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

[GC2015]

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.

View attachment 1888808

Is there really such a difference between matching an early bid being matched with picks 18, 19 & 34 compared to 26, 30, 32 & 36 used by the Suns to match the Walter bid last year? Still feels like the same situation with slightly earlier picks involved.

 

[mpal6]

Is there really such a difference between matching an early bid being matched with picks 18, 19 & 34 compared to 26, 30, 32 & 36 used by the Suns to match the Walter bid last year? Still feels like the same situation with slightly earlier picks involved.

I think you would've had to start with 15/16/17/18 if you were going to match Walter, Read, Rogers and Graham in the first round. I believe it would've been a lot more difficult proposition to get those first round picks via trade compared to a bunch of picks in 30s and 40s.

If you were planning to match only Walter by holding a single first round pick at the beginning of the draft and then let the other players go to other clubs, then your argument is fine.

 

[GC2015]

I think you would've had to start with 15/16/17/18 if you were going to match Walter, Read, Rogers and Graham in the first round. I believe it would've been a lot more difficult proposition to get those first round picks via trade compared to a bunch of picks in 30s and 40s.

If you were planning to match only Walter by holding a single first round pick at the beginning of the draft and then let the other players go to other clubs, then your argument is fine.

It's all situational. If we had finished top 4 last year then we would only be permitted to match one first round bid (Walter) and Read, Rogers + Graham would have ended up elsewhere. So finishing in the bottom 10 not only removes those restrictions, but also give you a top 10 pick to auction off to the highest bidder like we saw this year when the Dogs sent picks 10, 17 & a future first rounder for the Suns' pick 3. You're saying we would have needed 15, 16, 17 & 18 to keep all those four players but we already had 10, 17 & a future first round that surely would have been easily traded for a 2023 late first rounder.

So let's go conservative and say we traded that future first rounder for pick 18 in 2023. That means with picks 10, 17 & 18 we had 3405 points to play with. Picks 15, 16, 17 & 18 equates to 4189 points. Keep in mind the Suns also had several second rounders to play with so it shouldn't have been hard to trade up for the required position/points. I think no matter how you want to slice it, the Suns were always in a fantastic position to keep all four academy players regardless of how difficult you want to make it.

 

[mpal6]

It's all situational. If we had finished top 4 last year then we would only be permitted to match one first round bid (Walter) and Read, Rogers + Graham would have ended up elsewhere. So finishing in the bottom 10 not only removes those restrictions, but also give you a top 10 pick to auction off to the highest bidder like we saw this year when the Dogs sent picks 10, 17 & a future first rounder for the Suns' pick 3. You're saying we would have needed 15, 16, 17 & 18 to keep all those four players but we already had 10, 17 & a future first round that surely would have been easily traded for a 2023 late first rounder.

So let's go conservative and say we traded that future first rounder for pick 18 in 2023. That means with picks 10, 17 & 18 we had 3405 points to play with. Picks 15, 16, 17 & 18 equates to 4189 points. Keep in mind the Suns also had several second rounders to play with so it shouldn't have been hard to trade up for the required position/points. I think no matter how you want to slice it, the Suns were always in a fantastic position to keep all four academy players regardless of how difficult you want to make it.

Yep it was situational which worked out to your benefit. Dogs saw one of the pick 10 or 17 as sunk cost for Jordan Croft, so were happy to ship it off to upgrade their hand.

Apply the same "holding a pick in first round" rule then bulldogs could've at best offered you pick 10 + future first, since they need to hold 17 to match Croft. 10+future first would not have been enough for pick 3. Like I pointed out earlier, the rule makes it difficult not just for GC, but other clubs too.

 

[GC2015]

Yep it was situational which worked out to your benefit. Dogs saw one of the pick 10 or 17 as sunk cost for Jordan Croft, so were happy to ship it off to upgrade their hand.

Apply the same "holding a pick in first round" rule then bulldogs could've at best offered you pick 10 + future first, since they need to hold 17 to match Croft. 10+future first would not have been enough for pick 3. Like I pointed out earlier, the rule makes it difficult not just for GC, but other clubs too.

That's true but it would have just led to the Suns continuing to negotiate with other clubs who were interested in their pick 3. It didn't have to be the Dogs, they were just the ones that offered the best deal.

Also, seems a bit silly to be required to have a pick in the 16-18 range if a bid comes through at #15 for Jordan Croft. How would the 'holding a pick in the first round' rule apply if the bid for Croft came through at pick 18? How do you match a bid with a first round pick when the bid is literally the last pick of the first round?

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Golf Coast hold The Bulldogs first round pick in 2024.. I think there is every chance the Dogs finish bottom 6 next season, so in that instance the Suns would break even, if not arguably ahead, with their picks swaps with the Doggies last year.

The Suns may well have shrugged off the controversy over the pick 7-Bowes deal with Geelong in hindsight.

 

[mpal6]

That's true but it would have just led to the Suns continuing to negotiate with other clubs who were interested in their pick 3. It didn't have to be the Dogs, they were just the ones that offered the best deal.

Also, seems a bit silly to be required to have a pick in the 16-18 range if a bid comes through at #15 for Jordan Croft. How would the 'holding a pick in the first round' rule apply if the bid for Croft came through at pick 18? How do you match a bid with a first round pick when the bid is literally the last pick of the first round?

The clubs around Dogs would want to make sure they are accountable to select Croft with a first round.

I highly doubt a bid won't come few picks earlier to ensure dogs burn their first round and pay the right value for Croft than have him for say a second or third round.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

If the points curve is adjusted ( say keep as is, but change top 10 as follows
1 is 4000
2 is 3500
3 is 3100
4 is 2700
5 is 2400
6 is 2100
7 is 1900
8 is 1700
9 is 1550
10 is 1400 ( keep the rest the same).
Then if you limit to 3 picks, also reduce discount to 10%, then to match a bid at pick 2 Gold Coast need 3150 points from 3 picks.
That is picks 15,16,17.
Much harder to get those picks.
If GWS and Bulldogs didn't have 2 first rounders,
Gold Coast almost need to hold pick 4 and use it to match a bid at 2 with 4 22.
Probably trade 4 for 6,24
Match with 6,22.

 

[GC2015]

The clubs around Dogs would want to make sure they are accountable to select Croft with a first round.

I highly doubt a bid won't come few picks earlier to ensure dogs burn their first round and pay the right value for Croft than have him for say a second or third round.

Of course but it's hard to plan for a first round bid when the player is rated in the 16-20 range. So what do you do if you hold pick 14 and a bid hasn't come through yet? Do you just keep trading down until that bid comes through or do you use your pick 14 on another player and try to manufacture a live trade if/when the bid comes through at pick 16?

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

Of course but it's hard to plan for a first round bid when the player is rated in the 16-20 range. So what do you do if you hold pick 14 and a bid hasn't come through yet? Do you just keep trading down until that bid comes through or do you use your pick 14 on another player and try to manufacture a live trade if/when the bid comes through at pick 16?

Take a player at 14, hopefully a player you don't really want leaves and you trade
player,F3 for pick 24. Match with 24,32 .
If you have 14,24,32 and a bid comes at 12, trade 14 for a F1 if allowed.

 

[mpal6]

Of course but it's hard to plan for a first round bid when the player is rated in the 16-20 range. So what do you do if you hold pick 14 and a bid hasn't come through yet? Do you just keep trading down until that bid comes through or do you use your pick 14 on another player and try to manufacture a live trade if/when the bid comes through at pick 16?

Yep, I'd thank my lucky stars and take another player. I agree with the principle that while you've held that first round pick to meet the rule, if other clubs are stupid enough not to make you pay then surely you can maximize the returns beyond that point.

Take a different player at 14, find a non-discounted way to match points if the bid comes at 16. If you don't have enough points in current draft then it'll be taken off your future first anyway.

 

[Joao]

No, the obvious answer to that question is you take the player you were holding the first for with your first rounder or take someone else and find another first rounder for the bid.

You shouldn't get two bites at the cherry.

 

[mpal6]

No, the obvious answer to that question is you take the player you were holding the first for with your first rounder or take someone else and find another first rounder for the bid.

You shouldn't get two bites at the cherry.

If they are still going to take the player they are holding it for, it defeats the purpose of draft.

At that point in the draft, the scenario is the club which was patiently holding the pick has not been forced to use it in a bid match by other clubs for whatever reason. So they should definitely be allowed to maximize the returns by taking some other player and then use whatever picks left to match the bid (along with points deficit coming from next year's first).

If the other clubs are negligent / asleep on the wheel in terms of making a bid, it's not the problem of source club. You can't force them to still take the particular player and be nice to overall drafting process. They definitely get two bites of cherry because of incompetence from rest of the clubs.

 

[GC2015]

If they are still going to take the player they are holding it for, it defeats the purpose of draft.

At that point in the draft, the scenario is the club which was patiently holding the pick has not been forced to use it in a bid match by other clubs for whatever reason. So they should definitely be allowed to maximize the returns by taking some other player and then use whatever picks left to match the bid (along with points deficit coming from next year's first).

If the other clubs are negligent / asleep on the wheel in terms of making a bid, it's not the problem of source club. You can't force them to still take the particular player and be nice to overall drafting process. They definitely get two bites of cherry because of incompetence from rest of the clubs.

Right. It's on the 17 other clubs to make sure the source club is held accountable in these scenarios. If they choose to not hold them accountable by bidding at their actual worth (nothing to lose if you know the source club will match) then you can't then also complain about the 'two bites of the cherry'. You either want all clubs to pay a fair price for the players they have priority access to by ensuring a bid comes through for them at their actual worth OR you're okay with those players sliding down the draft order and opening the door for the source club to use their natural picks on other players because your/other clubs chose to bid when they should have. You can't have it both ways.

I remember F/S prospect Bailey Scott was rated around pick 30 going into the 2018 draft but slid down to 49 because no one wanted to bid on him earlier. Should North have not been allowed to draft Curtis Taylor with pick 46 in that scenario because they were still waiting for a bid to come through for Bailey Scott? I don't think so. I think what North did was perfectly reasonable consdering no other club wanted to force them to pay a fair price for Scott so they use their natural picks accordingly. Same goes for Nick Blakey when he was bid on with pick 10 but was actually rated around the pick 5 range. If Sydney had have had pick 8 in that situation and drafted a player before matching a bid for Blakey at pick 10, then Port Adelaide (or any other club for that matter) can't complain about Sydney getting two top 10 picks in that situation when they themselves could have held Sydney accountable by bidding on Blakey with pick 5.

 

[Joao]

If they are still going to take the player they are holding it for, it defeats the purpose of draft.

At that point in the draft, the scenario is the club which was patiently holding the pick has not been forced to use it in a bid match by other clubs for whatever reason. So they should definitely be allowed to maximize the returns by taking some other player and then use whatever picks left to match the bid (along with points deficit coming from next year's first).

If the other clubs are negligent / asleep on the wheel in terms of making a bid, it's not the problem of source club. You can't force them to still take the particular player and be nice to overall drafting process. They definitely get two bites of cherry because of incompetence from rest of the clubs.

They can do what they like with the pick, but they would need another pick in the first round if they player was bid on after that pick.

Look at the extreme - team holds pick 1 and have an academy prospect who goes at pick 2. That is not ok and basically the same system we have now.

You want to gain access to a player in the first round, you will need to use a first round pick in that transaction.

 

[H00t]

They can do what they like with the pick, but they would need another pick in the first round if they player was bid on after that pick.

Look at the extreme - team holds pick 1 and have an academy prospect who goes at pick 2. That is not ok and basically the same system we have now.

You want to gain access to a player in the first round, you will need to use a first round pick in that transaction.

Then that team gets two players.

First round is already such a random drawn out affair anyway.

The main problem was teams trading right back in the draft to stockpile a heap of picks. If they have to keep a first rounder then they can’t just drop back in the draft to gain a heap of points.

Plus if a team takes their draft pick first then has to match they have to come up with another way of gaining points which will drastically reduce their draft hand.

Even simpler is just fixing the point curve so teams can’t trade picks back then up the discount so picks are matchable but will require giving up a lot of picks to do so rather than just being able to turn one first rounder into twice the points they started with or more.

 

[mpal6]

They can do what they like with the pick, but they would need another pick in the first round if they player was bid on after that pick.

Look at the extreme - team holds pick 1 and have an academy prospect who goes at pick 2. That is not ok and basically the same system we have now.

You want to gain access to a player in the first round, you will need to use a first round pick in that transaction.

Are you saying the club that finished dead last during regular season is getting an opportunity to add 2 best kids from draft in one go to fast track their rebuild? That's perfectly ok !

The system we have know benefits clubs who are already at the top end. Your example is exactly how its supposed to work.

If some top club is stupid enough to trade for pick 1 paying a kings ransom, thats good too. A club like West coast who finished last could get a major injection of talent (picks + players) from the top club in a single trade.

 

[Joao]

Then that team gets two players.

First round is already such a random drawn out affair anyway.

The main problem was teams trading right back in the draft to stockpile a heap of picks. If they have to keep a first rounder then they can’t just drop back in the draft to gain a heap of points.

Plus if a team takes their draft pick first then has to match they have to come up with another way of gaining points which will drastically reduce their draft hand.

Even simpler is just fixing the point curve so teams can’t trade picks back then up the discount so picks are matchable but will require giving up a lot of picks to do so rather than just being able to turn one first rounder into twice the points they started with or more.

The root of the main problem is that not only do teams not pay fair value for top end talent. Stockpiling and all that crap can't happen if you have to pay what something is actually worth. It happens now because the systems is ****ing braindead and has loopholes all over the place.

You want a bloke worth pick 2 to go with your pick 1 - fine, but you're going to need something worth pick 2 to do it. No assortment of picks in the 20s, 30s or 40s is worth pick 2 when there is a salary cap and finite list sizes.

I'm not letting any bid be matched without a pick in that round and the points need to be completely revalued.

Are you saying the club that finished dead last during regular season is getting an opportunity to add 2 best kids from draft in one go to fast track their rebuild? That's perfectly ok !

The system we have know benefits clubs who are already at the top end. Your example is exactly how its supposed to work.

If some top club is stupid enough to trade for pick 1 paying a kings ransom, thats good too. A club like West coast who finished last could get a major injection of talent (picks + players) from the top club in a single trade.

I couldn't disagree more. You're not entitled to an extra pick 2 because you're crap. That's why you get pick 1.

I'm saying that can have the top two picks, but they better be ready to cough up for the second one, just like any other team would.

 

[go_the_dockers]

No discount
Max of 2 picks used.
Pick 1 worth 5000 and decreasing until pick 20 which is worth the same at the moment.
Can choose to your future pick , if next 2 picks are not worth enough points.

 

[H00t]

The root of the main problem is that not only do teams not pay fair value for top end talent. Stockpiling and all that crap can't happen if you have to pay what something is actually worth. It happens now because the systems is ****ing braindead and has loopholes all over the place.

You want a bloke worth pick 2 to go with your pick 1 - fine, but you're going to need something worth pick 2 to do it. No assortment of picks in the 20s, 30s or 40s is worth pick 2 when there is a salary cap and finite list sizes.

This is why it’s about limiting how easy it is to get picks in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s.

Suns were able to turn pick 4 into a boatload of points due to pick 4 being way undervalued on the points scale. Fix how easy it is to gain points and the whole thing will even out very quickly.

Rather than trying to punish clubs for having a more talented father/son or academy prospect.

I'm not letting any bid be matched without a pick in that round and the points need to be completely revalued.

This doesn’t work. So if someone bids with the last pick in the round the bid can’t be matched? No just make a team have to keep a pick in that round. If they’ve already used the pick they’d have to give up a lot for an early pick to match the points.

Especially if the point curve is fixed which is the whole problem.

 

[Joao]

This is why it’s about limiting how easy it is to get picks in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s.

Suns were able to turn pick 4 into a boatload of points due to pick 4 being way undervalued on the points scale. Fix how easy it is to gain points and the whole thing will even out very quickly.

Rather than trying to punish clubs for having a more talented father/son or academy prospect.

This doesn’t work. So if someone bids with the last pick in the round the bid can’t be matched? No just make a team have to keep a pick in that round. If they’ve already used the pick they’d have to give up a lot for an early pick to match the points.

Especially if the point curve is fixed which is the whole problem.

Fixing the 20s and 30s is fixing the symptom not the problem.

If there is a chance your player will go in the first round and you would like to match, you're going to need a first rounder to guarantee it. If you don't think they are worth it but someone else does then you don't get them.

You appear to have this idea the matching club should get special treatment beyond priority access. I think that is a load of rubbish and if that is your angle, we can stop here as I fundamentally disagree with that idea.

 

[H00t]

Fixing the 20s and 30s is fixing the symptom not the problem.

If there is a chance your player will go in the first round and you would like to match, you're going to need a first rounder to guarantee it. If you don't think they are worth it but someone else does then you don't get them.

You appear to have this idea the matching club should get special treatment beyond priority access. I think that is a load of rubbish and if that is your angle, we can stop here as I fundamentally disagree with that idea.

The problem is teams not paying a fair price.

Your idea simply doesn’t work though.

I agree with needing to have a pick in the first round. Whether that’s used to match a bid or used before the player is bid on doesn’t matter. And making them pay a much fairer price by limiting points.

I have the idea that the club having priority access means they get to get the player. It’s all about making them pay a fair price. It’s not about limiting their access to be able to get the player.

 

[GC2015]

The problem is teams not paying a fair price.

That's subjective, though. Your idea of a 'fair price' could be completely different to mine. You have to understand that academy access means more to northern clubs (in particular GC & GWS) than it does to the rest of the league because there are retention issues up here and no F/S prospects coming through for 2 of the 4 northern clubs for at least another 10 years.

Personally, I think it would be more 'fair' if the Grand Final wasn't locked to the MCG every year but I'm sure you don't agree with that as a Hawthorn fan who probably lives in Melbourne. See how the idea of what's 'fair' can vary depending on your situation?

I agree with needing to have a pick in the first round. Whether that’s used to match a bid or used before the player is bid on doesn’t matter. And making them pay a much fairer price by limiting points.

I have the idea that the club having priority access means they get to get the player. It’s all about making them pay a fair price. It’s not about limiting their access to be able to get the player.

Let's use your team as an example here. The Hawks benefitted from a first round F/S prospect last year. How would you feel if the Hawks were forced to miss out on Nick Watson because you knew Will McCabe was going to be bid on with a first round pick at some stage? That's what some people in this thread are suggesting. They think you're double dipping if you draft Watson with your natural pick 5 and match a pick 19 F/S bid for McCabe with a second rounder or two.

 

[Joao]

The problem is teams not paying a fair price.

Your idea simply doesn’t work though.

I agree with needing to have a pick in the first round. Whether that’s used to match a bid or used before the player is bid on doesn’t matter. And making them pay a much fairer price by limiting points.

I have the idea that the club having priority access means they get to get the player. It’s all about making them pay a fair price. It’s not about limiting their access to be able to get the player.

How does it not work?

Every team gets a first rounder every year. If your academy player is likely going to go first round and you want to pick another first rounder before or after, you'll need to get another first round pick.

It's not difficult at all and if you think it is we are wasting our time.

 

[H00t]

That's subjective, though. Your idea of a 'fair price' could be completely different to mine. You have to understand that academy access means more to northern clubs (in particular GC & GWS) than it does to the rest of the league because there are retention issues up here and no F/S prospects coming through for 2 of the 4 northern clubs for at least another 10 years.

Personally, I think it would be more 'fair' if the Grand Final wasn't locked to the MCG every year but I'm sure you don't agree with that as a Hawthorn fan who probably lives in Melbourne. See how the idea of what's 'fair' can vary depending on your situation?

Let's use your team as an example here. The Hawks benefitted from a first round F/S prospect last year. How would you feel if the Hawks were forced to miss out on Nick Watson because you knew Will McCabe was going to be bid on with a first round pick at some stage? That's what some people in this thread are suggesting. They think you're double dipping if you draft Watson with your natural pick 5 and match a pick 19 F/S bid for McCabe with a second rounder or two.

I’m arguing the opposite of this though. It can’t work having to use a first rounder to match a first rounder. Just using a first rounder though does.

Though to be honest I’m not really concerned if teams use a heap of junk picks to match a first round bid.

My big problem is with the points weighting system. Make it so teams can’t just trade back easily to get points. Would fix the issue.