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

[tombomb]

The trouble with that is that in your case for example, you could be getting the pick 1 player with picks 17 (29) and 17 (29). It isn't exactly fair value, although it is closer than the current system.

If you want a top 3 player you should have some responsibility at the trade table. Assuming you should just get top 3 players because you can is incredibly entitled.

Trying to come up with some convoluted system about where specific picks need to land is a total waste of time.

The AFL aren't going to bring in some complicated bidding system and increase the the points needed to match bids. The AFL actually want Gold Coast and GWS (especially) getting access to these players, not making it really hard for them.

The end result is nothing is going to get fixed.

The whole thing could be sorted in literally 5 minutes by just increasing the points required to match bids on high picks. Just index it all the way down through the first round. No more matching top 5 bids with five picks in the 30s, you couldn't get close to matching a bid that high with just a handful of junk picks.

Simple, done. Home for dinner.

 

[sydney_gws]

How could you end that though? Any solution to that problem would fundamentally destroy the game. You would have to get rid of half a dozen Victorian teams, or add another dozen non Victorian teams, or do something really weird to home and away games.

It isnt possible to fix the travel issue, especially for WA teams.

Could they play more games away without returning? That would be the only way, but this is AFL, not soccer or cricket.
If they played Sunday in Melbourne , they could play Friday night vs another Melbourne team who also played in Melbourne the previous Sunday, thats fair as both teams have a 5 day break. It means eagles would have flown out on a Saturday, return following Saturday. So 7 nights away from home.
I guess they could do this once or at most twice a year.
Might not be worth it.

 

[sydney_gws]

Trying to come up with some convoluted system about where specific picks need to land is a total waste of time.

The AFL aren't going to bring in some complicated bidding system and increase the the points needed to match bids. The AFL actually want Gold Coast and GWS (especially) getting access to these players, not making it really hard for them.

The end result is nothing is going to get fixed.

The whole thing could be sorted in literally 5 minutes by just increasing the points required to match bids on high picks. Just index it all the way down through the first round. No more matching top 5 bids with five picks in the 30s, you couldn't get close to matching a bid that high with just a handful of junk picks.

Simple, done. Home for dinner.

Also have to limit to 2 or 3 picks to match.
About 10 different simple sets of rules would work.
E.g limit to 3 picks to match, 2 must be your natural picks ( I.e picks attached to ladder position).
If Brisbane win flag and Ashcroft is pick 1, they match with 18,36, and say a 1000 point deficit that comes off 2025r1.
This isn't my preffered solution, just an example of 2 rules that work very well in conjunction with each other ( limiting picks to match, forcing non traded picks to be used to match)

 

[tombomb]

Also have to limit to 2 or 3 picks to match.
About 10 different simple sets of rules would work.
E.g limit to 3 picks to match, 2 must be your natural picks ( I.e picks attached to ladder position).
If Brisbane win flag and Ashcroft is pick 1, they match with 18,36, and say a 1000 point deficit that comes off 2025r1.
This isn't my preffered solution, just an example of 2 rules that work very well in conjunction with each other ( limiting picks to match, forcing non traded picks to be used to match)

I don't know why there needs to be this added complication.

If Brisbane are premiers, and they have Ashcroft pick 1, they need to find 3500 points now. Done.

18 and 36 isn't going to be enough. Let alone a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s.

So either trade out your future 1st or plan ahead and trade in an extra 1st round pick the previous year. If they have another player in the first round, then they will have to find more points, either by trading out future picks or a player.

But instead, lets work on some convoluted system that takes years to be brought in and really resolves nothing because the AFL aren't going to blow up the Northern Academies or the F+S rort by bringing in a system that makes it really difficult to match multiple bids.

 

[Caligo]

I don't know why there needs to be this added complication.

If Brisbane are premiers, and they have Ashcroft pick 1, they need to find 3500 points now. Done.

18 and 36 isn't going to be enough. Let alone a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s.

So either trade out your future 1st or plan ahead and trade in an extra 1st round pick the previous year. If they have another player in the first round, then they will have to find more points, either by trading out future picks or a player.

But instead, lets work on some convoluted system that takes years to be brought in and really resolves nothing because the AFL aren't going to blow up the Northern Academies or the F+S rort by bringing in a system that makes it really difficult to match multiple bids.

5 picks around pick 27 gets you home. that isn't enough to let a team that just played in a GF get pick 1 in the very next draft in my opinion, but it is at least a massive improvement on the current situation.

 

[mpal6]

5 picks around pick 27 gets you home. that isn't enough to let a team that just played in a GF get pick 1 in the very next draft in my opinion, but it is at least a massive improvement on the current situation.

Yep this one looks good. I also like the "hold the pick in the round where you're drafting". So GC would've planned ahead for this year like holding 2 or 3 first round picks - at some point it would've exhausted their picks leaving the 4th first rounder for other clubs.

Also noting the fact that if they were already successful like a top 4 team, they would've been limited to one academy player in first 20 picks for starters.

 

[mpal6]

I don't know why there needs to be this added complication.

If Brisbane are premiers, and they have Ashcroft pick 1, they need to find 3500 points now. Done.

18 and 36 isn't going to be enough. Let alone a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s.

So either trade out your future 1st or plan ahead and trade in an extra 1st round pick the previous year. If they have another player in the first round, then they will have to find more points, either by trading out future picks or a player.

But instead, lets work on some convoluted system that takes years to be brought in and really resolves nothing because the AFL aren't going to blow up the Northern Academies or the F+S rort by bringing in a system that makes it really difficult to match multiple bids.

Yep, this works too. I believe we were able to work the current system to get both Ashcroft and Fletcher as well as Dunkley in trade. In a scenario where we had to match the points in full, we would've got Ashcroft and raffled off the future first rounder to collect enough points to get Fletcher. We would not have the trade capital to get Dunkley unless we trade someone.

Furthermore, since our future first was traded away it did affect our draft hand this year as an example. We had picks 31, 42, 51 and 64 - if we manage to find value there that'll be just down to our drafting team doing good homework as well as some luck on the player being available there. It's an even playing field beyond first round in my view.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

10 won't work. You are relying on both the f/s club's ability to trade up as well as other clubs willing to trade down. There are drafts where no one was willing to move in first 10 spots.
Easy way would be making f/s club put forward their first rounds for 2 years and adjust some point value to it. This way its all under the control of the club choosing to bid for it rather than relying on good will from others.

In most cases the club will have a pick within 10 spots unless you are talking a top 4 club matching a very early bid. Besides thats what the 10 spot rule is supposed to do act as a deterrent to encourage clubs not to trade out their r1 because it would likely mean they miss the player. In that way it would work. Besides as i mentioned if say the bid is at 3 and you technically need a pick inside 13 to match and your r1 is at 17 you would still be allowed to match but the residual points would HAVE to come off a future r1 you hold not off any later picks. I think youd need to allow 3 or 4 years of r1s to be traded (for cases where clubs have multiple high bids in one year) but it can and should be done.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yep this one looks good. I also like the "hold the pick in the round where you're drafting". So GC would've planned ahead for this year like holding 2 or 3 first round picks - at some point it would've exhausted their picks leaving the 4th first rounder for other clubs.

Also noting the fact that if they were already successful like a top 4 team, they would've been limited to one academy player in first 20 picks for starters.

It wouldnt have necessarily made them miss anyone (under the rule i proposed) it would have just meant that they had to pay r1s in 2023 2024 2025 and 2026 (or r1s in 2023-2025 depending on exactly how the total points required worked out). These rule changes wouldnt stop any of the 18 clubs getting their players they would just make the price paid actually represent market value.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I don't know why there needs to be this added complication.

If Brisbane are premiers, and they have Ashcroft pick 1, they need to find 3500 points now. Done.

18 and 36 isn't going to be enough. Let alone a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s.

So either trade out your future 1st or plan ahead and trade in an extra 1st round pick the previous year. If they have another player in the first round, then they will have to find more points, either by trading out future picks or a player.

But instead, lets work on some convoluted system that takes years to be brought in and really resolves nothing because the AFL aren't going to blow up the Northern Academies or the F+S rort by bringing in a system that makes it really difficult to match multiple bids.

Putting the point allocation up to 3500 on its own doesnt solve the issue unless you make the picks outside the first round worth virtually zero (say like 200 pts from p21 onwards). Otherwise clubs can still match with mid range picks all your solution does is make them pay say 6 r2s instead of 4 r2s. To stop that you either need to increase the bell curve way more than you are suggesting (ie top 5 bids have to cost at least 5000 to match not 3500) or limit how many picks can be used to match or make it a pick(s) within that round

As ive told you previously you need to make it so the matching pick(s) all come within the same round the bid is made and you need to have a specific rule that no more than 3 picks can be used to match a bid otherwise the clubs will rort it like they do now and you will be replacing a flawed system with another flawed system.

 

[Caligo]

Putting the point allocation up to 3500 on its own doesnt solve the issue unless you make the picks outside the first round worth virtually zero (say like 200 pts from p21 onwards). Otherwise clubs can still match with mid range picks all your solution does is make them pay say 6 r2s instead of 4 r2s. To stop that you either need to increase the bell curve way more than you are suggesting (ie top 5 bids have to cost at least 5000 to match not 3500) or limit how many picks can be used to match or make it a pick(s) within that round

As ive told you previously you need to make it so the matching pick(s) all come within the same round the bid is made and you need to have a specific rule that no more than 3 picks can be used to match a bid otherwise the clubs will rort it like they do now and you will be replacing a flawed system with another flawed system.

Pick 1 should be more than 3500.

 

[mpal6]

It wouldnt have necessarily made them miss anyone (under the rule i proposed) it would have just meant that they had to pay r1s in 2023 2024 2025 and 2026 (or r1s in 2023-2025 depending on exactly how the total points required worked out). These rule changes wouldnt stop any of the 18 clubs getting their players they would just make the price paid actually represent market value.

I think AFL doesn't favor investing 3-4 years of first rounds, if the club gets it wrong it stuffs them up long term. I believe this rule is a good deterrent so greedy list managers don't go out of control and clubs can only match what's possible from the 2 year draft hand.

It creates the scenario of them leaving some well rated draft prospects behind so the talent spreads to other clubs as desired by everyone.

 

[sydney_gws]

I don't know why there needs to be this added complication.

If Brisbane are premiers, and they have Ashcroft pick 1, they need to find 3500 points now. Done.

18 and 36 isn't going to be enough. Let alone a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s.

So either trade out your future 1st or plan ahead and trade in an extra 1st round pick the previous year. If they have another player in the first round, then they will have to find more points, either by trading out future picks or a player.

But instead, lets work on some convoluted system that takes years to be brought in and really resolves nothing because the AFL aren't going to blow up the Northern Academies or the F+S rort by bringing in a system that makes it really difficult to match multiple bids.

I think your ladder position 1st 2nd, and future 1st should be considered sufficient for matching, even if a bit deficient in points.
So 18 36 and F1 should be allowed to match for a daicos, ashcroft type of player.

 

[tombomb]

Putting the point allocation up to 3500 on its own doesnt solve the issue unless you make the picks outside the first round worth virtually zero (say like 200 pts from p21 onwards). Otherwise clubs can still match with mid range picks all your solution does is make them pay say 6 r2s instead of 4 r2s. To stop that you either need to increase the bell curve way more than you are suggesting (ie top 5 bids have to cost at least 5000 to match not 3500) or limit how many picks can be used to match or make it a pick(s) within that round

As ive told you previously you need to make it so the matching pick(s) all come within the same round the bid is made and you need to have a specific rule that no more than 3 picks can be used to match a bid otherwise the clubs will rort it like they do now and you will be replacing a flawed system with another flawed system.

Because you keep saying the problem is that teams are able to match bids with later picks.

That isn't the problem. You can't seem to get your head around this.

The problem is that higher picks aren't valued high enough. So teams can match bids with a handful of picks in the 30s.

If a team wants to match pick 1 with ten selections in the 20s and 30s, then fine. Good luck trying to get all those selections.

With your solution, all a team like Gold Coast will do is trade pick 4 back, get a late first round pick and couple of second round picks and then get extra selections as well in the future. Which is exactly what they were able to do this year.

Increasing the value of higher picks fixes 95% of the problem.

Adding in an extra complication around certain picks landing in certain rounds will just delay anything being fixed.

 

[tombomb]

I th
think your ladder position 1st 2nd, and future 1st should be considered sufficient for matching, even if a bit deficient in points.
So 18 36 and F1 should be allowed to match for a daicos, ashcroft type of player.

I think that is too low personally.

It would be too easy for teams to manipulate.

For example if the Bulldogs had pick 9 and they had ugle-hagan on the board at 1. It would be too easy for them to flip pick 9 for two later 1st round picks and a pick in the 30s.

So they would still essentially be trading pick 9 for pick 1. Which is basically the system as it is now.

 

[GC2015]

Yep this one looks good. I also like the "hold the pick in the round where you're drafting". So GC would've planned ahead for this year like holding 2 or 3 first round picks - at some point it would've exhausted their picks leaving the 4th first rounder for other clubs.

Also noting the fact that if they were already successful like a top 4 team, they would've been limited to one academy player in first 20 picks for starters.

It's pretty easy to manipulate the whole 'hold a pick in the same round/within 10 places' suggestion by trading future picks but I'll give you an simple scenario that doesn't even required that. The trade that was completed with the Bulldogs this year included picks 10, 17 and the Dogs' 2024 first rounder for the Suns' pick 4. So the Suns use what they had at that point in time to match the pick 3 Walter bid with the Bulldogs' pick 10 they acquired, lose about 100 points from pick 17 which takes it down to pick 19, then match the pick 9 Read bid with pick 19, lose 150 points from pick 22, trade 25 + 30 to get back into the first round to match the pick 14 Rogers bid and then match pick 26 Graham bid with remaining late second rounder/s they have.

Same scenario plays out. The Suns just need to complete one live trade on draft night by packaging two second round picks to secure a late first round pick (should be easy enough). I think people really underestimate the amount of draft capital the Suns acquired the year before in anticipation for a bidding war. That's what really made this situation possible for the Suns.

 

[tombomb]

It's pretty easy to manipulate the whole 'hold a pick in the same round/within 10 places' suggestion by trading future picks but I'll give you an simple scenario that doesn't even required that. The trade that was completed with the Bulldogs this year included picks 10, 17 and the Dogs' 2024 first rounder for the Suns' pick 4. So the Suns use what they had at that point in time to match the pick 3 Walter bid with the Bulldogs' pick 10 they acquired, lose about 100 points from pick 17 which takes it down to pick 19, then match the pick 9 Read bid with pick 19, lose 150 points from pick 22, trade 25 + 30 to get back into the first round to match the pick 14 Rogers bid and then match pick 26 Graham bid with remaining late second rounder/s they have.

Same scenario plays out. The Suns just need to complete one live trade on draft night by packaging two second round picks to secure a late first round pick (should be easy enough). I think people really underestimate the amount of draft capital the Suns acquired the year before in anticipation for a bidding war. That's what really made this situation possible for the Suns.

Having an extra 2nd and two 3rds helped.

But what really made it possible is how much more valuable pick 4 is than what the current points table suggests.

The Bulldogs traded effectively about 3000 pts for that selection which is currently valued at 2034 ... before the discount.

 

[GC2015]

Having an extra 2nd and two 3rds helped.

But what really made it possible is how much more valuable pick 4 is than what the current points table suggests.

The Bulldogs traded effectively about 3000 pts for that selection which is currently valued at 2034 ... before the discount.

Sure but it just becomes a points game in these situations. The Suns essentially auctioned off pick 4 to the highest bidder and the Bulldogs won that auction. If they deemed the Dogs weren't offering enough then negotiations would have continued and another buyer may have emerged.

Anyway, under the system that was used the Suns still had the Bulldogs' 2024 first round pick and their own 2024 first & second round picks to play with (roughly a further 4000 points) so I'm very confident they would have been able to match all four bids under any bidding system. The accumulation of points/picks for the Suns in 2023 was very unusual and took two years to achieve but people are just looking at the end result and trying to find a way to prevent it.

 

[mpal6]

It's pretty easy to manipulate the whole 'hold a pick in the same round/within 10 places' suggestion by trading future picks but I'll give you an simple scenario that doesn't even required that. The trade that was completed with the Bulldogs this year included picks 10, 17 and the Dogs' 2024 first rounder for the Suns' pick 4. So the Suns use what they had at that point in time to match the pick 3 Walter bid with the Bulldogs' pick 10 they acquired, lose about 100 points from pick 17 which takes it down to pick 19, then match the pick 9 Read bid with pick 19, lose 150 points from pick 22, trade 25 + 30 to get back into the first round to match the pick 14 Rogers bid and then match pick 26 Graham bid with remaining late second rounder/s they have.

Same scenario plays out. The Suns just need to complete one live trade on draft night by packaging two second round picks to secure a late first round pick (should be easy enough). I think people really underestimate the amount of draft capital the Suns acquired the year before in anticipation for a bidding war. That's what really made this situation possible for the Suns.

That trade was pretty unique with Bulldogs having a father son Jordan Croft as well as the first 12 or so picks being deemed a cut above rest of the draft. If you take out say 17 (Croft who went at 15), it's a 10 + future first for pick 4. Dogs were in a position to do that this year.

If your club follows the natural growth trajectory and a new coach bump, it's more than likely you'll have pick 10 to 14 next time than 4. It makes things pretty difficult to get multiple first round picks unless you start trading out players like GWS have done on a regular basis, to re-load on first round talent.

 

[GC2015]

That trade was pretty unique with Bulldogs having a father son Jordan Croft as well as the first 12 or so picks being deemed a cut above rest of the draft. If you take out say 17 (Croft who went at 15), it's a 10 + future first for pick 4. Dogs were in a position to do that this year.

If your club follows the natural growth trajectory and a new coach bump, it's more than likely you'll have pick 10 to 14 next time than 4. It makes things pretty difficult to get multiple first round picks unless you start trading out players like GWS have done on a regular basis, to re-load on first round talent.

Although what you're saying is correct, finishing inside the top 8 restricts us to only being able to match two first round bids on academy players and finishing top 4 restricts us to being able to match just one first round bid. We're not able to replicate what Brisbane did when they matched two top 12 bids on F/S players after finishing top 4 in 2022. Therefore, we won't need anywhere near as many points in this circumstance because a top 4 finish would mean we'd only be able to match a bid for Jed Walter at pick 3 and Ethan Read, Jake Rogers & Will Graham would end up at other clubs OR a top 8 finish would mean we'd only be able to match bids 3 & 9 for Walter and Read while Rogers and Graham end up at other clubs.

A higher ranked club gets restricted access. Well, unless it's F/S and then there is no restriction.

 

[mpal6]

Although what you're saying is correct, finishing inside the top 8 restricts us to only being able to match two first round bids on academy players and finishing top 4 restricts us to being able to match just one first round bid. We're not able to replicate what Brisbane did when they matched two top 12 bids on F/S players after finishing top 4 in 2022. Therefore, we won't need anywhere near as many points in this circumstance because a top 4 finish would mean we'd only be able to match a bid for Jed Walter at pick 3 and Ethan Read, Jake Rogers & Will Graham would end up at other clubs OR a top 8 finish would mean we'd only be able to match bids 3 & 9 for Walter and Read while Rogers and Graham end up at other clubs.

A higher ranked club gets restricted access. Well, unless it's F/S and then there is no restriction.

Father Son should be brought under the same guidelines as Academy. I have no qualms supporting that idea.

I'd go a step further and say first round should be kept pure (no father son, academy, NGA) so everyone gets equal opportunity at high quality talent. If a son is so vested in going back to his father's club, he can always seek a trade later.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Father Son should be brought under the same guidelines as Academy. I have no qualms supporting that idea.

I'd go a step further and say first round should be kept pure (no father son, academy, NGA) so everyone gets equal opportunity at high quality talent. If a son is so vested in going back to his father's club, he can always seek a trade later.

This is why I’m against FS all together. If the player and the club really want each other they can get them anyway, they don’t have to be drafted there.

I also couldn’t give a hoot about kids of somebody I don’t personally know anyway

 

[mpal6]

This is why I’m against FS all together. If the player and the club really want each other they can get them anyway, they don’t have to be drafted there.

I also couldn’t give a hoot about kids of somebody I don’t personally know anyway

Yep, I don't get the drama around "omg its a travesty so and so's son is playing in a different club !". If the father/son player isn't good enough the club would delist him pretty quickly - Collingwood's Callum/Tyler Brown are good examples. They are not going to keep a son on their list for the sentiment or romance.

If the son really wants to get back to father's club he can get a trade done at any stage of his career. We haven't shipped him off to Alcatraz on a life sentence.

 

[Vindicater]

Because you keep saying the problem is that teams are able to match bids with later picks.

That isn't the problem. You can't seem to get your head around this.

The problem is that higher picks aren't valued high enough. So teams can match bids with a handful of picks in the 30s.

If a team wants to match pick 1 with ten selections in the 20s and 30s, then fine. Good luck trying to get all those selections.

With your solution, all a team like Gold Coast will do is trade pick 4 back, get a late first round pick and couple of second round picks and then get extra selections as well in the future. Which is exactly what they were able to do this year.

Increasing the value of higher picks fixes 95% of the problem.

Adding in an extra complication around certain picks landing in certain rounds will just delay anything being fixed.

Which makes the easy first solution to remove the 20% discount.

 

[sydney_gws]

My simplistic solution.
1. Adjust points curve , but not dramatically.
2. Reduce discount to 10%.
3. 2 picks to match, but top 8 bids can use 3 picks, one of which must be in top 20.

Under the current points curve, a premier can match a bid at 9 or 10 with picks 18,36.

A bid at pick 1 would be hard to match for the premiers , perhaps another rule that your natural 1st ,2nd, future 1st is enough to match.
So not too many rules or too complicated.

I suspect some/ most posters think this is too generous for top 8 picks, but I think the eventual new rules the afl adopts will be far more generous than this and p1ss all of us off..