Analysis Improving the bidding system

[Red Black and Blue]

And since they've been introduced its just been a wave of dominance from the NSW & QLD clubs. No one can beat them due to their unfair advantage of local talent

There has been one team better than GWS and Brisbane in the last two years. Pretty clear there is an advantage there given time. You guys stuffing up your advantage by average drafting elsewhere and throwing a 1 million plus a year contract at one player doesn’t mean the potential to exploit one doesn’t exist. even though you have another 7-8 years of Heeney, Mills, Blakey at a minimum before we even see what Gulden and Campbell do.

 

[WilloTree]

I wonder how the draft would look if we just got rid of all the add-ons. If a club wanted a F/S. NGA or whatever the case may be they can pick him at their pick.

It just makes it so simple. Lets use Daicos as an example.

Collingwood have to weigh up where they think he'll go in the draft. If they have a pick that will get him through the door, they can use that pick.

If they don't have a pick high enough? Trade up.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Just thought I would add in the context which you left out:

"Breaking it down by state, Victorians have the highest attrition rate. 25% of Victorians drafted interstate in this time have eventually been traded home – while WA, SA, NSW and Queensland are all somewhere around the 10-15% mark."

Another interesting point from the article that you cherry picked - GWS lost the most players to trades, the three next highest clubs are Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney. So following your argument, Geelong and the Hawks are hard done by here and we deserve a points discount right?

View attachment 1028582

I’d rather a 1/2 chance at 10-15% than a 1/9 chance at 25%.

The northern clubs also get to pick the eyes out of NSW and QLD kids before they even hit the national draft which would also have some bearing on the numbers. Any kid worth having can find their way into a Northern academy.

 

[juddy_Like]

The AFL must be the only comp in the world where they openly balance the objectives of a competition (i.e. winning a premiership) with trying to grow the game.

The whole woe- is me and all Vic metro guns are all mummy boys get a little overblown when compare it to the other major sporting leagues in the world.
- NBA: True definition of larger market teams/ franchises getting all the big guns.
- NHL: Not all the teams even get paid in the same currency. You can read up on why this is such a disadvantage.
- NFL: Don't ever seeing the Browns or Lions ever getting priority picks despite being pitifully woeful for decades.
- MLB: Don't even have a salary cap.
- Any of the major round ball leagues: Don't even need to start this one.

So you got to ask, do you want a competition whereby all teams play by the same rules with salary cap, draft, free agents, etc.
Or do you want a competition whereby the running body pulls levers as they see fit (full knowing that by creating some advantages, in results in other new disadvantages).

And before anyone plays the 'your club gets this and that' card which I don't get why it gets brought up in healthy debating...
My club can probably afford to buy the bottom four clubs combined with our cash reserves yet,
- Have never attracted a big time free agent
- Our only ever F/S freebie we've ever received was last century, be it he was one of our all time greats
- Our academy has given us peanuts
- In the year we're about to benefit from our academy, the rules get changed
- Every second week our travel is a stinker. Let's not kid ourselves and think one hour flights are anything too taxing
- No home GF (which isn't exactly a bad thing)
- Oh and the biggest one, we pay royalties in-order to keep the WAFL a float.

Personally what I'll do tomorrow is make all bids must be matched by points within the next 18 picks with no discount. The intent is to remove the double dipping of picks.

 

[AlibiMonday]

Hahaha. Sorry all - didn’t mean to start a thread on this. Just came back and saw this. I do have some thoughts on this, but must have hit the wrong button.

 

[JasRulz63]

There has been one team better than GWS and Brisbane in the last two years. Pretty clear there is an advantage there given time. You guys stuffing up your advantage by average drafting elsewhere and throwing a 1 million plus a year contract at one player doesn’t mean the potential to exploit one doesn’t exist. even though you have another 7-8 years of Heeney, Mills, Blakey at a minimum before we even see what Gulden and Campbell do.

It feels like Brisbane is the team that's benefitted the least from academies in terms of getting access to highly rated talent (highly rated in their draft year that is).

The academy players we've still got on our list (with the pick they were bid on in brackets) are Hipwood (pick 14), Andrews (pick 34), Ballenden (pick 43), K.Coleman (pick 37), B.Coleman (pick 24), McFadyen (pick 42), A.Smith (rookie draft) and Fullarton (cat B). Payne was an academy player that we drafted without a bid being placed (pick 54).

That's two top 30 picks in the the ~7 years since the academy was up and running. We'd love to have a Heeney/Campbell/Mills level talent come through our academy. I suspect our next high end talent we'll have priority access to will be F/S Will Ashcroft in 2022.

 

[Lore]

Hahaha. Sorry all - didn’t mean to start a thread on this. Just came back and saw this. I do have some thoughts on this, but must have hit the wrong button.

The posts were moved to a new thread because they ended up derailing another thread. You would’ve had a notification about it

 

[The 747]

It feels like Brisbane is the team that's benefitted the least from academies in terms of getting access to highly rated talent (highly rated in their draft year that is).

The academy players we've still got on our list (with the pick they were bid on in brackets) are Hipwood (pick 14), Andrews (pick 34), Ballenden (pick 43), K.Coleman (pick 37), B.Coleman (pick 24), McFadyen (pick 42), A.Smith (rookie draft) and Fullarton (cat B). Payne was an academy player that we drafted without a bid being placed (pick 54).

That's two top 30 picks in the the ~7 years since the academy was up and running. We'd love to have a Heeney/Campbell/Mills level talent come through our academy. I suspect our next high end talent we'll have priority access to will be F/S Will Ashcroft in 2022.

This is where it is distorted - no offence to you - the academies are meant to create a pathway to AFL for kids who would be otherwise playing different sports. They are not intended that you get first round picks cheaply. Those picks are exactly what should be happening, gives you an incentive to pick up a local kid that you have put some time into with a later pick.

 

[mpal6]

For example, Ugle Hagan
The first Victorian team to hold a draft pick was the Kangaroos. They can decide to use their pick 2 to draft him (which of course they would), alternatively if they chose to skip, the Hawks would be the next club available to take him.

This would force clubs to pay fair value for the player while the player remains in their home state. If the bulldogs really wanted to get a pick infront of the Roos to take first pick and JUH, then they have to pay a fair price and trade to get up the draft.

Similar to Lachie Jones at port this year. Adelaide would have had first swipe at him if they wanted to use their pick 11 for example to take him first, or port are forced to trade ahead of the expected pick value to take the player first.

Clubs will hold the benefit of a player only being available within their state and no need for discounts or players tied to specific clubs.

I like the idea except for this trade forward part. I know the below example is NGA but let's look at it as a father/son or academy construct.

When 17 other clubs know Bulldogs need to trade forward to land JUH, they can hold Dogs to ransom. It won't be fair price anymore and the dogs would be at a massive disadvantage. If we expand on that idea, it will leave Dogs trading for Pick 1 in the last draft which Adelaide is likely to never give up. Makes it a waste for say any AFL club when there is a lack of pathway for getting their new player via draft unless they massively overpay.

If we want this state based drafting as a standard, then academies need to be removed from clubs and handed back to AFL. It will become less of a burden on clubs and when they miss out on a player it won't look unfair either.

 

[JasRulz63]

This is where it is distorted - no offence to you - the academies are meant to create a pathway to AFL for kids who would be otherwise playing different sports. They are not intended that you get first round picks cheaply. Those picks are exactly what should be happening, gives you an incentive to pick up a local kid that you have put some time into with a later pick.

But why are kids that would be otherwise playing different sports have to be lower rated kids. If the club funded academy puts time and money into a kid through the created pathway that's a first round talent (who would've otherwise chosen a different sport), how's that different to if they are a third round talent?

Surely the aim of the academies is to develop as much talent as possible, and ideally the more talent the better. If that talent was first round talent, then it would mean these clubs were less likely to lose first round talent back to their home states.

 

[JayJ20]

I don't mind academies (Northern academies, NGAs) and father-son selections, but its application needs to be refined.
A bigger price needs to be paid for matching bids in the top 5.

For example, teams should only be able to match bids for academy/NGA players with their next pick. Using Bulldogs as an example, if the bid comes at number 1 and Bulldogs' next selection is number 14, then they must use pick 14 to match the bid and take on a deficit next year. No using 5 or 6 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders to collect points. They actually need to figure out how to trade UP the draft to minimise the deficit rather than trading down. If they can get a top 5 pick by trading their first (14) with a future first, then that should do it. They should be finding a way to get Adelaide's pick 1 so that they don't go into a deficit next year. If they don't want to take on the deficit from a bid, then they can choose not to match the bid. If they match, then they'll be wiped out of next year's first round which is fair considering they are getting the best talent in this year's pool.

Another example is Sydney. If they select Logan McDonald with pick 4 and Hawthorn bid on Campbell with pick 5, then they must match the bid with their next pick even if it is in the 30s. if they match with a pick in the 30s, they basically have to sit out of next year's draft with the large deficit they accrue. If they want Campbell, they should be using pick 4 to select him so that they can avoid a deficit rather than selecting Logan at pick 4 and matching a bid at pick 5 with a collection of 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders. If they rate McDonald higher than Campbell, then they select McDonald and Hawthorn select Campbell.

If the reason for the academy is having NSW players on your list, then Campbell should be requesting a trade to Sydney in a couple of years right?

Handing out top-end talent because they collected picks in the 20s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous. If a team has a highly rated NGA/academy/FS, they should be trading INTO the draft to match or trade up before the bid to select the player with their first pick rather than trading out of the draft.

 

[Suma Magic]

If JUH wasn’t an academy player, and the if the dogs had offered their first, second and third this year, and their future first for the number one pick, would the crows have accepted it?

I doubt it.

That’s the sort of discounted price that needs to be paid. A price that still wouldn’t get the player, but it isn’t too far off. It’s supposed to be a small discount, not a price that is nowhere near what it would cost to trade for the pick used to take the player.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't mind academies (Northern academies, NGAs) and father-son selections, but its application needs to be refined.
A bigger price needs to be paid for matching bids in the top 5.

For example, teams should only be able to match bids for academy/NGA players with their next pick. Using Bulldogs as an example, if the bid comes at number 1 and Bulldogs' next selection is number 14, then they must use pick 14 to match the bid and take on a deficit next year. No using 5 or 6 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders to collect points. They actually need to figure out how to trade UP the draft to minimise the deficit rather than trading down. If they can get a top 5 pick by trading their first (14) with a future first, then that should do it. They should be finding a way to get Adelaide's pick 1 so that they don't go into a deficit next year. If they don't want to take on the deficit from a bid, then they can choose not to match the bid. If they match, then they'll be wiped out of next year's first round which is fair considering they are getting the best talent in this year's pool.

Another example is Sydney. If they select Logan McDonald with pick 4 and Hawthorn bid on Campbell with pick 5, then they must match the bid with their next pick even if it is in the 30s. if they match with a pick in the 30s, they basically have to sit out of next year's draft with the large deficit they accrue. If they want Campbell, they should be using pick 4 to select him so that they can avoid a deficit rather than selecting Logan at pick 4 and matching a bid at pick 5 with a collection of 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders. If they rate McDonald higher than Campbell, then they select McDonald and Hawthorn select Campbell.

If the reason for the academy is having NSW players on your list, then Campbell should be requesting a trade to Sydney in a couple of years right?

Handing out top-end talent because they collected picks in the 20s, 30s and 40s is ridiculous. If a team has a highly rated NGA/academy/FS, they should be trading INTO the draft to match or trade up before the bid to select the player with their first pick rather than trading out of the draft.

Why not just give lower picks realistic points values? That would stop clubs wanting to match bids with lower picks pretty quickly, and wouldn’t require any new rules.

 

[Pykie]

Why not just give lower picks realistic points values? That would stop clubs wanting to match bids with lower picks pretty quickly, and wouldn’t require any new rules.

Yep, I think the points values are wrong.

The top 10 need to be increased with the remainder lowered significantly and almost any points value removed for any picks 40+.

Major deficit needs to be a realistic threat.

The fact you can still match a bid in the top 5 after using up a top 5 pick already and meet the points requirement with late picks means the system is broken.

It should require you to mortgage almost all of your 2021 draft hand to do it...

 

[JayJ20]

Why not just give lower picks realistic points values? That would stop clubs wanting to match bids with lower picks pretty quickly, and wouldn’t require any new rules.

That's also an option as well, but this is easier.

I want the threat of a bid to be taken more seriously. The first selection needs to be the one they use to either select the academy/FS/NGA player or match a bid with. In Sydney's example, it means they'll get one of McDonald or Campbell and not both unless they take a large deficit into next year's draft or unless they obtain another top 5 pick (by trading out of next year's draft) to select both players this year.

 

[Suma Magic]

If the AFL just did this, then the perverse incentives to use lower picks would go away.

 

[Suma Magic]

That's also an option as well, but this is easier.

I want the threat of a bid to be taken more seriously. The first selection needs to be the one they use to either select the academy/FS/NGA player or match a bid with. In Sydney's example, it means they'll get one of McDonald or Campbell and not both unless they take a large deficit into next year's draft or unless they obtain another top 5 pick (by trading out of next year's draft) to select both players this year.

I don't agree that it's easier. I think having fewer rules about matching bids makes things much simpler. And it would achieve the same outcome.

 

[juddy_Like]

I don't agree that it's easier. I think having fewer rules about matching bids makes things much simpler. And it would achieve the same outcome.

I think Jay’s rule is as simple as it gets.

You match with your next available pick and go into deficit next year with the remaining balance. That’s it.

Results in:
- you either get McDonald or Campbell
- or if you want both, the price is better reflected instead of paying with a bunch of junk picks
- Syd can pass on the academy pick therefore increasing the pool
- you don’t severely punish the draft order

 

[RUNVS]

If the AFL just did this, then the perverse incentives to use lower picks would go away.

View attachment 1028968

Why is it realistic? I mean is there any evidence at all that pick 5 is worth half of what pick 1 is worth, or pick 10 worth 30% of what pick 1 is worth? I would argue that pick 5 has a much better track record than pick 1 does.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

They need to have an independent person/body decide on the value of the player and have a pre determined price clubs must pay to remove that player from the draft.

You would have bands say top 5 player is worth ..... points, first round worth .... 2nd round worth ...... etc.

It would remove the bidding altogether and the players would be selected and paid for prior to the draft occurring, if clubs didn't want to pay the allocated price the player could go back into the draft. The price probably needs to be set prior to the trade period to allow clubs with father sons/ academy kids the ability to trade to secure points/picks.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It feels like Brisbane is the team that's benefitted the least from academies in terms of getting access to highly rated talent (highly rated in their draft year that is).

The academy players we've still got on our list (with the pick they were bid on in brackets) are Hipwood (pick 14), Andrews (pick 34), Ballenden (pick 43), K.Coleman (pick 37), B.Coleman (pick 24), McFadyen (pick 42), A.Smith (rookie draft) and Fullarton (cat B). Payne was an academy player that we drafted without a bid being placed (pick 54).

That's two top 30 picks in the the ~7 years since the academy was up and running. We'd love to have a Heeney/Campbell/Mills level talent come through our academy. I suspect our next high end talent we'll have priority access to will be F/S Will Ashcroft in 2022.

Getting the best defender in the competition and a dynamic if slightly underperforming key forward isn’t all that bad. Plus the Coleman’s could both be more than decent small forwards. Keays has turned into a pretty decent player too, just needed to keep the faith for another year.

 

[Suma Magic]

Why is it realistic? I mean is there any evidence at all that pick 5 is worth half of what pick 1 is worth, or pick 10 worth 30% of what pick 1 is worth? I would argue that pick 5 has a much better track record than pick 1 does.

Its realistic based off the only thing that matters. The relative value of picks when traded for other picks.

 

[Suma Magic]

I think Jay’s rule is as simple as it gets.

You match with your next available pick and go into deficit next year with the remaining balance. That’s it.

Results in:
- you either get McDonald or Campbell
- or if you want both, the price is better reflected instead of paying with a bunch of junk picks
- Syd can pass on the academy pick therefore increasing the pool
- you don’t severely punish the draft order

It’s not as simple as not even needing such a rule. If the points index is realistic then there is no incentive to match with lower picks, you simply wouldn’t need additional rules like the one suggested.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Its realistic based off the only thing that matters. The relative value of picks when traded for other picks.

Got a link to the underlying working?

 

[The 747]

But why are kids that would be otherwise playing different sports have to be lower rated kids. If the club funded academy puts time and money into a kid through the created pathway that's a first round talent (who would've otherwise chosen a different sport), how's that different to if they are a third round talent?

Surely the aim of the academies is to develop as much talent as possible, and ideally the more talent the better. If that talent was first round talent, then it would mean these clubs were less likely to lose first round talent back to their home states.

They don't necessarily, but first round picks are usually natural football players who have been playing their entire lives - which are not the kids the academy program is intended to catch and 'save' from other sports.