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

[go_the_dockers]

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 eventuall new rules the afl adopts will be far more generous than this and p1ss all of us off..

Remove discount if you trade your next pick.

Max of 2 picks, except if you elect to use a future first.

 

[mpal6]

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..

I think they'll go for the simplistic tweak initially. Hold the pick in the round you're selecting father son / academy. I believe it'll address majority of issues. If we see ongoing top 5 candidates being selected with teen picks, then there could be a second tweak on the way.

I believe Daicos, Ashcroft x 2 is a mini-wave of top 5 selections and soon a more normal schedule will return like where Croft and McCabe got drafted this year.

 

[LordLucifer]

REVISED AFL TRADE & DRAFT STRUCTURE


NATIONAL DRAFT POINTS VALUES​

EQUALISATION ROUND

(for all non-finalists only from the year prior in reverse ladder finishing position)


EQ.1 - 5000

EQ.2 - 4750

EQ.3 - 4512

EQ.4 - 4286

EQ.5 - 4072

EQ.6 - 3868

EQ.7 - 3675

EQ.8 - 3491

EQ.9 - 3317

EQ.10 - 3151


ROUND ONE

R1.1 - 2993

R1.2 - 2844

R1.3 - 2566

R1.4 - 2438

R1.5 - 2316

R1.6 - 2200

R1.7 - 2090

R1.8 - 1986

R1.9 - 1886

R1.10 - 1792

R1.11 - 1702

R1.12 - 1676

R1.13 - 1536

R1.14 - 1459

R1.15 - 1386

R1.16 - 1317

R1.17 - 1251

R1.18 - 1181


ROUND TWO

R2.1 - 1129

R2.2 - 1073

R2.3 - 1019

R2.4 - 968

R2.5 - 920

R2.6 - 874

R2.7 - 830

R2.8 - 788

R2.9 - 749

R2.10 - 711

R2.11 - 676

R2.12 - 642

R2.13 - 610

R2.14 - 579

R2.15 - 550

R2.16 - 523

R2.17 - 497

R2.18 - 472


ROUND THREE

R3.1 - 448

R3.2 - 426

R3.3 - 404

R3.4 - 384

R3.5 - 365

R3.6 - 347

R3.7 - 329

R3.8 - 313

R3.9 - 297

R3.10 - 282

R3.11 - 268

R3.12 - 255

R3.13 - 242

R3.14 - 230

R3.15 - 218

R3.16 - 207

R3.17 - 197

R3.18 - 187


ROUND FOUR

R4.1 - 178

R4.2 - 169

R4.3 - 160

R4.4 - 152

R4.5 - 145

R4.6 - 137

R4.7 - 131

R4.8 - 124

R4.9 - 118

R4.10 - 112

R4.11 - 106

R4.12 - 101

R4.13 - 96

R4.14 - 91

R4.15 - 86

R4.16 - 82

R4.17 - 78

R4.18 - 74


ROUND FIVE

R5.1 - 70

R5.2 - 67

R5.3 - 63

R5.4 - 60

R5.5 - 57

R5.6 - 54

R5.7 - 52

R5.8 - 49

R5.9 - 46

R5.10 - 44

R5.11 - 42

R5.12 - 40

R5.13 - 38

R5.14 - 36

R5.15 - 34

R5.16 - 32

R5.17 - 29

R5.18 - 28


ROUND SIX

R6.1 - 26

R6.2 - 25

R6.3 - 24

R6.4 - 23

R6.5 - 22

R6.6 - 21

R6.7 - 20

R6.8 - 19

R6.9 - 18

R6.10 - 17

R6.11 - 16

R6.12 - 15

R6.13 - 15

R6.14 - 13

R6.15 - 12

R6.16 - 10

R6.17 - 9

R6.18 - 8


OTHER

* no discounts for father-son or academy choices

* free agency compensation picks permanently scrapped

* priority picks and any other assistance picks permanently scrapped

* father-son qualification reduced to 1-game

* player nominates club of choice if father played for more than one club

* primary list is reduced to a maximum of 40 players only

* rookie list is scrapped permanently

* any player who is being paid above the median AFL salary figure can be traded to another club without their consent

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think they'll go for the simplistic tweak initially. Hold the pick in the round you're selecting father son / academy. I believe it'll address majority of issues. If we see ongoing top 5 candidates being selected with teen picks, then there could be a second tweak on the way.

I believe Daicos, Ashcroft x 2 is a mini-wave of top 5 selections and soon a more normal schedule will return like where Croft and McCabe got drafted this year.

Holding a pick in the round of the FS selection is probably the most difficult change to make imo

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

Does anybody have an insiders tip on what will be the outcome of this?
Or will this somehow be deffered for a couple of years for no good reason?

 

[mpal6]

Holding a pick in the round of the FS selection is probably the most difficult change to make imo

Not sure about that. Apart from future pick trades that have happened last year affecting 2024 draft hand, its a straight forward change if introduced for 2025. Everyone will start with a pick in each round and how they plan ahead around trades is an issue for the clubs. Yes it will bring down pick trading in a big way and there'll be a subsequent whinge about it but its part of the outcome - you try to fix something in a fluid system like afl trade/draft, something else will look broken.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Not sure about that. Apart from future pick trades that have happened last year affecting 2024 draft hand, its a straight forward change if introduced for 2025. Everyone will start with a pick in each round and how they plan ahead around trades is an issue for the clubs. Yes it will bring down pick trading in a big way and there'll be a subsequent whinge about it but its part of the outcome - you try to fix something in a fluid system like afl trade/draft, something else will look broken.

If you hold pick 6 and have a FS who gets a bid at 12 then It’s very difficult to hold a pick in the same round. Then you have bids potentially at the end of a round.
Holding a pick within 18 selections is a no brainer but outside of that it gets difficult.

 

[mpal6]

If you hold pick 6 and have a FS who gets a bid at 12 then It’s very difficult to hold a pick in the same round. Then you have bids potentially at the end of a round.
Holding a pick within 18 selections is a no brainer but outside of that it gets difficult.

We had a similar scenario in AFLW draft this year. Lions gave up pick 12 but in a multi-club trade got the last pick of the first round back so they can meet the "holding the pick" criteria to get their first round academy player.

In your example pick 6 will be traded down but you can't get a bunch of picks in 30s and 40s to match the points, it needs to be more strategic to trade for one of the last few picks of first round and some change.

 

[1970crow]

I know that whatever solution the AFL come up with will be needlessly complicated and poorly thought out.

The real problem is the points system. Currently later picks are incorrectly valued. By lessening the value of later picks making it much harder to stockpile picks it would solve the issue overnight.

As stockpiling later picks wouldn’t mean many points and teams wouldn’t just be able to trade for as many points as they want.

What was wrong with the only having as many picks as free spots solution. Not perfect, but surely worth keeping.

 

[mpal6]

What was wrong with the only having as many picks as free spots solution. Not perfect, but surely worth keeping.

It's only in effect during trading period. Once draft starts you can stockpile and not limited to list spots so the rule itself becomes a bit irrelevant at that stage.

 

[1970crow]

It's only in effect during trading period. Once draft starts you can stockpile and not limited to list spots so the rule itself becomes a bit irrelevant at that stage.

Thought the rule was that whatever picks excess to vacancies were deleted. So if you used all your picks matching a bid, you then had to wait for everyone else to pass if you wanted to add players.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

We had a similar scenario in AFLW draft this year. Lions gave up pick 12 but in a multi-club trade got the last pick of the first round back so they can meet the "holding the pick" criteria to get their first round academy player.

In your example pick 6 will be traded down but you can't get a bunch of picks in 30s and 40s to match the points, it needs to be more strategic to trade for one of the last few picks of first round and some change.

What happens when a kid who is expected to go mid 20’s gets bid on at 18?
The rounds are imo pointless, pick 36 and 37 are in different rounds but very little difference in value.
If you make it so a team can have no more then two picks to match a bid or they get a 100 or 200% tax on the points left over would make it much more simple and imo fair.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What happens when a kid who is expected to go mid 20’s gets bid on at 18?
The rounds are imo pointless, pick 36 and 37 are in different rounds but very little difference in value.
If you make it so a team can have no more then two picks to match a bid or they get a 100 or 200% tax on the points left over would make it much more simple and imo fair.

Should be just simple just make the match be within 10 or 15 picks of the bid, honestly why do I feel everyone will STILL complain when it is changed. There will be a middle ground, not sure the "must bid in that round" will come in for logistics reasons alone. I'd be happy with no discounts in the first round being applied. The matching is the discount and yes I know every one of our supporters are going to jump on me senseless about this again, but first and foremost I'm a footy fan.

That said I would like them to try and fix ALL inequalities not just the F/S, there's inequalities that Melbourne sides benefit from

 

[mpal6]

Most of the angst is about top end talent going to father/son or academy clubs while the bottom of the ladder clubs are missing out. If this gets fixed all the noise will die off.

Make it very simple and make the first round pure draft. Remove Father/Son, Academy, NGA and every other concession from first round so all clubs have access to the entire available talent pool.

 

[FB19]

Think it’s being over complicated forget picks in same round it is arbitrary. weight the earlier picks a bit more heavily and only allow 2 picks to match without a discount sorts it out.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Think it’s being over complicated forget picks in same round it is arbitrary. weight the earlier picks a bit more heavily and only allow 2 picks to match without a discount sorts it out.

Spot on, If you can only use two picks you are going to be paying a pretty fair price. To match pick 1 for instance you need picks 8 and 9. (If we get rid of the discount.)
To match pick 8 is pick 25 and 26. The weighting would probably need to be changed but nothing drastic

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

Think it’s being over complicated forget picks in same round it is arbitrary. weight the earlier picks a bit more heavily and only allow 2 picks to match without a discount sorts it out.

Exactly. I think 3 picks might be needed for top 5 bids or so, how does a team finishing 3rd match a bid at 4 with picks 15,33. It is not possible to do so. Even if that team packaged 15 , F1 they might only get pick 11 or so in a trade, possibly no takers at all.

 

[TheTassieHawk]

Exactly. I think 3 picks might be needed for top 5 bids or so, how does a team finishing 3rd match a bid at 4 with picks 15,33. It is not possible to do so. Even if that team packaged 15 , F1 they might only get pick 11 or so in a trade, possibly no takers at all.

Trade out a player for a mid to late first rounder in the trade period or let the player go through without a match.

More than 2 picks is rubbish unless the pints table is revalued.

 

[FB19]

Exactly. I think 3 picks might be needed for top 5 bids or so, how does a team finishing 3rd match a bid at 4 with picks 15,33. It is not possible to do so. Even if that team packaged 15 , F1 they might only get pick 11 or so in a trade, possibly no takers at all.

I think you miss the point. Who cares if a team that finishes third can’t match for a top end talent that’s contrary to the draft intent that the best young players go to the bottom clubs. If they are to secure one they should have to give up a hell of a lot to do it and of that is all they get from the draft as a result, that’s about right.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

I think you miss the point. Who cares if a team that finishes third can’t match for a top end talent that’s contrary to the draft intent that the best young players go to the bottom clubs. If they are to secure one they should have to give up a hell of a lot to do it and of that is all they get from the draft as a result, that’s about right.

What if it is Hawthorn and one of Luke Hodges boys?
I am actually torn on this case. 2 picks seems too little, 3 maybe a bit too much.
Anyway, knowing AFL they will probably make it 3 picks, which is in most cases too much I think.

 

[mpal6]

Trade out a player for a mid to late first rounder in the trade period or let the player go through without a match.

More than 2 picks is rubbish unless the pints table is revalued.

Extremely low chance of anyone trading out established players for a high potential draftee. It could easily backfire on the whole list and turn the club into a rebuilding basket case. Also, I've already pointed out how a draft pick could easily be a Schache or have a bad run of injuries like McCartin.

Player going through without a match is the scenario everyone will end up - AFL just needs to harden up and make first round as a pure draft including no father son, academy or NGA picks. Father Son ending up at a different club isn't end of the world, they can play their first year and ask for a trade if they really want to go back to Father's club.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

What if it is Hawthorn and one of Luke Hodges boys?
I am actually torn on this case. 2 picks seems too little, 3 maybe a bit too much.
Anyway, knowing AFL they will probably make it 3 picks, which is in most cases too much I think.

That’s why I like the idea of taxing the leftover points. If you come up 200pts short after matching with two picks then you pay 400pts the next season in whatever the round it is that the player was bid on. So your pick 12 the next season might become 18

 

[GC2015]

We had a similar scenario in AFLW draft this year. Lions gave up pick 12 but in a multi-club trade got the last pick of the first round back so they can meet the "holding the pick" criteria to get their first round academy player.

Also, if this was implemented in the men's draft, wouldn't that essentially recreate the issue we saw with Heeney? i.e. bid on with pick 2 and matched with pick 18.

 

[FB19]

What if it is Hawthorn and one of Luke Hodges boys?
I am actually torn on this case. 2 picks seems too little, 3 maybe a bit too much.
Anyway, knowing AFL they will probably make it 3 picks, which is in most cases too much I think.

My views aren’t biased. The objective is for clubs to retain access to players via F/S or academy players under fair terms and then pay full market value for them. Remove the discount, reduce to 2 picks make clubs pay up and if hawks want multiple hodge boys rated highly they pay up, simple as that.

 

[mpal6]

Also, if this was implemented in the men's draft, wouldn't that essentially recreate the issue we saw with Heeney? i.e. bid on with pick 2 and matched with pick 18.

Nah, holding a pick in first round is just one of the conditions. The club still has to find enough points to match, so removing discount would be the other.

For example if you use the same Heeney pick scenario, it'll look like this - the second pick 18 could be deemed as the future first and a second rounder which is equivalent to pick 34. IF anything, the matching club's draft hand is reduced for the next year as well, so the balancing act becomes a bit more even. They can't pick another player who is rated pick 2 in next year as well (unless they trade players out) and the next draftee is likely to go elsewhere.