List Mgmt. Draft 2018: Lions 1st (5), Power 1st (10), Hawks 1st (15)

[chiwigi]

Nah it doesn't. The AFL wants these guys to get to their clubs of choice. What happens if one is bid on earlier than expected? What happens if you've traded out a future pick and it then turns out that your academy prospect rockets up the draft rankings into that round? Or what if you've got two academy players being bid on in the same round, say if somebody last night put a bid on Will Kelly after Quaynor is already gone?

Yup, the players are agreed upon well in advance these days, though clubs retain their right to change their minds.

 

[melanChronic]

Nah it doesn't. The AFL wants these guys to get to their clubs of choice. What happens if one is bid on earlier than expected? What happens if you've traded out a future pick and it then turns out that your academy prospect rockets up the draft rankings into that round? Or what if you've got two academy players being bid on in the same round, say if somebody last night put a bid on Will Kelly after Quaynor is already gone?

Well then bad luck for that club. They should've made sure they had picks appropriate for the players they wanted, just like any other club. The priority means that they don't need to be accurate with those picks, just make sure they have enough high up picks to cover bids. The 20% discount plus ability to plan in advance is enough of a benefit.
And if a player rockets up, well then clearly other clubs value him more than you, so they deserve him.

 

[Andre]

Could still have a convoluted three-way though. Pre Blakey bid:
Syd get west coasts future 3rd
Wce get 26

Post Blakey bid:
Wce get Adel's future second
Adel get 22

Next pick:
Sydney get 21
Adel get Sydney's future second and west coasts future third.

Something like that. Whenever there are future picks involved, the clubs can justify the consumerate value clause by arguing they need the pick more next year.

The real issue the AFL need to address is that the points system falls apart when you compare stacks of picks... There is no way that 3 3rd rounders would be traded for a top 10 pick, but that's essentially what these academy matches are doing.

They should instigate a rule where to match you must use at least one pick within 18 places of the bidded pick. That way Sydney would have to keep their first rounder for Blakey, or keep 26 and risk an early bid on him seeing them miss out.

And thats the real point... If an academy/father son pick is rated in the first round, it shouldn't be a fait accompli that the club tied to them gets them. There has to be occasions where they either can't afford to match, or they choose not to match.
It's absolutely ridiculous at the moment and really there's little difference to the Heeney situation that the points were brought in to fix (in some ways it's worse). You get priority access, but it shouldn't mean you get a ******* free lunch.

You just know the AFL will bring in something like this in 2020 though, and we will pay fair cop for Schofield. That's the real problem with the AFL always changing the rules without thinking about the consequences; the rules never actually last long enough to balance out in the long run... The whole league is ****** at the moment, run by an absolute cretin.

It's ****ed because the AFL has combined draft picks and draft points. They should have and still could at any time fix the mess by going to points only.

How it should be:

• Clubs get a bunch of points based on ladder position. For simplicity it'd be the same number of points for each position as what they'd get now, assuming no Academy, Father/Son or traded picks.

• Trades would be players / points for players / points. Including next years points. E.g. Wingard to Hawthorn for 2000 points. Or Polec to North for 1000 of this years points and 500 from next year. Or clubs could even swap straight points across years. E.g. If one year is particularly strong in defenders and the next midfielders, a club that needs defenders could swap points from next year for another club needing midfielders current years points. This eliminates the s**t of trade week of a club has picks 15 and 25 and wants a player from another club both agree is worth around pick 20. A week of 'give us 15', 'No, take 25', 'No', until a 3rd club or convoluted future picks (or in the case of Wingard just getting screwed) occurs. As future points are points, then it'd become irrelevant where the club supplying finished. If you offered 1000 future points in a trade you have to supply those whether you finished 1st or 18th. No more death riding picks.

• Rather than draft night be picks in order it'd be player auctions, with the nominating clubs being in reverse finishing order. E.g. last night Carlton as the club finishing last would have nominated Walsh with an opening bid of points. However it's an auction, any other club can make a bid, as long as like an auction they have the points. And like most auctions clubs can nominate bids multiple times. As long as they have the points. This means potentially any club could get the best player, as clubs have to allocate points to get more than just one player. However clubs finishing lower would have more points to spend, so they are still going to have more to spend getting the best talent.

• Once a player is drafted, the next club gets to nominate. It doesn't matter if the club nominating won the player auction or not. So if GC went crazy with how many points they'd been willing to bid for Walsh and got him, Carlton would still be waiting to the 19th auction to put the player auctioned forward. Of course they can bid on any other player in the interim.

• Father / Son and Academy bids would no longer be done on matching. What they'd get is a straight 25% discount. E.g. Blakey goes for 2000 points. If it was Sydney winning the bid they'd only give up 1500 points of their remaining total to use on other players. Clubs still get a benefit, but no more walking away with top 5/10 picks for peanuts.

• The auctions would continue until every club has selected enough players. If a club runs out of points, then they'd only be able to grab players they put forward that no one with points left to bid on them selects. So if you have 2000 points, bidding 1990 on your first pick is going to leave you with spuds for picks 2, 3, 4 etc. you have. Clubs need to show some sense.

• Rookie draft would remain as reverse finishing order until lists filled, with Academy and F/S 'left-overs' going to their nominated club as per now.

This would fix pretty much every problem with trading, drafting, Father-Son and Academy bids. Sure it's not as easy to explain to the casual fan as pick 1 beats pick 2, but if we want a fair system then this is where it should be going to.

 

[JayPea14]

Did I miss something? When did we get pick 78? =/

 

[Chrizzt]

Did I miss something? When did we get pick 78? =/

View attachment 587647

Clubs losing picks when matching bids

 

[philthy05]

Nah it doesn't. The AFL wants these guys to get to their clubs of choice. What happens if one is bid on earlier than expected? What happens if you've traded out a future pick and it then turns out that your academy prospect rockets up the draft rankings into that round? Or what if you've got two academy players being bid on in the same round, say if somebody last night put a bid on Will Kelly after Quaynor is already gone?

They have future picks to use.

If a team has bid more than they think they’re worth they don’t have to take them. Let them go if they aren’t worth those picks.

If a team has traded out all possible picks to match a player that was their decision and they pay the consequences.

Did I miss something? When did we get pick 78? =/

View attachment 587647

Pick 85 has moved up after bids removed some picks from the draft.

It will move up more after kelly west and a cpl of others get bid on. In reality teams will start passing and it will eventually likely become a pick between 55-65. I’m dubious whether we will use it though but I hope we consider it.

 

[Coobk001]

Did I miss something? When did we get pick 78? =/

View attachment 587647

Few reasons.
The bidding for academy kids. Ie. Blakely cost 3 picks in the 30s for Sydney. They got Blakely and a pick in the 90s in return. So that shuffled us up 3.
Pretty sure North spent 4 picks on Thomas, so we shuffled up 4 there.

We may still jump up more if teams start passing, and/or If there is more bidding to come.

 

[RangaInTeal]

I actually like the Carlton adelaide trade. Or I like the fact that they were able to target stocker and do the trade.

Whether it was the right decision is another question

Great move, shows continuity that the Coach and List Manager believe in what they are doing and puts the belief out their that they think it’s close! Best bit of business Carlton have executed since John Elliott left them.

 

[rogerjames]

It's within the rules so by definition is fine. Clever by the Swans - and if Port did it we'd all be patting ourselves on the back for being clever.

No I wouldn't. It's not in the spirit of the rules and the afl would know that, everyone would know that. But yes it is legal.

 

[Chrizzt]

No I wouldn't. It's not in the spirit of the rules and the afl would know that, everyone would know that. But yes it is legal.

Then it's up to the AFL to close that loophole. Absolutely it is lateral thinking that obviously wasn't an intended side-effect of the bidding process. But clubs should do everything they can within the rules to excel - which is what Sydney did.

If the AFL (probably rightly) decide that it's not how they want the bidding process to work, then it's on them to close that loophole. Ideally they should have wargamed a bit and come up with this scenario in advance, so is just another feather in the cap of Gil's extreme ineptitude.

 

[Noobz0r]

Grundy is an astute pick.

 

[RangaInTeal]

Wow, GWS and Port have ******* nailed this!

 

[OneGreatClub]

Grundy is an astute pick.

I think I know where you’re going there

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Great move, shows continuity that the Coach and List Manager believe in what they are doing and puts the belief out their that they think it’s close! Best bit of business Carlton have executed since John Elliott left them.

If you mean the pick swap, it could also mean they absolutely don't believe in what the tingles are doing

 

[jabba5114]

Hmmmm Tobin cox. Never heard of him

Sent from my 0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[JUSTWORK]

Hmmmm Tobin cox. Never heard of him

Sent from my 0PJA10 using Tapatalk

Glad I’m not alone

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I'm not mad at Sydney or West Coast, I'm mad at the AFL for not closing that loophole in the first place. Typical of them to go gung-ho into a new idea without thinking of the consequences.



They can fix it very easily. Only one live trade with each club per draft. Fixed.

The actual solution is to fix the discrepancy between the clubs value of the picks and the pick points value.

The high picks need to be worth more points and the low picks less.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[shewho]

The actual solution is to fix the discrepancy between the clubs value of the picks and the pick points value.

The high picks need to be worth more points and the low picks less.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

What? You mean introduce some common sense to the process? Get real!

 

[melanChronic]

The actual solution is to fix the discrepancy between the clubs value of the picks and the pick points value.

The high picks need to be worth more points and the low picks less.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The difficult thing here is that the way clubs value picks shifts from year to year depending on draft strength. I think the AFL actually got it right basing the points on average salaries. Maybe average games played would be better, but then it doesn't necessarily reflect the contribution those games had i.e. 300 games from Simpson or Cornes is very different to 300 games from Goodes or Riewoldt.

I'd hope they update the formula every 5 years or so though, because drafting is becoming a much more exact science now, and the number of late pick gems now is probably less than 10-20 years ago. That could be one reason why there is a skew towards overvaluing later picks.

But the main adage in all drafting and trading is quantity=/=quality. At the moment the formula is kind of saying that 3 picks in the 40s are just as likely to get you 3 players who at their peak are on 250k a year, as one pick in the first round is likely to get you a player who at their peak earns 750k a year. We all know that these aren't equivalent, but the formula (and by extension the AFL) thinks they are.

 

[Malibu#27]

The actual solution is to fix the discrepancy between the clubs value of the picks and the pick points value.

The high picks need to be worth more points and the low picks less.

Another way is to have a rule that when matching a bid, you have to use a pick within 18 picks (one round) of the nominating club. I think that would stop the point banking that goes on.

 

[Andre]

Another way is to have a rule that when matching a bid, you have to use a pick within 18 picks (one round) of the nominating club. I think that would stop the point banking that goes on.

If they insist on sticking with picks and points in a hybrid form, then make it for matching the first pick is 100% of its value and subsequent ones are worth only half their value. Makes it fine for trading for players, but makes it harder to turn 10 picks in the 40’s into pick 1.

 

[OneGreatClub]

If they insist on sticking with picks and points in a hybrid form, then make it for matching the first pick is 100% of its value and subsequent ones are worth only half their value. Makes it fine for trading for players, but makes it harder to turn 10 picks in the 40’s into pick 1.

Wot? Just as at long last Port gets a chance at our own fs you want the rules changed?

 

[Port81]

Ooo wee, some good moments in this one

 

[dirty2]

Ooo wee, some good moments in this one

It's only the beginning