Draft mechanisms under review

[.Shotties.]

That is because you get priority access to them.

Between 1982 and 2011?

 

[go_the_dockers]

Between 1982 and 2011?

Gold Coast have priority access to more first rounder this year, and than we have in 20 years.

I am talking about now, and I would rather keep players in WA than have to recruit them later.

 

[.Shotties.]

Gold Coast have priority access to more first rounder this year, and than we have in 20 years.

I am talking about now, and I would rather keep players in WA than have to recruit them later.

But you are at a greater extent than the northern states. With more in the first round too.

 

[deck]

And if a team has pick 1 and a FS is bid on at pick 18? nah

Did you read what I wrote? They would use pick 19. The having a pick in that round only applies if the player is picked before your initial matching round pick. A pick after and you must have your next round pick available to match.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Try addressing the actual point. Access to home state talent isn't equal, so the draft itself isn't equal if you just reset it to straight reverse finishing order.

You have access to the same pool of players. Who cares where they were drafted from?

If go home factor is such a big deal you'll be able to pry the Mills, Heeny, Blakey type players from their clubs.

 

[.Shotties.]

You have access to the same pool of players. Who cares where they were drafted from?

Because it affects retention and squad building.

If go home factor is such a big deal you'll be able to pry the Mills, Heeny, Blakey type players from their clubs.

Potentially, but when those types come around every few years rather than every single year, the opportunity to do so is reduced.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Because it affects retention and squad building.

Potentially, but when those types come around every few years rather than every single year, the opportunity to do so is reduced.

You act as though you have an entitlement to those players, an entitlement to high end draft picks every year. You act as though you've never drafted players from outside NSW that have stayed at the Swans. You act as though you've never traded in non-nsw players (not plebs either).

It's ridiculous, the draft along with the salary cap is a key pillar of equalisation. Without it we have an uneven playing field.

 

[Kappa]

I firmly believe that the AFL should move to an entirely points based trading and drafting.

Teams are given points based on where they finish on the ladder, with more points going to the bad teams.

Then points are used for trades, so you never get a situation where a team just doesn't quite have the picks in the right range to trade for a certain player. Teams could go "I think my player is worth 425 points" and the other team say "no, that is dumb, he is worth 310" and then after some negotiation they settle on the player being worth 380 points.

Then you have the draft, so pick 1 comes up, every team enters a silent auction where they are allowed to put in how many points they are willing to bid for pick 1 for, and the player they want. After 2 minutes it is announced which team has the highest bid, then that team gets the player they nominated, and then onto pick 2 with the same process.

If an Academy kid gets bid on then the team that has the rights to that player has 1 minute to decide if they want to match the bid, so match the number of points the bidding team said they were willing to pay and if they do match they get said player.

To me this is a much better system and would solve a lot of issues.

That is dumb because it gives the top 4 teams access to top 5 picks, and/or it means the bottom 4 teams will probably have to pay ridiculous prices to get the best picks.

Either the shit teams have to use all their points to get the best kids that should be theirs anyway, or you give the best kids to the best teams... either way it's shit for the competition.

As an example, Collingwood would just bid all its points on every pick on the top 10, so a team like Hawthorn would have to pay massive overs to get access to their pick 4...

 

[.Shotties.]

You act as though you have an entitlement to those players, an entitlement to high end draft picks every year.

Not really. Just pointing out that some teams will have access to quality, home state talent at every stage of the draft, every year. Not an even playing field.

You act as though you've never drafted players from outside NSW that have stayed at the Swans. You act as though you've never traded in non-nsw players (not plebs either).

What? Yeah, of course we have. It's how we've been forced to build the majority of our list for the entirety of our existence in Sydney.

It's ridiculous, the draft along with the salary cap is a key pillar of equalisation. Without it we have an uneven playing field.

Again, we have an uneven playing field in terms of talent distribution even if the draft was pure reverse order.

 

[Rourke]

As an example, Collingwood would just bid all its points on every pick on the top 10, so a team like Hawthorn would have to pay massive overs to get access to their pick 4...

A rational team wouldn't do that, because at some point getting two 30% picks is better than one 50% chance. There are no guarantees with any draftee, it's all probabilities of developing them into an elite player. An economist will tell you the benefit of an auction is that bidders can express their own valuations. If Collingwood starts with half the points of Hawthorn and blows it all on one shot, that's going to bite them.

 

[Caligo]

That is dumb because it gives the top 4 teams access to top 5 picks, and/or it means the bottom 4 teams will probably have to pay ridiculous prices to get the best picks.

Either the s**t teams have to use all their points to get the best kids that should be theirs anyway, or you give the best kids to the best teams... either way it's s**t for the competition.

As an example, Collingwood would just bid all its points on every pick on the top 10, so a team like Hawthorn would have to pay massive overs to get access to their pick 4...

I think you need to spend a bit of time reading about game theory. A points bidding system does not benefit teams with fewer points to bid with. Hawthorn would not lose out against Collingwood in such a system.

 

[Sherrinator]

Stop changing things you reactive fools. Brisbane will be bad again soon enough

 

[Sherrinator]

Gold Coast have priority access to more first rounder this year, and than we have in 20 years.

I am talking about now, and I would rather keep players in WA than have to recruit them later.

You guys need to get rid of Bell.

 

[go_the_dockers]

You guys need to get rid of Bell.

That helps us draft more WA players

We have problems of our own making, I just want a level playing field if we gets things right then we have a chance.

 

[RUNVS]

I think you need to spend a bit of time reading about game theory. A points bidding system does not benefit teams with fewer points to bid with. Hawthorn would not lose out against Collingwood in such a system.

To be honest I would love to see the tactics of individual teams as well, all trying to outwit the other 17 teams. For a team that is smart they could get a huge advantage on draft night.

 

[Caligo]

To be honest I would love to see the tactics of individual teams as well, all trying to outwit the other 17 teams. For a team that is smart they could get a huge advantage on draft night.

Maybe they could employ some mathematicians

 

[RUNVS]

Maybe they could employ some mathematicians

Teams probably would actually. Each team would bring in a mathematician a month or so before the draft.

 

[Kappa]

A rational team wouldn't do that, because at some point getting two 30% picks is better than one 50% chance. There are no guarantees with any draftee, it's all probabilities of developing them into an elite player. An economist will tell you the benefit of an auction is that bidders can express their own valuations. If Collingwood starts with half the points of Hawthorn and blows it all on one shot, that's going to bite them.

No a rational team would do exactly that because it's a lot better to have pick 4 than pick 19,33,48, 60 ect.

it's not blowing it when you can get one of the most talented kids in the country to a team that just won the flag, that's a huge win.

There are mathematical certainties that kids going in the top 5 are gonna have better careers on average than kids in the 18-30 range.

I think you need to spend a bit of time reading about game theory. A points bidding system does not benefit teams with fewer points to bid with. Hawthorn would not lose out against Collingwood in such a system.

For Hawthorn to outbid the teams that played finals on their own pick 4, they would need to spend MORE than pick 4 in terms of points... So for Hawthorn to get access to the best kids that they should, it would be even harder under this system.. how is that good?


look at this year an example... Either West Coast or North who deserve Harley Reid for finishing bottom 2, would end up having to go into a massive bidding war and pay WAY more than the original pick to get him... so the bottom teams are punished... great idea.

 

[RUNVS]

No a rational team would do exactly that because it's a lot better to have pick 4 than pick 19,33,48, 60 ect.

it's not blowing it when you can get one of the most talented kids in the country to a team that just won the flag, that's a huge win.

There are mathematical certainties that kids going in the top 5 are gonna have better careers on average than kids in the 18-30 range.

There are only so many times a team can go all out on a top pick though. Lets say Collingwood for instance go all out on getting pick 6 or 7 (they would not be able to afford pick 1 as they would have no where near the points to even be in contention for that pick), Collingwood would get pick 6, but they would spend all their points on that pick, and they would not get another pick until possibly the 60's when everyone else has run out of points, by which point the players they draft are unlikely to be that good.

Lets say Collingwood does this 5 years running, so they have 5 really good players they have drafted, great, but that is it, and after 5 years sure their top end would potentially be really good but their bottom end would be terrible as a team can't sustain itself on bringing in one good kid a year, and that is assuming each top draft pick kid they bring in lives up to their potential as they often don't.

It would be a really bad idea for a team, any team, to use all their points year after year on one really good draft pick. It would hurt them a lot long term.

 

[Caligo]

No a rational team would do exactly that because it's a lot better to have pick 4 than pick 19,33,48, 60 ect.

it's not blowing it when you can get one of the most talented kids in the country to a team that just won the flag, that's a huge win.

There are mathematical certainties that kids going in the top 5 are gonna have better careers on average than kids in the 18-30 range.



For Hawthorn to outbid the teams that played finals on their own pick 4, they would need to spend MORE than pick 4 in terms of points... So for Hawthorn to get access to the best kids that they should, it would be even harder under this system.. how is that good?


look at this year an example... Either West Coast or North who deserve Harley Reid for finishing bottom 2, would end up having to go into a massive bidding war and pay WAY more than the original pick to get him... so the bottom teams are punished... great idea.

Assume what you are saying is true, and all the value in a draft is the first 5 picks and the rest don't really matter, then teams will go all in for those early picks and nothing changes. The teams with the most points going into the draft get those early selections. But this system would allow teams to be more strategic and possibly recognise value outside those first 5 picks.

It is literally just giving teams more freedom to position their resources closer in line to their needs and wants.

 

[RUNVS]

look at this year an example... Either West Coast or North who deserve Harley Reid for finishing bottom 2, would end up having to go into a massive bidding war and pay WAY more than the original pick to get him... so the bottom teams are punished... great idea.

It wouldn't be a bidding war as it would be a blind auction, so every team places 1 bid for the first pick, and after 2 minutes it is revealed which team placed the highest bid. There would be no chance for other teams to try and up their own bid to over the winning bid so there would be no bidding war.

However, teams would just need to be smart and only bid for players who they think are worth those points. They should not and probably would not bid way overs on one particular player.

 

[RUNVS]

Cal Twomey would hate this system though as it would be 100% impossible to do a mock draft with as there would be far too many variables.

To me though, moving from a barter system to a currency based system makes a lot of sense. It is why I don't give JB Hi Fi a cow when I want a new laptop.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Stop changing things you reactive fools. Brisbane will be bad again soon enough

And here I was thinking it was because Adelaide have a potential top 5 father-son next year.

 

[Kappa]

Assume what you are saying is true, and all the value in a draft is the first 5 picks and the rest don't really matter, then teams will go all in for those early picks and nothing changes. The teams with the most points going into the draft get those early selections. But this system would allow teams to be more strategic and possibly recognise value outside those first 5 picks.

It is literally just giving teams more freedom to position their resources closer in line to their needs and wants.

No, it massively disadvantages the bottom teams as they have to pay overs to get access to the top 10 kids, meanwhile kids in the 20-60 range will be cheaper but that doesn’t help a team like north or wce who need high end talent

 

[RUNVS]

No, it massively disadvantages the bottom teams as they have to pay overs to get access to the top 10 kids, meanwhile kids in the 20-60 range will be cheaper but that doesn’t help a team like north or wce who need high end talent

Just need to be strategic about it and not overpay for draft picks. The clubs that are dumb about it will make mistakes, but it isn't hard to come up with a budget for each pick and say "we won't go over this number for this pick" before the draft.