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

[Snuffaluphagus]

Not when 1 (one) player requested a trade home in the 30 years preceding it.

Again, there is no one to request a trade home, is there any decent player from NSW that is at a rival club? Are we including Tippet here. Ironically, this number would go up if the players from NSW could be drafted outside the state.

Ah, see here we're getting a bit slippery with terms. I remember every time we discuss trades of non-WA players to Freo, you have a very clear qualifier that it's players who are fringe or on the outer at their club, yet here we are counting a salary dump, a delisted free agent and Taylor Adams as win. Taylor I can kind of give you, though given he was told he was being moved out of the midfield rotation and on the older side of 30, I don't think it's a weak argument to say he was on the outer at his club.

No, I didnt mention them as big names though Taylor and Grundy are definitely bigger names than anyone Freo or WC have recruited not from WA since probably Redden. Like I said, like with Brisbane, I think Sydney will continue to bring in decent players from outside NSW in the near future.

Go for it.

Again, I'm happy for you guys to have an academy in an area that isn't a traditional football one and has no talent pathway infrastructure like ours. Why do you think having open access to indigenous players who likely would have have been in talent pathways (like Jesse Motlop) is an equal counter-balance?

Given the indigenous talent from the state, a decent amount of it at actually starting rural anyway (like Liam Henry), it seems an equal counter balance to me. Feels like it would be similar in benefit to Sydney's academy, it's less of a change to the current system than you seem to think.

Well, I guess you have to weigh up which group of recruits you'd like to have had a shot at from 2013 onwards:

Callum Sinclair, Michael Talia, Ryan Clarke, Jackson Thurlow, Lewis Taylor, Kaiden Brand, Aaron Francis, Tom Hickey, James Jordon, Brodie Grundy, and Taylor Adams

vs.

Cam McCarthy, Bradley Hill, Joel Hamling, Brandon Matera, Reece Conca, Jesse Hogan, Rory Lobb, Travis Colyer, James Aish, Jordan Clark, Josh Corbett, Jeremy Sharp, Jaeger O'Meara, Luke, Jackson, Will Brodie, and Nathan Williams

Freo has a retention problem which means we also recruit more players. If you would like to lose as many players as we lose, I'm sure this would look different, we can compare talent poached / lost between the two clubs. Would ironically have similar talent levels on each side. I'm sure if we compared Sydney imports with WC it wouldnt be too dissimilar.

When, like WA and SA, we have a reasonable chance in most drafts to take high quality, home state talent near our picks. Where we don't need to reach for an end of round player with a low pick because he'd from NSW.

Well if we go by Davo's ranking, looks like NSW will have better draft talent than WA this year, and QLD looks like it has it two years running

This seems like you think the state of football in NSW is identical or better than in WA and SA, and it isn't. If we weren't competing with 3 other codes at a high level for talent, then yeah, taking all possible talent in the state would be huge, but that isn't the case.

You aren't any more disadvantaged than Sydney.

Disagree, we are in the current AFL with the current bidding system. Do you just think your club is just so immaculately run so that you almost never miss finals? Do you have the same opinion of Geelong, nothing helping them disproportionately, just the best run club in the land?

Here's a great ranking piece by The Mongrel. The Greatest Club of The AFL Era 1990-2022 - The Mongrel Punt. Sydney and Brisbane are the 4th and 5th most successful and if you move past the 90s which is basically as relevant as the old VFL in 2023, I'm sure you move up to 3rd and 4th. While Freo sucks and we can ignore them if you want, you have been in more Grand Finals than Crows and Port combined and more than WC (and their numbers are heavily propped up by the 90s when they didnt have to build a list normally).

 

[Saab NLAW]

please tell me when the dockers rorted the system? lol

I guess you are happy for Freo to pay premium for Hogan and Jackson lol

I may have missed something but where did I say that Freo rorted the system?

RUOK?

 

[WilloTree]

You aren't any more disadvantaged than Sydney.

Is this in relation to Academy/FS?

 

[jimvic]

Instead of having a mid season trade I'd prefer if Geelong and Collingwood just write down the players they want on a piece of paper and just have the AFL figure out how to get them there, do it all behind closed doors.

I think that already happens

 

[sydney_gws]

you think the AFL would help the dockers in Any shape or form?

You need to combine with West Coast, Crows, Port to lobby AFL more strongly, that might help.

 

[.Shotties.]

Again, there is no one to request a trade home, is there any decent player from NSW that is at a rival club? Are we including Tippet here. Ironically, this number would go up if the players from NSW could be drafted outside the state.

...mate. I'm specifically naming the time period that precedes the academies because it shows the situation without the academies.

Again, this stat precedes the academies. The academies do not affect this stat.

No, I didnt mention them as big names though Taylor and Grundy are definitely bigger names than anyone Freo or WC have recruited not from WA since probably Redden. Like I said, like with Brisbane, I think Sydney will continue to bring in decent players from outside NSW in the near future.

What's decent?

Given the indigenous talent from the state, a decent amount of it at actually starting rural anyway (like Liam Henry), it seems an equal counter balance to me. Feels like it would be similar in benefit to Sydney's academy, it's less of a change to the current system than you seem to think.

Rural WA isn't the same as rural NSW.

Freo has a retention problem which means we also recruit more players. If you would like to lose as many players as we lose, I'm sure this would look different, we can compare talent poached / lost between the two clubs.

But that's not the same as being able to attract and bring in players. The fact that you lose more players doesn't automatically mean you get highly-sought after first rounders requesting trades back to you like Freo did with McCarthy, Hogan (and less sought-after at the time of trade, O'Maera and Bennell)

Would ironically have similar talent levels on each side. I'm sure if we compared Sydney imports with WC it wouldnt be too dissimilar.

Go for it.

Well if we go by Davo's ranking, looks like NSW will have better draft talent than WA this year, and QLD looks like it has it two years running

This is a real "It's snowing outside, what happened to global warming?" style argument. In the last 15 years, even if the academies didn't exist and those players were still in the open draft, Sydney would have been within reasonable reach to draft Campbell and perhaps Gulden if they went 10 picks early.

Lets compare that to ONE of Freo's draft's where they were able to take Erasmus, Amiss, and Johnson without reaching in the first 20 odd picks. When that's possible once for Sydney we can start thinking about rolling back draft access

Disagree, we are in the current AFL with the current bidding system. Do you just think your club is just so immaculately run so that you almost never miss finals? Do you have the same opinion of Geelong, nothing helping them disproportionately, just the best run club in the land?

I would prefer the ingrained disadvantage your club faces in recruiting when you're able to easily access home-state talent in every round of the draft and have players repeatedly requesting trades back to WA rather than posing 'Ya think...?' questions and an arbitrary (it's right there in the start) ranking of teams.

I can highlight ours without the academies in place: Historical lack of trade requests back to Sydney, historical lack of elite talent set up or school systems, lack of elite (or even good) talent accessable in the draft, competing against three other codes who can sign players from the age of 15, bypassing any draft.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

...mate. I'm specifically naming the time period that precedes the academies because it shows the situation without the academies.

Again, this stat precedes the academies. The academies do not affect this stat.

What's decent?

Rural WA isn't the same as rural NSW.

But that's not the same as being able to attract and bring in players. The fact that you lose more players doesn't automatically mean you get highly-sought after first rounders requesting trades back to you like Freo did with McCarthy, Hogan (and less sought-after at the time of trade, O'Maera and Bennell)


Go for it.

This is a real "It's snowing outside, what happened to global warming?" style argument. In the last 15 years, even if the academies didn't exist and those players were still in the open draft, Sydney would have been within reasonable reach to draft Campbell and perhaps Gulden if they went 10 picks early.

Lets compare that to ONE of Freo's draft's where they were able to take Erasmus, Amiss, and Johnson without reaching in the first 20 odd picks. When that's possible once for Sydney we can start thinking about rolling back draft access

I would prefer the ingrained disadvantage your club faces in recruiting when you're able to easily access home-state talent in every round of the draft and have players repeatedly requesting trades back to WA rather than posing 'Ya think...?' questions and an arbitrary (it's right there in the start) ranking of teams.

I can highlight ours without the academies in place: Historical lack of trade requests back to Sydney, historical lack of elite talent set up or school systems, lack of elite (or even good) talent accessable in the draft, competing against three other codes who can sign players from the age of 15, bypassing any draft.

Reckon we can wrap it up so others dont have to keep bleaching their eyes reading our convo

All good, we have fundamental difference in opinion on the level disadvantages certain clubs face but both agree on #VICBIAS.

It's all redundant anyway and I'm not fussed so long as they make teams pay reasonable prices for players bids which is currently at comical levels. Have a good season and please give McDonald

 

[juss]

Really the issue is with top maybe 25 picks that needs to be looked at. Don't think people take massive issues with a guy bid on at 35 as a F/S or academy pick.

Think there's a number of options that could work to made the bidding fairer, wouldn't implement all of them of course

e.g. can only match with a pick within X places of the bid, can only match using points of 2 draft picks (meaning you can't just match with a bunch of junk picks), Limited to a certain amount per draft/number of draft years, etc.

 

[TheLastCall]

Really the issue is with top maybe 25 picks that needs to be looked at. Don't think people take massive issues with a guy bid on at 35 as a F/S or academy pick.

Think there's a number of options that could work to made the bidding fairer, wouldn't implement all of them of course

e.g. can only match with a pick within X places of the bid, can only match using points of 2 draft picks (meaning you can't just match with a bunch of junk picks), Limited to a certain amount per draft/number of draft years, etc.

I like the idea of only getting the discount on the first pick the team uses. So, you pay full points for a F/S or Academy player but get a 20% bonus for your first pick you use. You can still use a bunch of low picks, but this would stop teams trading down their first pick or reduce the advantage of it.

A really high pick would be costly. As it should be.

 

[sydney_gws]

I like the idea of only getting the discount on the first pick the team uses. So, you pay full points for a F/S or Academy player but get a 20% bonus for your first pick you use. You can still use a bunch of low picks, but this would stop teams trading down their first pick or reduce the advantage of it.

A really high pick would be costly. As it should be.

Still need to reduce to no more than 3 picks to match, for top 10 bids that can include future first as well maybe.

 

[tombomb]

Really the issue is with top maybe 25 picks that needs to be looked at. Don't think people take massive issues with a guy bid on at 35 as a F/S or academy pick.

Think there's a number of options that could work to made the bidding fairer, wouldn't implement all of them of course

e.g. can only match with a pick within X places of the bid, can only match using points of 2 draft picks (meaning you can't just match with a bunch of junk picks), Limited to a certain amount per draft/number of draft years, etc.

Adding in these extra unnecessary complications is why it takes years for these things to get fixed when it should take hours.

Just increase the value of higher picks. This should have been sorted 5 years ago.

 

[sydney_gws]

Adding in these extra unnecessary complications is why it takes years for these things to get fixed when it should take hours.

Just increase the value of higher picks. This should have been sorted 5 years ago.

Apparently Andrew Dillon was heavily involved in current scheme. I hope that doesnt mean it isn't changed too much .
Hopefully we find out soon, perhaps the first gettable episode ( Cal Twomey on AFL website) will talk about it.

 

[tombomb]

Apparently Andrew Dillon was heavily involved in current scheme. I hope that doesnt mean it isn't changed too much .
Hopefully we find out soon, perhaps the first gettable episode ( Cal Twomey on AFL website) will talk about it.

You could remove the discount this afternoon and the system would instantly become fairer.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Adding in these extra unnecessary complications is why it takes years for these things to get fixed when it should take hours.

Just increase the value of higher picks. This should have been sorted 5 years ago.

Exactly, honestly yeah possibly go with the first pick match having to be within 15 or whatever but if you increase those top 10 picks that will happen anyway. Double the top 10 picks, simple. I'd also be fine with no discounts in the top 10.

 

[tombomb]

Exactly, honestly yeah possibly go with the first pick match having to be within 15 or whatever but if you increase those top 10 picks that will happen anyway. Double the top 10 picks, simple. I'd also be fine with no discounts in the top 10.

I don't think they need to be doubled, but they need to be higher.

I am not sure exactly by how much. Not all drafts are the same. In some drafts a top 5 pick is almost impossible to trade for, in others it can be done.

In the draft just passed, West Coast supposedly passed up offers totalling at least 4500 for pick 1. The year before West Coast traded pick 2 for an offer totalling about 2750 pts IIRC.

But even if you just removed the discount and added 10% to each selection, the system would instantly be much fairer for everyone.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don't think they need to be doubled, but they need to be higher.

I am not sure exactly by how much. Not all drafts are the same. In some drafts a top 5 pick is almost impossible to trade for, in others it can be done.

In the draft just passed, West Coast supposedly passed up offers totalling at least 4500 for pick 1. The year before West Coast traded pick 2 for an offer totalling about 2750 pts IIRC.

But even if you just removed the discount and added 10% to each selection, the system would instantly be much fairer for everyone.

Double it, it should be ultra hard to get those points to match a top 5 bid, at the moment it is ridiculously easy and it is farcical. TPick 1 should be 6000 points and work down from there.

 

[juss]

Adding in these extra unnecessary complications is why it takes years for these things to get fixed when it should take hours.

Just increase the value of higher picks. This should have been sorted 5 years ago.

Yes that's a other option. The point I was making was there's multiple options but the AFL isn't implementing any of them seemingly. Not yet anyway.

 

[adammania9]

Instead of having a mid season trade I'd prefer if Geelong and Collingwood just write down the players they want on a piece of paper and just have the AFL figure out how to get them there, do it all behind closed doors.

Please. Treloar and Adams are the only players the Pies have won races for this century.

Collingwood have 12 players acquired through trade on their list. St Kilda have 10. Colossal difference.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Increasing the value of early draft picks wouldn't be hard. You just map the points value to the actual trades that have been orchestrated and assume that half of the difference in points value is being "gained" by each team.

For instance say a team trades 2000 points of lower draft pick points for 1600 points of a top pick. Therefore, you make that new top pick 1800 points instead.

Obviously the maths is a bit more complicated, but, the principle holds.

The issue is that the maths is out of date and modelled on the value of salaries as opposed to the more direct comparison of actual trades.

We have 10 years of trade data we can use for this. My guess is that it would be pretty accurate.

 

[WilloTree]

Adding in these extra unnecessary complications is why it takes years for these things to get fixed when it should take hours.

Just increase the value of higher picks. This should have been sorted 5 years ago.

Why not just scrap the points system?

It was tried - it was garbage - move on.

There's really no need for it at all.

 

[tombomb]

Why not just scrap the points system?

It was tried - it was garbage - move on.

There's really no need for it at all.

So Gold Coast just pre-list their four 1st round picks and keep pick 4 as well?

I am sure that will go down well.

 

[WilloTree]

So Gold Coast just pre-list their four 1st round picks and keep pick 4 as well?

I am sure that will go down well.

Not what I wrote.

 

[liz]

Not what I wrote.

What do you propose in place of a points system?

 

[go_the_dockers]

What do you propose in place of a points system?

Pick 1 is worth 5000
Pick 20 is no change. The points between them use a similar curve.


The other issue is the first round being so heavily compromised. You can have a club with pick 10, getting the 15th best player or a pick 18 being the 25th or 30th best player, especially when some clubs don't get priority access to any players.

I think the top 5 or 10 picks should be free of priority access, and the WA and SA clubs need priority access to more local talent.



Something like this, and adjust every 2 or 3 years depending if clubs looking for points are trading up or back in the draft.

	Current points	New points
1	3,000	5000
2	2,517	4098.4
3	2,234	3532.4
4	2,034	3132.4
5	1,878	2820.4
6	1,751	2566.4
7	1,644	2352.4
8	1,551	2166.4
9	1,469	2002.4
10	1,395	1854.4
11	1,329	1722.4
12	1,268	1600.4
13	1,212	1488.4
14	1,161	1386.4
15	1,112	1288.4
16	1,067	1198.4
17	1,025	1114.4
18	985	1034.4
19	948	960.4
20	912	912

 

[Vindicater]

Why not just scrap the points system?

It was tried - it was garbage - move on.

There's really no need for it at all.

Nah I think it can be tweaked first.

Get rid of the discount for starters.