Pick Swap Completed

[Holden Hillbilly]

No.

We now have 12, 16, 18, 52, 55, 66.

The other 3 picks have been forfeited.

Once Mead is bid on we will get 2 picks at the very end of the draft, as we have 2 vacancies left, however as Parker has said, we won't be using them.

we won't be using them UNLESS some player amazingly slips through to pick 80 or whatever.

 

[Malibu#27]

No.

We now have 12, 16, 18, 52, 55, 66.

The other 3 picks have been forfeited.

Once Mead is bid on we will get 2 picks at the very end of the draft, as we have 2 vacancies left, however as Parker has said, we won't be using them.

Why would they be forfeited. I can’t see any rule and the afl website lists them still.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Why would they be forfeited. I can’t see any rule and the afl website lists them still.

Noone can say for sure given how poorly the AFL communicate the rules and how fluidly they adjudicate them.

People claiming absolute knowledge on either side are guessing.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Malibu#27]

Noone can say for sure given how poorly the AFL communicate the rules and how fluidly they adjudicate them.

People claiming absolute knowledge on either side are guessing.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

That doesn’t surprise me. I’ve found for the best part of a decade that the afl laws have been a dogs breakfast and poorly written.

I asked the question because I remember some conversation last year about relaxing some rule about clubs needing to use picks or something and was wondering if it may have been related ......

 

[Janus]

6.6 Determination for the National Draft Bidding System

(a) The General Counsel may make a Determination for the National Draft Bidding System.

(b) The Determination shall provide a mechanism by which relevant Clubs have the right to select the following Players on a priority basis during the National Draft Selection Meeting:

(i) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 8 (Father-Son Rule); and
(ii) Players eligible to be included on the Primary List of a Club under Rule 14 (Club Academies).

(c) Without limitation, the Determination may concern:

(i) the extent, degree or scope of Club selection rights;
(ii) the process for the exercise of Club selection rights;
(iii) the relative value of draft selections;
(iv) the interaction between the exercise of Club selection rights and future National Draft Selection Meetings
(v) any other matter the General Counsel deems fit.

(d) The Determination must be complied with at all times.


Basically, it's saying the AFL can make up the rules as it goes along when it comes to bidding criteria. Which explains why they can say they've closed a loophole in that Sydney exploited without actually doing anything.

 

[JUSTWORK]

Are you just rolling between multiple threads and hitting ‘copy’, then ‘paste’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More or less having the same argument in multiple spots.

 

[Malibu#27]

Noone can say for sure given how poorly the AFL communicate the rules and how fluidly they adjudicate them.

People claiming absolute knowledge on either side are guessing.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

So I just found a Riley Beveridge article on AFL.com which describes a bid on green which would see gws trade out 5 picks that carry points and still be in deficit. In doing so, those picks get moved to back of draft.
In that logic we could use 5 (or more) picks worth of points on mead / so long as the old rule about not holding more picks than you need was removed.

 

[Coobk001]

Why would they be forfeited. I can’t see any rule and the afl website lists them still.

Noone can say for sure given how poorly the AFL communicate the rules and how fluidly they adjudicate them.

People claiming absolute knowledge on either side are guessing.

It's based on the below.

No more hidden picks: AFL alters the draft bidding system

Northern clubs will no longer be able to activate "hidden picks" during the draft in order to access academy players.

www.theage.com.au

It's exactly what I've been unhappy at with that last trade we did. I understand the basis of our last trade, but it just didn't benefit us enough. We should be looking to move picks 67, 68 and 72 into next year realistically and not just waste them.

Here's an article on it.

Clubs will still have a leeway of two picks, given they are allowed to finish the off-season with a primary list of 38-40 players.

Under the change, clubs that need to use multiple picks to match a bid for one of their players will be given a new pick or picks at the back of the draft.



As per the article here. 6 list spots = 6 picks.

If we use all the points of those picks our next picks are added at the back of the draft.

Basically the key is picks 67, 68 and 72 would appear to be gone now that we haven't traded them out prior to the deadline

 

[Malibu#27]

It's based on the below.



Clubs will still have a leeway of two picks, given they are allowed to finish the off-season with a primary list of 38-40 players.

Under the change, clubs that need to use multiple picks to match a bid for one of their players will be given a new pick or picks at the back of the draft.



As per the article here. 6 list spots = 6 picks.

If we use all the points of those picks our next picks are added at the back of the draft.

Basically the key is picks 67, 68 and 72 would appear to be gone now that we haven't traded them out prior to the deadline

Interesting. I note that article is a few years old, so perhaps the never ending rule changes redacted it otherwise you would appear correct.

If the rule had been changed again in all likelihood it would be tied to future pick trading or live pick trading.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

I thought we already had 6 spots before we delisted woodcock and grundy?

Am I just being smooth brained?

 

[GremioPower]

The AFL website still says we have picks 12, 16, 18, 52, 55, 66, 67, 68, 72, 86.

Indicative draft order: Your club's picks as they stand

Check out the latest indicative draft order as the Telstra AFL Trade and Free Agency periods shape each club's list

www.afl.com.au

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The AFL website still says we have picks 12, 16, 18, 52, 55, 66, 67, 68, 72, 86.

Indicative draft order: Your club's picks as they stand

Check out the latest indicative draft order as the Telstra AFL Trade and Free Agency periods shape each club's list

www.afl.com.au

The article is from before the close out of the pick trading period. We had those picks available to trade. The difference is you only get to take as many picks as you have available list spots into the draft.

 

[Malibu#27]

The article is from before the close out of the pick trading period. We had those picks available to trade. The difference is you only get to take as many picks as you have available list spots into the draft.

Will Ladhams and Lienert still be ‘officially’ upgraded to main list via our last draft picks as used to be the case?

A Club may apply to the AFL to transfer a Player or Players from its Rookie List onto its Primary List:
(i) on the day when its Primary List is lodged with the AFL prior to the National Draft Selection Meeting under Rule 6.1 by lodging with the AFL the form prescribed in Schedule 1 as Form 33. In which case, the Club shall forfeit its last selection or, if more than one player, its last and each previous draft selection at the National AFL Draft Selection meeting.

 

[Young Gun #6]

It's based on the below.



Clubs will still have a leeway of two picks, given they are allowed to finish the off-season with a primary list of 38-40 players.

Under the change, clubs that need to use multiple picks to match a bid for one of their players will be given a new pick or picks at the back of the draft.



As per the article here. 6 list spots = 6 picks.

If we use all the points of those picks our next picks are added at the back of the draft.

Basically the key is picks 67, 68 and 72 would appear to be gone now that we haven't traded them out prior to the deadline

So why did we trade those picks in?

I guess we may have tried to move them but there were no clubs willing to take them for future 4th’s.

Knowing our club, there’s a good chance they didn’t even factor this in or weren’t aware we’d lose them tbh.

Alternatively, a few token late picks in trades were acquired to justify trades to the fans, and have the posters on here that everyone knows just tow the company line on whatever the club does can sprout what a wonderful job the club and recruiters are doing.

 

[Malibu#27]

Have you taken into account Ladhams and Lienert being upgraded?

I think they get officially upgraded on the night with our last two picks.

 

[Kiss from a Rozee]

Have you taken into account Ladhams and Lienert being upgraded?

I did not but we’d still have 8 draft picks right?

Also I had forgotten we are going to upgrade Lienert, which seems like a ridiculous decision. He’d have to be what? 12th in line for a game?

I mean he has potential, but I don’t see any need to upgrade him.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I think they get officially upgraded on the night with our last two picks.

I read they were added to the list in the first list lodgement. But I haven't seen the list.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It's based on the below.



Clubs will still have a leeway of two picks, given they are allowed to finish the off-season with a primary list of 38-40 players.

Under the change, clubs that need to use multiple picks to match a bid for one of their players will be given a new pick or picks at the back of the draft.



As per the article here. 6 list spots = 6 picks.

If we use all the points of those picks our next picks are added at the back of the draft.

Basically the key is picks 67, 68 and 72 would appear to be gone now that we haven't traded them out prior to the deadline

I guess then we leave ourselves some room to pick up a DFA post-draft we might have an agreement with but didn't add to the list because we needed the pick flexibility. For example Matthew Allen from the Eagles.

Maybe even sift through the PSD.

 

[Coobk001]

Interesting. I note that article is a few years old, so perhaps the never ending rule changes redacted it otherwise you would appear correct.

If the rule had been changed again in all likelihood it would be tied to future pick trading or live pick trading.

In the Advertiser podcast Parker was in he does talk about why we pushed Woodcock and Grundy to the rookie list and he mentions it is because of this rule, so that we have 6 list spots and can therefore take 6 picks to the draft.

I guess technically there could be a loophole around the upgrades of Lienert and Ladhams meaning we have 8 picks, and could just upgrade them after we've used all our points. However, my understanding was that the rookie upgrades aren't officially a 'pick' any more like they used to be (ie. If you look at Wikipedia the rookie upgrades are in a separate table to the draft numbers), and I also thought we had to lodge them before the last list lodgement date prior to the draft. So I would've thought we only have the 6 picks. I'm not 100% certain on all that though, I just recall over the last few years that's how it has gone.

 

[yepits2020]

No.

We now have 12, 16, 18, 52, 55, 66.

The other 3 picks have been forfeited.

Once Mead is bid on we will get 2 picks at the very end of the draft, as we have 2 vacancies left, however as Parker has said, we won't be using them.

Possibly use up one more spot for Burgoyne depending on whether there is a bid for him, otherwise he is a rookie.

 

[Coobk001]

Possibly use up one more spot for Burgoyne depending on whether there is a bid for him, otherwise he is a rookie.

You've obviously missed yesterday's posts. We can't match a bid for Burgoyne, we do not appear to have nominated him for FS for the national draft.

If we have nominated him by stealth he must be put on the main list, he can be put on the rookie list.

 

[1954]

I did not but we’d still have 8 draft picks right?

Also I had forgotten we are going to upgrade Lienert, which seems like a ridiculous decision. He’d have to be what? 12th in line for a game?

I mean he has potential, but I don’t see any need to upgrade him.

Agreed re Lienert, he would probably be handy in a line up that contained a couple of dominant key defenders, but as we don't have any of them he could be exposed, particularly against the stronger marking teams.

 

[yepits2020]

You've obviously missed yesterday's posts. We can't match a bid for Burgoyne, we do not appear to have nominated him for FS for the national draft.

If we have nominated him by stealth he must be put on the main list, he can be put on the rookie list.

We have nominated him.

 

[Coobk001]

We have nominated him.

Ok, your post just said that he could become a rookie, but if this is true, then he must be put on our main list, he can't become a rookie. However there's no evidence of this at the moment, and Parker himself has said we would take him as a rookie, which means we haven't. So there's a lot of mixed messages. Such as this article....

Trent Burgoyne

afl.draftcentral.com.au

From AFL Draft Central:

"Port has nominated him as a possible rookie selection which means it cannot match in the National Draft if there is an unlikely bid, though it can take him without a challenge in the rookie draft."

If he is nominated he will join the main list. If he is only going to be nominated for the rookie draft, then we can't match national draft bids, but will get him automatically if no one selects him in the draft.

 

[Schulzenfest]

An alternative is to use the #18 pick which could well fall to a #20 on Mead then take the surplus into the Draft. Again I assume that the AFL would apply something they are not good at- logic, and credit the surplus 353 points to one of our lower picks thus advancing us up the order.

Hahaha you *in wot m8

If Geoff Parker did this on Day 1 of the draft I'd be interested to see who takes our picks on Day 2 of the draft after Parker gets immediately sacked.