Strategy Rule that limits draft picks to list spots - implications of live trading

[Suma Magic]

Before live trading came in, each club's live picks was limited by the number of list spots they had. The purpose of this is to stop teams with academy or f/s players from using heaps of crap picks to match bids.

e.g. if a team had 34 contracted players then they could have 6 picks in the draft. They could use 4-6 picks in the draft, as you can have 38-40 players on your senior list. So if a team wanted 38 on the senior list, they could (for example) pay for an Academy player with 3 picks, and use their other 3 picks to pick up 3 more players.

With live trading the AFL has two options:
1. allow clubs to use live trading to bring in more picks than they have list spots (as the current rule could arguably only apply to prior to the start of the draft)
2. limit the number of picks a team can use on draft to the number of spare list spots available at the start of draft night (e.g. if they have 34 players they must use 4-6 picks).

The second option fits with the policy intent, although if the AFL doesn't make this clear then it may be hard for them to stop clubs from trading picks on draft night for a raft of lower selections.

 

[Suma Magic]

An example of the impact of the two options.

The swans have picks 26, 33, 38, 39 and 40. So they must have 3-5 list spots to fill.

They use 26 and 33 to pay for Blakely after a bid at pick 7. This leaves them with 3 picks and 2-4 players to draft.

Option 1
They can trade picks as they like. They trade 38, 39 and 40 for 18 from the pies. After drafting at 18, they have 1-3 players to draft. They trade a future late pick for a late pick in the draft and use that for their last selection. They can also select a 39th or 40th player if they want.

Option 2
The swans have less flexibility after drafting Blakely. They can't do that pies trade. However they can trade 2 of the picks for a higher pick and then take a player with a lower pick.

Under option 2, if the swans had to use 3 picks for Blakely (unlikely), this would leave them locked into using their last two picks (which they could trade for two other picks) to fill the last two spots on their list, and would be locked into 38 players on their senior list in 2018.

 

[eastfreo75]

An example of the impact of the two options.

The swans have picks 26, 33, 38, 39 and 40. So they must have 3-5 list spots to fill.

They use 26 and 33 to pay for Blakely after a bid at pick 7. This leaves them with 3 picks and 2-4 players to draft.

Option 1
They can trade picks as they like. They trade 38, 39 and 40 for 18 from the pies. After drafting at 18, they have 1-3 players to draft. They trade a future late pick for a late pick in the draft and use that for their last selection. They can also select a 39th or 40th player if they want.

Option 2
The swans have less flexibility after drafting Blakely. They can't do that pies trade. However they can trade 2 of the picks for a higher pick and then take a player with a lower pick.

Under option 2, if the swans had to use 3 picks for Blakely (unlikely), this would leave them locked into using their last two picks (which they could trade for two other picks) to fill the last two spots on their list, and would be locked into 38 players on their senior list in 2018.

Makes the draft very different to live trading in the NBA or NFL.

Say Collingwood trade out pick 18 to the Lions, then a bid comes at 14. Then they trade their 2019 first round to the Swans for picks 38,39, 40.

 

[Mitchell54]

I don’t think there should be a limit on how many picks they use. I reckon they need to change the points index so the first round picks are worth more than a couple pick 40 picks

 

[barrackers]

An example of the impact of the two options.

The swans have picks 26, 33, 38, 39 and 40. So they must have 3-5 list spots to fill.

They use 26 and 33 to pay for Blakely after a bid at pick 7. This leaves them with 3 picks and 2-4 players to draft.

Under current rules they would get given an additional pick at the end of the draft, so they always have the same number of picks as spots.

Option 1
They can trade picks as they like. They trade 38, 39 and 40 for 18 from the pies. After drafting at 18, they have 1-3 players to draft. They trade a future late pick for a late pick in the draft and use that for their last selection. They can also select a 39th or 40th player if they want.

This is one of the big advantages for sides with high f/s and zone players. Match the bid and then trade back into the draft. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Such a trade would leave Collingwood with 2 more picks than list spots, so I imagine a couple of late picks would need to go back to Sydney. Basically if a side trades 3 picks out they need to receive 3 back and vice versa.

Obviously it would be easier or more dynamic without the current restriction, but it's workable as it.

 

[Suma Magic]

Under current rules they would get given an additional pick at the end of the draft, so they always have the same number of picks as spots.

Source?

 

[cdcanman]

Source?

I'm pretty sure he is right.
They would also have the option of signing delisted FA's or selecting players through the preseason draft wouldn't they?
Does the preseason draft still exist??? IDK

 

[Suma Magic]

I'm pretty sure he is right.
They would also have the option of signing delisted FA's or selecting players through the preseason draft wouldn't they?
Does the preseason draft still exist??? IDK

Yeah it makes sense I’m just looking for any sources on all this.

 

[boncer34]

I don’t think there should be a limit on how many picks they use. I reckon they need to change the points index so the first round picks are worth more than a couple pick 40 picks

40 and 41 equal 841 points.

Equivalent to pick 23.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don’t think there should be a limit on how many picks they use. I reckon they need to change the points index so the first round picks are worth more than a couple pick 40 picks

Agree 100%. If they adjusted the index based on trades over the last few years then lower picks would definitely have less value.

 

[barrackers]

Source?

This document shows picks sliding back and slotting in depending on the points left over.

http://m.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

While it doesn’t show an example with zero points or a points deficit it wouldn’t make sense if clubs couldn’t fill their lists.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Under current rules they would get given an additional pick at the end of the draft, so they always have the same number of picks as spots.


Essentially any draft pick you trade out lets the next round pick come in. So you have no limit to the number of picks, except list spots. Theoretically a team could trade it first 15 round picks, and use round 16, 17 and 18 picks. Why you'd do that I have no idea.

But if you wanted to you could trade out of this year's draft into next year's, and then just have to have the last picks in the main draft. Doesn't happen. But it could.

 

[Mitchell54]

40 and 41 equal 841 points.

Equivalent to pick 23.

didnt check the exact point value but the point is Sydnye are able to match a bid for Blakey in and around pick 5 with a couple 2nd round picks

 

[Stamos]

I wonder how this goes the other way, if a club live trades in extra picks either with a future pick, or trading down a higher pick for multiples, do you then lose the points of you last pick/s? The pick itself wouldn't matter, but the points might in matching a F/S bid.