Analysis Fremantle's point deficit - What happens if they get pick 1..?

[briztoon]

I wouldn't assume based on what Peter Bell is saying there that they'd actually sat there and figured it out. If they had, they'd know that the last pick in round 1 in 2020 is pick 19 and will slide back to 30, owing to GC's priority pick that is slotted into the middle of the first round. I think what he's trying to say is that a later pick will slide further than an earlier pick, and gave a couple of examples from the top of his head.

I'm trying to find Twomey talking about it but no luck yet.

Pick 1 could conceivably become Pick 2 if the deficit is greater than the difference, so it's not impossible that it would slide, but they would need a bigger deficit than they currently have for that to happen. As it stands, Pick 1 minus the current deficit of 265 points is still the most valuable pick in the draft, and would still accord the holder the first selection in the draft.

The logical conclusion of a system that applies a pick demotion regardless of the size of the deficit is that even if the deficit was 15 points (which is the difference between pick 18 and a discounted pick 13), the club would be docked by 32 times more than it owed, which is ludicrous.

It would make more sense to apply the deficit to the next pick/s after the one that was matched, so their next pick after pick 9, if they can't just "dock" it from pick 1.

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t on Road to the Draft.

Either AFL Exchange or the videos Cal does on the AFL website.

 

[Peel67skin]

I’d want a bit more solid evidence than a quote from peter bell a few minutes after last years draft. The logic Lore presented around a side suffering almost a 600 point penalty if they had a deficit of just one point makes a mockery of the whole thing. On this issue, I genuinely think no one has a bloody clue what might happen!

Get pick one based on calculations. Just not enough point to drop to pick 2. Question is will Adelaide let you get pick 1.

 

[Pykie]

briztoon is correct.

The residual difference in points that Freo would have above the next lower pick generates a pick later in the draft.

Just like when matching a bid with multiple picks that don't equal the exact amount of points that the bid came in at.

Pick 1 is 3000 points, pick 2 is 2517, so there's plenty of room to soak up a deficit before slipping back.

In this example the 265 deficit would slide Fremantle back to pick #2 and then they would also receive pick #55.

 

[Lore]

briztoon is correct.

The residual difference in points that Freo would have above the next lower pick generates a pick later in the draft.

Just like when matching a bid with multiple picks that don't equal the exact amount of points that the bid came in at.




In this example the 265 deficit would slide Fremantle back to pick #2 and then they would also receive pick #55.

A first round surplus doesn’t generate a pick though, it is held over to offset future deficits.

 

[Lore]

Taking it back to the value of pick 2 and holding over the difference as a surplus is probably the logical conclusion of the current rules.

But it should still slot in ahead of the current pick 2.

Whenever a docked pick is of the same value as a current pick it has always gone in ahead of that pick.

The best resources we have atm are in the rules and regs thread (pinned) if anyone is wanting to look into it more deeply.

 

[GWS Goose]

IMO it is obvious what SHOULD happen. if the pick remains above, they should get to pick in that place, and repay the deficit elsewhere.
What will happen, that is a different question.
I think Freemantle will beat a couple home and we wont have to worry about it.

 

[briztoon]

IMO it is obvious what SHOULD happen. if the pick remains above, they should get to pick in that place, and repay the deficit elsewhere.
What will happen, that is a different question.
I think Freemantle will beat a couple home and we wont have to worry about it.

I agree that in such a scenario, Fremantle should keep pick 1.

I have never argued against that.

All I have reported is what I have read and heard.

I have tried searching, but I don’t have the time to spend hours listening and watching past podcasts and videos from Cal Twomey.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Someone could just ask him.

 

[GWS Goose]

I agree that in such a scenario, Fremantle should keep pick 1.

I have never argued against that.

All I have reported is what I have read and heard.

I have tried searching, but I don’t have the time to spend hours listening and watching past podcasts and videos from Cal Twomey.

I think it is clear you are not advocating this is how it should be, just telling us that is what you have been led to believe.

I think you are almost certainly correct, because it is so counterintuitive, the only way you would come to that conclusion is if that is what it was!

As I said, I think it is both correct and wrong!

 

[Lore]

Someone could just ask him.

happy?

 

[briztoon]

Someone could just ask him.

I did a couple of days ago. No reply yet.

 

[Lach72]

People are right about one thing though.
If Fremantle were to slide Adelaide (In the current situation) get a MASSIVE upgrade through actions not of their own doing

 

[Pykie]

happy?

Might be worth tweeting it to Patrick Keane of the AFL.


He's pretty good at getting back on twitter regarding rules etc.

 

[Lore]

Interesting, but not exactly an answer. Will try again. Take notes ppl

 

[Cripptonite]

So how does the Giants deficit affect the draft this year? If I’m not mistaken they traded their first round pick to Adelaide pre-draft last year.

Does the Giant’s deficit affect their second round pick? That seems extremely convenient for them if so much like the Sydney “parking” loophole they used to match Blakey. I can’t imagine the Giant’s deficit would slide back the pick they gave to Adelaide because that makes no sense punishing the Crows for something out of their control even though that’s what would ordinarily happen if the Giants held their pick.

Live trading and live bidding should not co-exist IMO. It just creates a false economy.

 

[Lore]

So how does the Giants deficit affect the draft this year? If I’m not mistaken they traded their first round pick to Adelaide pre-draft last year.

Does the Giant’s deficit affect their second round pick? That seems extremely convenient for them if so much like the Sydney “parking” loophole they used to match Blakey. I can’t imagine the Giant’s deficit would slide back the pick they gave to Adelaide because that makes no sense punishing the Crows for something out of their control even though that’s what would ordinarily happen if the Giants held their pick.

Live trading and live bidding should not co-exist IMO. It just creates a false economy.

It should come off their next available pick, which is currently 28 and would slide to 40 if the deficit was applied tomorrow. If they'd had pick 28 in the 2019 draft it would have been treated the same way when the bid was matched, so that's fair.

The thing about matching with a pick of the same round is so that you don't end up paying for a guy you matched in the 3rd round with the future 1st. It doesn't mean you can't use points from a later round pick to match an earlier round bid though.


It should also be noted that GWS traded back into the 2019 draft after matching the bid for Tom Green. They let go of a future 3rd in order to get pick 51 so they could select Jake Riccardi. They didn't have pick 51 at the time of matching for Tom Green so it wasn't used to match the bid, hence the deficit.

 

[Cripptonite]

It should come off their next available pick, which is currently 28 and would slide to 40 if the deficit was applied tomorrow. If they'd had pick 28 in the 2019 draft it would have been treated the same way when the bid was matched, so that's fair.

The thing about matching with a pick of the same round is so that you don't end up paying for a guy you matched in the 3rd round with the future 1st. It doesn't mean you can't use points from a later round pick to match an earlier round bid though.


It should also be noted that GWS traded back into the 2019 draft after matching the bid for Tom Green. They let go of a future 3rd in order to get pick 51 so they could select Jake Riccardi. They didn't have pick 51 at the time of matching for Tom Green so it wasn't used to match the bid, hence the deficit.

Interesting. I can appreciate that application but do not agree with it as a fair outcome.

So in effect the Giants obtained pick 10 to pick up Green and matched using a bunch of late trash picks (41, 56, 59 from 2019 and sliding back a pick that will likely be 30-35 in this years draft).

No list manager would make a trade like that so I guess it’s a good list management strategy from GWS. Seems like this bidding system is now completely open to manipulation with the introduction of live trading and the trading of futures.

 

[Lore]

Interesting. I can appreciate that application but do not agree with it as a fair outcome.

So in effect the Giants obtained pick 10 to pick up Green and matched using a bunch of late trash picks (41, 56, 59 from 2019 and sliding back a pick that will likely be 30-35 in this years draft).

No list manager would make a trade like that so I guess it’s a good list management strategy from GWS. Seems like this bidding system is now completely open to manipulation with the introduction of live trading and the trading of futures.

It's certainly an interesting contrast to Fremantle's situation, where they'll drop a place or three in the top of the draft once the deficit is applied. I'm sure they'd rather apply it to their second rounder too.

There are list managers that will do that deal, predominantly northern academy clubs have done it in the past (I'm thinking Sydney in 2015) but that's only because their academies are slightly more developed at the moment. We are starting to see more other clubs using the same strategies for NGA and father/son players as they get more of them and have opportunities under the new framework as well. The end result I suppose is that it essentially creates more picks at the top of the draft, because if GWS start with pick 10 and trade it to Melbourne for a bunch of crap picks in round 4, and then Melbourne bids on GWS's player and GWS then match pick 10 with those s**t picks, Melbourne doesn't then get those s**t picks back, they still gets to pick at 11 which they wouldn't have had otherwise.

At some point it calls into question the discount that is applied to encourage investment into academies and father-son players. They're already limited to the picks that can be use for bid-matching, in that they can only take picks into the draft that are tied to open spots on the senior playing list, but if you force them to match pick 10 with 1395 points instead of 1116 then it'd make more of a difference. Having said that, all clubs benefit from the discount, so it's swings and roundabouts. Once upon a time we were picking up first round quality with our third rounders, and then more recently with a pick in the same round. Giving up three third rounders is a step up on either scenario I'd think, and GWS now have a pretty bare hand in the draft in 2020.

If they wanted to even it out more without looking at the discount (and I think the discount has a solid rationale, so I'd rather keep it), then I guess they put limits on exactly what picks can be used to match with, whether that's the number of picks that can be used to match a bid, say you can only use two picks to match, or you can use as many as you want but at least 1 has to be in the same round as the bid you're matching. I'd be happy to give them extra time to live-trade into the appropriate round while the bid is pending, so long as they can find a club willing to take that deal.

 

[Joao]

Expect this thread to be inundated with Freo fans if we lose tomorrow.

 

[eastfreo75]

A first round surplus doesn’t generate a pick though, it is held over to offset future deficits.

The surplus could be used for Walker or Western?

 

[briztoon]

The surplus could be used for Walker or Western?

We don’t know yet.

 

[eastfreo75]

We don’t know yet.

That’s the craziest part of it.

We should know.

 

[GWS Goose]

It's certainly an interesting contrast to Fremantle's situation, where they'll drop a place or three in the top of the draft once the deficit is applied. I'm sure they'd rather apply it to their second rounder too.

There are list managers that will do that deal, predominantly northern academy clubs have done it in the past (I'm thinking Sydney in 2015) but that's only because their academies are slightly more developed at the moment. We are starting to see more other clubs using the same strategies for NGA and father/son players as they get more of them and have opportunities under the new framework as well. The end result I suppose is that it essentially creates more picks at the top of the draft, because if GWS start with pick 10 and trade it to Melbourne for a bunch of crap picks in round 4, and then Melbourne bids on GWS's player and GWS then match pick 10 with those sh*t picks, Melbourne doesn't then get those sh*t picks back, they still gets to pick at 11 which they wouldn't have had otherwise.

At some point it calls into question the discount that is applied to encourage investment into academies and father-son players. They're already limited to the picks that can be use for bid-matching, in that they can only take picks into the draft that are tied to open spots on the senior playing list, but if you force them to match pick 10 with 1395 points instead of 1116 then it'd make more of a difference. Having said that, all clubs benefit from the discount, so it's swings and roundabouts. Once upon a time we were picking up first round quality with our third rounders, and then more recently with a pick in the same round. Giving up three third rounders is a step up on either scenario I'd think, and GWS now have a pretty bare hand in the draft in 2020.

If they wanted to even it out more without looking at the discount (and I think the discount has a solid rationale, so I'd rather keep it), then I guess they put limits on exactly what picks can be used to match with, whether that's the number of picks that can be used to match a bid, say you can only use two picks to match, or you can use as many as you want but at least 1 has to be in the same round as the bid you're matching. I'd be happy to give them extra time to live-trade into the appropriate round while the bid is pending, so long as they can find a club willing to take that deal.

There is a reasonable chance that Freemantle will do something with their first pick to reduce the impact of the deficit. Especially if they finish ahead of 3 or 4 teams and the deficit sees the pick drop to 7 or 8. They might find a way to extract more value to it. If they come 17th and they drop to 3, they may be ok with that.

 

[perplexed]

There is a reasonable chance that Freemantle will do something with their first pick to reduce the impact of the deficit. Especially if they finish ahead of 3 or 4 teams and the deficit sees the pick drop to 7 or 8. They might find a way to extract more value to it. If they come 17th and they drop to 3, they may be ok with that.

I don't think they can, nor can gws. My understanding is that deficits are applied prior to the trade and fa periods.
This was the case when gws got a 1000 point deficit as a penalty for the Whitfield stuff.

 

[GWS Goose]

I don't think they can, nor can gws. My understanding is that deficits are applied prior to the trade and fa periods.
This was the case when gws got a 1000 point deficit as a penalty for the Whitfield stuff.

We've already traded our pick, the deficit won't apply to Adelaide, it will apply to our subsequent picks