Draft points: fix the draft, trading and free agency

[RUNVS]

I really like the idea of a blind points auction at each pick, with the highest bid on ANY player becoming that pick. However, the worry would be that the equalisation aspect is diluted if the struggling clubs can't access top end talent if they are subject to a bidding war.

Could there still be a reverse ladder draft order? For each pick auction, the club who 'owns' that pick gets the right to match any winning bid. You could even give them a 10% discount. If the club with priority declines, they hold priority for the next pick and so on. The same rules could then apply for a FS- if the kid is the winning bid at a certain pick, the club of the father gets the same rights as (and trumps) the pick holder.

That was my general idea. So there would be a blind auction for players, so Gil calls bidding for pick 1 to take place and every team has 2 minutes to submit the player they want and then the points they are willing to spend, and as soon as the 2 minutes have passed it comes on the screen who submitted the most points and who they selected, that player going pick 1.

Then onto pick 2, doing the same thing, and onto pick 3 and so fourth.

For F/S and Academy selections it is simple, say you go a few years ago and Geelong bid on pick 36 with 534 points for Errol Gulden. Now because Gulden is an Academy player Sydney then have a right to match the bid, so paying 534 points, the exact amount Geelong were willing to bid, and if they match they get Gulden, and if not, they don't.

To me that is a much better system as not only does it create many more ways a team can rebuild their list, but it also makes trading so much simpler as you don't have to worry about a club not having picks near the value of a player (like the Brisbane and Dunkley situation right now) and instead it is a straight points swap, so Brisbane and Bulldogs negotiating and deciding Dunkley is worth 1250 points or something like that.

 

[HairyO]

Putting the cap lower enables the bottom teams with less talent to pay the higher contracts up front which gives them bargaining power with free agents and players looking for a new home.

At the moment they just end up over paying middling players.

Caveat to this would be that you would need to put in place restrictions to ensure those clubs can't spend lower amounts year after year.

There's also the option of spreading any unused $$ between 90-95% of the cap to the players on the list once the season is finished so the AFLPA doesn't get up in arms.

The AFLPA need a President from a poor team so he has their interests in mind.

The cap is ridiculous at 95%. 90% allowing a jump to 110% for a year would be the best equalisation measure there is.

 

[Vivy]

The AFLPA need a President from a poor team so he has their interests in mind.

The cap is ridiculous at 95%. 90% allowing a jump to 110% for a year would be the best equalisation measure there is.

Sicily would be a good option from one of the poorer clubs

 

[HairyO]

Sicily would be a good option from one of the poorer clubs

Agreed. Anyone is a better option than FIGJAM 2 the 1-peater.

 

[melanChronic]

That was my general idea. So there would be a blind auction for players, so Gil calls bidding for pick 1 to take place and every team has 2 minutes to submit the player they want and then the points they are willing to spend, and as soon as the 2 minutes have passed it comes on the screen who submitted the most points and who they selected, that player going pick 1.

Then onto pick 2, doing the same thing, and onto pick 3 and so fourth.

For F/S and Academy selections it is simple, say you go a few years ago and Geelong bid on pick 36 with 534 points for Errol Gulden. Now because Gulden is an Academy player Sydney then have a right to match the bid, so paying 534 points, the exact amount Geelong were willing to bid, and if they match they get Gulden, and if not, they don't.

To me that is a much better system as not only does it create many more ways a team can rebuild their list, but it also makes trading so much simpler as you don't have to worry about a club not having picks near the value of a player (like the Brisbane and Dunkley situation right now) and instead it is a straight points swap, so Brisbane and Bulldogs negotiating and deciding Dunkley is worth 1250 points or something like that.

Yeah it would definitely be exciting to watch, lots of club potentially involved with every pick. My additional suggestion was that each 'pick' is still linked to a club, based on reverse ladder position, where they have priority in the same way as a FS club would on whatever player is the top bid. This stops the lower ranked clubs from missing out on access to the real top end talent just because of the vagaries of blind auctions.

 

[TENACIOUS]

Trades and FA...
Clubs should come together and agree on a formula for player values...
Based on all metrics that are important to create a fair deal...

Just use a value for each pick like we have now...
Pick 1 = 3000pts or $1mil pa salary cap

Then the buying team could buy a player using picks, salary cap or both & players...
Future picks make it hard and would need to be a guestimate...

No more compensation picks, no more freebies for top teams...
If you want to target a player or want a home sick player than pay the fair market rate...

Give some fairness back to the club losing the player... Because lets face it, they are mostly lower table clubs
who lose all their elite players and remain stuck to the bottom for years...

 

[Chiz]

I really like the idea of a blind points auction at each pick, with the highest bid on ANY player becoming that pick. However, the worry would be that the equalisation aspect is diluted if the struggling clubs can't access top end talent if they are subject to a bidding war.

Could there still be a reverse ladder draft order? For each pick auction, the club who 'owns' that pick gets the right to match any winning bid. You could even give them a 10% discount. If the club with priority declines, they hold priority for the next pick and so on. The same rules could then apply for a FS- if the kid is the winning bid at a certain pick, the club of the father gets the same rights as (and trumps) the pick holder.

My original thought was to have the club with the highest points balance (usually the bottom side) receive pick 1 for 3000 points, but with the option of selling that pick - e.g. another club may be willing to pay 4000, which would then mean the bottom side can get pick 2 and a significant upgrade on all of their next picks.

In the OP I have proposed this approach for picks 11 and onwards. However, I still think an auction for the top 10 picks is the better way, for two reasons.
A. It removes the incentive for clubs to manipulate their points balance so that they are just ahead of another - e.g. if you're 1000 points below the bottom side, you might be willing to trade say 1500 points from next year for 1001 points this year so that you get first crack at pick 1.
B. The top 10 picks are quite variable from year-to-year - if the next Dustin Martin was available, then you'd expect a bidding war for pick 1 and rightly so - the bottom side would have the best access, but still has to pay the price. Conversely, another year may have a top 10 that are very similar - why should the bottom side have to pay overs for the top pick in this instance?

 

[Chiz]

I know the F/S system distorts the draft market, but I still think it’s a fantastic feature of our game. There’s something a little bit “right” about seeing kids follow their parent’s footballing legacy. Certainly couldn’t imagine a Daicos or an Ablett playing anywhere else (and I still refuse to believe that it happened).

I'm still in favour of FS, but if you do it with a points discount (with an appropriate maximum discount) you can ensure that the costs are shared between all clubs equally, in contrast to the current system.

 

[Chiz]

The only change I would make is the Free Agency. Any player that leaves his original team can only go to a bottom 10 team.

I don't think you can stop players going to top teams, but at least make them pay the compensation.

 

[Chiz]

Trades and FA...
Clubs should come together and agree on a formula for player values...
Based on all metrics that are important to create a fair deal...

Just use a value for each pick like we have now...
Pick 1 = 3000pts or $1mil pa salary cap

Then the buying team could buy a player using picks, salary cap or both & players...
Future picks make it hard and would need to be a guestimate...

No more compensation picks, no more freebies for top teams...
If you want to target a player or want a home sick player than pay the fair market rate...

Give some fairness back to the club losing the player... Because lets face it, they are mostly lower table clubs
who lose all their elite players and remain stuck to the bottom for years...

Rather than having multiple 'currencies' (i.e. picks/points, salary, future picks), just have a single currency (points), but have a player's desired salary/contact as part of a package. A bigger contact might result in fewer points being traded.

I think free agency is meant to operate on this principle - that is, it would be more about the contract and freeing up salary cap space. But given free agents are typically going to top sides on less than they could earn elsewhere, it doesn't really work. One option for free agents would be to allow all others clubs to choose to match the contract being offered - if another club matches (or offers a higher contract), but the free agent still chooses their preferred club, the destination club must pay compensation. If no one matches the contract, there is no compensation.

 

[The 747]

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.

I like the idea, especially trading for points rather than what the destination club has on hand - which is a pretty messy process see this board.

My main reservation is how the list spots v draft picks would work in practice, but I guess clubs already go to the draft knowing that they are taking x number of players, here they would just not know for sure what picks those players would be at.

Also how do you manage the scenario of Geelong this year, will upgrade two rookies so only need one draft pick. In theory couldn't Geelong bid everything to get pick 1 (as the premiers)?

 

[Chiz]

I like the idea, especially trading for points rather than what the destination club has on hand - which is a pretty messy process see this board.

My main reservation is how the list spots v draft picks would work in practice, but I guess clubs already go to the draft knowing that they are taking x number of players, here they would just not know for sure what picks those players would be at.

Also how do you manage the scenario of Geelong this year, will upgrade two rookies so only need one draft pick. In theory couldn't Geelong bid everything to get pick 1 (as the premiers)?

So with list spots vs draft picks, a club could choose to use all of their points on a single high draft pick, but this would exclude them from taking any other picks.

In the case of Geelong or any other top side, they would have to trade in order to have enough points to be able to bid for pick 1. Typically you'd only have maybe 3-4 clubs with enough points to bid for pick 1. But theoretically Geelong could do this under the proposed system, just as they could also trade a player for pick 1 under the current system.