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

[briztoon]

Your point is a straw man.
No one reasonable has any issue with any club taking academy players they have an issue with any club rorting the system by trading out r1s and then matching bids with later picks that dont correspond to real world market price, and exploiting loopholes by trading in picks that they dont have list spots for.

That was the system the AFL set up.

Other clubs benefited from this system as well, by trading up for those picks.

I’ve no issue with the new system, more so with people arguing GC rorted the system, without acknowledging they traded players and picks to do so.

 

[Elixuh]

Ok, but I was specifically referring to one rule that was the same for every team.

The truth is, vfl clubs had always been able to build lists predominantly made up of Victorian kids. Historically, a club like Brisbane would be lucky to have 1 local player on the list. It then became that clubs like bris and gcs were death spiralling and haemorrhaging talent as basically a feeder club.

The academies have also had the effect of stabilising these clubs. I don’t know about gws and Sydney but in terms of bris and gcs it is much easier to maintain a list and integrate interstate players when you have a local cohort. The local cohort and their families often become foster families to these draftees.

 

[briztoon]

They could afford to do that without bottoming out though.

So?

Does a team have to bottom out to achieve this?

They only had to give up some role players

Flanders isn’t a role player. He’s a very good player, that was stuck behind better players.

Lukosius wasn’t a role player either.

and perform some pick swaps and were still able to pick up all of their academy kids and bring in Petracca with two other first rounders. Richmond traded away basically everything they had to go all in on the draft.

Because GC still keep losing talented players at a higher rate than most other clubs, and are able to keep bringing in draft picks.

Clubs are already lining up for Bailey Humphrey and Ben King next year.

But the only thing the southern clubs and their fans are concerned about here is, when is it their turn.

Which was the main reason why the AFL instituted the northern academies in the first place, because we kept losing more players “back home” than southern clubs.

 

[Rich01]

Because GC still keep losing talented players at a higher rate than most other clubs, and are able to keep bringing in draft picks.

Clubs are already lining up for Bailey Humphrey and Ben King next year.

But the only thing the southern clubs and their fans are concerned about here is, when is it their turn.

Which was the main reason why the AFL instituted the northern academies in the first place, because we kept losing more players “back home” than southern clubs.

Who have the Gold Coast lost since 2020?

Rankine, Flanders, Lukocious, Bowes, E Hollands.

In that time they’ve brought in Petracca, Witts, Rioli, Noble, Jammarra.

Seems like it’s pretty even on the inside/outs.

Oh and they’ve picked up 16 academy kids with junk points, most of those being picked in the first round.

 

[Mat Mann]

Yep, and Gold Coast traded picks, including a first round pick, from 2024 in to 2025. Traded out Lukosius in 2024 for a 2025 first round pick. Traded most of their remaining 2026 picks (2xF3’s and 1xF2’s) into 2025.

But none of you will acknowledge this, as it doesn’t suit your tantrum.

Because it has no bearing on the discussion

Did CGS pay Full price for its Academy kids? Did they hand over picks 2, 5, 17, and 18? What 1st round picks did they hand over for 4 1st rounds kids?

NO and that's all we are talking about
Dis Carlton use pick 9 and 11 that they had? or did they trade them out "for points"

 

[JasRulz63]

They'll need to work out something for 2027. Not fair to reduce the deficit allowed for 1 year just because they want to give Tassie a heap of picks. Same goes with matching bids that year.

It doesn't seem like the AFL will want to make it easier to match bids right after they've made these changes.

The deficit isn't just a theoretical number, it's designed so you pay it back with the next year's picks. If they don't change the deficit system, if Port went into the maximum deficit currently allowed for 2027 (which assumes they have at worst pick 18, 36 etc.) and then won the premiership in 2027, they wouldn't be able to pay back the deficit with all the added Tassie picks.

That being said, the rules were designed when you could only trade one year into the future.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The 2 pick rule is a good one. If you want a player you pay the right price. None of this splitting to somehow get 800 more points for a downgrade.

The Patterson one bare it all for everyone a bunch in the 20’s does not equal top 5 (or it shouldn’t at least lol)

The opening more list spots I agree with closing the loophole too

 

[marcmurphy3]

It doesn't seem like the AFL will want to make it easier to match bids right after they've made these changes.

The deficit isn't just a theoretical number, it's designed so you pay it back with the next year's picks. If they don't change the deficit system, if Port went into the maximum deficit currently allowed for 2027 (which assumes they have at worst pick 18, 36 etc.) and then won the premiership in 2027, they wouldn't be able to pay back the deficit with all the added Tassie picks.

That being said, the rules were designed when you could only trade one year into the future.

Yeah, but even now picks get bumped down from free agency compensation and priority picks yet they base the amount you're allowed to go into deficit on selections 18,36,54. It's 1173 points. They don't change it every year based on how many picks are in the 1st round.

I think they'll come up with a consistent points figure. Not create a lower one just for 2027. Clubs would kick up over that, as its blatantly unfair, but I agree it could be problematic if a club is short.

I think they'll need to find a work around for the points system in general for 2027. Maybe natural selections, retain their original points value before they are bumped down by Tassie picks.

Look at Essendon with Bewick for example. If they finish 12th, they would normally get pick 7 worth 1543 points. Instead, they get pick 14 worth 1024 points. And it likely gets bumped down further with compensation picks for free agents and uncontracted players. And that's just their first pick. They will lose 1000+ points off their draft hand easy.

 

[JasRulz63]

Yeah, but even now picks get bumped down from free agency compensation and priority picks yet they base the amount you're allowed to go into deficit on selections 18,36,54. It's 1173 points. They don't change it every year based on how many picks are in the 1st round.

In the Freo and GWS cases, they applied the deficit before the FA/trade period (and there was no priority picks) to avoid that uncertainty. However we will know what picks Tasmania have before the FA/trade period so there's less uncertainty in that regard.

I think they'll come up with a consistent points figure. Not create a lower one just for 2027. Clubs would kick up over that, as its blatantly unfair, but I agree it could be problematic if a club is short.

I think they'll need to find a work around for the points system in general for 2027. Maybe natural selections, retain their original points value before they are bumped down by Tassie picks.

I'm sure they'll come up with something very last minute that makes no sense and pisses a bunch of teams/people off.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

That was the system the AFL set up.

Other clubs benefited from this system as well, by trading up for those picks.

I’ve no issue with the new system, more so with people arguing GC rorted the system, without acknowledging they traded players and picks to do so.

Again not relevant. As you acknowledge the system was setup and it was setup poorly. This should not have occurred and needs to be changed (it should have been changed years ago) regardless of which club benefits the most.

As i pointed out the players and picks they traded were in no way equal to the value of the players they matched top 10 bids on. As you should know in the real world no one trades 6 C graders for a gun so im not sure what irrelevant point you are trying to hang onto.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Again not relevant. As you acknowledge the system was setup and it was setup poorly. This should not have occurred and needs to be changed (it should have been changed years ago) regardless of which club benefits the most.

As i pointed out the players and picks they traded were in no way equal to the value of the players they matched top 10 bids on. As you should know in the real world no one trades 6 C graders for a gun so im not sure what irrelevant point you are trying to hang onto.

Think it was SEN radio post-draft that showed the lunacy of the bidding process.

Can't remember if it was Whitey or Gerard who pointed out that if you take picks 14, 18, 24, 28, 33, 35 and 36 to the trade table there's no club that would give you 2, 5, 17 and 18 in return.

But that's what the system allows on draft night.
The academies aren't the problem. The pricing of bidding is the problem.

 

[Elixuh]

Because it has no bearing on the discussion

Did CGS pay Full price for its Academy kids? Did they hand over picks 2, 5, 17, and 18? What 1st round picks did they hand over for 4 1st rounds kids?

NO and that's all we are talking about
Dis Carlton use pick 9 and 11 that they had? or did they trade them out "for points"

Yes they did pay full price under the current rules. It isn’t as though they were given a pick out of thin air by the AFL, ala the Saints being given pick 1 as a priority pick, they moved picks around and traded players across three drafts.

They didn’t rely on welfare like the Sainters, they controlled their own destiny and prepared to take the players.

It’s good list management.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yes they did pay full price under the current rules. It isn’t as though they were given a pick out of thin air by the AFL, ala the Saints being given pick 1 as a priority pick, they moved picks around and traded players across three drafts.

They didn’t rely on welfare like the Sainters, they controlled their own destiny and prepared to take the players.

It’s good list management.

No one has said the GCS did anything wrong though. What many are saying is the price isn’t high enough and that’s on the AFL. The Zeke bid and match is fine, but go to Patterson does anyone believe 4 picks in the 20-40 range should equal pick 5?

This is the AFL and their ever wisdom of doing everything half right. This two pick match rule should have been in this year.

Yes GC traded and played by the rules, the AFL should show an ounce of a backbone and say hold on that’s nowhere near enough. 2 pick rule and we don’t need discounts the ability to match is the discount

 

[Jirik13]

This argument is stupid.
Luko is terribly overrated (apart from ports stupidity) and basically none of the other picks or fringe players they moved (except flanders) were worth anywhere near a top 20 pick yet they matched 4 top 20 bids. How is that in any way real world price paid?
If you understand drafting you shouldn't need me to explain to you why picks 21 23 25 and 26 are not equal to pick 2.

At least get facts right. Suns used picks 14 and 18 to match pick 2 bid. Briztoon is right. Suns prepared for this draft over multiple years. They started with 3 first round picks this trade period. They got another one for Flanders. They had like 3 F2 and 2 F3. They used up all 2026 picks.

 

[Stamos]

By tax I mean if you carry say a 200pt deficit than it becomes 400pts.
They need to make teams try and avoid going into deficit for the system to work it’s best.

Depends on what other restrictions they put in place.
A 'tax' is unlikely to make it work better

 

[Elixuh]

No one has said the GCS did anything wrong though. What many are saying is the price isn’t high enough and that’s on the AFL. The Zeke bid and match is fine, but go to Patterson does anyone believe 4 picks in the 20-40 range should equal pick 5?

This is the AFL and their ever wisdom of doing everything half right. This two pick match rule should have been in this year.

Yes GC traded and played by the rules, the AFL should show an ounce of a backbone and say hold on that’s nowhere near enough. 2 pick rule and we don’t need discounts the ability to match is the discount

The mighty sainters want the academies abolished or at a close second for the price to be so high to match you basically can’t.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The mighty sainters want the academies abolished or at a close second for the price to be so high to match you basically can’t.

Paying market price is fair. The 2 pick match rule is perfect for everyone and it's FAIR. They aren't doing what St Kilda want, but this is a fair compromise. It means that if you want a top talent you have to have 2 picks in the first round to do so.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At least get facts right. Suns used picks 14 and 18 to match pick 2 bid. Briztoon is right. Suns prepared for this draft over multiple years. They started with 3 first round picks this trade period. They got another one for Flanders. They had like 3 F2 and 2 F3. They used up all 2026 picks.

It's still nowhere near enough, you are matching a top 5 selection in Patterson with junk in the late 20's. On what planet is that near market value? The two pick rule will solve a lot of these issues and I don't blame GC...I blame the AFL for their ridiculous idea of wanting to half make decisions.

 

[Jirik13]

Paying market price is fair. The 2 pick match rule is perfect for everyone and it's FAIR. They aren't doing what St Kilda want, but this is a fair compromise. It means that if you want a top talent you have to have 2 picks in the first round to do so.

I suspect teams will be able to exploit deficit (using multiple future picks).

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Depends on what other restrictions they put in place.
A 'tax' is unlikely to make it work better

the problem I see is If you allow a high deficit then it’s hardly a two pick system which just creates a situation where teams use 3 picks.
if you make it too small than you can make it too difficult for sides to match if they don’t know when a bid is coming.

A “tax” for me is the happy medium where if for some reason they can’t come up with the points than they still get the player but pay a price for not using good enough (fair) picks in matching a bid

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I suspect teams will be able to exploit deficit (using multiple future picks).

They will bring in very strict rules with this, can cop a deficit up to the value of pick 18 (or 19 when Tassie enter). This should have been in this season to be honest.

 

[Stamos]

Logic would then dictate they'd need to factor in all Tasmania's first round picks for 2027, which should reduce the deficit allowed for the 2026 draft. No idea if the AFL thinks of this or not.

You think the AFL uses logic, or considers unintended consequences?

lol

 

[Jirik13]

They will bring in very strict rules with this, can cop a deficit up to the value of pick 18 (or 19 when Tassie enter). This should have been in this season to be honest.

Let's see. I don't have a high hope for AFL making smart decisions.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

the problem I see is If you allow a high deficit then it’s hardly a two pick system which just creates a situation where teams use 3 picks.
if you make it too small than you can make it too difficult for sides to match if they don’t know when a bid is coming.

A “tax” for me is the happy medium where if for some reason they can’t come up with the points than they still get the player but pay a price for not using good enough (fair) picks in matching a bid

They will have to get the deficit side of it right, but one we=here a max of 18 picks (19 when tassie enter) is fair. What it will mean is if you take that to the max you can't match a bid the following year.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I suspect teams will be able to exploit deficit (using multiple future picks).

Top sides will exploit it. Brisbane for example wouldn’t care too much about having a future first downgraded if they are getting a top 5 pick out of it.
Also the biggest problem with a deficit is that you can move points from a strong draft to a weak one when matching.