Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

[TheGrizz]

Can’t we just take a deficit into next year which would use up our later picks in 2021 first?

Only if we have points remaining.
If say Brand gets bid on at 30, we will go into defecit as 44 wont be enough. Then if Eyre gets bid on at 40, my understanding is we cant match if we are already in defecit.

So if we can match a bid on one and have some - any - points over then yes we can match and go into defecit, but there is also a limit by how much you can go into defecit as well.

Is that right Lore ?

I imagine we will do what Brisbane did last year - wait for the bids to come then trade for picks to match that bid as we can ask for extra time to do trades

 

[Lore]

Only if we have points remaining.
If say Brand gets bid on at 30, we will go into defecit as 44 wont be enough. Then if Eyre gets bid on at 40, my understanding is we cant match if we are already in defecit.

So if we can match a bid on one and have some - any - points over then yes we can match and go into defecit, but there is also a limit by how much you can go into defecit as well.

Is that right Lore ?

I imagine we will do what Brisbane did last year - wait for the bids to come then trade for picks to match that bid as we can ask for extra time to do trades

You can still match if you’re in deficit I think, the maximum deficit is the total points allocated to the premier (so the value of 18+36+54+72). Wouldn’t be much point having a maximum if a one point deficit stopped you from matching altogether.

So in that scenario Brand @ 30 costs us 432 points to match with discount applied, most of it would come off pick 44 (which would move to the back of the draft) and another 130 or so points should come off our second round pick next year, which we don’t have, so it would come off our future third rounder instead.

(Btw, really good reason to maintain a pick in the first round next year, or we’d be really limited in moving our other future picks around for bid matching purposes as you suggest.)

Then a bid on Eyre @ 40 would cost another 232 points to match, also from our future third round pick.

If we finish where we did this year that pick would be almost wiped out, with about 10 points left on it. Depending on how well we do next year though it could wipe it out altogether and could possibly also take a nibble out of the other future third we brought in.

The deficit is applied in one go before the free agency period opens next year (after the season is done).

 

[eth-dog]

There's also the fact that most of our picks will move further up the draft as there will be at least half a dozen players that will be bid on before Brand

 

[Lore]

Why Swans are calling for an overhaul of draft bidding system

List manager Kinnear Beatson is proposing a change to the current system to prevent clubs bidding on players purely to force a rival to select them

www.afl.com.au

I can’t quite figure out what he’s trying to say but I think he’s complaining? Fancy being Sydney and complaining about the Northern Academies...

 

[Duster]

Why Swans are calling for an overhaul of draft bidding system

List manager Kinnear Beatson is proposing a change to the current system to prevent clubs bidding on players purely to force a rival to select them

www.afl.com.au

I can’t quite figure out what he’s trying to say but I think he’s complaining? Fancy being Sydney and complaining about the Northern Academies...

I think he's complaining and arguing for more concessions?!

Apply his proposed solution to the 2015 draft where they took Mills at 3 due to a Melbourne bid. What if they passed and then grabbed Oliver at 4? They get a much better player. Keeping in mind that teams would pretty much know all there is to know about their academy kids at that point, they would probably think that Oliver had the better upside. I know it's easy to think like that in hindsight, but their previous experiences would form the basis of their current proposal.

 

[silk]

Why Swans are calling for an overhaul of draft bidding system

List manager Kinnear Beatson is proposing a change to the current system to prevent clubs bidding on players purely to force a rival to select them

www.afl.com.au

I can’t quite figure out what he’s trying to say but I think he’s complaining? Fancy being Sydney and complaining about the Northern Academies...

Is he complaining cause someone might bid on a player higher than where they rated them... I thought it you bid you were obliged to take that player at that position if the team with draft rights doesn't match.

Also is he suggesting that if they don't match the bid they should get the pick after that?

 

[Lore]

Apparently he was saying that in the Mills situation Sydney should've had the option to match the bid at 3, or Melbourne takes him at 3 and Sydney get's Melbourne's selection at pick 4.

This was my reply:

Is that what he was saying? I read it like 6 times and I couldn't quite believe that that was what he meant. The mind boggles.

So if he chooses not to match the bid, he should essentially be able to trade places with whoever bid on his academy player? So that both the bidding and the matching clubs have the choice of Mills or Oliver/Parish/Francis/Milera/Weideman/McKay/etc?

I think that would effectively undermine the stated objectives of the entire northern academy system tbh.

Firstly, that would remove the incentive to match a bid on a northern talent you've spent time developing. You might've spent time developing a NSW midfielder but prefer a WA KPF that happens to be available at that pick, so you pass and take the WA KPF instead. Meaning that the stay home objective of the northern academies – reducing the "go home" factor by encouraging northern clubs to draft northern talent – is undermined.

Secondly, with the clubs no longer being incentivised to keep northern talent in the north, kids in Sydney may be more likely to chose NRL rather than joining Sydney's academy and risking being drafted to Perth or Adelaide. Which means the 'expanding the talent pool' objective is also undermined as a consequence.

Beyond that, they're already getting a 20% discount on market value, so when Mills is bid on at pick 3, they paid the equivalent of pick 6. If they thought Mills was worth pick 4 or pick 5 and was bid on early as a 'dummy bid' then they're still paying 1-2 picks lower value in matching him than what they thought he was worth in the first place

They can also already ask for extensions of time to live trade to pick 4 if they want that pick, in lieu of matching the bid. If they choose to rort the system by trading into the second and third rounds and then no one wants to trade pick 4 for those picks, that's the natural consequence of the decision they've made to try and rort the system. Perhaps if they'd kept pick 14 and bundled it with their future first, they'd have a better chance of doing that trade.

Also, someone please tell me why a top 4 club should have rights to pick in the top 4 of the draft, without trading out a player, and without matching a bid on a northern academy player that they've already invested in and who wouldn't be there if not for the promise of not having to move interstate?

World's smallest violin is about right.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Utterly shameless. I suspect the AFL took about ten seconds to tell them to GAGF.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Swans struggling so only way out is more concessions/favours.

 

[Lore]

Swans struggling so only way out is more concessions/favours.

They short sheeted themselves and now they complain about their feet being cold.

 

[yodellinhank]

The whole trading out of draft position to try to score a "freebie" is what's stupid. Hopefully fixed up by limiting how many picks can be used to bid. People are just obsessed with it (supposed freebies).

 

[Phone]

idea is pretty simple isn't it. to prevent teams bidding early just to be annoying dicks (an idea I see mentioned all the time), you give the team that has the FS/Academy rights of the player the option to decline to meet the bid, but receive, in essence, a composition pick* of almost equal value to the player they've missed out on, instead of having to remain in their original draft spots. the idea being that this would put an end to 'fake bids' as now if a team is particularly dickish and bids super early, they may well end up massively overpaying, as now the FS/Academy team has a genuine decision to make and could choose to take the pick instead.

under the current system, the FS/Academy right team often has no reason to not meet the bid, as their original picks may be so far back that even if they disagree with value of the bid, and consider other players to better value, they won't have opportunity to pick any of those better value picks, so they may as well just match the bid. which, theoretically, other teams could take advantage of by bidding early.
'
*It wouldn't actually be a compo pick, I assume they would put their picks together to move up

now, that's totally different to whether it's a good idea. I'm not sure there's a particularly nasty example of a fake bid existing, just fan speculation, so it probably doesn't need to be implemented.

 

[yodellinhank]

I doubt there has ever been any "fake" bids. If anything bids come later than an open draft, because it isn't an open draft and clubs don't want to advertise the guy they got isn't the guy they wanted.

It's pretty simple, draft rights gives you access to take the player, if you don't plan around having the currency you miss out.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

under the current system, the FS/Academy right team often has no reason to not meet the bid, as their original picks may be so far back that even if they disagree with value of the bid, and consider other players to better value, they won't have opportunity to pick any of those better value picks, so they may as well just match the bid. which, theoretically, other teams could take advantage of by bidding early.

Which, when you boil it down, means they aren't paying fair price to match the bid. Otherwise they would happily decline a "fake"/"early" bid and take that points hoard they've rustled up to the draft.

 

[Dave]

Then disincentive to be a dick and bid too early is that if the academy club doesn’t match you’ve blown a high pick on a player that isn’t worth it. Doubt it happens enough for it to be an issue.

Smacks of entitlement.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

 

[citizen-erased]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

wow.
may as well leave his stuff in Brisbane...

 

[EnolaGay]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

Daffuq?

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

 

[citizen-erased]

idea is pretty simple isn't it. to prevent teams bidding early just to be annoying dicks (an idea I see mentioned all the time), you give the team that has the FS/Academy rights of the player the option to decline to meet the bid, but receive, in essence, a composition pick* of almost equal value to the player they've missed out on, instead of having to remain in their original draft spots. the idea being that this would put an end to 'fake bids' as now if a team is particularly dickish and bids super early, they may well end up massively overpaying, as now the FS/Academy team has a genuine decision to make and could choose to take the pick instead.

under the current system, the FS/Academy right team often has no reason to not meet the bid, as their original picks may be so far back that even if they disagree with value of the bid, and consider other players to better value, they won't have opportunity to pick any of those better value picks, so they may as well just match the bid. which, theoretically, other teams could take advantage of by bidding early.
'
*It wouldn't actually be a compo pick, I assume they would put their picks together to move up

now, that's totally different to whether it's a good idea. I'm not sure there's a particularly nasty example of a fake bid existing, just fan speculation, so it probably doesn't need to be implemented.

Bleh.
either match or don't.
I like that the market sets the price of academy kids.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

I like the cut of Buckley's jib. We should bring him on as head of football.

 

[Dave]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

As in Ben Buckley the ex FFA bloke? Talk about delusional.

 

[andleanback]

Noble’s already a dead man walking.

Ben Buckley is clueless, don’t know why noble accepted the job.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

What a stupid statement by Buckley. Why the need?

 

[Beerfish]

Sounds like they've lined him up good.

 

[Vander18]

Foxtel showing VIC v WA from 1986. I still say SOG was the best level of footy the game has seen.

I have fond memories of racing home from school for the WA games which usually started around 3:30 - 4 pm our time (for unknown reasons).

Had forgotten how good Maurice Rioli was - talk about a Rolls-Royce.