Opinion Idea: Points based trading & drafting

[swuzzlebubble]

Overview:

Clubs start off with points equal to their draft picks as per ladder position.
So the bottom team would have about 4650, assuming no prior future pick trades.
The premier would have 1726.

Trades would then be for points rather than specific picks.
So a player may get traded for say 900 points.
This does away with the need for pick swaps etc to balance up deals where only certain picks are available to the trading clubs.

Future picks can still be traded. For example a club may trade their future second round for say 700 points, or whatever is negotiated.
Or future points could be used.
Eg trade a player for 600 future points which will be included in the balances of those clubs next year.

So when we get to the draft each club will have an amount of points dependant on their ladder position and any trades.

The draft order will be based on the ladder positions and only modified by future pick trades from the prior year.
So points trades in the current year don't change the draft order.

But the draft itself will be done via a bidding system...
Eg, for pick one, each club in ladder order (first to last) has the option to bid points for that pick or pass, with a minimum increment (based on the round).
The club which finished bottom has the advantage of knowing the highest bid so can either bid to take that selection, or pass and leave it for the current high bid.
So a team which didn't finish bottom may bid enough points to outbid or dissuade the bottom team from bidding.
However the bottom team would then be in position to bid on multiple other early picks.
It would be quite strategic.

The bidding order could either stay the same for all picks, or rotate eg so the second bottom team has last bid on pick two, and so on.
The time allotted would need to be tight to keep it moving.
Eg maybe 10 seconds to bid or pass for each club, and then say one minute to make a selection, given the high bidder would know their player to have bothered bidding.
Once teams use up their points they cannot bid and if they need more selections they are taken at the end of the draft.
So the idea if trading up or down in the draft is open to all simply by going hard or holding back in the bidding.
If a particular player is highly rated eg at number one, then it's up to clubs to ensure they have enough points to bid for him.
Or perhaps pick one is reserved and bidding starts at pick two?

NGA bids and father/sons are just done with points from the total, rather than using up particular picks.

 

[Euku]

It would be quite complicated to control but I actually really like the idea

 

[RUNVS]

Oddly enough I came up with an almost identical idea a few years ago, and as a result I love your idea

We were discussing this a few weeks ago though, and one change I would make based on what someone else suggested would instead of bidding on picks the teams bid on players.

So it would be something like Pick 1 is called.

then every team has the chance to not only pick a player but also pick the points they are willing to pay for that player.

the team that commits the most points to the player they want is assigned pick 1 and gets that player.

then we go to pick 2, same deal, teams pick a player they want and assign a points value. The team that uses the most points for the player they want gets the pick.

 

[Peel67skin]

Don't think it matter anymore , next year after top 20 for NGA only need point . Only one f/s in top 10 .

 

[Laphroaig]

It would be hard to think of any system which made it more likely that the top teams snaffle all the best talent.

Powerhouse teams invariably have good players on the list who are on the fringe of selection, are injury depth or are duplicate types. Weak teams have guys in their best 22 who are not really up to it, and the fringe player from a top side is a definite upgrade.

The dominant clubs will simply trade out these good types for draft picks to lower ranked Clubs who need them. Then go all in with their stack of points on the sharp end of the draft.

Champions of points drafting always respond with "OK we'll just .......... and the problem goes away". Doesn't matter what you just do. Any system that introduces the possibility of lowly clubs being pushed out of the high end of the draft will result in lower Clubs being pushed out. Move the goal posts as much as you like. The powerful will just change the way they game the system.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

It would be hard to think of any system which made it more likely that the top teams snaffle all the best talent.

Powerhouse teams invariably have good players on the list who are on the fringe of selection, are injury depth or are duplicate types. Weak teams have guys in their best 22 who are not really up to it, and the fringe player from a top side is a definite upgrade.

The dominant clubs will simply trade out these good types for draft picks to lower ranked Clubs who need them. Then go all in with their stack of points on the sharp end of the draft.

Champions of points drafting always respond with "OK we'll just .......... and the problem goes away". Doesn't matter what you just do. Any system that introduces the possibility of lowly clubs being pushed out of the high end of the draft will result in lower Clubs being pushed out. Move the goal posts as much as you like. The powerful will just change the way they game the system.

You could put a cap on the max number of points clubs can use to bid for high end picks, based finishing position.

 

[Laphroaig]

You could put a cap on the max number of points clubs can use to bid for high end picks, based finishing position.

"OK, we'll just....." then there's no problem.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

"OK, we'll just....." then there's no problem.

Explain why that wouldn’t work. Don’t just give a generic catch all statement, thata not an argument.

 

[Laphroaig]

Explain why that wouldn’t work. Don’t just give a generic catch all statement, thata not an argument.

Because it's one of 20 easily identifiable problems in a points system, and a shoot from the hip fix on any of them is going to make the system more flawed, not less.

Your solution merely relocates the problem, it doesn't remove the cause. And as we have seen repeatedly in several aspects of the game, quick fixes almost invariably create a whole new raft of problems as a consequence.

 

[Jonts]

Been saying this for a few years over similar threads

Think it would be brilliant long run.

O it's a bit confusing shouldn't be a reason not to do anything

 

[Jonts]

It would be hard to think of any system which made it more likely that the top teams snaffle all the best talent.

Powerhouse teams invariably have good players on the list who are on the fringe of selection, are injury depth or are duplicate types. Weak teams have guys in their best 22 who are not really up to it, and the fringe player from a top side is a definite upgrade.

The dominant clubs will simply trade out these good types for draft picks to lower ranked Clubs who need them. Then go all in with their stack of points on the sharp end of the draft.

Champions of points drafting always respond with "OK we'll just .......... and the problem goes away". Doesn't matter what you just do. Any system that introduces the possibility of lowly clubs being pushed out of the high end of the draft will result in lower Clubs being pushed out. Move the goal posts as much as you like. The powerful will just change the way they game the system.

You're underestimating the sliding scale of the draft value index.


Let's look at Richmond and the Jack Higgins trade

Pick 21, a future 4th and Jack Higgins for pick 17 and future 2nd round so lets say Saints future 2nd is pick 30 and Richmods future 4th is 64

That means Jack Higgins is worth 675 points. (Currently between pick 29 and 28)

Let's say they also traded out another 2 fringe players for another 675 each. Totalling 2025. Still 900 points behind the team they finished 18th. So even if they do get pick 2, Richmond's next 2 picks would be at the end of the draft. It isn't a sustainable development model.


Also the clubs trading the players in would control the value and know the draft scenarios at play.

 

[Laphroaig]

You're underestimating the sliding scale of the draft value index.


Let's look at Richmond and the Jack Higgins trade

Pick 21, a future 4th and Jack Higgins for pick 17 and future 2nd round so lets say Saints future 2nd is pick 30 and Richmods future 4th is 64

That means Jack Higgins is worth 675 points. (Currently between pick 29 and 28)

Let's say they also traded out another 2 fringe players for another 675 each. Totalling 2025. Still 900 points the premier. So even if they do get pick 2, Richmond's next 2 picks would be at the end of the draft. It isn't a sustainable development model.


Also the clubs trading the players in would control the value and know the draft scenarios at play.

Would, could, lets just, what if, lets say.......

You're wilfully ignoring the blindingly obvious truth.

If you create a system where a Club can move up the draft order to a higher pick without providing a mutually agreed compensation to the Club who "earned" that pick by virtue of their lower position (in fact giving NOTHING to the lower Club), then the lower finishing Club is disadvantaged and the higher Club is advantaged.

Full stop.

 

[Jonts]

Would, could, lets just, what if, lets say.......

You're wilfully ignoring the blindingly obvious truth.

If you create a system where a Club can move up the draft order to a higher pick without providing a mutually agreed compensation to the Club who "earned" that pick by virtue of their lower position (in fact giving NOTHING to the lower Club), then the lower finishing Club is disadvantaged and the higher Club is advantaged.

Full stop.

Carn mate it was just an easy to understand example. Not ignoring anything, I actually went the other way and predicted future trades/results and how it isn't a long term advantage or a
viable strategy at all but you ignored that completely.

The club gives up the players for the right to go up. Just like they do currently. So there is no advantage/disadvantage as they're giving up players for the points to go up.

If you're crying foul about a team that was a 3rd party to any deals in a premier getting a higher pick as it disadvantages the lower team as they potentially go from having the 2nd most draft points to the 3rd (continuing on from the Richmond example above, even though you don't like examples just big overall statements) you're also completely ignoring that the higher place team

1 gave up players to go up in points. 2 ignoring that very thing happens already with free agency compensation

 

[little_ripper]

Auctions of all players out of contract would be simple.

Not sure about rewarding tanking clubs with more off season auction dollars to spend.

I actually like a ballot system where poorly performing clubs get a few more tickets in it.

 

[Laphroaig]

Carn mate it was just an easy to understand example. Not ignoring anything, I actually went the other way and predicted future trades/results and how it isn't a long term advantage or a
viable strategy at all but you ignored that completely.

The club gives up the players for the right to go up. Just like they do currently. So there is no advantage/disadvantage as they're giving up players for the points to go up.

No, it isn't just like it is currently.

Currently, if a team wants to move up the draft to a higher ranked pick they have to pay a lower ranked team to get it.

You are proposing that the lower team gets moved down the order and gets nothing in return.

I can not comprehend how anybody has seen the way that the points system for F/S and NGA players is gamed propose that extending that methodology to apply to every draft pick is a really cool idea.

 

[Jonts]

No, it isn't just like it is currently.

Currently, if a team wants to move up the draft to a higher ranked pick they have to pay a lower ranked team to get it.

You are proposing that the lower team gets moved down the order and gets nothing in return.

I can not comprehend how anybody has seen the way that the points system for F/S and NGA players is gamed propose that extending that methodology to apply to every draft pick is a really cool idea.

No, the lower ranked team would get a player in return?

Ie Jack Higgins to saints

 

[Laphroaig]

No, the lower ranked team would get a player in return?

Ie Jack Higgins to saints

What?

In your proposed system there is no requirement that a lower ranked team is involved in any way in the accumulation of points by a higher team that ends with the lower team being pushed down the draft order.

 

[Jonts]

What?

In your proposed system there is no requirement that a lower ranked team is involved in any way in the accumulation of points by a higher team that ends with the lower team being pushed down the draft order.

Unless I misinterpreted OP

Everyone wouldn't have equal points. They would have the points given to them by their ladder ranking. Ie in a completely uncompromised draft (no FS/NGA or free agency compensation)

The 18th place team would go the draft auction with 4647 points to spend.

The premier's would have 1726.

If they wanted more points they would have to trade out players.

The Richmond example.with Jack Higgins this year would give them an extra 675 points. So even if they traded out 2 fringe players similar to other teams (that's where the.lower ranked teams come into it, Richmond have lost 3 players )

3 x 675
=2025
+ their original 1726
= 3751

They've lost 3 fringe players (to lesser club's) for the right to have more points to use at the draft auction


It's no different to right now if Richmond traded out players to move their pick up now. Sure every club isn't given something in return but the balance is they pay market rate on the players going out

 

[Laphroaig]

It's no different to right now if Richmond traded out players to move their pick up now. Sure every club isn't given something in return but the balance is they pay market rate on the players going out

Jesus wept.

It IS fundamentally different.

NOW: A team can move up the draft by persuading the Club losing the higher pick to accept compensation for handing over the pick. If the team losing the higher pick doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. In the case of highly desirable draft picks, the losing Club wants significant overs to trade.

POINTS SYSTEM. The Club losing the pick can lose it with no compensation, and can have no choice in the matter.

It's like you walk into the butcher, and say I've just done business with the chemist, the greengrocer and the supermarket that's equal in total to the value of two kilos of beef. Then you pick up a tray of steaks and walk out.

You're happy. The chemist, greengrocer and supermarket are happy.

The butcher just got screwed. But that's ok. Coz points.

 

[Jonts]

Jesus wept.

It IS fundamentally different.

NOW: A team can move up the draft by persuading the Club losing the higher pick to accept compensation for handing over the pick. If the team losing the higher pick doesn't agree, it doesn't happen. In the case of highly desirable draft picks, the losing Club wants significant overs to trade.

POINTS SYSTEM. The Club losing the pick can lose it with no compensation, and can have no choice in the matter.

It's like you walk into the butcher, and say I've just done business with the chemist, the greengrocer and the supermarket that's equal in total to the value of two kilos of beef. Then you pick up a tray of steaks and walk out.

You're happy. The chemist, greengrocer and supermarket are happy.

The butcher just got screwed. But that's ok. Coz points.

You're forgetting that continually trying to get a high pick and nothing else in the draft is a horrible development model that wouldn't work


But it's also auction, you do have a say in the matter, you've agreed not to pay more than the highest bidder

The chemist, greengrocer, supermarket and butcher are all buying the same product.
If the greengrocer goes really hard early to get the best young worker on the market.
He would also have to pay more than anyone else is too
Then the greengrocer (who in this case say is the premiers) won't have be able pick any of the best workers until pick 70.

 

[Laphroaig]

You're forgetting that continually trying to get a high pick and nothing else in the draft is a horrible development model that wouldn't work


But it's also auction, you do have a say in the matter, you've agreed not to pay more than the highest bidder

The chemist, greengrocer, supermarket and butcher are all buying the same product.
If the greengrocer goes really hard early to get the best young worker on the market.
He would also have to pay more than anyone else is too
Then the greengrocer (who in this case say is the premiers) won't have be able pick any of the best workers until pick 70.

I give up.

It is really simple, but apparently not simple enough.

 

[Scratchy05]

Not a bad idea at all but a very solid counterargument raised by Laprohaig. I do think it can be adjusted to work but I do think it will be very confusing. I do quite like it though.

 

[Spook]

Would, could, lets just, what if, lets say.......

You're wilfully ignoring the blindingly obvious truth.

If you create a system where a Club can move up the draft order to a higher pick without providing a mutually agreed compensation to the Club who "earned" that pick by virtue of their lower position (in fact giving NOTHING to the lower Club), then the lower finishing Club is disadvantaged and the higher Club is advantaged.

Full stop.

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.

 

[Spook]

Not a bad idea at all but a very solid counterargument raised by Laprohaig. I do think it can be adjusted to work but I do think it will be very confusing. I do quite like it though.

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.

 

[Scratchy05]

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 they ne team will have 5,000 points for the draft and Richmond say would have 1,250.

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?