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

[SC_Power]

Incredible how clubs with possible future top tier players are complaining about missing out on those players.

It's not as if you're missing out on top tier talent completely. If your pick 5 or whatever can't match a pick 1 talent .... you still get to add that pick 5 talent to your list. Yet people are carrying on that by missing out of a potentially future tied player, they miss out on all talent altogether. Wild, isn't it.

It’s the planning to today that is the issue, not the future setup.
It’s like the AFL doing the right thing and stating “oh, we’re changing the setup on free agency, no compensation picks” …. immediately after you held a player to contract this year knowing they’ll leave next year and you’ll get a compensation pick. If you knew, you would have traded now rather than lose for nothing next year.

Notwithstanding that the numbers of indigenous talent being picked up are on the decline, yet the AFL are reducing incentives for clubs to invest in developing such talent.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The complaint is fair when a congo list of victoria based kids refuse to leave the state and suddenly West Coast is picking in 8 and 12 instead of a sheezel or a wardlaw. It's not just a no.5 pick, you're potentially forcing that club to slide down further than they need to, to find a new player who may or may not stay.

Cool, but that's part of an overall package that there's always going to be disequalities between clubs.

Do you think the overall operation of the league as a whole is beneficial to clubs like Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and North?

 

[Lach72]

The complaint is fair when a congo list of victoria based kids refuse to leave the state and suddenly West Coast is picking in 8 and 12 instead of a sheezel or a wardlaw. It's not just a no.5 pick, you're potentially forcing that club to slide down further than they need to, to find a new player who may or may not stay.

I can’t hear him with Sam Darcy and JUH discounted size thirteen boots hanging out his mouth

 

[mpal6]

Cool, but that's part of an overall package that there's always going to be disequalities between clubs.

Do you think the overall operation of the league as a whole is beneficial to clubs like Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and North?

That's where I started my argument. There'll always be inequalities in the system. AFL noticed an inequality and they fixed the DVI, well let it run and see what happens.

No, there was so much noise that they went knee jerk again as if the competition is pristine and this is the only last wrinkle they need to fix.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

As other posters have said - you can't trade a player against their will to a bottom club. So player goes to a top club, you get a teens pick and more late picks. That's where it'll start.

If you are arguing I have to trade 2 top players for 2 teens pick, and then add my own teens pick to get to top 5 - well that's a terrible one-sided act under the guise of fairness and equality.

Where did I say trade two players all I’ve said is the Carlton pick swap last year is a good guide as to what’s “market value for a top 3-5 pick”, that’s what should be fair. If you can’t get that, that’s fine you pass and leave the player to the open draft. You’ll get the opportunity to match and have a guide what the player is worth through the trade period.

It’s time that all clubs whether it be NGA, academy or F/S pay what is market value not half price at best. Even this year is only half price how is that fair? You blokes are getting yet another top 5 pick for cheap as chips

 

[Choogler]

now the afl have to get rid of compensation picks in the top 10

agreed, except I reckon no compo picks in the first 2 rounds... sick of destination clubs getting something for nothing! Make them pay. And I know this goes against WCE who will benefit this year by getting pick 2 for Allen and getting Starcevich for nothing, but we have been torn a new one the last 2 drafts with our early 2nd round picks blowing out to almost 30

 

[SC_Power]

Where did I say trade two players all I’ve said is the Carlton pick swap last year is a good guide as to what’s “market value for a top 3-5 pick”, that’s what should be fair. If you can’t get that, that’s fine you pass and leave the player to the open draft. You’ll get the opportunity to match and have a guide what the player is worth through the trade period.

It’s time that all clubs whether it be NGA, academy or F/S pay what is market value not half price at best. Even this year is only half price how is that fair? You blokes are getting yet another top 5 pick for cheap as chips

Clubs don’t invest in F/S talent, they just get them. (Well, the dads invest a little bit of time right at the start, of course)

So no investment by clubs in NGA or Academy talent then?

 

[Choogler]

Where did I say trade two players all I’ve said is the Carlton pick swap last year is a good guide as to what’s “market value for a top 3-5 pick”, that’s what should be fair. If you can’t get that, that’s fine you pass and leave the player to the open draft. You’ll get the opportunity to match and have a guide what the player is worth through the trade period.

It’s time that all clubs whether it be NGA, academy or F/S pay what is market value not half price at best. Even this year is only half price how is that fair? You blokes are getting yet another top 5 pick for cheap as chips

I agree that clubs need to pay market value but you are completely wrong saying "even this year is only half price" . They will have to pay far more than half price...the issue is really the junk picks that have been used to acquire elite talent and the AFL has acted to change that by removing 10,000 points from the draft. Take the Ashcroft bid at pick 5 last draft. It was matched with 4 third round picks. Now, with the DVI and discount changes, those same 4 third rounders will only make up around half the points. To complete matching that same bid in 2025 will require an additional points 700+ points equal to Pick 19.

Wherever did you get the "half-price" from?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That's where I started my argument. There'll always be inequalities in the system. AFL noticed an inequality and they fixed the DVI, well let it run and see what happens.

No, there was so much noise that they went knee jerk again as if the competition is pristine and this is the only last wrinkle they need to fix.

Sweet. Now be as vocal as spreading around the Vic blockbuster fixtures so the big public holiday MCG games don't always go to the same clubs. Be more vocal about those three teams being able to host more home games against Richmond and Collingwood than essentially once every second year.

 

[Choogler]

League has made an absolute meal out of this. They simply had to give more notice before changes were implemented so clubs had time to prepare and inform list strategy.

After watching other clubs ream the draft for years, Carlton suddenly pays a huge premium for the same benefit, despite Walker nominating under the old system

Walker can't "nominate" until his draft year, whatever are you on about?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree that clubs need to pay market value but you are completely wrong saying "even this year is only half price" . They will have to pay far more than half price...the issue is really the junk picks that have been used to acquire elite talent and the AFL has acted to change that by removing 10,000 points from the draft. Take the Ashcroft bid at pick 5 last draft. It was matched with 4 third round picks. Now, with the DVI and discount changes, those same 4 third rounders will only make up around half the points. To complete matching that same bid in 2025 will require an additional points 700+ points equal to Pick 19.

Wherever did you get the "half-price" from?

A top 3-5 pick last year went for picks 10&14 (Jagga Smith trade). That’s market value let’s call it what it is. Even that was seen as “unders” for WCE. Brisbane aren’t forking out nearly that for a top 5 talent this year. It’s half price at absolute best. Look I don’t mind them keeping the rort it benefits us but I’ll call a spade a spade it’s a complete and utter rort. It needs to be market value. The idea of two picks is a good thing it means the rubbish trading down for half junk won’t work at least it forces clubs to not double dip you want the talent that’s fine but you pay. It’s not that complicated

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Clubs don’t invest in F/S talent, they just get them. (Well, the dads invest a little bit of time right at the start, of course)

So no investment by clubs in NGA or Academy talent then?

NGA is the biggest farce of the lot but whatever it keeps everyone happy. As long as what is being paid is streamlined it’s fine

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Cool, but that's part of an overall package that there's always going to be disequalities between clubs.

Do you think the overall operation of the league as a whole is beneficial to clubs like Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and North?

Youre arguing with a Brisbane fan.

Yes, WB, North and SK and to an extent, Melbourne, are completely ignored by the afl.

They DGAF about SA or WA teams either, why cant they have academies to combat the go home factor?

The system is designed to prevent 4 teams from requiring a hard rebuild as extended periods at the bottom for any of these teams really hurt the $$$.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Who decides what's fair though. And if a club has overpaid is it just bad luck to them or will they get compensated if the player doesn't evolve to that level. There is no sure thing as a top pick either, Zane Duursma was 2023 pick 4, Tsatas was 2022 pick 5 etc - and now the ask is to commit 2 first rounders hoping this player turns out to be a top player eventually.

If another club bids on them then thats what they're worth. There's nothing saying you have to match the bid

Are you genuinely complaining that you'll have pay for a top pick that isn't a guarantee?

 

[Choogler]

If Butters leaves Port, then Port probably don't have a problem matching a bid for Cochrane.

Carlton are set for a top 10 compensation pick, so they'll probably and trade it for a future first as well.

Compo picks should have no points value... it is simply a pick. Natural picks should retain their original points value no matter where they fall in the draft.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If another club bids on them then thats what they're worth. There's nothing saying you have to match the bid

Are you genuinely complaining that you'll have pay for a top pick that isn't a guarantee?

The right to match is already an advantage even before this, too.

If you had no bidding system and you had a live pick, you would consider taking that player with your live pick, because you are not entirely certain if he would last to your next pick.

With the bidding system you can just wait until another club drafts him and matches him.

Who the hell knows if, for example, Sydney may have even rated Errol Gulden a lot higher than they actually did and would have taken him with a live pick (with the uncertainty if another club would take him) had he not been tied to them, for example?

So even if in theory the points system was perfect and you got 0% discount you're already getting an advantage from the wait-and-see for other clubs than taking a player where you truly rate them.

 

[#BallMagnet]

lol clubs will tell their acadamy/NGA/father son products to tank their final year so they'll pick them up for cheaper. If anything, these new rules will encourage clubs to bend the rules even more.

So are you saying that you would only draft kids affiliated in some capacity to your club?

In some forums, my club is always talking about F/S, Academy or NGA kids and this is how we can bring them in and it’s like no other prospects even exist which is just stupid and narrow minded.

I however think if another better prospect was to still be available at our selection/s then you should take that over the bias of F/S, Academy or NGA.

There’s plenty of elite prospects out there not tied to clubs so over committing to affiliated kids may not always be sensible.

I just hope my club makes the hard decisions for the betterment of the future playing list and not get sucked into the pressure that they have to take affiliated kids.

 

[SC_Power]

The right to match is already an advantage even before this, too.

If you had no bidding system and you had a live pick, you would consider taking that player with your live pick, because you are not entirely certain if he would last to your next pick.

With the bidding system you can just wait until another club drafts him and matches him.

Who the hell knows if, for example, Sydney may have even rated Errol Gulden a lot higher than they actually did and would have taken him with a live pick (with the uncertainty if another club would take him) had he not been tied to them, for example?

So even if in theory the points system was perfect and you got 0% discount you're already getting an advantage from the wait-and-see for other clubs than taking a player where you truly rate them.

As long as you have enough remaining to match any incoming bid that is. You can’t match the bid with a pick you’ve already used.
So with the updated rules, I don’t have the exact values but let say to cover a bid 2, you may have kept 4 and 13 in reserve. Then it gets to 4. You won’t use your bid 4 on another player if you can’t match a bid 5 with what you have remaining. So you are required to use your pick 4. In the past, you would have lower value picks in reserve which add up to any bid.

Other clubs can bid with what they’ve got and don’t have to worry about what they have in reserve.

 

[The Tilt]

Who decides what's fair though. And if a club has overpaid is it just bad luck to them or will they get compensated if the player doesn't evolve to that level. There is no sure thing as a top pick either, Zane Duursma was 2023 pick 4, Tsatas was 2022 pick 5 etc - and now the ask is to commit 2 first rounders hoping this player turns out to be a top player eventually.

The "fair price" is determined by the bid that's made by the other club. If a club bids pick 4, the matching club should cough up the equivalent of pick 4.

Obviously whether the player turns out to be good is irrelevant. There's always the possibility of a high draft pick not amounting to much.

 

[briztoon]

So Carlton who are rubbish now, don't get to take a top player this year, just in case there's a really early bid on a father-son player next year? And you're trying to claim its not going to affect them? When the picks that can be used to match are very limited in scope, then all of the clubs looking to match a bid are trading for the same picks. Which is going to make them cost even more.

Carlton traded out their 2025 first round draft pick last year.

They will trade their compo pick from losing De Koning this year, as they have a top 10'ish rated father son this year.

However a lot of your post has merits. But a lot of fans agree with the new changes. They were always going to "hurt" some clubs at some point. Maybe have a go at the clubs that pushed for these changes.

 

[briztoon]

If Butters leaves Port, its going to be to a top side, who are going to be providing Port with some late first round picks. Now when you are stuck with having to match a top 5 player with less picks, Port is going to have to find a low ranked club that can provide them with an earlier pick for the few late ones (which are also bound to be pushed out by band 1 free agency compensation).

And we're now saying the cost for being able to get in to an Academy kid is having to trade out a top 5 player in the comp? And we're thinking that "fair value"?

Do you believe Port make finals next year?

First the AFL have to approve Cochrane's nga status, and that's no guarantee.

I'm not arguing for or against the changes, in fact I haven't said boo about them.

I just believe Carlton and Port won't have too much difficulty in matching the bids due to where they're likely to finish on the ladder, and that they'll both likely have extra first round picks to help match the bids. And I believe if their kids are loud enough during the preseason about their preferred destinations, they may not be bid on so early.

 

[The Tilt]

As long as you have enough remaining to match any incoming bid that is. You can’t match the bid with a pick you’ve already used.
So with the updated rules, I don’t have the exact values but let say to cover a bid 2, you may have kept 4 and 13 in reserve. Then it gets to 4. You won’t use your bid 4 on another player if you can’t match a bid 5 with what you have remaining. So you are required to use your pick 4. In the past, you would have lower value picks in reserve which add up to any bid.

Other clubs can bid with what they’ve got and don’t have to worry about what they have in reserve.

I expect live trading will come in to play in that scenario. That aside, i don't see much of a problem with a matching club paying slight overs (e.g. using pick 4 on a player who might have been bid on at 5).

 

[briztoon]

Why wouldn’t they?
Of they can get the players in and get a future first why wouldn’t they?

You really haven't looked at this years draft dvi and Gold Coasts picks, and their academy kids have you?

A lot will come down where the bids come, but they have 5 potential kids in this draft, and most likely only be able to take 3 with their current draft hand. And that's assuming their top kid isn't bid on at the first two picks.

 

[briztoon]

Cool, but that's part of an overall package that there's always going to be disequalities between clubs.

Sorry, but that's not a word. The word you want is inequalities.

Do you think the overall operation of the league as a whole is beneficial to clubs like Western Bulldogs, St Kilda and North?

Don't ask that question of some non Victorian fans. There's a lot that believe there are too many clubs in Victoria and that four should be folded and another moved to Tassie.

 

[briztoon]

Sweet. Now be as vocal as spreading around the Vic blockbuster fixtures so the big public holiday MCG games don't always go to the same clubs. Be more vocal about those three teams being able to host more home games against Richmond and Collingwood than essentially once every second year.

lol, we get two MCG games a year if we're lucky. None of the non Vic clubs get any type blockbuster fixture. It's a national competition, share them around nationally. Why should Port argue for the Bulldogs, when they get nothing out of it.