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

[marcmurphy3]

so with the bidding changes the GF winners get a generational talent at pick 18 and the wooden spooners get him at pick 1?

What makes you say that?

 

[Caligo]

What makes you say that?

There has been a suggestion you may need to use a pick from the same round as your bid player, or that you might not be allowed to trade the pick in the round you want to bid.

But surely this won't happen. Too stupid even for the AFL.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

There has been a suggestion you may need to use a pick from the same round as your bid player, or that you might not be allowed to trade the pick in the round you want to bid.

But surely this won't happen. Too stupid even for the AFL.

No you absolutely have to make it so r1 bids are paid for with r1 picks but you make it flexible enough to be workable. So for eg you have to hold a pick within 10 spots (within r1) of the bid.
So if say daicos (or walter) was bid at p1 and the club has p2 they can trade it so long as at the end of the trade period they have a pick in the top 11 (ie they could have traded 2 down how wce did in ginbeys year). Gives teams at least some flexbility in the event a player is a top 3 bid. But it ensures a club cant trade back a r1 4 separate times and match with 30s picks (as both wbd and wce did). That is ridiculous and needs to go. As mentioned if you loosen the rules around trading future 1sts while mandating you must match a r1 with a r1 it will make this work.

 

[Dogflogger]

No you absolutely have to make it so r1 bids are paid for with r1 picks but you make it flexible enough to be workable. So for eg you have to hold a pick within 10 spots (within r1) of the bid.
So if say daicos (or walter) was bid at p1 and the club has p2 they can trade it so long as at the end of the trade period they have a pick in the top 11 (ie they could have traded 2 down how wce did in ginbeys year). Gives teams at least some flexbility in the event a player is a top 3 bid. But it ensures a club cant trade back a r1 4 separate times and match with 30s picks (as both wbd and wce did). That is ridiculous and needs to go. As mentioned if you loosen the rules around trading future 1sts while mandating you must match a r1 with a r1 it will make this work.

So the higher your up the ladder the cheaper your highly rated father son might be, and less likely to be bid on early?

 

[Caligo]

No you absolutely have to make it so r1 bids are paid for with r1 picks but you make it flexible enough to be workable. So for eg you have to hold a pick within 10 spots (within r1) of the bid.
So if say daicos (or walter) was bid at p1 and the club has p2 they can trade it so long as at the end of the trade period they have a pick in the top 11 (ie they could have traded 2 down how wce did in ginbeys year). Gives teams at least some flexbility in the event a player is a top 3 bid. But it ensures a club cant trade back a r1 4 separate times and match with 30s picks (as both wbd and wce did). That is ridiculous and needs to go. As mentioned if you loosen the rules around trading future 1sts while mandating you must match a r1 with a r1 it will make this work.

I really like the idea of needing to use a pick within a certain range (10 places maybe, or even 20). But saying you need same round isn't fair. What if someone is selected with the last pick in R1, that makes it literally impossible to actually match the bid.

 

[Caligo]

So the higher your up the ladder the cheaper your highly rated father son might be, and less likely to be bid on?

You need to also use the points, just that the first pick used to match can't be really late.

 

[Dogflogger]

You need to also use the points, just that the first pick used to match can't be really late.

that kinda sounds like its cheaper, or at least easier the higher your up the ladder. also with a added bonus of no one in the bottom 8 being in a real premiership window with you so cannot see why they would bid early.

 

[Caligo]

that kinda sounds like its cheaper, or at least easier the higher your up the ladder. also with a added bonus of no one in the bottom 8 being in a real premiership window with you so cannot see why they would bid early.

No. Nothing to make it cheaper or easier. Just that the first pick you use can't be a 3rd rounder for matching a top 5 pick.

 

[Dogflogger]

but the 1st round picks are tied to ladder position so other than trading picks out and in, arent higher positoned teams using less valuable picks to meet the point value of the bid? since everyone seems to agree that bundling picks in the 30-50's to match points is not very costly to the club making up the numbers.

 

[Dogflogger]

and am i wrong in thinking the lower your on the ladder the more likely someone will bid on your father son earlier in the draft? (if the player is considered good)

 

[Caligo]

but the 1st round picks are tied to ladder position so other than trading picks out and in, arent higher positoned teams using less valuable picks to meet the point value of the bid? since everyone seems to agree that bundling picks in the 30-50's to match points is not very costly to the club making up the numbers.

Which is why I am saying don't use rounds, make the requirement a pick within say 10 or 20 of the pick you are trying to match. Making it rounds I'd silly.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So the higher your up the ladder the cheaper your highly rated father son might be, and less likely to be bid on early?

No because the total no of points you have to pay is the same its only the composition of points that changes. Eg if a p1 bid you still need 2400 pts to match (after discount) but you cant pay that with 6 junk picks worth 400 pts each you have to pay at least 1300 of the 2400 with 1 pick (this is what p11 is worth). Same if the bid is p10 you need at least one matching pick to be within 20.
This would stop teams using 6 junk r2s and r3s to match top 10 bids.
You also change the dvi table bell curve so top 20 picks are worth more points and r3s worth a lot less.

And you put a caveat in that you cant use more than 3 current year picks to match a singular bid-you can still use fr1s to provide extra points if youre short of points to match but you can only use 3 current year picks, that reduces any incentive for teams to trade down for junk picks.

The other thing they must do is close the loophole that allows teams to live trade on the night for picks they dont have enough list spots for and use them to bid match (gc, wbd, coll etc have all exploited that). You make it so that at the list lodgement before the draft if you only have 5 list spots you cannot use more than 5 current picks for bid matching in that year (you can still use futures providing they are r1 and not later this is crucial if you have 4 players to pay for in the same year like gc did).
You allow clubs to trade up to 4 years ahead in terms of r1s-this would mean if a club has multiple very high bids like gc they can still match but have to pay fr1s.

This is all about making the bidding price paid match reality. If any of these players were available in a trade do you think you could buy them for 5 picks in the 30s? Heck no, so why should you be able to rort the bidding system like that. It makes the afl look like they are incompetent and that the bidding system was designed by a 10 year old and needs fixing.

I really like the idea of needing to use a pick within a certain range (10 places maybe, or even 20). But saying you need same round isn't fair. What if someone is selected with the last pick in R1, that makes it literally impossible to actually match the bid.

Thats true and a fair anomaly. In that case youd make it you have to use one pick within 10 places of the bid rather than same rnd. Eg if the bid is p18 (i know r1 ends later than that due to compo picks but just saying) then you have to match with 1 pick btw 18 and 28, if its 25 you have to use 1 pick inside 35 to match (and leftover points come off your next natural pick after that) etc

 

[tombomb]

Just seems like nearly the entire issue could be fixed in about 5 minutes by increasing the points value of higher picks and removing the discount.

 

[dewcefault]

Just seems like nearly the entire issue could be fixed in about 5 minutes by increasing the points value of higher picks and removing the discount.

Pfft way too simple.
How am I going to justify my job and all the fully catered working group meetings on this topic.
Plus a simple and fair process is not what we are after!

 

[Tandy]

How WB were able to have JUH is crazy.

 

[Caligo]

Just seems like nearly the entire issue could be fixed in about 5 minutes by increasing the points value of higher picks and removing the discount.

Yes please!!! This is all we need.

 

[sydney_gws]

Just seems like nearly the entire issue could be fixed in about 5 minutes by increasing the points value of higher picks and removing the discount.

And limiting to 2 or 3 picks to match.

 

[Jirik13]

And limiting to 2 or 3 picks to match.

Why? If you change points table as suggested it will take care of it. Keep it simple.

 

[tombomb]

And limiting to 2 or 3 picks to match.

There is no need for the complication.

Just increase the points value of the first round, especially the ones at the top, and everything else would take care of itself.

If a team wants to match pick 2 with six picks in the 20s, then fine. They will have to give up a lot to get so many of those selections.

 

[GC2015]

And limiting to 2 or 3 picks to match.

Maybe the solution is to replicate the northern academy bidding rules and make it so your ladder position dictates how many first round F/S bids you can match? i.e prelim finalists can only match one F/S first round bid, 5-8th can only match two F/S first round bids and 9-18th can match an unlimited amount of F/S first round bids. That way you're not compromising the draft as much as the lower ranked teams are more likely to receive the high end talent.

It would mean a player like Jaspa Fletcher would not have been F/S eligible to be drafted by Brisbane. However, there would be nothing stopping Brisbane from trading up to pick 12 on draft night to take Fletcher with their own pick after matching an F/S bid for Ashcroft at pick 2. Trading future pick/s would surely get it done and then you could make a far better argument that prelim finalists Brisbane paid an accumulated fair price for their first round talent.

 

[Caligo]

Maybe the solution is to replicate the northern academy bidding rules and make it so your ladder position dictates how many first round F/S bids you can match? i.e prelim finalists can only match one F/S first round bid, 5-8th can only match two F/S first round bids and 9-18th can match an unlimited amount of F/S first round bids. That way you're not compromising the draft as much as the lower ranked teams are more likely to receive the high end talent.

It would mean a player like Jaspa Fletcher would not have been F/S eligible to be drafted by Brisbane. However, there would be nothing stopping Brisbane from trading up to pick 12 on draft night to take Fletcher with their own pick after matching an F/S bid for Ashcroft at pick 2. Trading future pick/s would surely get it done and then you could make a far better argument that prelim finalists Brisbane paid an accumulated fair price for their first round talent.

The trouble with that is father sons are so rare you would almost never even have that rule applied. How often has it ever happened that 2 father sons were both potential first rounders for the same team in the same year excluding that one time Brisbane did it?

Not that I am opposed to the rule, I just don't think it will do much.

 

[GC2015]

The trouble with that is father sons are so rare you would almost never even have that rule applied. How often has it ever happened that 2 father sons were both potential first rounders for the same team in the same year excluding that one time Brisbane did it?

Not that I am opposed to the rule, I just don't think it will do much.

It's becoming more common. Ashcroft and Fletcher last year. Potentially the Camporeale twins next year.

 

[Caligo]

It's becoming more common. Ashcroft and Fletcher last year. Potentially the Camporeale twins next year.

Fair point. Assuming the rule doesn't come in next year though you might be waiting quite a while. The concept of equating academy and f/s rules makes a lot of sense from a fairness perspective. I am certainly not opposed to it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

There is no need for the complication.

Just increase the points value of the first round, especially the ones at the top, and everything else would take care of itself.

If a team wants to match pick 2 with six picks in the 20s, then fine, they will have to give up a lot to get so many of those selections.

I disagree with that. Yes change the points table (make non top 20 picks worth way less points) as it will reduce the incentive for clubs to trade down but close the loophole altogether, theres no reason it needs to stay open and clubs have shown they will exploit loopholes. The afl are idiots to consistently leave loopholes in rules. It should never be legal to match with 6 mid range picks.

So limit it to 3 current year picks and anything else (residual points) has to come off your fr1 and if you are still short the residual comes off the fr1 2 years ahead. That makes clubs pay fair value.

They also need to close the loophole around list spots. Gc had only 6 spots open yet used way over 10 picks to match all their bids. Im not bagging gc as many other clubs have exploited this same thing by live trading once the draft opens. But gc should have been forced to either delist another 5 players and risk clubs taking them dfa (if they really wanted to use 10 or more picks for bids) or be limited to using their highest 6 picks and the residual come off their 2024, 25, 26 fr1s, as should other clubs like wbd etc that have done it too. Write it in clearly that you cannot live trade in current year picks in excess of your list spots. So if you have 5 senior slots the day before the draft you cannot use more than 5 picks (critical if you have 3 academy guys to match in the same pool) to match and if 5 isnt enough to cover all your bids you either let the player go or use your future 1sts to pay for it.

Those changes will stop the clubs finding loopholes too easily.

 

[Caligo]

I disagree with that. Yes change the points table (make non top 20 picks worth way less points) as it will reduce the incentive for clubs to trade down but close the loophole altogether, theres no reason it needs to stay open and clubs have shown they will exploit loopholes. The afl are idiots to consistently leave loopholes in rules. It should never be legal to match with 6 mid range picks.

So limit it to 3 current year picks and anything else (residual points) has to come off your fr1 and if you are still short the residual comes off the fr1 2 years ahead. That makes clubs pay fair value.

They also need to close the loophole around list spots. Gc had only 6 spots open yet used way over 10 picks to match all their bids. Im not bagging gc as many other clubs have exploited this same thing by live trading once the draft opens. But gc should have been forced to either delist another 5 players and risk clubs taking them dfa (if they really wanted to use 10 or more picks for bids) or be limited to using their highest 6 picks and the residual come off their 2024, 25, 26 fr1s, as should other clubs like wbd etc that have done it too. Write it in clearly that you cannot live trade in current year picks in excess of your list spots. So if you have 5 senior slots the day before the draft you cannot use more than 5 picks (critical if you have 3 academy guys to match in the same pool) to match and if 5 isnt enough to cover all your bids you either let the player go or use your future 1sts to pay for it.

Those changes will stop the clubs finding loopholes too easily.

Increasing the value of top 5 picks and reducing the number of picks you can use to bid both have merit. In combination i think they would work well.