Pick 27

[Baltimore Jack]

I feel like I understand the draft bidding system as good as reasonably possible, however, I've got one question I'm still unsure about.

Let's say Melbourne bid for Callum Mills at Pick 3. Sydney match it and jump ahead in the draft order with their points to take him with Pick 3.

Melbourne now go on to select Pick 4. Some people think this could be Curnow or whoever else. However, my question is this:

Seeing as though Melbourne already bid Pick 3 for Mills, can they now go and bid Pick 4 on Jacob Hopper from GWS, and force them to match this as well?

Then all of a sudden it has gone Carlton, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and low and behold, Melbourne now have Pick 5!

On the above theory, could they then go and bid Pick 5 on Eric Hipwood and make Brisbane match? And so on?

So in short, is there a number of times a club can bid on players? If a club with Pick 3 sees the best 3, 4 or even 5 players all as academic prospects, they should be able to continue bidding to try and at least get one of them, right? Or is this limited?

Snoop Dog Knightmare

Emma Quayle explains it all in today's Age

 

[Old Spice]

How you explain Crocker. He Sounds like a Type Hine and Bucks would love.

Though with De Goey and Treloar. Don't we already have similar types?

Gee I like the look of that sample. Very smooth, Dal Santoesque movement and kicking and the marks up froward remind me a lot of the De Goey video last year.

 

[The Dawes]

Apologies if this has already been raised but was wondering what the bigfooty draft watchers thoughts are on Darcy Tucker?

Seems to have slipped down the pecking order significantly over the past 12 months, from being a highly touted potential top 5 pick to now, where some have him barely in the top 30.

He could even fall to pick 27.

Is he worth considering if he does get to our first pick?

 

[unplugged]

Emma Quayle explains it all in today's Age

I did have a quick look at that but didn't see the answer to my question. Maybe I didn't look hard enough!

 

[Kirby]

AFAIK as long as your pick is 'live' you can bid on any player you like. So yes, in theory, Melbourne could bid on every highly rated academy player if they wanted to, until a club refused to match. It will be interesting to see what happens this year, as GWS, Sydney and Brisbane have all painted themselves in to a corner by trading out of the first round for extra points. They've basically flagged their intentions, so other clubs can go in with confidence if they wish, and place an early bid knowing that the academy clubs will match. There's no way in hell any of them will refuse to match just so they can use a couple of extra late picks in the draft, so I can see clubs being willing to force them to pay overs in this system.

I think you'd still want to be really happy to land that player that you have bid on if they don't match. That limits its potential to be abused too much.

 

[Old Spice]

I feel like I understand the draft bidding system as good as reasonably possible, however, I've got one question I'm still unsure about.

Let's say Melbourne bid for Callum Mills at Pick 3. Sydney match it and jump ahead in the draft order with their points to take him with Pick 3.

Melbourne now go on to select Pick 4. Some people think this could be Curnow or whoever else. However, my question is this:

Seeing as though Melbourne already bid Pick 3 for Mills, can they now go and bid Pick 4 on Jacob Hopper from GWS, and force them to match this as well?

Then all of a sudden it has gone Carlton, Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and low and behold, Melbourne now have Pick 5!

On the above theory, could they then go and bid Pick 5 on Eric Hipwood and make Brisbane match? And so on?

So in short, is there a number of times a club can bid on players? If a club with Pick 3 sees the best 3, 4 or even 5 players all as academic prospects, they should be able to continue bidding to try and at least get one of them, right? Or is this limited?

Snoop Dog Knightmare

That's very interesting because under your scenario it would appear like a silly move by Melbourne to bid on one or more players because it simply pushes them back in the order. Don't think that's very flash if the bidding by opposition teams is intended to keep the academy teams honest.

 

[Apex36]

I think you'd still want to be really happy to land that player that you have bid on if they don't match. That limits its potential to be abused too much.

Maybe, but what's a club like GWS going to do? Pass on a top 10 prospect because they're going to use too many late picks to get him? Nah. The only prospects you'd have to be careful of are later ones like Himmelberg. Bid too early and run the risk of GWS passing with a type like him, because they won't want to go in to a points defecit next year. There's no way they or Sydney, or Brisbane will pass on Mills, Hopper, Kennedy, Keays or Hipwood, you can take that to the bank, because they wont get anything better with their late picks.

 

[Apex36]

That's very interesting because under your scenario it would appear like a silly move by Melbourne to bid on one or more players because it simply pushes them back in the order. Don't think that's very flash if the bidding by opposition teams is intended to keep the academy teams honest.

What does being pushed back in the order matter if you never had access to the kids taken ahead of you anyway?

 

[Old Spice]

I think you'd still want to be really happy to land that player that you have bid on if they don't match. That limits its potential to be abused too much.

The other thing is that if Melbourne, for example, think GWS will match their bid for Kennedy, then why would the Dees 'keep GWS honest' by bidding for Kennedy when it will just push them a spot back? The same logic applies further down the line. What team would want to make the early bid when it means GWS (or whoever) jumps into their spot?

 

[Old Spice]

What does being pushed back in the order matter if you never had access to the kids taken ahead of you anyway?

By MFC nominating someone like Kennedy at pick 3 they invite GWS to match it and then jump into pick 3 which pushes Melbourne to pick 4. If Melbourne don't nominate for Kennedy, then I presume they keep pick 3.

 

[Kirby]

The other thing is that if Melbourne, for example, think GWS will match their bid for Kennedy, then why would the Dees 'keep GWS honest' by bidding for Kennedy when it will just push them a spot back? The same logic applies further down the line. What team would want to make the early bid when it means GWS (or whoever) jumps into their spot?

I think Apex answered that in the post above yours.

 

[Old Spice]

Keeps it honest I guess.

 

[Apex36]

By MFC nominating someone like Kennedy at pick 3 they invite GWS to match it and then jump into pick 3 which pushes Melbourne to pick 4. If Melbourne don't nominate for Kennedy, then I presume they keep pick 3.

Once again, so what? It's not like having an arbitrary number changed from 3 to 4 changes the talent they have access to.

Oh noes! Our pick 3 was taken by GWS to get a player we couldn't get anyway! This changes everyth... Wait, it changes absolutely nothing...

 

[Pedro]

Don't get me wrong, I like the kid, and reckon he would be a solid project player in the second round, but talk of him going top 20 is just bizarre to me...

It happens a bit though doesn't it with the talls. Marchbank last year wasn't really considered a top 10 pick (except by those that matter I suppose). When we took Reid and Brown, Frawley and Everitt were taken a fair bit higher than expected. Being tall definately is a good start it seems, especially if you're reasonably mobile.

 

[unplugged]

That's very interesting because under your scenario it would appear like a silly move by Melbourne to bid on one or more players because it simply pushes them back in the order. Don't think that's very flash if the bidding by opposition teams is intended to keep the academy teams honest.

Not really. Their pick 3 will become 4 when they bid on Mills. If it then continues to become 5 or 6, it doesn't matter.

If, let's say they rate Charlie Curnow as the third best non-academy player behind Weitering and Schache, he'll still be there at 6 in that situation.

They'd only be stupid to bid on an academy player with pick 4 or 5 if they didn't genuinely rate them as the 4th or 5th best player in the draft, with risk that someone actually won't match.

Plus, any Melbourne draftee could do without the pressure that comes with being a top 5 pick

 

[Pedro]

Once again, so what? It's not like having an arbitrary number changed from 3 to 4 changes the talent they have access to.

Oh noes! Our pick 3 was taken by GWS to get a player we couldn't get anyway! This changes everyth... Wait, it changes absolutely nothing...

This is what I've been trying to get my head around. Our pick 27 will apparently drop down the order. Is that only because these academy players are added in? If thats the case, we really still have the same access to the available kids don't we? Perhaps what might change things is if somethiong really unexpected happens with the academy kids

 

[Old Spice]

Once again, so what? It's not like having an arbitrary number changed from 3 to 4 changes the talent they have access to.

Oh noes! Our pick 3 was taken by GWS to get a player we couldn't get anyway! This changes everyth... Wait, it changes absolutely nothing...

So no one else nominates these academy players because they know GWS have the points to match them and most likely will do so and therefore making an offer only pushes them down the draft order. What then happens with the accumulated points GWS have amassed if they take Kennedy with pick 8?

I'm guessing they are only transferable to academy players and if not used otherwise will just evapourate.

 

[Apex36]

This is what I've been trying to get my head around. Our pick 27 will apparently drop down the order. Is that only because these academy players are added in? If thats the case, we really still have the same access to the available kids don't we? Perhaps what might change things is if somethiong really unexpected happens with the academy kids

Correct. The number of the pick might change, but at the end of the day we would have exactly the same access to non-academy talent as we would have had if the academy players were all duds and only worth late picks. Being pushed back in the order means absolutely nothing, and I really can't understand why anyone would be upset over it.

 

[Old Spice]

Not really. Their pick 3 will become 4 when they bid on Mills. If it then continues to become 5 or 6, it doesn't matter.

If, let's say they rate Charlie Curnow as the third best non-academy player behind Weitering and Schache, he'll still be there at 6 in that situation.

They'd only be stupid to bid on an academy player with pick 4 or 5 if they didn't genuinely rate them as the 4th or 5th best player in the draft, with risk that someone actually won't match.

Plus, any Melbourne draftee could do without the pressure that comes with being a top 5 pick

My god, too much life admin. Thanks, trying to wrap the bonce around this stuff.

You step away from footy for ten minutes and it's more complicated than thermodynamics.

Some Asperger case will take this thermodynamics being more complicated than academy rules up, mark my words

 

[TradeDraft]

Maybe, but what's a club like GWS going to do? Pass on a top 10 prospect because they're going to use too many late picks to get him? Nah. The only prospects you'd have to be careful of are later ones like Himmelberg. Bid too early and run the risk of GWS passing with a type like him, because they won't want to go in to a points defecit next year. There's no way they or Sydney, or Brisbane will pass on Mills, Hopper, Kennedy, Keays or Hipwood, you can take that to the bank, because they wont get anything better with their late picks.

Well they are all top 20 Talents and unless you bid a Top 5 Pick on Hipwood or Keays

 

[Apex36]

So no one else nominates these academy players because they know GWS have the points to match them and most likely will do so and therefore making an offer only pushes them down the draft order. What then happens with the accumulated points GWS have amassed if they take Kennedy with pick 8?

I'm guessing they are only transferable to academy players and if not used otherwise will just evapourate.

Wha...? The whole reason that clubs will nominate these players early is because they know that the academy clubs will match. It means that the academy clubs will have to use more late picks for points, thus putting pressure on them to be able to match their later prospects without going in to defecit in 2016. With GWS for example, Himmelberg could go anywhere from late first, to early third round. If they have to spend points to get in to the top 5 with Kennedy and Hopper, it means that there's more chance that another club might be able to snare Himmelberg in the second round if they rate him highly enough.

Once again, what is your issue with being pushed down the draft order? It literally has zero impact on the talent that will be available to clubs. I'm really not sure why you keep going on about it? Accumulated points are just picks. If GWS dont use them all on Academy players they can either take a player late in the open draft if they have a free list spot, but given they're trying to reduce list sizes, I'd say that they'll just pass on them.

 

[Old Spice]

Wha...? The whole reason that clubs will nominate these players early is because they know that the academy clubs will match. It means that the academy clubs will have to use more late picks for points, thus putting pressure on them to be able to match their later prospects without going in to defecit in 2016. With GWS for example, Himmelberg could go anywhere from late first, to early third round. If they have to spend points to get in to the top 5 with Kennedy and Hopper, it means that there's more chance that another club might be able to snare Himmelberg in the second round if they rate him highly enough.

Once again, what is your issue with being pushed down the draft order? It literally has zero impact on the talent that will be available to clubs. I'm really not sure why you keep going on about it? Accumulated points are just picks. If GWS dont use them all on Academy players they can either take a player late in the open draft if they have a free list spot, but given they're trying to reduce list sizes, I'd say that they'll just pass on them.

I'm just trying to understand it hence the question marks at the end of my sentences. Take a chill pill.

 

[Crazy Tails]

I would be ok with it because if that is the need they identify then he is probably the best of those left who play that position. He is a relative late comer to the elite talent pathway so there is enormous upside and the comparisons to Marsh are fair. Marsh was a bit of a late comer as well and showed equally as impressive athletic traits and has subsequently developed rapidly into a senior player. Athletically both good but Moore is better in the air though whereas at junior level Marsh was better on the ground turning his opponent over. Moore to has wonderful speed and initial movement so he gets good separation on his defender which you want to see in a forward. With his leap and ball control in the air he has the potential to be pretty dominant. The issue with these young forwards though is how good are they at understanding leading patterns (timing, areas, creating space to lead back into, repeat leads etc). When scouts look at tall forwards they look closely at it. My query on Moore (along with his consistency of set shot kicking) is how much footy IQ he has around his leading patterns. If Hine and the development coaches think they can refine those two areas then absolutely he could be that selection. People talk about Himmelberg being in that range. I dont see a lot splitting them and I have seen a bit of them both.

Always interesting to me. Do you take a Moore because he has the athletic traits but still learning the game over an Allen who has the footy IQ but lacks the pace. Clubs usually go the former and players like Allen have to go the harder way. James Podsially was that player!

Regarding him playing back. I would be surprised if we took him as a back given the talent we have there but he has the traits to do it.

Also remember we very nearly took him last year. Collingwood and the Swans were all over him but it was decided another TAC year would be best. It would have to be #27 I think as with clubs like Freo, North, Melbourne and one or two others it was pretty clear to me when doing my phantom draft they would be all over him from about 30 or so onwards.

Thanks Snoop Dog great analysis.

 

[unplugged]

Just to clarify for anyone playing at home. We currently have Pick 27, which means we have access to the 27th best non-academy player available.

Whether we take that player at 27 or 31 or 32 or whatever it is, doesn't make a difference. The only annoying thing about it is when people only do a "top 30" phantom draft!

(At least I think that's right!)

 

[TradeDraft]

Just to clarify for anyone playing at home. We currently have Pick 27, which means we have access to the 27th best non-academy player available.

Whether we take that player at 27 or 31 or 32 or whatever it is, doesn't make a difference. The only annoying thing about it is when people only do a "top 30" phantom draft!

(At least I think that's right!)

Does make it bloody hard to do a Phantom Draft