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

[threenewpadlocks]

Are there any genuine reasons as to why it's a bad thing outside "everyone else got theirs, I want mine?"

• Academies will still continue if they are locked out of the first round, the benefits are still massive and it hasnt stopped NGAs continuing. More kids from your state is a good thing regardless of where they are drafted
• We already have heaps of Vic kids "strongly advising" they dont be picked up so much so that non-Vics have to have different draft boards. If it goes the other way a bit, who cares, at least it's equal
• Yes, the clubs that have benefitted from it so much already will have a leg up lasting 10 years. Doing it now is still 1 day close to fixing a massive issue then doing it tomorrow.

Fair criticism is the AFL is a micky mouse organisation that hasnt even seen the effect of their points changes yet and a blanket first round ban is a lazy way to do it but it still seems the main argument against it is "I want my turn"

Because it's inconsistent application of to the principles of why these things exist at draft picks of very similar values if a player can be matched at pick 21 and a player can't be matched at pick 20. The draft pick value is almost identical, and the logic behind F/S and academies remain but the logic here is that, once you place an arbitrary cut-off point, one pick is the biggest disaster in terms of draft inequality, and one draft pick is how great we have these systems in place to achieve certain goals other than running a fair competition.

If you're going to state goals to achieve things - the draft attempts to achieve something, F/S and academies attempt to achieve something - there are far better and consistently applied logical ways of trying to balance the two than an arbitrary cut off point.

It'll just create even more issues. What if Marcus Bontempelli Jr gets bidded on with pick 17 and Dogs can't match, but also turns out to be a dud pick, but Laitham Vandermeer jr goes at pick 21 at a discount and turns out to be the best player in the league? You don't think other clubs will complain about how the arbitrary cut-off point helped the Dogs and that the logic as to why we have F/S's in the future (the romanticism of the game which ultimately leads to greater fan engagement and more money) is also broken when the Dogs might not be able to recruit the dud son of Marcus Bontempelli?

It's having an each-way bet, and badly.

And as rightfully pointed out, it was clear that there was a disconnect between the DVI points, the actual value of picks and the 20% discount literally one year or two years into it. Why did they have the patience to wait another 8 years before updating the points, allowing for 8 years of accumulated advantages, and yet they're not even waiting for the updated system to see if it works better (and the 20% to 10% discount is also significant) before making these swathing changes? It's bad practice and inconsistent to have been that patient and slow before, and this impatient and quick now.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

100% agree

What's ironic is take Carlton for example, if these rules were to come in after next season, they wouldn't give a crap about the changes. They are getting all worked up about the romance of F/S picks, yet one of their biggest family names spanning 3 generations has just walked out the door and they aren't concerned, in fact they have turned on that name big time.

Breaking news: club and fans aren’t happy and excited about losing access to a projected top 3 player in the draft at the 11th hour.

 

[Purple Suit]

100% agree

What's ironic is take Carlton for example, if these rules were to come in after next season, they wouldn't give a crap about the changes. They are getting all worked up about the romance of F/S picks, yet one of their biggest family names spanning 3 generations has just walked out the door and they aren't concerned, in fact they have turned on that name big time.

Carlton also complained so much last year that they delayed the changes 12 months. Now they are fast tracking the next lot as nothing has happened. Maybe if the small changes went through last year they might have data on this year but we really can't wait much longer as it has gotten ridiculous.

 

[mpal6]

Not true, even if they are paying him $2mill a year that's 11.3% of the current salary cap. In 2017 we signed Dusty on $1.5 mill a season and that was 12.05% of our salary cap back then. Think we did pretty well from that signature.

2017 Dusty was 26/27 year old, proven. Harley is still growing into his role.

No way he's worth the $ he's getting paid - and I see you sidestepped my question of his value vs Bont. It's ridiculous what Eagles are being forced to do here to make him "stay".

 

[Coach_Required]

2017 Dusty was 26/27 year old, proven. Harley is still growing into his role.

No way he's worth the $ he's getting paid - and I see you sidestepped my question of his value vs Bont. It's ridiculous what Eagles are being forced to do here to make him "stay".

Your argument was teams should avoid flight risks and then it's you can't get success by paying someone so much. My points still stand on both arguments. You can and it has been done before.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Because it's inconsistent application of to the principles of why these things exist at draft picks of very similar values if a player can be matched at pick 21 and a player can't be matched at pick 20. The draft pick value is almost identical, and the logic behind F/S and academies remain but the logic here is that, once you place an arbitrary cut-off point, one pick is the biggest disaster in terms of draft inequality, and one draft pick is how great we have these systems in place to achieve certain goals other than running a fair competition.

If you're going to state goals to achieve things - the draft attempts to achieve something, F/S and academies attempt to achieve something - there are far better and consistently applied logical ways of trying to balance the two than an arbitrary cut off point.

It'll just create even more issues. What if Marcus Bontempelli Jr gets bidded on with pick 17 and Dogs can't match, but also turns out to be a dud pick, but Laitham Vandermeer jr goes at pick 21 at a discount and turns out to be the best player in the league? You don't think other clubs will complain about how the arbitrary cut-off point helped the Dogs and that the logic as to why we have F/S's in the future (the romanticism of the game which ultimately leads to greater fan engagement and more money) is also broken when the Dogs might not be able to recruit the dud son of Marcus Bontempelli?

It's having an each-way bet, and badly.

And as rightfully pointed out, it was clear that there was a disconnect between the DVI points, the actual value of picks and the 20% discount literally one year or two years into it. Why did they have the patience to wait another 8 years before updating the points, allowing for 8 years of accumulated advantages, and yet they're not even waiting for the updated system to see if it works better (and the 20% to 10% discount is also significant) before making these swathing changes? It's bad practice and inconsistent to have been that patient and slow before, and this impatient and quick now.

I dont agree with the issue of the cut-off, that would be the clubs issue who got the talent ID and/or development wrong, same as the rest of the draft. I still view stopping rebuilding clubs from having free access to the best young talent as a far bigger issue. The way academies and F/S's are going, its not hard to see a situation where the 1st actual live pick of the draft is closer to 10 than 1. That is a much bigger problem.

I agree on the AFL being run like muppets and not even seeing the changes of the points system yet, no argument.

 

[Lore]

So West Coast don’t trade players to Fremantle and vice versa right? So if one of them drafts a father-son from the other, what happens? Would they be traded after 3 years? Or delisted because they refuse to trade with each other? Or do we think they wouldn’t draft him in the first place coz he has cooties?

 

[Purple Suit]

Because it's inconsistent application of to the principles of why these things exist at draft picks of very similar values if a player can be matched at pick 21 and a player can't be matched at pick 20. The draft pick value is almost identical, and the logic behind F/S and academies remain but the logic here is that, once you place an arbitrary cut-off point, one pick is the biggest disaster in terms of draft inequality, and one draft pick is how great we have these systems in place to achieve certain goals other than running a fair competition.

If you're going to state goals to achieve things - the draft attempts to achieve something, F/S and academies attempt to achieve something - there are far better and consistently applied logical ways of trying to balance the two than an arbitrary cut off point.

It'll just create even more issues. What if Marcus Bontempelli Jr gets bidded on with pick 17 and Dogs can't match, but also turns out to be a dud pick, but Laitham Vandermeer jr goes at pick 21 at a discount and turns out to be the best player in the league? You don't think other clubs will complain about how the arbitrary cut-off point helped the Dogs and that the logic as to why we have F/S's in the future (the romanticism of the game which ultimately leads to greater fan engagement and more money) is also broken when the Dogs might not be able to recruit the dud son of Marcus Bontempelli?

It's having an each-way bet, and badly.

And as rightfully pointed out, it was clear that there was a disconnect between the DVI points, the actual value of picks and the 20% discount literally one year or two years into it. Why did they have the patience to wait another 8 years before updating the points, allowing for 8 years of accumulated advantages, and yet they're not even waiting for the updated system to see if it works better (and the 20% to 10% discount is also significant) before making these swathing changes? It's bad practice and inconsistent to have been that patient and slow before, and this impatient and quick now.

They have already had rules like this for nearly 10 years. See Freo not getting access to Motlop or Mitchell Edwards or Melbourne with Mac Andrew. The fact that these cut offs were different for different clubs is the real issue and that they would change them when a club like Essendon has an early cut off and then switch them later. The whole thing is run like the AFL, clubs lobbing for their best interests and the AFL doing everything behind closed doors playing favorites when it suits.

 

[Coach_Required]

So West Coast don’t trade players to Fremantle and vice versa right? So if one of them drafts a father-son from the other, what happens? Would they be traded after 3 years? Or delisted because they refuse to trade with each other? Or do we think they wouldn’t draft him in the first place coz he has cooties?

Not sure it matters. If the player is good enough, they will get drafted, if the player wants to change teams, then it will happen.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They have already had rules like this for nearly 10 years. See Freo not getting access to Motlop or Mitchell Edwards or Melbourne with Mac Andrew. The fact that these cut offs were different for different clubs is the real issue and that they would change them when a club like Essendon has an early cut off and then switch them later. The whole thing is run like the AFL, clubs lobbing for their best interests and the AFL doing everything behind closed doors playing favorites when it suits.

Yes, obviously the past was imperfect too.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to have the best, balanced system to balance out competing and contradictory goals in the future.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

So West Coast don’t trade players to Fremantle and vice versa right? So if one of them drafts a father-son from the other, what happens? Would they be traded after 3 years? Or delisted because they refuse to trade with each other? Or do we think they wouldn’t draft him in the first place coz he has cooties?

I dont see how this point relates to fairness of the draft at all.

More an issue for fans to whinge to each other about how sickening it is Pav Jnr is playing for WC. Gross maybe, unfair, not at all

 

[hammer180]

Yes, obviously the past was imperfect too.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to have the best, balanced system to balance out competing and contradictory goals in the future.

The best balance system is a draft that is uncompromised.
If the western bulldogs wants to trade up for Bont Jr. then make the trade for that pick with the team who could make the pick with it. It puts the ball in the western bulldogs court of how much they value the family name and the ability. One of the great arguments I hear about it is the randomness of the fatherson is why it should be kept as eventually everyone gets a turn, well then clubs will want to think about that if they dont want to make the trade for next time when it's there turn.

 

[Lore]

They have already had rules like this for nearly 10 years. See Freo not getting access to Motlop or Mitchell Edwards or Melbourne with Mac Andrew. The fact that these cut offs were different for different clubs is the real issue and that they would change them when a club like Essendon has an early cut off and then switch them later. The whole thing is run like the AFL, clubs lobbing for their best interests and the AFL doing everything behind closed doors playing favorites when it suits.

That’s the thing that pisses me off. They keep changing the rules or policies or whatever and every change takes a decade or more to have a real impact. First they’re handing out priority picks like lollies and giving father sons away for a third round pick, scholarship programs, zone selections, etc. new clubs with high father son thresholds on state aligned players. Then they’re introducing free agency and more new clubs, pre draft secret bidding on father sons to determine what round the club has to pick in. Every single one of these things creates inequalities. Eventually they stop doing priority picks at the top of round one and start making bidding systems for father-sons and academies (instead of scholarships and zones), so you can’t match danger with pick 10, note you can match with 4x 30s picks instead, but they don’t fix the obvious inequalities in that until a decade after it was introduced, then rip the carpet out from under it again before it can settle.

Some clubs have benefited from both the inequality in the first place and then the equalisation measures or advantages doled out to other clubs that prevented real competition from knocking them off that perch (or at least competing fairly for it). And it has compounded year on year. It’s not even Essendon that’s getting the benefit, Isaac Kako is the only thing that’s worked out for us since 2000 and he’s hardly going to fix what’s broken by himself.

I don’t think a pure draft will suddenly be the end of it. They’ll keep changing things, giving advantages for some clubs when it suits them, “equalising” to lock other clubs out when the wheel turns in a way they don’t like. Next thing it’ll be priority picks are back because some clubs can’t pick themselves up by their bootstraps despite getting top picks for years on end, a la the early 2000s (the last time the draft was relatively pure).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If the western bulldogs wants to trade up for Bont Jr. then make the trade for that pick with the team who could make the pick with it.

And a more accurate DVI system with updated points values with 0% discount does this too - the team has to still pay the same amount - it just prevents clubs from being arseholes or difficult if a trade cannot be made.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

For mine, it's simple. The biggest way a club builds a list is through the draft. 80% (completely made up percentage but you get it) of a drafts value is in the first round. I want clubs success to be based on merit. From elite being at talent ID and development, not because some dad got his sperm infused with that shit they give babies in The Boys and played for a footy club, is from overseas or lives in NSW or QLD. Free Agency and draft manipulation are incompatible together in a remotely equitable competition as both dramatically favour contending teams.

My only worry is that the AFL is moronic and weak and will reverse it in two years, ****ing a bunch of clubs out of access to a kid that now everyone has access to again.

 

[Mr Q]

Bahaha you want us to offer $ and then find points too in Oscar Allen scenario ? Dreaming. We would rather do nothing in that case.

Remember top of the ladder clubs are interested in free agency coz it has the "free" aspect built in. Nothing beyond spending the cap.

Yeah, why not?

Traditionally, you had to find a trade to pick up an experienced player (unless they were delisted) as well as the salary. That at least meant that top clubs couldn't just raid bottom clubs whenever they wanted. And for equalisation, Brisbane getting Allen while retaining a first round pick isn't helping.

Anyway, Brisbane was just the example - this would apply across the board to every club.

Free agency means "free to move" where they are free to choose the club they want to move to. Doesn't mean we can just ignore the need for equalisation.

And it's not "free" anyway - just the club that takes the FA doesn't pay the compensation - every one else does on their behalf. If anything, the biggest payer for Brisbane taking OA is Richmond, who's pick current #2 becomes #3.

(If you decided to do nothing in this case, then the target - a top club not raiding a bottom club - is the intended result. But maybe in that case, you'd want to trade instead)

 

[Lore]

I dont see how this point relates to fairness of the draft at all.

More an issue for fans to whinge to each other about how sickening it is Pav Jnr is playing for WC. Gross maybe, unfair, not at all

No I’m just curious what the other implications are

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

No I’m just curious what the other implications are

The implications of that scenario is 1m Freo supporters swearing at how unfair life is on BF, twitter and Facebook and 1m WC supporters grimly taunting Freo for being a loser club.

IE - the exact same as it is now =)

 

[Lore]

For mine, it's simple. The biggest way a club builds a list is through the draft. 80% (completely made up percentage but you get it) of a drafts value is in the first round. I want clubs success to be based on merit. From elite being at talent ID and development, not because some dad got his sperm infused with that shit they give babies in The Boys and played for a footy club, is from overseas or lives in NSW or QLD. Free Agency and draft manipulation are incompatible together in a remotely equitable competition as both dramatically favour contending teams.

My only worry is that the AFL is moronic and weak and will reverse it in two years, ****ing a bunch of clubs out of access to a kid that now everyone has access to again.

The value of picks in any given draft varies wildly from year to year though, as does the meaning of the ladder positions (and let’s not even start on the fixture).

This is why I like an auction system, because one year the top three are all worth 2500 points and other years it’s 5k for pick 1 and 1000 for the next four picks. The shape of the DVI should be flexible to account for it and I think a points auction is the simplest way to achieve that.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

The value of picks in any given draft varies wildly from year to year though, as does the meaning of the ladder positions (and let’s not even start on the fixture).

This is why I like an auction system, because one year the top three are all worth 2500 points and other years it’s 5k for pick 1 and 1000 for the next four picks. The shape of the DVI should be flexible to account for it and I think a points auction is the simplest way to achieve that.

I would also love an auction system. I've long thought of having both open draft and then all points based kids in an auction but just a straight auction system is probably best. Fixes FA problems where clubs get points for losing FAs, not picks (compensation can be tweaked for better accuracy with points) as well.

 

[Coach_Required]

The real problem is F/S are becoming more prevalent and impacting the top end of the draft.

2021 to 2024 There has been 7 players picked in the 1st round
2015 to 2020 There were 0 in the first round
2010 to 2014 There were 3 in the first round.

So, on average you're going from an average of about 0.3 a year over 10 years.
To now 1.75 a year. Hence why the AFL is only now acting on it because previously it didn't really impact the draft.

Throw in NGA and Academies and the first round of the draft is no longer a viable mechanism to rebuild.

 

[Lore]

The real problem is F/S are becoming more prevalent and impacting the top end of the draft.

2021 to 2024 There has been 7 players picked in the 1st round
2015 to 2020 There were 0 in the first round
2010 to 2014 There were 3 in the first round.

So, on average you're going from an average of about 0.3 a year over 10 years.
To now 1.75 a year. Hence why the AFL is only now acting on it because previously it didn't really impact the draft.

Throw in NGA and Academies and the first round of the draft is no longer a viable mechanism to rebuild.

Can you name them (not a gotcha, just curious)

 

[tigs2010]

Can you name them (not a gotcha, just curious)

Daicos, Darcy, Aschroft x2, Fletcher, Michalanney & Croft

 

[mpal6]

Yeah, why not?

Traditionally, you had to find a trade to pick up an experienced player (unless they were delisted) as well as the salary. That at least meant that top clubs couldn't just raid bottom clubs whenever they wanted. And for equalisation, Brisbane getting Allen while retaining a first round pick isn't helping.

That's the free agency rules at present, it seems you're upset about rules and wanting the receiving club to overpay for the privilege of acquiring a free agent. That'll work against incentivizing a club to acquire a player via free agency.

I don't see it changing as this is effectively the way now players are maximizing their earning potential. The one big contract in their prime age is the reward that the incumbent club is refusing to provide them. TDK is a very good example.

AFLPA will never allow to burden the arrangement by penalizing the recipient club - in the process diluting the number of suitors who'll be vying for free agent player services.

If I bring it back to Lions example - if Lions are forced to trade for Oscar Allen, we'd rather explore our trade options further with players like Mitch Lewis instead. We won't be actively pursuing Allen if it'll cost us both in $$$ and draft picks.

 

[Coach_Required]

Can you name them (not a gotcha, just curious)

yeah, sure no probs

2021 - Sam Darcy pick 2
2021 - Nick Daicos pick 4
2022 - Will Ashcroft pick 2
2022 - Jaspa Fletcher pick 12
2022 - Max Michalanney pick 17
2023 - Jordan Croft - pick 15
2024 - Levi Ashcroft pick 5

2023 also had Will McCabe to Hawks for pick 19 but i didn't include him.