An overhaul of the National Draft

[lusheslewis]

I have seen something like this suggested before, but I thought I would propose a system in a bit more detail.

My proposal involves replacing the system of allocating draft picks directly according to ladder position and replacing it with an allocation of points which are then used to bid for picks in the National Draft. This would eliminate the problem of teams being unable to come to terms for trades because the "buyer" does not have picks in a mutually agreeable range. Often this leads to big trades stalling the entire trade period and preventing other trades from going ahead.

The system would allocate different quantities of two tradable commodities to each team based on ladder position which are used to bid for draft picks:

- Draft Points which are what the teams will actually bid with.
- Draft Bids which are required to enter into multiple rounds of bidding.

The distribution could be something like this:

Draft Points
18 - 2500
17 - 2400
...
2 - 900
1 - 800

Draft Bids
14,15,16,17,18 - 4
9,10,11,12,13 - 3
5,6,7,8 - 2
1,2,3,4 - 1

For each pick every club is allowed one free bid (if they wish), however the clubs would bid in order. The order would initially be in reverse ladder position so that the bottom club gets last bid on pick 1. Clubs can then bid again at the cost of one "Draft Bid" (proceeding in the same order). Once you neglect to bid you can not join in at a later round. The club that wins the pick then goes to the bottom (first bid) of the order. Bids would have a minimum increment over the last bid (which would change depending on the size of the last bid).

The process for pick one this year could go something like this. Let's say St Kilda bid 1000 points in the first round. Collingwood, having picked up 1000 points for Dayne Beams then use a "Bid" and increase it to 1100, beaten by the Bulldogs at 1200 and St Kilda at 1300. Collingwood pull out and the Bulldogs then increase it to 1500. St Kilda are not willing to bid 1600 and so the Bulldogs get the first pick and move to the bottom of the bidding order having spent two "Bids" and 1500 points to get pick 1.

Another idea I had would be to allow teams to "borrow" points which then have to be paid back with interest over the following years. The points could also be held over to the next year but with diminishing value (perhaps losing 25% of their original value per year).

I know it's far-fetched but I'm interested to hear people's opinions.

 

[SterlingArcher]

If it's overcast on draft day the draft order is reversed and Queensland clubs have to sit out the first round.

If there is rain, then each pick is 'doubled' with a priority pick, so St Kilda would have picks 1 and 2, Melbourne would have 3 and 4 (and 5 and 6 after Frawley), GWS 7 and 8 etc..

This would lead to a much more entertaining trade period as clubs not only try to negotiate with other clubs, and try to predict the best players in the draft, they try and determine what the weather will be come draft day. St Kilda might get only pick 15 if the weather is fine, but on the other hand they could get 1 and 2. Do they take the risk? Or do they give up pick 1 for what they can get, with the likelihood of getting 15 instead?

The money put into determining the forecast would have to go under the FD spending, so probably leads to more tax = more equalisation.

On a sunny day, draft order remains as normal.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

If it's overcast on draft day the draft order is reversed and Queensland clubs have to sit out the first round.

If there is rain, then each pick is 'doubled' with a priority pick, so St Kilda would have picks 1 and 2, Melbourne would have 3 and 4 (and 5 and 6 after Frawley), GWS 7 and 8 etc..

This would lead to a much more entertaining trade period as clubs not only try to negotiate with other clubs, and try to predict the best players in the draft, they try and determine what the weather will be come draft day. St Kilda might get only pick 15 if the weather is fine, but on the other hand they could get 1 and 2. Do they take the risk? Or do they give up pick 1 for what they can get, with the likelihood of getting 15 instead?

The money put into determining the forecast would have to go under the FD spending, so probably leads to more tax = more equalisation.

On a sunny day, draft order remains as normal.

What if the roof is closed at Etihad?

 

[MisterMarcus]

I have seen something like this suggested before, but I thought I would propose a system in a bit more detail.

My proposal involves replacing the system of allocating draft picks directly according to ladder position and replacing it with an allocation of points which are then used to bid for picks in the National Draft. This would eliminate the problem of teams being unable to come to terms for trades because the "buyer" does not have picks in a mutually agreeable range. Often this leads to big trades stalling the entire trade period and preventing other trades from going ahead.

Wouldn't you just get the same problem with points instead of picks??

Collingwood demand 1500 "points" for Beams, Brisbane only want to give up 1000 points, Pies demand 1200 points plus a player, Brisbane say 1200 points alone is enough....

 

[lusheslewis]

Wouldn't you just get the same problem with points instead of picks??

Collingwood demand 1500 "points" for Beams, Brisbane only want to give up 1000 points, Pies demand 1200 points plus a player, Brisbane say 1200 points alone is enough....

Teams will of course still disagree on the value of players but IMO it would make it easier to come to an agreement. The points are much more flexible and you aren't relying on teams having a pick or combination of picks that the other party is interested in. In the case of Beams the extra points could be more easily used in a trade to find the ready to go player that they want to replace him.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

What if the roof is closed at Etihad?

Then points are allocated using the Duckworth-Lewis method.

Alternatively the formula for allocating preferences in a half-Senate election (roof open) or Hare Clarke with Robson rotation (if a game is played in Tasmania or ACT that round) could also be used.

Seriously, given Boyd sticking his hand up and kids wanting to go to Clubs of preference after barely two years in the system suggests a rethink of how the draft works might be in order.

 

[Furn2]

You'd get all the points spent at the top end of the draft.

 

[lusheslewis]

You'd get all the points spent at the top end of the draft.

Clubs are free to spend the points however they want.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Seriously, given Boyd sticking his hand up and kids wanting to go to Clubs of preference after barely two years in the system suggests a rethink of how the draft works might be in order.

Yep, in all honesty - I do think lusheslewis is providing a good discussion topic. I don't mind player movement, but players at the moment are walking all over clubs, and clubs with limited ranges of draft picks are also being walked off...I'm not sure 'points' are the answer, but a solution to this

This would eliminate the problem of teams being unable to come to terms for trades because the "buyer" does not have picks in a mutually agreeable range. Often this leads to big trades stalling the entire trade period and preventing other trades from going ahead.

is probably worth discussing.

I think an alternative might be to start looking at future picks...if Brisbane really want Dayne Beams, they might consider him worthy of two first rounders. They don't have two this year, so they offer up 5, and their first rounder for next year - which would then be locked in (ala F/S picks, as in Pies can't trade 9 or 10 whichever is being used for Moore). Pies can decide what that is likely to be - it would be a reasonable estimate to be a top 12 pick. So Pies might take the punt on Brisbane not making the top 8, and so they get two top 10 picks (say 5 for 2014 and 7 for 2015). Brisbane take the punt on making the 8 and using only 5 and say 13. Beams is probably worth 5 and 13 easily imo - Ablett, Watson, Fyfe, Kennedy, Pendlebury, Rockliff, Boak are the only midfielders who I consider definitely ahead of Beams.

 

[numchuks]

I have seen something like this suggested before, but I thought I would propose a system in a bit more detail.

My proposal involves replacing the system of allocating draft picks directly according to ladder position and replacing it with an allocation of points which are then used to bid for picks in the National Draft. This would eliminate the problem of teams being unable to come to terms for trades because the "buyer" does not have picks in a mutually agreeable range. Often this leads to big trades stalling the entire trade period and preventing other trades from going ahead.

The system would allocate different quantities of two tradable commodities to each team based on ladder position which are used to bid for draft picks:

- Draft Points which are what the teams will actually bid with.
- Draft Bids which are required to enter into multiple rounds of bidding.

The distribution could be something like this:

Draft Points
18 - 2500
17 - 2400
...
2 - 900
1 - 800

Draft Bids
18 - 25
17 - 24
...
2 - 9
1 - 8

For each pick every club is allowed one free bid (if they wish), however the clubs would bid in order. The order would initially be in reverse ladder position so that the bottom club gets last bid on pick 1. Clubs can then bid again at the cost of one "Draft Bid" (proceeding in the same order). Once you neglect to bid you can not join in at a later round. The club that wins the pick then goes to last in the bidding order. Bids would have a minimum increment over the last bid (which would change depending on the size of the last bid).

The process for pick one this year could go something like this. Let's say St Kilda bid 1000 points in the first round. Collingwood, having picked up 1000 points for Dayne Beams then use a "Bid" and increase it to 1100, beaten by the Bulldogs at 1200 and St Kilda at 1300. Collingwood pull out and the Bulldogs then increase it to 1500. St Kilda are not willing to bid 1600 and so the Bulldogs get the first pick and move to the bottom of the bidding order having spent two "Bids" and 1500 points to get pick 1.

Another idea I had would be to allow teams to "borrow" points which then have to be paid back with interest over the following years. The points could also be held over to the next year but with diminishing value (perhaps losing 25% of their original value per year).

I know it's far-fetched but I'm interested to hear people's opinions.

I actually like the idea. One of the more original posts I've read. Think it has merit.

Problem would be working out a system of how many points for what finishing place, which is fair and equitable to where the team finishes.

 

[SterlingArcher]

You'd get all the points spent at the top end of the draft.

Would have to keep the '3 picks minimum' rule in place. If clubs attempt to not follow this then they get sanctioned. That way the most likely club to get no.1 pick will be 18th, with the most points. But if St Kilda, for e.g., didn't think it was worth wasting all their points on the first pick, then they could nail say picks 10-11-12.

 

[SterlingArcher]

What if the roof is closed at Etihad?

The weather in Tahiti and Germany is combined and halved to get an average.

 

[lusheslewis]

After thinking about it there's a few changes I would make.

- The teams would be required to choose their player immediately after winning the pick. This would allow teams to know who's available when they are bidding which would improve the system IMO.
- The number of "Bids" allocated would be significantly reduced (no more than five for each team, maybe even just one each). I like the idea of a single round of bidding with initially the teams on the bottom getting last bid. However the "Bids" would act like "wild cards" that allow teams to bid again if they are after a particular pick/player and have been outbid.