Draft points: fix the draft, trading and free agency

[Chiz]

It's time the AFL simplified the system and the answer is obvious - allocate each club points which they can use as currency to bid on players from other clubs (trade), buy draft picks, or bank for future seasons.

Allocation of points
Each draft pick already has an estimated points value (e.g. pick 1 is worth 3000, pick 10 is worth 1395) - the 49,436 points would be allocated so that lower-placed clubs receive more points. My preference would be to allocate points based on the number of wins over the previous 3 seasons, with each win reducing a club's allocation by 50 points (100 points for finals wins) - this would assist teams that are constantly struggling rather than good teams that had one poor season.

Trading
Clubs would be able to trade points directly for players - there would no longer be any need for complex trades involving multiple clubs and various draft picks. Clubs would be allowed to trade next year's points, but at their own risk (for instance if they finish high on the ladder they may have insufficient points and would be forced to trade).

Free agency
This would operate as it currently does, however compensation would use points rather than a pick. My preference would be for the team receiving a free agent to pay the compensation to the team losing a free agent - the compensation amount should, however, be below what would have been received in a trade (in some cases zero). This would ensure the total pool of points remains constant.

National draft
The draft would operate as an auction for picks. I've thought carefully about how this would operate so that clubs do not blow all of their points on early draft picks and have provided details below for those interested - there is a bit of complexity in there.

Top 10: The top 10 picks would be determined by a direct auction - lower-placed clubs and those who have traded players would typically have the most currency and would likely win the bid for early picks. However, a club with many points may strategically aim to get picks 4 and 5 rather than pick 1, for example.
Pick 11: Pick 11 would be 'sold' to the club with the highest remaining points balance after the top 10 auction. This pick would be a 'benchmark' pick - its 'cost' of 1329 points would be scaled up or down depending on how many points were used on the top 10. For instance, if clubs bid more than expected for the top 10, pick 11 would be cheaper - this would help prevent clubs from 'overbidding' in the top 10 auction. The club with pick 11 can choose to either take a player or sell the pick to another club (who may be willing to pay more).
All other picks: Each subsequent pick would then be sold to the club with the highest balance for its pre-determined value, with the option that the pick is sold to another club. Like pick 11, each pick would have its cost scaled up or down according to how many points were bid for the top 10 - this ensures that the total value of all picks equals the total pool of points.
Father son/academy selections: If an eligible player is selected, a club can choose to match the bid - they must pay the amount of points used to acquire the draft pick minus any discount. The club that originally bought the pick would have the full points returned. If taken outside the top 10, the value of all subsequent picks would adjust slightly to ensure the total picks value equals the total pool of remaining points.
Other restrictions: Each club must indicate at the beginning of the draft how many picks they intend to take - they must keep some points in reserve for future picks (i.e. they cannot bid all of their points on pick 1 unless they intend on taking only one pick). Each club would be allowed a maximum of one trade on the night involving future points (allowing multiple trades could mean clubs manipulate the draft order).

Rookie draft, pre-season draft and mid-season draft
Would operate as they currently do (reverse-order-of-finish), though the points currency system could be extended to these drafts. One option would be to allow the trading of future draft points for picks in these drafts.

To finish, I note that others on this site have come up with similar ideas - I have also written about this before. However I believe it's a good idea and intend to keep putting it forward until the AFL adopt it.

 

[Astro35]

Get rid of the compensation pick, it only pollutes the draft.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Get rid of the compensation pick, it only pollutes the draft.

Has to stay or the rich get even richer. AFL thought salary cap would limit good players going to the top clubs but as we're seeing, players will play for less for success and big clubs have all kinds of 'incentives' fot players outside of the salary cap.

Converting pick based system to points is a great idea, whole lot more flexible.

 

[chels]

Never understood why the afl assesses and creates a compensation pick. Perhaps if the destination club, rather than the afl had to compensate the club based on the afl's assessment, that would be more sensible?

 

[TimTime]

I would like to expand on this to allow clubs to buy/sell points with surplus $ from their salary cap.
Clubs in the rebuild stage have a lot of developing players on lower wages making it difficult for these teams to reach the cap floor, this results in these teams overpaying players.
Say for example Crows want Rankin from GC and GC have cap issues. Currently the deal is touted as pick 5 plus something. What if the crows were able to offer points to the “estimated” value of say pick 10, but in addition Adelaide pay/transfer $600k x 2 years from its cap to GC cap - allows GC to restructure some of their current contracts to help retain players when they come off contract in the future ie King, Anderson, Luke..
The $ value of the picks would be fluid depending on how desperate a club was to get extra cash into their cap.
Say Collingwood wanted to keep Grundy, DeGoey and Henry but need an additional $750 per year for the next 2 years (AFL current limit) a club could offer wage but negotiate for a significant amount of points for the next 2 years - say equivalent to current pick 15 value for 2 years in a row.

 

[Superstar swan]

Does anyone have any stat's on the amount of players to move to Victorian clubs vs those that moved to the 8 outside of Victoria?

 

[Superstar swan]

First round picks contract should be mandatory 4 years.

Protects the clubs but also means they have to nail their picks

 

[DIDAIC0S]

First round picks contract should be mandatory 4 years.

Protects the clubs but also means they have to nail their picks

Agree, I posted a his earlier today.
It’s BS that a player can leave after 2 years.

In the case of FRP’s the clubs should be giving up a draft pick that is better than the players original pick to compensate for the 2 years of development!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Superstar swan]

Agree, I posted a his earlier today.
It’s BS that a player can leave after 2 years.

In the case of FRP’s the clubs should be giving up a draft pick that is better than the players original pick to compensate for the 2 years of development!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea I suggest something similar today on the swans board. If a first rounder leaves within his first 4 seasons, mandatory trade value is for equal or higher pick value at which he was drafted.

Right now it's becoming a joke. Clubs are putting all this time and effort I'm developing these players, rarely getting back value for money and they walk to another club ready for best 22 action after completing their apprenticeship

 

[Chiz]

Never understood why the afl assesses and creates a compensation pick. Perhaps if the destination club, rather than the afl had to compensate the club based on the afl's assessment, that would be more sensible?

That's essentially my view. The current system essentially socialises the cost of the compensation pick, but with points it's much easier to have the destination club pay the compensation directly.

 

[Chiz]

I would like to expand on this to allow clubs to buy/sell points with surplus $ from their salary cap.
Clubs in the rebuild stage have a lot of developing players on lower wages making it difficult for these teams to reach the cap floor, this results in these teams overpaying players.
Say for example Crows want Rankin from GC and GC have cap issues. Currently the deal is touted as pick 5 plus something. What if the crows were able to offer points to the “estimated” value of say pick 10, but in addition Adelaide pay/transfer $600k x 2 years from its cap to GC cap - allows GC to restructure some of their current contracts to help retain players when they come off contract in the future ie King, Anderson, Luke..
The $ value of the picks would be fluid depending on how desperate a club was to get extra cash into their cap.
Say Collingwood wanted to keep Grundy, DeGoey and Henry but need an additional $750 per year for the next 2 years (AFL current limit) a club could offer wage but negotiate for a significant amount of points for the next 2 years - say equivalent to current pick 15 value for 2 years in a row.

Interesting suggestion and in some ways not dissimilar to teams trading players and paying some of their salary.
My only concern would be that it may be possible for some clubs to game the system - would have to think about this some more. But otherwise I think it could work.

 

[doggiesin08]

Get rid of the compensation pick, it only pollutes the draft.

Many years ago Adrian Anderson gave a sports economics lecture at the university I went to. His view was the compensation pick shouldn’t exist at all and what the club losing the player is “getting” is a freeing up or the salary cap to bring in a player themselves. If they can’t get a player of the same quality that’s just the salary cap system working.

He said though that despite not making sense it was a necessary inclusion in the system to get sign off on the new free agency system from the clubs, and if a plurality of clubs demanded it we can’t really complain.

My proposed changes to the system would be:

1. No compensation picks, either kill completely or grandfather out (grandfathering would be something like same system in 2023, same + 5 picks in 2024, same + 10 picks in 2025, etc. so Amon equivalent leaving in 5 years would deliver pick #47 not pick #27)
2. No discounts on father sons and academy selections. It’s a joke how cheaply the Dogs got Ugle-Hagan and Darcy. You get the discount through trading for a points surplus, you shouldn’t get an extra 20% as well. This could be partially removed, e.g. 0% discount for top 10, 5% discount 1st round, 10% discount 2nd round, 20% discount 3rd round.
3. Ban or limit back-ending contracts. Teams can already play around between 90% and 110% of the cap. The front/back loading probably makes this more like 75%-125% between teams which is not healthy.
4. Reset the draft points index every 5-10 years. We shouldn’t keep using the old data to determine the relative value of picks from a period when clubs had understaffed recruiting functions.
5. No priority picks for clubs who don’t get serious about using the PSD. It’s an equalisation tool so use it. If you’re stupid enough to use pick #19 for Coleman-Jones you shouldn’t get a handout the next year.

 

[Books]

Never understood why the afl assesses and creates a compensation pick. Perhaps if the destination club, rather than the afl had to compensate the club based on the afl's assessment, that would be more sensible?

There is merit in your argument, but the AFL would not like it. They prefer to manipulate outcomes to suit themselves.
No club would ever give up pick 3 for James Frawley.
No club could ever hope, or expect to get Buddy Franklin for pick 19.

 

[Bianconeri]

First round picks contract should be mandatory 4 years.

Protects the clubs but also means they have to nail their picks

Two years is plenty

 

[rabidcrow]

Yea I suggest something similar today on the swans board. If a first rounder leaves within his first 4 seasons, mandatory trade value is for equal or higher pick value at which he was drafted.

Right now it's becoming a joke. Clubs are putting all this time and effort I'm developing these players, rarely getting back value for money and they walk to another club ready for best 22 action after completing their apprenticeship

There are a number of changes they could make but the key one is clubs should be allowed to trade players in contract to where ever they need to - even if they have to provide a certain financial kicker for set up costs etc in a new state.

Then increase first round pick contracts to 4 years. If the lad wants out after two then the club has the day in where they go

We treat our players like babies in Australia. They are in an industry where if they work hard enough they have the opportunity to be millionaires by the time they are 25. Not many careers offer that.

Fair enough draftees and rookies aren’t paid that much hence a decent financial kicker for them if traded to another state to ensure they are financially okay


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[WilloTree]

Father/Son picks need to go first. No reasonable explanation for why they still exist.

Get rid of compensation for free agents (all free agents unrestricted)

NGA match bids after pick 20. NGAs are actually a valid part of growing the game.

 

[blitzer]

I agree with the OP that points should become the universal currency which basically determines the pick order in the draft. Right now with the way academies and f/s picks work its creating inequities because of the existence of designated picks as well as points. If you have a top prospect that's either f/s or academy linked to you there's all sorts of edges you can get through trades at the moment.

Free agency stuff is complex but I also agree with the concept that the team that receives the player should be the one paying the compensation. I know many prefer no compensation at all and that's a valid viewpoint too but I kind of think why should clubs get something for nothing at the expense of another club just because a player nominates them.

 

[Chiz]

I agree with the OP that points should become the universal currency which basically determines the pick order in the draft. Right now with the way academies and f/s picks work its creating inequities because of the existence of designated picks as well as points. If you have a top prospect that's either f/s or academy linked to you there's all sorts of edges you can get through trades at the moment.

You've hit the nail on the head here - we essentially have a hybrid points-picks system, which is open to manipulation. You can still maintain f/s and academy discounts in a points system, but without the manipulation.

Free agency stuff is complex but I also agree with the concept that the team that receives the player should be the one paying the compensation. I know many prefer no compensation at all and that's a valid viewpoint too but I kind of think why should clubs get something for nothing at the expense of another club just because a player nominates them.

Nearly all high-profile free agents have gone to top sides who, by definition, should be most constrained by the salary cap. The prospect of playing in a side competing for a premiership is quite attractive (understandably), which means top sides can attract top players for less $ than other sides would be willing to offer. As such it's not unreasonable to suggest they contribute something as compensation - using points would facilitate this.

 

[RUNVS]

Oddly enough I had the same idea a while ago.

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion.

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

What do you think? What do you like about the idea, what are the flaws, and do you think the idea is fesible?

Opinion - Points based drafting and trading?

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion. The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with...

www.bigfooty.com

I definitely think it is a winning idea. Solves a lot of issues with the current system and gives teams far more flexibility with their list builds.

 

[Chiz]

Many years ago Adrian Anderson gave a sports economics lecture at the university I went to. His view was the compensation pick shouldn’t exist at all and what the club losing the player is “getting” is a freeing up or the salary cap to bring in a player themselves. If they can’t get a player of the same quality that’s just the salary cap system working.

I think this would be fair as long as players were to 'chase the money' so to speak - this would see players typically going from top sides to bottom sides (at least on balance). But after a decade or so of free agency it would seem that many players are chasing flags rather than just cash. A bottom side has to pay more to attract a player than a top side.

1. No compensation picks, either kill completely or grandfather out (grandfathering would be something like same system in 2023, same + 5 picks in 2024, same + 10 picks in 2025, etc. so Amon equivalent leaving in 5 years would deliver pick #47 not pick #27)
2. No discounts on father sons and academy selections. It’s a joke how cheaply the Dogs got Ugle-Hagan and Darcy. You get the discount through trading for a points surplus, you shouldn’t get an extra 20% as well. This could be partially removed, e.g. 0% discount for top 10, 5% discount 1st round, 10% discount 2nd round, 20% discount 3rd round.
3. Ban or limit back-ending contracts. Teams can already play around between 90% and 110% of the cap. The front/back loading probably makes this more like 75%-125% between teams which is not healthy.
4. Reset the draft points index every 5-10 years. We shouldn’t keep using the old data to determine the relative value of picks from a period when clubs had understaffed recruiting functions.
5. No priority picks for clubs who don’t get serious about using the PSD. It’s an equalisation tool so use it. If you’re stupid enough to use pick #19 for Coleman-Jones you shouldn’t get a handout the next year.

1. I still think it would be better to have compensation paid by the destination club. But this could be below market value - eg if a player is worth 2000 points in a trade, the compensation could be say 1200 points.
2. You could still have f/s or academy selections with a 0% discount - ie a club just chooses to match when such a player is selected. An alternative would be to keep the discounts as they are, but put a cap on the points for a discount, e.g. 150 - would greatly reduce the discount received for players like Ugle-Hagan.
3. Given the rules around moving $ in the cap between years this is probably fair.
4. Agree. Incidentally my proposed auction system would be a sensible way to work out how teams value relative picks.
5. I would say no priority picks full stop. But if points are allocated to clubs based on number of wins rather than based on ladder position this would act as an equalisation measure - e.g. this year North and West Coast (win only 2 wins each) would receive more points than North would've received last year (with 4.5 wins).

 

[Chiz]

Oddly enough I had the same idea a while ago.

Opinion - Points based drafting and trading?

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion. The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with...

www.bigfooty.com

I definitely think it is a winning idea. Solves a lot of issues with the current system and gives teams far more flexibility with their list builds.

It's such a sensible suggestion and multiple people have suggested something similar - I'm actually surprised we haven't heard anything about the AFL considering looking into a points-based system.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

It's time the AFL simplified the system and the answer is obvious - allocate each club points which they can use as currency to bid on players from other clubs (trade), buy draft picks, or bank for future seasons.

Allocation of points
Each draft pick already has an estimated points value (e.g. pick 1 is worth 3000, pick 10 is worth 1395) - the 49,436 points would be allocated so that lower-placed clubs receive more points. My preference would be to allocate points based on the number of wins over the previous 3 seasons, with each win reducing a club's allocation by 50 points (100 points for finals wins) - this would assist teams that are constantly struggling rather than good teams that had one poor season.

Trading
Clubs would be able to trade points directly for players - there would no longer be any need for complex trades involving multiple clubs and various draft picks. Clubs would be allowed to trade next year's points, but at their own risk (for instance if they finish high on the ladder they may have insufficient points and would be forced to trade).

Free agency
This would operate as it currently does, however compensation would use points rather than a pick. My preference would be for the team receiving a free agent to pay the compensation to the team losing a free agent - the compensation amount should, however, be below what would have been received in a trade (in some cases zero). This would ensure the total pool of points remains constant.

National draft
The draft would operate as an auction for picks. I've thought carefully about how this would operate so that clubs do not blow all of their points on early draft picks and have provided details below for those interested - there is a bit of complexity in there.

Top 10: The top 10 picks would be determined by a direct auction - lower-placed clubs and those who have traded players would typically have the most currency and would likely win the bid for early picks. However, a club with many points may strategically aim to get picks 4 and 5 rather than pick 1, for example.
Pick 11: Pick 11 would be 'sold' to the club with the highest remaining points balance after the top 10 auction. This pick would be a 'benchmark' pick - its 'cost' of 1329 points would be scaled up or down depending on how many points were used on the top 10. For instance, if clubs bid more than expected for the top 10, pick 11 would be cheaper - this would help prevent clubs from 'overbidding' in the top 10 auction. The club with pick 11 can choose to either take a player or sell the pick to another club (who may be willing to pay more).
All other picks: Each subsequent pick would then be sold to the club with the highest balance for its pre-determined value, with the option that the pick is sold to another club. Like pick 11, each pick would have its cost scaled up or down according to how many points were bid for the top 10 - this ensures that the total value of all picks equals the total pool of points.
Father son/academy selections: If an eligible player is selected, a club can choose to match the bid - they must pay the amount of points used to acquire the draft pick minus any discount. The club that originally bought the pick would have the full points returned. If taken outside the top 10, the value of all subsequent picks would adjust slightly to ensure the total picks value equals the total pool of remaining points.
Other restrictions: Each club must indicate at the beginning of the draft how many picks they intend to take - they must keep some points in reserve for future picks (i.e. they cannot bid all of their points on pick 1 unless they intend on taking only one pick). Each club would be allowed a maximum of one trade on the night involving future points (allowing multiple trades could mean clubs manipulate the draft order).

Rookie draft, pre-season draft and mid-season draft
Would operate as they currently do (reverse-order-of-finish), though the points currency system could be extended to these drafts. One option would be to allow the trading of future draft points for picks in these drafts.

To finish, I note that others on this site have come up with similar ideas - I have also written about this before. However I believe it's a good idea and intend to keep putting it forward until the AFL adopt it.

Auctions actually make a bit of sense.

You could actually directly auction the player. Reverse ladder order for kicking off - so first pick the 18th team selects a kid and makes a bid then auction starts. When he's "sold" then 17th picks a name and starting bid.

 

[RUNVS]

Auctions actually make a bit of sense.

You could actually directly auction the player. Reverse ladder order for kicking off - so first pick the 18th team selects a kid and makes a bid then auction starts. When he's "sold" then 17th picks a name and starting bid.

I personally prefer the blind auction idea.

So Gil says "Pick 1 bid now open" and everyone picks who they want as pick 1, and how much they are willing to pay. This happens in 2 minutes, and after 2 minutes it comes onto the screen which team put the most points into bidding on pick 1 and that team gets the player they want.

Then the same thing happens with pick 2, everyone bidding on the pick and who they want with pick 2, and the pick and player goes to the team who bids the most.

I think the idea would work really well, though Twomey would hate it as it would make a phantom draft basically impossible.

 

[Chiz]

Auctions actually make a bit of sense.

You could actually directly auction the player. Reverse ladder order for kicking off - so first pick the 18th team selects a kid and makes a bid then auction starts. When he's "sold" then 17th picks a name and starting bid.

The issue I have with a player auction like this is that there is no incentive for the 18th team to select their preferred player to auction off first - strategically they may be better off choosing say the 2nd or 3rd best player to auction off first to eliminate some competition in the bidding for their preferred player.

An alternative player auction would be one where with each pick any club can bid a certain amount of points for any player they like - another club can then choose to bid more points, but they can choose a different player if they prefer.

Or you could do a silent auction, where each club submits a private bid for one player at each pick - the highest bidder receives the player they bid on, but for the amount that the second-highest bidder put forward.

 

[mezaire]

Many years ago Adrian Anderson gave a sports economics lecture at the university I went to. His view was the compensation pick shouldn’t exist at all and what the club losing the player is “getting” is a freeing up or the salary cap to bring in a player themselves. If they can’t get a player of the same quality that’s just the salary cap system working.

This only works if all areas produce similar quality and amount of players and all clubs are considered equally appealing for the average player.

The system is far too Vic biased for this to work. Currently it's about 70% from Vic when only 55% of teams are from Vic.

Look at the trade and FA moves that have been done or requested so far.
15 to Vic
and 4 from Vic

Know I know a couple of those are salary related, but that just drives the point further that interstate clubs have often had to pay Vic players more to stay, compared to interstate players playing in Vic.