News "Must use two first round picks every four years" - trade rules clarified

[Lore]

Article posted today has clarified this two first round picks over four years rule a little more, which kicks in this year.

- Clubs must use two first round picks in the four national drafts prior to the current trade period. For this year that's 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

- The penalty for not doing this is a ban on trading out any first round picks, unless another one is traded back in first.

- Special permission may be granted for clubs to trade out first round picks despite this rule, but this permission is dependent on the age of players brought in and other draft picks used in that time.

First-round pick rule: How is your club placed?

Geelong is unable to trade its first draft pick unless it acquires another first-round selection

www.afl.com.au

 

[Sir Skid]

Typical AFL rubbery rule.
Spin it how they want to advantage power clubs.

 

[Tap Tap Tapperoo]

Typical AFL. "These are the rules, but it's all a grey area and we might approve it if we want to."

Just have the rule, or let clubs do what they want with their picks.

 

[MightyHawks]

Rule is only there to prevent clubs totally stuffing up their list management

If the AFL think a club is going ok then no reason to prevent them being able to trade first round picks

 

[Ross]

Rule is only there to prevent clubs totally stuffing up their list management

If the AFL think a club is going ok then no reason to prevent them being able to trade first round picks

Sounds good in theory but it's ended up being the usual AFL mess.

Melbourne has fallen back into a hole this year and they haven't used a first-round pick since 2015 but they're allowed to trade out pick 2 with no questions asked. Meanwhile, Geelong could win the flag this year and even used a first-round pick last year but they officially can't trade out a nothing pick 18 without AFL permission or by getting a first from losing Kelly.

And Collingwood's only first-round pick since 2014 was Stephenson in 2017, but it seems like they're allowed to trade firsts this year because they've been credited for using a first-round pick on Quaynor last year even though they only used a bunch of third-round picks to get him.

 

[MightyHawks]

Sounds good in theory but it's ended up being the usual AFL mess.

Melbourne has fallen back into a hole this year and they haven't used a first-round pick since 2015 but they're allowed to trade out pick 2 with no questions asked. Meanwhile, Geelong could win the flag this year and even used a first-round pick last year but they officially can't trade out a nothing pick 18 without AFL permission or by getting a first from losing Kelly.

And Collingwood's only first-round pick since 2014 was Stephenson in 2017, but it seems like they're allowed to trade firsts this year because they've been credited for using a first-round pick on Quaynor last year even though they only used a bunch of third-round picks to get him.

Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the age profile of Melbourne's list

Let them trade it

 

[Ross]

I agree that they should be allowed to trade their pick.

Just mostly making fun of the idea that Melbourne, with one good year in over a decade and no first-round picks since 2015, is free to trade pick 2 while Geelong, regular finalists since 2004 and having just used a first-round pick 12 months ago, needs to request permission to trade a potential pick 18 because trading without AFL approval might destroy the list.

And just to be clear, my own opinion is that if Geelong is considering using a first-round pick on Steven or Higgins like the AFL's article speculated then maybe we need the AFL to step in and protect us. But I think exemptions will be given out more freely than they are declined, which means the rule probably doesn't need to exist in the first place.

 

[Vindicater]

I like the rule but hate the last part where the AFL can just decided who can and can't break it.

 

[Suma Magic]

AFL policy-making laboratory. Steve Hocking mixing up the latest batch of rules.

Replace “dog” with “discretion”.

 

[Holy Rioli]

love how Whateley (a Geelong tragic) uses Hawthorn as an example, when Geelong are the only team not eligible to trade their 1st rounder this year. He's done it so that when Geelong get approval to trade it no one will blink an eye if Hawthorn have traded theirs as well.

 

[Milanista28]

Why have a rule at all? If the clubs want to * their list up let them.

 

[Sentinel]

Why have a rule at all? If the clubs want to fu** their list up let them.

I agree with you. But if they do that then I'd argue they need to completely get rid of priority picks too - can't give full power to the clubs to do as they please from a list management perspective but then have a mechanism to compensate them if things turn pear shaped.

 

[Lore]

I agree with you. But if they do that then I'd argue they need to completely get rid of priority picks too - can't give full power to the clubs to do as they please from a list management perspective but then have a mechanism to compensate them if things turn pear shaped.

I have a feeling that this rule would eventually be the end of priority picks in most cases, preventing clubs from bottoming out that badly and needing one.

I'm not sure how it works with Gold Coast this year though, they've used 9 first round picks in the last four years not including end of 1st round compo picks, and haven't won a game by more than 5 points all year. It's almost like they need the opposite rule, forcing them to trade rather than being restricted from it.

 

[Jeremias]

Not sure what I hate more - the rule itself, or the fact clubs can apply to the AFL for special compensation.

Either the rule exists or it doesn't, and I am firmly in favour of the latter. Let the clubs do whatever they want with their picks, if they crash and burn as a result so be it.

 

[Lore]

Not sure what I hate more - the rule itself, or the fact clubs can apply to the AFL for special compensation.

Either the rule exists or it doesn't, and I am firmly in favour of the latter. Let the clubs do whatever they want with their picks, if they crash and burn as a result so be it.

It did explain the special permission thing, it's based on the age of the players they've traded in recently.

They don't think Geelong will qualify (Geelong are the only team affected this year) because the 7 players they've traded for are all older. They were all at least 25 at the time they were traded to Geelong, and are now between 28 and 35 years old.

 

[Millsie69]

Why have a rule at all? If the clubs want to fu** their list up let them.

Agreed. Though maybe they'll likely use more discretion for clubs that're being propped up by the AFL, ie Saints, GC, GWS, Port, Melbourne and North.

 

[The 747]

love how Whateley (a Geelong tragic) uses Hawthorn as an example, when Geelong are the only team not eligible to trade their 1st rounder this year. He's done it so that when Geelong get approval to trade it no one will blink an eye if Hawthorn have traded theirs as well.

Lol it's a conspiracy!

 

[Holy Rioli]

Lol it's a conspiracy!

nope it's an agenda.

 

[Jeremias]

It did explain the special permission thing, it's based on the age of the players they've traded in recently.

They don't think Geelong will qualify (Geelong are the only team affected this year) because the 7 players they've traded for are all older. They were all at least 25 at the time they were traded to Geelong, and are now between 28 and 35 years old.

My comment was a general one rather than relating to any team specifically.

If clubs want to trade their picks, so be it. Why the AFL thinks it needs to step in like it does is beyond me.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The first rounder line in the sand is fairly arbitrary. How much is a pick 18 worth compared to 19?

Also, end of firsts aren't included, but if they were the cats would have qualified had they not made the Ablett trade. But consider that the pick 19 they gave up was downgraded only to pick 24. Not hugely material

 

[citizen-erased]

The first rounder line in the sand is fairly arbitrary. How much is a pick 18 worth compared to 19?

Also, end of firsts aren't included, but if they were the cats would have qualified had they not made the Ablett trade. But consider that the pick 19 they gave up was downgraded only to pick 24. Not hugely material

yeah
i don't get why the picks are important

surely you look at the games played & average age of the side and where they finish
Case in point. Essendon are getting close to being at the limit
but we have pumped 25+ games into kids like Parish, McGrath, Merrett, McKenna & Fantasia
Likewise this year Francis, Clarke & Redman have cemented spots, plus games into Mutch, Ham, Ridley, Begley and Zerk-Thatcher.

And finished 8th.

If the missing piece of a gun inside mid came up and the price was a future 1st, i'd hope to hell we weren't restricted from trading it.
Not like we don't have kids. Or that another 1st rd pick is guaranteed to be better than what we can get.

 

[The 747]

nope it's an agenda.

For what? To allow us to trade a pick? Laughable

 

[The 747]

yeah
i don't get why the picks are important

surely you look at the games played & average age of the side and where they finish
Case in point. Essendon are getting close to being at the limit
but we have pumped 25+ games into kids like Parish, McGrath, Merrett, McKenna & Fantasia
Likewise this year Francis, Clarke & Redman have cemented spots, plus games into Mutch, Ham, Ridley, Begley and Zerk-Thatcher.

And finished 8th.

If the missing piece of a gun inside mid came up and the price was a future 1st, i'd hope to hell we weren't restricted from trading it.
Not like we don't have kids. Or that another 1st rd pick is guaranteed to be better than what we can get.

Classic example of the Gill AFL creating a rule, drafting it poorly and not thinking it through. If picks one year in advance can be traded just let them be traded without restriction. But instead they come up with a restriction to combat a problem that has not yet actually happened, then had to clarify the rule two or three times because it wasn't clear in the first place. None of the clubs who are running into the restriction are in danger of trading their future away either.

 

[Holy Rioli]

For what? To allow us to trade a pick? Laughable

nope, so that when you do, no one will care because the evil Hawks have done it as well (even though we don't need approval to trade this years pick).

It's what Geelong do, they set an agenda in the media to suit their causes. Classic example, the bleating about a home final originally started with it's not fair that the GF is played exclusively at the MCG. Or Chris Scott commenting on unresolved tribunal matters without anyone blinking an eye, yet any other coach would have had please explains.

 

[The 747]

nope, so that when you do, no one will care because the evil Hawks have done it as well (even though we don't need approval to trade this years pick).

It's what Geelong do, they set an agenda in the media to suit their causes. Classic example, the bleating about a home final originally started with it's not fair that the GF is played exclusively at the MCG. Or Chris Scott commenting on unresolved tribunal matters without anyone blinking an eye, yet any other coach would have had please explains.

Oh OK then.