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

[Elixuh]

it sure does, West Coast, Richmond and many others previously were directly impacted, denied the ability to access the best talent in the draft availibe at their positions.

we all know it's a rort, it's self-service that has you arguing any different.

Talent pool couldn't be further from the league admin's priorities, otherwise the changes they have made to the U18 comp here in Vic wouldn't have been made. Denying kids access to facilities and coaches goes against what you claim

Incorrect, Mat Mann.

It’s all artificial old boy. Those players from the academies largely don’t exist pre academies so west coast, Richmond and the many others would have more or less drafted the players they did.

It’s tough to hear I know.

 

[Mat Mann]

Incorrect, Mat Mann.

It’s all artificial old boy. Those players from the academies largely don’t exist pre academies so west coast, Richmond and the many others would have more or less drafted the players they did.

It’s tough to hear I know.

they do exist, you're only all for it because you've gorged on the rort that is the current bidding system

self-service is the best kind

 

[Elixuh]

they do exist, you're only all for it because you've gorged on the rort that is the current bidding system

self-service is the best kind

Not at all Mat Mann. My primary concern is ensuring the AFL has adequate talent in the pool as I’m first and foremost a fan of watching the sport. My allegiance to the lions is a distance second.

We perform a service for the saints by operating our academy.

 

[briztoon]

What a crock, Brisbane's flags have come off the back of cheap access to academy kids that gave them currency to trade.

Prove it. List every academy kid in our 2025 flag side, and where they were bid on.

Pick up a Neale,

Traded pick 6 and 18 for Neale. Traded our 2018 and 2019 first round picks to get Neale.

Our first pick in the draft was pick 21, which we got for trading Dayne Beams out.

Had no academy kids in the draft.

Dunkley,

Traded our 2023 and 2024 first round picks out to get Dunkley. Our first pick in 2023 was pick 31.

Had no academy kids in the draft.

Cameron etc it usually sets you back a full draft, sometimes two.

Traded pick 12 for Cameron.

We had two academy kids in the draft, who we drafted with our natural picks in the 3rd round, because no team bid on them.

Not Brisbane due to the academy and f/s. The difference is that extra talent pushing them over the top, it's fine considering the advantages of the teams they have been up against but the AFL have forgotten to turn off the tap and the bath is now overflowing.

Freo had a pick 2 & 5 before in 2017 due to a Lachie Weller trade. Ironically, GC have gone one better this year and got 2, 5, 17, 18 and Petracca.

If we throw the lense over that year it would be like picking up Brayshaw, Cerra, Higgins & Starevich and trading in Gary Ablett all in one draft.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Not at all Mat Mann. My primary concern is ensuring the AFL has adequate talent in the pool as I’m first and foremost a fan of watching the sport. My allegiance to the lions is a distance second.

We perform a service for the saints by operating our academy.

LOL

So you would be happy to keep the academies running but lose the priority access to the players? After all it is all about just getting the kids in to the sport.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The issue is at the extreme top end of the draft the vast differences in value of draft picks, not actually reflected in reality of the quality of each pick as it relates to real life U18 human talent. Navigating around these extreme differences as picks move up, down, around one spot or another actually makes a huge difference whereas the reality quality of players available are practically more or less similar.

The DVI system for instance values Pick 1 as pick 2+27
The DVI system for instance values Pick 1 as pick 3+19
The DVI system for instance vales Pick 1 as pick 4+13

There are some years where pick 1 is roughly as good as pick 4. There are some years where pick 1 gives you twice as much marginal value as pick 4 and you wouldn't trade pick 1 for pick 4+5 when it comes to the actual talent in the draft.

Therefore, it's not just the value of the points themselves. It's that the clubs that are operating in the currency of points can always work an advantageous 'arbitrage' of currency exchange because clubs without bidding players have to operate in the currency of reality picks for reality players in the order they become available.

Either way, there's an advantage. In the years that an academy team has pick 1 and pick 1 is as good as pick 4, they can benefit for the arbitrage, gaining a pick 13 value out of thin air

In the years that you hold pick 4+5 as a non-academy team and it's a weak draft and you need to pay both to pick 1, the pick 1 academy team can sell off pick 1 to gain as many points as valuable to over-valued points draft pick.

In both directions - either strong draft or weak draft, draft talent very similar or very apart - you gain the advantage either way. It goes simply beyond discounts or right to match, its the very concept of gaining the exchange rate benefit of operating in different currencies (which is hard to mathematically prove but true conceptually).

Which is why to me a solution is the auction system. Get rid of exchange rate, and make all 18 clubs operate in the same system for all players - every player is worth points, not just academy f/s player.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Trades are fine, that's market price

But going into last night, how does this work

Started with	Ended with
Pick 15	Pick 2 (Uwland)
Pick 18	Pick 5 (Patterson)
Pick 24	Pick 17 (Murray)
Pick 28	Pick 18 (Addinsall)
Pick 29	Pick 48
Pick 36	Pick 49
Pick 52	Pick 72

So they've traded Pick 15 for Pick 2, Pick 18 for Pick 5, Pick 24 for Pick 17 and Pick 28 for Pick 18.

And it's cost them sliding down from 29 to 48, 36 to 49 and 52 to 72??

Nobody can argue that's even in the same atmosphere as reasonable.

Just to take this a bit further, and net off the picks on both sides that are pretty much the same.

Started with	Ended with
Pick 15	Pick 17 (Murray)
Pick 18	Pick 18 (Addinsall)
Pick 48	Pick 52
Pick 24	Pick 2 (Uwland)
Pick 29	Pick 5 (Patterson)
Pick 36	Pick 49
Pick 52	Pick 72

So just to put this in regular trade talk that is clear to everybody:

Gold Coast have packaged up Picks 24, 29, 36 and 52 and traded them for Picks 2 and 5 in the draft.

Oh, and they also got picks 49 and 72 coming back as steak knives.

Waiting for anybody to argue this is fair.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The issue is at the extreme top end of the draft the vast differences in value of draft picks, not actually reflected in reality of the quality of each pick as it relates to real life U18 human talent. Navigating around these extreme differences as picks move up, down, around one spot or another actually makes a huge difference whereas the reality quality of players available are practically more or less similar.

The DVI system for instance values Pick 1 as pick 2+27
The DVI system for instance values Pick 1 as pick 3+19
The DVI system for instance vales Pick 1 as pick 4+13

There are some years where pick 1 is roughly as good as pick 4. There are some years where pick 1 gives you twice as much marginal value as pick 4 and you wouldn't trade pick 1 for pick 4+5 when it comes to the actual talent in the draft.

Therefore, it's not just the value of the points themselves. It's that the clubs that are operating in the currency of points can always work an advantageous 'arbitrage' of currency exchange because clubs without bidding players have to operate in the currency of reality picks for reality players in the order they become available.

Either way, there's an advantage. In the years that an academy team has pick 1 and pick 1 is as good as pick 4, they can benefit for the arbitrage, gaining a pick 13 value out of thin air

In the years that you hold pick 4+5 as a non-academy team and it's a weak draft and you need to pay both to pick 1, the pick 1 academy team can sell off pick 1 to gain as many points as valuable to over-valued points draft pick.

In both directions - either strong draft or weak draft, draft talent very similar or very apart - you gain the advantage either way. It goes simply beyond discounts or right to match, its the very concept of gaining the exchange rate benefit of operating in different currencies (which is hard to mathematically prove but true conceptually).

Which is why to me a solution is the auction system. Get rid of exchange rate, and make all 18 clubs operate in the same system for all players - every player is worth points, not just academy f/s player.

It ends up like that in some years in terms of what the players go on to produce… but that’s never the actual value of high draft picks.

Their value in the trade market is always inflated. Getting a say, Top 5 pick, is a hugely expensive exercise, you would have to trade a very, very good player - and the odds are the player you pick won’t ever be as good.

In a strict currency term they’re overvalued, but that’s for a very good reason - they’re the only way in the sport to access the elite young talent. You don’t have other options. So that’s priced into the value.

Yet the stupid bloody points system doesn’t take that into account. It’s just numbers on a sheet that are a looonnnngg way from the actual value in the real world.

That’s what’s so unfair. Gold Coast are able to package up a bunch of shit picks and get 2x Top 5 selections. For any other club to do that, it’d cost the earth.

The only way to correct it is to make them pay with a pick close to the bid, and make them pay market value for that pick - by getting it from the market in a trade.

The points system does it off-market by allowing them to package up shit picks for points. It’s absurd. Take it back to the market - make them actually pay for the picks.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

When a third of the draft is academy players you know the system is cooked. At this point might as well just head back to zones.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

It ends up like that in some years in terms of what the players go on to produce… but that’s never the actual value of high draft picks.

Their value in the trade market is always inflated. Getting a say, Top 5 pick, is a hugely expensive exercise, you would have to trade a very, very good player - and the odds are the player you pick won’t ever be as good.

In a strict currency term they’re overvalued, but that’s for a very good reason - they’re the only way in the sport to access the elite young talent. You don’t have other options. So that’s priced into the value.

Yet the stupid bloody points system doesn’t take that into account. It’s just numbers on a sheet that are a looonnnngg way from the actual value in the real world.

That’s what’s so unfair. Gold Coast are able to package up a bunch of shit picks and get 2x Top 5 selections. For any other club to do that, it’d cost the earth.

Don’t forget the elite players they can trade their top picks out to get also.

 

[Elixuh]

LOL

So you would be happy to keep the academies running but lose the priority access to the players? After all it is all about just getting the kids in to the sport.

We need a little reward for running and funding our academy. We only got one player from our academy during this years national draft. We left the remainder for the other clubs.

 

[marcmurphy3]

If it were me I would remove the discount, limit bid matching to 1 per year, and remove the ability to have more picks then list spots (in draft not just before draft).

Its already harder with the new DVI. Those small simple changes would tighten it up further without dismantling the system.

It'd put alot more players in the open pool. Yes, the matching club would still get the best one, but everyone else would benefit from the others.

Introducing 2 pick matching limits or needing picks within certain spots is needlessly complicated and impossible to manage with Tassie compromised drafts coming in. Can look at that post 2028 if required.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yes they did. Suns went in to the draft with 2 first round picks, they got from trading out players last year and this year.

They had a quiet draft last year, because they pushed most of their 2024 draft hand in to this year.

And they almost wiped out their 2026 draft hand.

Yes they traded in Petracca, but every team could have positioned themselves for such a trade. And everyone know JUH is damaged goods and a big gamble.

The logic doesnt compute. The first round picks that you are supposedly referring to that they used for matching were late first rounders.
In what non academy situation is a club holding pick 5 ever trading it for 17 and 18? Never. And this is the core problem. Clubs are matching bids that are barely even 50 % of what it would cost to get said draft picks in any real world.

Anyone that is stupid enough to ignore this and not understand the obvious problem (not with the academies themselves but with the bidding system and the points table) is beyond my assistance.

 

[marcmurphy3]

The logic doesnt compute. The first round picks that you are supposedly referring to that they used for matching were late first rounders.
In what non academy situation is a club holding pick 5 ever trading it for 17 and 18? Never. And this is the core problem. Clubs are matching bids that are barely even 50 % of what it would cost to get said draft picks in any real world.

Anyone that is stupid enough to ignore this and not understand the obvious problem (not with the academies themselves but with the bidding system and the points table) is beyond my assistance.

Yeah but the value of all draft picks is subjective and changes year to year. Alot of times early picks arent for sale for any price.

I get your point but if you are going to bother having a bidding system you still need to make matching realistic and balance that with making clubs play close to fair value.

Doesnt need to be perfectly fair. Few things are in the competition.

 

[Mat Mann]

Yes they did. Suns went in to the draft with 2 first round picks, they got from trading out players last year and this year.

They had a quiet draft last year, because they pushed most of their 2024 draft hand in to this year.

And they almost wiped out their 2026 draft hand.

Yes they traded in Petracca, but every team could have positioned themselves for such a trade. And everyone know JUH is damaged goods and a big gamble.

just one top ten academy pick............. on the back of 3 the year prior, in the knowledge of 5+ the year to come. all with out using close to equivalent price paid for any of them.

It's just self-interest that sees you think this is acceptable

 

[danster168]

You can't match with junk picks anymore.

The Suns positioned themselves 18 months out to match bids this year.

They had 6 x picks inside the Top 36, none of which are 'junk' picks and have gone into defecit for 2026 to match on 4 kids.

So they got 4 kids in the Top 20 for 6 picks in the Top 36 - so hardly complete daylight robbery and they had to give up a fair bit to get 6 selections in the Top 36, they didn't just materialise.

I was never a fan of the old system, but the new system is much better. People just don't bother to understand it.

They also have Coulson, Collins and some others on the radar, but can't match (which they could have under the old system, given the amount of picks they accumulated via trades)

wrong on so many levels.

1- in a fair system they get access to NONE of these academy players.
2- the points system still hasn't got the points curve right.
3- A junk pick is really anything outside of 20 to me if we're talking about it playing a role in getting a top end talent. Not sure where you pulled top 36 from.
4- considering the academies and f/s is deciding premierships (just look at Brisbane and collingwood), the cost of having an NGA/father-son should be double the points. It should be a severe points surplus to get access to a player you don't deserve. Not fair value, and certainly not a discount. And the points system has shown this year that it still doesn't place enough value on the high picks.
5- Couldn't match Coulson, Collins and some others? Some clubs go 20 years without 1 NGA player. And you're talking about GCS being victims of not being able to take 7 in the 1 draft! Crazy! 1 NGA every 5 years per club would also make the system fair.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

We need a little reward for running and funding our academy. We only got one player from our academy during this years national draft. We left the remainder for the other clubs.

Yeah i thought so....

The AFL needs to be funding them so this rort ends all together. short of that at least put a tax on teams trying to jump up the order instead of some bs discount.

 

[The Inbetweener]

yo are pretty close and they are 1,000+ short, and have gone into defecit

How have they been allowed to go into deficit when they have no 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks in 2026?

 

[harper2bastinac]

Anyone defending the academy picks is nqr, been saying it for years and this year just took the cake.
I really want someone with logic to explain why Gold Coast should have 2 top 5 worthy picks and another 2 top 20s when they’ve just made finals, or why Brisbane should be getting another top 10 pick when they’ve literally just won back to back premierships.
All this while the team that finished second last ends up with the 7th best ranked player in the draft.
I’ve said it for years allow one first round academy pick each team and that’s it, but the afl has to prove that it was worth putting a team on the Gold Coast

 

[I Lost My Keays]

Anyone defending the academy picks is nqr, been saying it for years and this year just took the cake.
I really want someone with logic to explain why Gold Coast should have 2 top 5 worthy picks and another 2 top 20s when they’ve just made finals, or why Brisbane should be getting another top 10 pick when they’ve literally just won back to back premierships.
All this while the team that finished second last ends up with the 7th best ranked player in the draft.
I’ve said it for years allow one first round academy pick each team and that’s it, but the afl has to prove that it was worth putting a team on the Gold Coast

Apparently it’s to grow the game and that talent doesn’t get lost to the NRL

 

[The Tilt]

Is there a record anywhere of the picks officially used by the GC (and others) when matching an academy bid? I.e. when GC matched the bid on pick 2 for Uwland, what were the picks did they give up?

Ridiculous that this isn't listed on the AFL website.

 

[The Tilt]

wrong on so many levels.

1- in a fair system they get access to NONE of these academy players.
2- the points system still hasn't got the points curve right.
3- A junk pick is really anything outside of 20 to me if we're talking about it playing a role in getting a top end talent. Not sure where you pulled top 36 from.
4- considering the academies and f/s is deciding premierships (just look at Brisbane and collingwood), the cost of having an NGA/father-son should be double the points. It should be a severe points surplus to get access to a player you don't deserve. Not fair value, and certainly not a discount. And the points system has shown this year that it still doesn't place enough value on the high picks.
5- Couldn't match Coulson, Collins and some others? Some clubs go 20 years without 1 NGA player. And you're talking about GCS being victims of not being able to take 7 in the 1 draft! Crazy! 1 NGA every 5 years per club would also make the system fair.

I have to say, I'm increasingly inclined towards removing the discount and introducing a fee in its place (at least a fee if you're matching more than one first rounder in the same draft). The system should encourage clubs to get the players they want (including academies & father-sons) with the picks they have, with matching being a fallback option.

 

[The Tilt]

here we go

PICK 2 - WC bid for Zeke Uwland matched (Academy) using picks 14, 18, 24
PICK 3 - WC bid for Harry Dean matched (Father-Son) using picks 20, 23, 25
PICK 5 - Rich bid for Dylan Patterson matched (Academy) using picks 24, 29, 31, 32
PICK 6 - Rich bid for Daniel Annable matched (Academy) using picks 22, 23, 39
PICK 14 - GWS bid for Harry Kyle matched (Academy) using picks 26, 27
PICK 17 - WC bid for Jai Murray matched (Academy) using picks 31, 32
PICK 18 - WC bid for Beau Addinsall matched (Academy) using picks 39, 40, 44, 46

who is making any of those trades?

Good work. Answers my post above. Where did you get this from?

I think a rule that says that to match a bid, the bids you're matching with need to include one worth at least X% (maybe 50%) of the bid pick would help. So, matching on pick 2 and 3 would likely require something in the top 10; pick 5 something early teens etc. It forces clubs who want to match high-end picks to work their way up the draft.

 

[Stamos]

How have they been allowed to go into deficit when they have no 1st, 2nd or 3rd round picks in 2026?

They're not in deficit

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think people are missing the fact that it's not just the points value, it's not just picks moving up, it's the fact that when you operate in two different currencies, that have value for each selection, the club that does the most trades is the ones that get the most arbitrage value.

If buying a loaf of bread cost AU$4. GB£1.50 and US$3 and you started with US$10 in your pocket and you were only allowed to buy one loaf of bread per currency, you would transfer US$5 to AUD, buy one loaf of bread in AUD, keep the AUD, transfer some to GB£1.50, buy another loaf of bread, and keep the leftover AUD to buy some peanut butter to make the whole toast nicer.

At the top end, this arbitrage can be extremely valuable. In some years, the difference between pick 1 and pick 4 or whatever is not that great, and you'd expect to get 90% of the value of pick 1 with pick 4. Other years, pick 1 is an out and out gun, and pick 4 is only worth 55% of pick 1. Either way, DVI currently values it at about 65%, so you can arbitrage in either direction (trade pick 4 for points when pick 1 is a gun, trade pick 1 for points when pick 4 is almost as good as pick 1). In either circumstance you're gaining hundreds of DVI points in this exchange rate, and those hundreds of points over several trades, bid matching, points moving up when picks disappear, the inaccuracy of the curve before this year, teams opening up 7-8 list spots for points when they wouldn't naturally take 7-8 live draft selections, etc. etc. etc. all add to this distorting of the idea of "to match a bid you need to pay 90% of the economic worth of the bid" where all of these factors allow it to be far less than 90%.

Each individual trade is incremental - the advantage in arbitrage is not obvious im a trade in and of itself, but when you're executing literally dozens of trades, but a few DVI points here and in every one of those dozens trade adds up. With future picks and picks layering on top of each other. For example: 50 DVI points (worth pick 50) advantage gained in every trade, over 20 trades over 2-3 years = 1000 points or effectively manufacturing pick 15 out of thin air.

You can artificially open list spots. Very rarely do teams have, 6, 7, 8, 9 list spots open for 6, 7, 8, 9, draft slots, but if you're operating in points and you force the market to accept your 2-1 trade, that's another arbitrage opportunity (as an aside why I think your 1st bid should be max 3 picks and every subsequent bid max 2 picks but anyway).

They can effect this arbitrage in a "weak draft". They traded away Flanders, Ainsworth, Budarick, got some picks back in Petracca trade, all because those picks if they were used for live selections are not that valubale (weak draft), but maintain a fixed points value. Different currencies.

On top of all of this, clubs generally overpay for current picks and undervalue future 1sts, generally. Given that Gold Coast know that they need the points in the future years, they can get the value of other clubs valuing current-year actual draftable talent, and undervalue the idea of a draft asset being a year away in realising its on-field value, while Gold Coast don't care - they need the points, not the idea of a pick = 1 player.

Lastly, if you do smart draft day trades, all of the above applies to teams panicking on draft day itself and the opportunities for this arbitrage remain.

Knowing as early as 2022-23 that they would probably have a big 2025 draft haul, it started long ago, and there are several trades that get them to point when they all stack on each other.

In 2019: Get non-bid access to certain academy players, get mid-first-round pick in 2020, get end of 1st round pick in 2021 (all tradable assets beyond the natural early picks they get for being a bad team)

In 2022 draft:

• Get a 2023 4th round pick (worth points) in Ben Long
  22

  Ben Long

  Age

  28

  Ht

  186cm

  Wt

  81kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  10.9

  3star

  K

  6.2

  2star

  HB

  4.7

  3star

  M

  3.3

  3star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  G

  0.7

  4star

  D

  12.8

  3star

  K

  6.7

  3star

  HB

  6.2

  4star

  M

  3.3

  3star

  T

  2.3

  3star

  G

  0.0

  1star

  D

  13.4

  4star

  K

  6.8

  3star

  HB

  6.6

  4star

  M

  3.2

  4star

  T

  3.2

  5star

  G

  0.6

  3star

  trade
• Get a 2023 2nd round pick (worth points) in Tom Berry trade
• Get a 2023 4th round pick (worth points) in Josh Corbett
  19

  Josh Corbett

  Age

  29

  Ht

  190cm

  Wt

  88kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  9.0

  2star

  K

  5.6

  2star

  HB

  3.4

  3star

  M

  4.4

  4star

  T

  1.6

  4star

  G

  0.3

  3star

  No current season stats available

  D

  10.4

  3star

  K

  6.6

  3star

  HB

  3.8

  3star

  M

  4.6

  5star

  T

  2.0

  4star

  G

  0.6

  3star

  trade
• Get a 2023 3rd round pick (worth points) in Izak Rankine
  23

  Izak Rankine

  Age

  25

  Ht

  179cm

  Wt

  82kg

  Pos.

  M/F

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  13.0

  3star

  K

  9.0

  3star

  HB

  4.0

  3star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  CL

  1.7

  4star

  D

  13.0

  3star

  K

  9.0

  4star

  HB

  4.0

  3star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  CL

  1.7

  4star

  D

  13.0

  4star

  K

  9.0

  4star

  HB

  4.0

  3star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  2.7

  5star

  CL

  1.7

  4star

  trade
• Get a 2023 3rd round pick (worth points) in Jack Bowes
  12

  Jack Bowes

  Age

  27

  Ht

  189cm

  Wt

  85kg

  Pos.

  D/M

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  16.3

  4star

  K

  9.7

  4star

  HB

  6.6

  4star

  M

  3.9

  4star

  T

  2.5

  4star

  MG

  318.1

  4star

  D

  18.0

  4star

  K

  11.8

  5star

  HB

  6.3

  4star

  M

  5.4

  5star

  T

  1.1

  2star

  MG

  318.1

  4star

  D

  11.6

  3star

  K

  6.4

  3star

  HB

  5.2

  4star

  M

  2.8

  3star

  T

  2.4

  4star

  trade

Right. So lots of players in and out in those trades and actual picks for the 2022 draft, but they massively improved their 2023 draft haul, being able to work in multiple currencies for 2023 draft (picks/points) with massively points-overvalued 2nd-4th round picks. Emphasis on pushing value gained into the future and closer to when they can cash them all in in a year where they have a monster academy haul

In 2023 draft:

• Get a 2024 1st rounder (worth points) in Western Bulldogs pick swap, trading down the actual value of pick 6 (Sanders) for the points that they're worth (aribtrage).
• Trade down pick 11 to pick 14 and later picks, for points
• Trade down Chris Burgess
  21

  Chris Burgess

  Age

  30

  Ht

  193cm

  Wt

  97kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  8.2

  2star

  K

  3.9

  2star

  HB

  4.3

  3star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  1.6

  4star

  G

  0.3

  3star

  No current season stats available

  D

  6.6

  2star

  K

  3.8

  2star

  HB

  2.8

  3star

  M

  2.6

  3star

  T

  2.4

  4star

  G

  0.4

  3star

  + 14 for two picks worth more in the 20s
• Trade pick 18 for a 2024 end of 1st round compensation, ie, pushing more draft value to closer to the year where they have academy prospects (2025)
• Trade Elijah Hollands, upgrade a 2024 4th rounder to a 3rd rounder (worth points)
• Get a 2024 2nd rounder (worth points) in Mabior Chol
  18

  Mabior Chol

  Age

  28

  Ht

  200cm

  Wt

  98kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  7.5

  2star

  K

  5.3

  2star

  HB

  2.2

  2star

  M

  2.3

  2star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  G

  0.8

  4star

  D

  8.0

  2star

  K

  6.0

  2star

  HB

  2.0

  1star

  M

  2.3

  2star

  T

  2.3

  3star

  G

  0.7

  4star

  D

  9.2

  3star

  K

  6.8

  3star

  HB

  2.4

  3star

  M

  3.2

  4star

  T

  1.8

  4star

  G

  1.2

  4star

  trade
• Trade down pick 23 + 27 + 38 for pick 30, 40, 42, 46, 54, 60, 63, 65 on draft night. (worth a lot of points + more as bids come in).
• Trade pick 51 for a 2024 4th rounder (closer to 2025 academy year)

In 2024 draft:

• Trade out Rory Atkins
  32

  Rory Atkins

  Age

  31

  Ht

  185cm

  Wt

  82kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  19.9

  5star

  K

  12.1

  4star

  HB

  7.9

  5star

  M

  4.6

  4star

  T

  1.9

  4star

  MG

  367.4

  5star

  D

  9.0

  2star

  K

  5.0

  2star

  HB

  4.0

  3star

  M

  0.3

  1star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  MG

  147.7

  3star

  D

  14.2

  4star

  K

  8.8

  4star

  HB

  5.4

  4star

  M

  4.0

  4star

  T

  1.2

  3star

  MG

  217.8

  4star

  and pick 13, 29, 50 for Noble, 39, and two 2025 1sts
• Get Daniel Rioli
  17

  Daniel Rioli

  Age

  28

  Ht

  179cm

  Wt

  78kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  11.2

  3star

  K

  5.8

  2star

  HB

  5.4

  4star

  M

  2.7

  3star

  T

  3.2

  5star

  MG

  179.2

  3star

  D

  8.1

  2star

  K

  4.9

  2star

  HB

  3.3

  2star

  M

  2.0

  2star

  T

  2.6

  4star

  MG

  144.9

  3star

  D

  9.0

  3star

  K

  3.8

  2star

  HB

  5.2

  4star

  M

  0.8

  1star

  T

  3.8

  5star

  MG

  160.2

  3star

  for pick 6 + 23 but get back 51, 61, 70, 76 for points
• Trade out pick 47 + 58 for a 2025 3rd and 2025 4th

In 2025 draft:

• Get pick 51 for the cost of Malcom Rosas Jr and 62 -> 69 downgrade (worth points)
• Get pick 7 for Flanders
• Get pick 29 for Ainsworth
• Get pick 37 for Budarick
• At the cost of pick 7, 8 and a future 1st downgrade future 2nd for Petracca, they were able to get pick 24 and 28 back (worth points but given weak draft not worth much in live draft selection).
• About another 4 trades involving about 10 picks on draft night this year.

By my count, they executed about 30 trades involving over 100 picks and players (edited for brevity above), all with an eye to maximising the currency of DVI points (as opposed to the currency of either actual on-field players, or the value of a single draft pick for a single player being as early as possible to be able to draft a player earlier than other clubs).

Even if each of those players/trade for 100 players/points got them 30 points of arbitrage value - 30 being the value of pick 53, and less than the difference of moving up from 25 to 24 - over 100 players/points, that's how you can effectively materialise pick 1 out of thin air.

I made a long post, but it's effectively a hidden factor with incremental gains, of which the benefit is clear in a year that you have a weak draft but lots of bid eligible DVI players.

I could make a similar post for Brisbane and their Ashcroft/Dunkley/other academy players too.