Opinion Idea: Points based trading & drafting

[Spook]

Wait but how are the points converted into picks. Like pick 1 is assigned a value and the team with the most points gets to spend 3000 on it?

We already have points per draft pick. more detail to follow.

 

[Laphroaig]

Clubs can already move up the draft order. I’m sure a Richmond could trade their 23rd to 25th players to north Melbourne for pick 2.

The blindingly obvious difference is that for such a trade to happen, North has to agree and North has to get the benefit.

Under a points system, they don't have to agree or receive any benefit at all to get pushed down. The trades to accumulate the points do not have to involve North at all.

 

[Laphroaig]

I don’t think confusing at all if it’s just simplified with bidding. Draft pick 1 team picks a players and bidding begins. The big difference is that bottom team will have 5,000 points for the draft and Richmond say would have 1,250.

So you're proposing that we replace draft picks with points so that teams can move themselves around the draft order but simultaneously create a points spread that makes it impossible to move around the draft order?

First, I'm fully convinced that no points spread can ever be devised that is game proof. We only need to look at how thoroughly Clubs have beaten the F/S and NGA points system and turned it into a farce.

Second, in the unlikely event an uncrackable system could be devised, what on earth is the **** ing point?

 

[Spook]

So you're proposing that we replace draft picks with points so that teams can move them selves around the draft order but simultaneously create a points spread that makes it impossible to move around the draft order?

First, I'm fully convinced that no points spread can ever be devised that is game proof. We only need to look at how thoroughly Clubs have beaten the F/S and NGA points system and turned it into a farce.

Second, in the unlikely event an uncrackable system could be devised, what on earth is the fu** ing point?

I think you may be miss understanding the proposal. The draft order will only be defined at the end once the value of each player drafted is realized.
At the moment we already have points for each pick based on historical data. We also have an indicative draft order. So you add up your points per your picks and you have your total points. This year the totals and are shown below. The points per pick, also shown below, show that Richmond, even with trading players out to get picks, doesn't have points to get nominally a pick higher than 7 leaving them no points left over. But it all depends on what the bids are. The final draft order will be by the highest bid. For example, Adelaide starts and says Joe Bloggs, and bidding gets to 2,550 then Adelaide only has 2,582 points left. Then North says start bidding on harry Blogs and GWS and Essendon have a bidding war all the way up to 3,720 and Adelaide gets Harry. North wasn't prepared to go that high for Harry but still has heaps of points for other bids.
Now some clubs might use their points up early not leaving them many points in the next round.
It would be AFL drat poker at its best
What it does do is prescribe a real market value to each player and each club pays what they think a player is worth.

 

[Spook]

The blindingly obvious difference is that for such a trade to happen, North has to agree and North has to get the benefit.

Under a points system, they don't have to agree or receive any benefit at all to get pushed down. The trades to accumulate the points do not have to involve North at all.

Then they haven't lost points either and will easily outbid other clubs.

 

[Laphroaig]

I think you may be miss understanding the proposal. The draft order will only be defined at the end once the value of each player drafted is realized.
At the moment we already have points for each pick based on historical data. We also have an indicative draft order. So you add up your points per your picks and you have your total points. This year the totals and are shown below. The points per pick, also shown below, show that Richmond, even with trading players out to get picks, doesn't have points to get nominally a pick higher than 7 leaving them no points left over. But it all depends on what the bids are. The final draft order will be by the highest bid. For example, Adelaide starts and says Joe Bloggs, and bidding gets to 2,550 then Adelaide only has 2,582 points left. Then North says start bidding on harry Blogs and GWS and Essendon have a bidding war all the way up to 3,720 and Adelaide gets Harry. North wasn't prepared to go that high for Harry but still has heaps of points for other bids.
Now some clubs might use their points up early not leaving them many points in the next round.
It would be AFL drat poker at its best
What it does do is prescribe a real market value to each player and each club pays what they think a player is worth.

It is immensely childish to allege that somebody who fails to share your opinion doesn't understand.

I don't believe that the system you propose is an improvement at all. It is detrimental.

It DOES (at best) undermine the underlaying reason we have a draft at all. To give the weaker Clubs first access to the best players. And then first acess to the second round, and the third. You think giving the Premier the opportunity to jump 11 places without giving anything to the team who finished 12th and whose pick it has just pinched is a positive? It is not. It guarantees that the powerful stay powerful and the weak stay weak.

 

[Spook]

It is immensely childish to allege that somebody who fails to share your opinion doesn't understand.

I don't believe that the system you propose is an improvement at all. It is detrimental.

It DOES (at best) undermine the underlaying reason we have a draft at all. To give the weaker Clubs first access to the best players. And then first acess to the second round, and the third. You think giving the Premier the opportunity to jump 11 places without giving anything to the team who finished 12th and whose pick it has just pinched is a positive? It is not. It guarantees that the powerful stay powerful and the weak stay weak.

You are such an angry prick aren’t you. You obviously don’t get it, the examples you give I agree with but this is not the proposal. It’s not a draft it’s an open auction. How can you jump 11 places in a draft order there is no draft order and initially. you are angry and dumb so just leave this thread.

 

[Laphroaig]

You are such an angry prick aren’t you. You obviously don’t get it, the examples you give I agree with but this is not the proposal. It’s not a draft it’s an open auction. How can you jump 11 places in a draft order there is no draft order and initially. you are angry and dumb so just leave this thread.

No.

One of us is quite obviously angry, and it isn't me.

If you can't deal with criticism of your ideas, don't make them public. And if you don't improve your manners I will certainly report personal abuse. Never pressed the report button before, but I am prepared to make a start if you like.

 

[Spook]

No.

One of us is quite obviously angry, and it isn't me.

If you can't deal with criticism of your ideas, don't make them public. And if you don't improve your manners I will certainly report personal abuse. Never pressed the report button before, but I am prepared to make a start if you like.

You are not criticizing these ideas because what your argument is doesn’t align with the idea. You’re on a different page.

just Think about it as an auction and 18 people have a maximum amount of cash on them and they bid on players.

 

[Laphroaig]

You are not criticizing these ideas because what your argument is doesn’t align with the idea. You’re on a different page.

just Think about it as an auction and 18 people have a maximum amount of cash on them and they bid on players.

I prefer to think of a system which allocates the advantage in the draft to those with the highest need. Without addition of a pointless points system which might add some viewer excitement and might facilitate easier assessment of player trades - although I doubt it.

Trouble with points is they have no predictable value until after the fact. Every trade period will unfold differently and in an unpredictable way.

I understand your proposal completely. It is hardly rocket science.

And I reject it completely.

Get over it.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

For example, Adelaide starts and says Joe Bloggs, and bidding gets to 2,550 then Adelaide only has 2,582 points left. Then North says start bidding on harry Blogs and GWS and Essendon have a bidding war all the way up to 3,720 and Adelaide gets Harry. North wasn't prepared to go that high for Harry but still has heaps of points for other bids.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss my proposal.
Just to clarify how I'd see the bidding working.
Pick one this year would start with Richmond's option to bid points and then Geelong and so on down to Adelaide.
Each team gets one bid so the subsequent teams either better it or pass.
Adelaide have the advantage of going last so know what is needed.
Assuming they pony up with the highest bid, they then get to choose their player.
So they're bidding for the right to choose a player at that selection.
Pick two would be similar except North have last bid, and so on.

In regards to potential for teams to load up on points to put an early pick out of reach, the option I included above is that you could vary it and say pick one is offered straight to Adelaide for 3000 points. If they decline then the bidding starts.
Adelaide may choose not to take it and not bid either and focus on bids for picks 2 & 3 or whatever.

 

[Jonts]

How is giving the bottom team few teams the opportunity to decide that they would rather have two picks in the top ten rather than been locked into just pick one unless they find a club to split it with less power?

 

[Jonts]

Thanks for taking the time to discuss my proposal.
Just to clarify how I'd see the bidding working.
Pick one this year would start with Richmond's option to bid points and then Geelong and so on down to Adelaide.
Each team gets one bid so the subsequent teams either better it or pass.
Adelaide have the advantage of going last so know what is needed.
Assuming they pony up with the highest bid, they then get to choose their player.
So they're bidding for the right to choose a player at that selection.
Pick two would be similar except North have last bid, and so on.

In regards to potential for teams to load up on points to put an early pick out of reach, the option I included above is that you could vary it and say pick one is offered straight to Adelaide for 3000 points. If they decline then the bidding starts.
Adelaide may choose not to take it and not bid either and focus on bids for picks 2 & 3 or whatever.

The best way to do it would be an poker style, you get to keep bidding until you pass.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

The best way to do it would be an poker style, you get to keep bidding until you pass.

Whatever works for TV, hey?

 

[Laphroaig]

How is giving the bottom team few teams the opportunity to decide that they would rather have two picks in the top ten rather than been locked into just pick one unless they find a club to split it with less power?

Nobody has ever satisfactorily demonstrated that as natural outcome.

Every time any weakness in the proposed system is pointed out, the response is always "then we'll just...." followed by a shoot from the hip bolt on extra. Which will almost inevitably create even more problems in other places.

The more bolt ons you add, the more complex it becomes and the easier it is for the cunning to game.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Nobody has ever satisfactorily demonstrated that as natural outcome

It kind of is though "by definition" because if a club has a certain amount of points and are outbid or strategically skip the earliest picks then their points will be used wherever they choose to bid the highest.

 

[Laphroaig]

It kind of is though "by definition" because if a club has a certain amount of points and are outbid or strategically skip the earliest picks then their points will be used wherever they choose to bid the highest.

"By definition"?

Gawd.

I'm sure you could go away and invent a points weighting where "by definition" the bottom team could be assured of bypassing pick one and then being in a position to be certain of winning, say, 6 and 14.

Problem solved, right? But how does that weighting impact on the dynamics surrounding the other 80 or so picks in the draft? How does it treat the team that finished 17th, or 16th etc.

What is true is that if a facility exists which allows a higher team to move ahead of a lower team in the draft order and give them nothing, then whatever points weighting you imagine up the weak are going to get screwed. "By definition".

 

[Neale4brownlow]

I like the points concept over picks.
But it shouldnt be a blind auction on every pick. Too hard and too long to do if every club is involved in every pick.

Instead just have each pick assigned a points value (could just be what it is).
All teams get distributed points based off their finishing position.

Players are traded for an agreed points value between teams.

Come draft day:
The team who finished last gets first choice at it.

They can use it and spend 3000points to take pick1, or pass and maintain their points total.
If they pass it moves to the next team in line (2nd last). They can use pick 1 and spend 3000points or pass to the next.
Whatever team uses that pick, moves to back of the queue.

We then move to pick 2. Valued at 2517.
The team at the start of the queue gets first chance to use it or pass.

Any points not used can be carried forward say 2years before they expire with a cap set that you can only carry forward say 20% of your points each year, the rest must be used or expire.

Just my 2cents. Obviously there'd be more finer details to be sorted through but I would think the overall system could be very straight forward and less convoluted than what we have now.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Interesting ideas!