts.

Sheezel can play in all three areas of the ground.

 

[FB19]

Good question, now add WC to the equation because we have been historically bad the last 2 years (53% this year is wow bad) and are not likely to be improving anytime soon as many posters and AFL commentators have taken great delight in pointing out.

I just know I am going to love precedents when we finish bottom 2 in 2024/25 and will have gone through historically the worst preforming period in AFL history.

With apologies to Cuba, "show me the precedents"!!!!!

The other flip side of all this, is that Saints and Bombers have screwed themselves trying to stay competitive.

I suspect you might get a future third…if you are lucky. The curse of actually running your club properly. The AFL aka the welfare state.

 

[FB19]

Eagles live trade pick 1 for all the picks in the 40s which are mathematically worth more than pick 1 then watch the value grow as bids are matched and they tumble in and grow in value. Moneyball!

 

[Joao]

Eagles live trade pick 1 for all the picks in the 40s which are mathematically worth more than pick 1 then watch the value grow as bids are matched and they tumble in and grow in value. Moneyball!

If there wasn't a limit on list spots, trading 1 for 10 picks in the 30s and 40s probably gets you a better outcome on average I reckon.

Say picks 35-44

2014 - McCartin vs Neal-Bullen, McGovern, Dale

2015 - Weitering vs Adams, Cole, Hardwick

2016 - McGrath vs Darcy, Battle, Stewart, Cox + change

2017 - Rayner vs Petty, Ballard, Worpel


I make that 3-1 for the bulk spuds over pick 1 in that 4 year period. 2016 especially bad as at least 3 players in that range better than the no1.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Something needs to be done to compensate the clubs that are missing out on the top talent due to all the concessions. Rather than clubs matching using a range of late picks, I’d rather see that they have to use a pick in the same round and compensate the club that made the bid as they are effectively taking that clubs pick with any additional picks required to move up the board. Not sure if I’m explaining it clearly..

Example:

North bid on Walters at pick 2.
GC holds pick 4 which they have to use.

The difference in points value between pick 2-4 is equivalent to about pick 37. GC hold pick 35.

In the current system they would use 35 as a matching means and that pick just disappears. Instead, that pick should go to North as compensation for not being able to select the player they want in the draft.

Instead of picks just disappearing to move up the board, it at least compensates the bidding club.

 

[ArdentEagle]

Something needs to be done to compensate the clubs that are missing out on the top talent due to all the concessions. Rather than clubs matching using a range of late picks, I’d rather see that they have to use a pick in the same round and compensate the club that made the bid as they are effectively taking that clubs pick with any additional picks required to move up the board. Not sure if I’m explaining it clearly..

Example:

North bid on Walters at pick 2.
GC holds pick 4 which they have to use.

The difference in points value between pick 2-4 is equivalent to about pick 37. GC hold pick 35.

In the current system they would use 35 as a matching means and that pick just disappears. Instead, that pick should go to North as compensation for not being able to select the player they want in the draft.

Instead of picks just disappearing to move up the board, it at least compensates the bidding club.

I like this idea. It seems very fair/balanced which means no AFL would do it.
Really good idea though mate.

 

[ubiquitous226]

I like this idea. It seems very fair/balanced which means no AFL would do it.
Really good idea though mate.

It would just open to a different sort of shenanigans. Teams would be incentivised to bid as early as possible to get 'compensated'.

I love how this is suddenly a big problem this year now that it affects one particular team

 

[sydney_gws]

I think to fix the draft is straightforward, limit picks used to match to 2, reduce discount to 10%.
The reason a top 8 pick can use 3 picks is so a team can't match with its first 2 picks.
Or have a rule a club can only use 3 if it's natural 1st,2nd round picks don't cover the bid.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

 

[ArdentEagle]

It would just open to a different sort of shenanigans. Teams would be incentivised to bid as early as possible to get 'compensated'.

I love how this is suddenly a big problem this year now that it affects one particular team

Never been a huge fan TBH mate.

 

[The 747]

Was a joke given our 2nd pick this year is 81 so this s**t clearly has no bearing on us lol

It's great, our pick 81, then pick 100X4 are going to be third round or early fourth round picks now. Good planning.

Every club recruiter would or should have known about the GC kids.

 

[bzparkes]

Eagles live trade pick 1 for all the picks in the 40s which are mathematically worth more than pick 1 then watch the value grow as bids are matched and they tumble in and grow in value. Moneyball!

 

[RUNVS]

Your best 22 is made up of mills, heeney, gulden, blakey, Warner, cunning, cambell, wicks ( borderline).

So that’s 7-8 of your b22 from academies.

Only Mills, Heeney, Blakey and Campbell were first round selections.

Cunningham was not with the Swans Academy but GWS's, Wicks and Gulden got overlooked several times by most clubs and Warner isn't even from New South Wales.

 

[kool kangas]

This is the fairest way to fix this :

no father /son ....
no academy players....
no PP
no more future picks...
teams just go back to getting the pick on where they finish on the ladder but are able to trade picks they have for that season only..

therefore all players are accessable to all clubs

l wonder how clubs and supporters would like this...

 

[.Shotties.]

Only Mills, Heeney, Blakey and Campbell were first round selections.

Cunningham was not with the Swans Academy but GWS's,

Cunningham was also available in the open draft as he hadn't been picked up by GWS in the 2011 draft.

Wicks and Gulden got overlooked several times by most clubs and Warner isn't even from New South Wales.

Wicks also wasn't picked up in his draft year and went through to the rookie draft.