Moved Thread The AFL should allow teams to trade points instead of picks

[HairyO]

Rather than points the AFL should use delicious choc chip cookies. Gold Coast would have over 6000 cookies. Imagine the temptation over having so much sweet choccy goodness vs topping up with players who are going to leave after 2 years.

The only time points matter is for father son bidding. Making them all points is dumb.

 

[Chiz]

I'm a fan. It would make the whole free agency compensation a lot more transparent. Band 1=2000 points Band 2=1500 points etc (may have got scale wrong. No more Frawley sleight of hand from the AFL.

One of the problems with free agency compensation is that teams are penalised heaviest if they are have picks directly after compensation. So, for example, if you hold pick 10, and the AFL gives pick 10 and 11 as compensation, you get shifted to pick 12, while the holder of pick 9 is not penalised. If the AFL gave out, say 1800 points of free agency compensation, then one option would be that the points balance of each team is reduced by 100 to ensure total points are balanced. In this way, no team is unfairly penalised.

 

[Chiz]

Would you allow carry over points?

I think if you allow points to be brought forward then it makes sense to allow carry-over points. But you would want to set up in such a way that carry-over points are minimised - e.g. you could allocate points based on the first three rounds only, distribute picks until all points are depleted (or teams have passed), then distribute remaining picks on a reverse-order-of-finish basis. Occasionally you would get a team with only two lives picks that may be able to carry over points.

 

[Chiz]

Wouldn’t that push everyone else’s picks back, thus reducing everyone else’s points?

Under the proposed system there would be no 'pushing back', only re-distribution of picks to the same value. No club can lose points as a result of a trade between two different clubs.

 

[Chiz]

I don't think I have misunderstood. You seem to think that because the points are the same it works out, but a first rounder isn't equal to a second rounder and a bunch of thirds that make up the same points. The GC example is case in point of a team that would end up significantly better as a result of your system; you say that it balances out but IMO other teams are being penalised early draft picks especially whilst every team slides back in the draft because GC dealt with a club on a deal that has nothing to do with them which is ridiculous IMO and doesn't work out. GC would take your system every day of the week because somehow they come out with 1 and 6. It's unfair and just because the points are the same doesn't make it the same in reality.

800 points is not equivalent to 400 + 400, because 800 carries a ticket in the queue for a player of your choice, and you might not want 2 players later in the queue.

So what you're saying is that the AFL's points system does not reflect the relative value clubs place on different picks?

Converting points to picks to players becomes messy if you cut out the picks.

Here is a trade from last year - tell me this is not messy?



Under the proposed system, Brisbane could have traded Hanley directly to Gold Coast for about 1200 points without the need for Port Adelaide to get involved. Far less messy...

I have also raised the issue of this system restricting player movements in a way that I would be interested to see an opinion on.

It wouldn't restrict player movement at all. All clubs know exactly what they are trading and what points entail. What the system would do, however, is make it easier for deals to get done when it is difficult for two clubs to find the right balance of picks to trade.

 

[Andre]

I’ve said similar to the OP in the past, as have others. It’s the next logical step. The trade week impasses of team A having picks worth 1000 points and 1400 points and team B having a player they both agree is worth 1200, to spend a week going round with team B saying they won’t accept the 1000 point pick and team A saying they won’t pay the 1400 point pick, trying to find some other picks to swap, by jamming in other clubs would go.

I’d say though the missing step in this thread though is at the draft there is no pick order, there is a nomination order. It’d work by the team with the most points left would open a points bid on a player they want. So if there’s a clear no. 1 a team may open with an initial bid of, say 1500 points, any other team could then bid higher. It’d be an auction, so teams can re-bid a higher total to stay in the hunt. Academy and Father-sons those clubs have those ‘bonus points’ available to use. So they’d still be st an advantage, but not so much as now, if they finished high on the ladder and other clubs really want those players.

So there’s no longer a guarantee the best player goes to the bottom club. They’re in the box seat, but they may decide to get two very good players, rather then forced to spend through the nose for one that’s excellent.

Drafts would be more interesting as clubs would have a chance at players they thought they wouldn’t. And there’d bound to be two clubs get in a bidding war over a player and one ends up paying too much. On the flip side, there’d be a few players club expected to pay more for, that they get for a bargain.

 

[juss]

Seems like it would be quite complex in practice, and could be exploited by just ammassing points for scrap heap players then converting those to high draft picks.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

On face value seems to make sense. Better than the lottery where at the moment player x is worth ‘a second rounder’ which has an 18 pick variation. Would assist in trades where club x feels a player is worth pick 10-15 but destination club has pick 5 and 23 for example.

Makes FA more transparent.

Takes away the lottery of future picks which could actually vary by up to 18 places depending on the other club’s future finishing position. Imagine trading pick with Richmond last year thinking they’d be somewhere around 7th to 10th. You’ve just lost several positions in the order.

Good thinking, good thread.

 

[HolyRioli]

So, for interest's sake, I've gone and found where each club would stand at the moment were this implemented.

The biggest impact is, as expected, in the first round:

Brisbane:
Currently have: 1, 12, 18, 41, 73.
Would change to: 2, 5, 24, 42, 77

Upgrades second pick significantly, downgrades 3rd pick a little.

Gold Coast:
Currently have: 2, 19, 22, 24, 34, 37, 74
Would change to: 1, 6, 22, 49, 55, 86

Upgrades first pick to pick 1, second pick significantly, 3rd pick remains unchanged. 4th, 5th, 6th picks slide. More elite talent, though less talent depth coming in. Probably better in a shallow draft like this year, maybe less beneficial in a deep draft such as next year (supposedly)

St Kilda:
Currently have: 7, 8, 43, 57, 61, 89
Would change to: 3, 19, 35, 52, 84

Big upgrade on first pick, however second pick slides a lot. Out of interest, pick 3 + pick 19 = 3182 points, picks 7+8 = 3195, so very close to even. Conversely to GC, this is probably OK in a deep draft like next year, however in a shallow draft you'd prefer the two top 10 picks.

Richmond:
Currently have: 15, 16, 50, 52, 71
Would change to: 9, 28, 39, 65, 69

Upgrades first and third picks significantly, at a cost to the second pick.

The rest of the clubs have minor shuffling, but nothing terribly impactful.

The other thing I noticed is that each club would go into a points deficit heading into next season (nothing too significant, the highest is 127 points, equivalent to pick 62ish) in an effort to dole out selections as far as pick 73.

 

[TheKITC]

So what you're saying is that the AFL's points system does not reflect the relative value clubs place on different picks?

I think the points system has it's place when bidding on father son's and academy selections, but as a whole a quantifiable draft pick will be worth more or less to a club based on their needs. It would be like saying to someone "well you had a ferrari but we have now given you 3 family cars worth the same as that ferrari so it's all equal and balances out for you" or vice versa for the family. A quantifiable draft pick that can be traded between two or more clubs is an asset that can moved around. A fluid number of points becomes better or worse depending on your original situation (points).

I notice you don't seem to want to address how shuffling other clubs back in the draft is inequitable when they have had nothing to do with the dealings of other clubs. A massive sticking point for mine.

Here is a trade from last year - tell me this is not messy?

Under the proposed system, Brisbane could have traded Hanley directly to Gold Coast for about 1200 points without the need for Port Adelaide to get involved. Far less messy...

I'd admit it is complicated, but three teams got together and a deal was reached, just because it appears 'messy' we have to change the system? Again, other teams would be penalised when they are not even involved. The Jack Watts scenario posted earlier suggests a team could give Melbourne the value to get them pick 19 by trading the value of a 2nd and a late 3rd which is completely inequitable because Watts isn't worth 19 but they traded two assets that were of less or no use to said team to manipulate an outcome, at the expense of other clubs around that selection. Doesn't work for me.

It wouldn't restrict player movement at all. All clubs know exactly what they are trading and what points entail. What the system would do, however, is make it easier for deals to get done when it is difficult for two clubs to find the right balance of picks to trade.

It makes it easier for some teams to get deals done in certain circumstances. Hawthorn is a great example this year, starting from such a low base. Let's say they traded Paul Puopolo this year and get a 2nd round draft pick for him which they need to get back into the draft a bit earlier. Under your system, 'x' amount of points equivlent to this draft pick are added to their paltry total which may only improve their selections marginally, coming from such a low base with other teams having significantly more points to keep picking before them.

Hawthorn under this circumstance would be far less likely to entertain a trade as it really doesn't benefit them and the player movement that would have happened now ceases to occur.

We also had a situation last year where Carlton decided to trade an earlier selection for a handful of slightly later selections because it was of more benefit to them to add some talent in around the area they wanted to. These types of deals would only add or subtract value from a teams selections and not give them the ability or flexibility to do deals like this is order to draft and shape their list as they see fit. If these later selections were worth the same as the earlier selection Carlton gave on a points value, win-win trades (helped the O'meara trade get through) like this couldn't and won't occur. Likewise when we gave up 21 and 22 for 10 a couple of years ago. 2 picks in the second were of more benefit to the Dogs and a higher selection better for us; under the points system these deals become convoluted and probably don't happen. I think your system is far messier and whilst it has its pros, has too many cons.

 

[Chiz]

Seems like it would be quite complex in practice, and could be exploited by just ammassing points for scrap heap players then converting those to high draft picks.

Not sure how teams would be able to do it - if you're trading scrap heap players you're not going to get many points for them...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I like the idea of eliminating draft picks altogether and holding a point auction for each player. Instead of doing them consecutively though, I'd do them all concurrently, listed on a computer screen, over a period of 2 hours. I think it'd be more entertaining, would look a bit like the ASX board with its constant price changes.

The auction idea is a better use of points IMO because it avoids the issue of trades and compensation directly disadvantaging certain teams regarding how high their draft picks are.

 

[Chiz]

So, for interest's sake, I've gone and found where each club would stand at the moment were this implemented.

The biggest impact is, as expected, in the first round:

Brisbane:
Currently have: 1, 12, 18, 41, 73.
Would change to: 2, 5, 24, 42, 77

Upgrades second pick significantly, downgrades 3rd pick a little.

Gold Coast:
Currently have: 2, 19, 22, 24, 34, 37, 74
Would change to: 1, 6, 22, 49, 55, 86

Upgrades first pick to pick 1, second pick significantly, 3rd pick remains unchanged. 4th, 5th, 6th picks slide. More elite talent, though less talent depth coming in. Probably better in a shallow draft like this year, maybe less beneficial in a deep draft such as next year (supposedly)

St Kilda:
Currently have: 7, 8, 43, 57, 61, 89
Would change to: 3, 19, 35, 52, 84

Big upgrade on first pick, however second pick slides a lot. Out of interest, pick 3 + pick 19 = 3182 points, picks 7+8 = 3195, so very close to even. Conversely to GC, this is probably OK in a deep draft like next year, however in a shallow draft you'd prefer the two top 10 picks.

Richmond:
Currently have: 15, 16, 50, 52, 71
Would change to: 9, 28, 39, 65, 69

Upgrades first and third picks significantly, at a cost to the second pick.

The rest of the clubs have minor shuffling, but nothing terribly impactful.

The other thing I noticed is that each club would go into a points deficit heading into next season (nothing too significant, the highest is 127 points, equivalent to pick 62ish) in an effort to dole out selections as far as pick 73.

Looks consistent with my own workings.

On the points deficit, you could have them carry over (or bring forward points from next season), or otherwise cancel small deficits.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[1990crow]

I really like this idea. Say Adelaide have pick 15 next year, Melbournes first (12?) and pick 33 we could cash them into the AFL and trade them to Gc for Pick 2 and then GC get pick 3 with our points. Allowing us to take Lukosius or Rankine.

 

[HolyRioli]

Looks consistent with my own workings.

On the points deficit, you could have them carry over (or bring forward points from next season), or otherwise cancel small deficits.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I would think carryover. It wouldn't have a huge deficit. By the same token, if a team only makes it's minimum 3 selections and has any left over points, they could carry over as well.

For example, Richmond.
Has picks 9, 28, 39, 65, 69, and a current deficit of -118.

If they only made 3 selections, they would be able to carry over their points value of picks 65 (90 points) and 69 (49 points).
That would see them head into next year's draft with a net 21 point carryover.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The problem with a points bidding system is you’ll get wild fluctuations, and bidding wars. It’s more random and prone to clubs having really good or really bad drafts.

I don't see how this is a problem. Wild fluctuations and bidding wars are simply the market in action. It's a much better reflection of how much clubs value certain players than a draft.

Plus, this way clubs are more responsible for their own success or failure. They can't just claim they were dealt a bad hand because the teams drafting above them selected the players they wanted.

 

[HolyRioli]

I really like this idea. Say Adelaide have pick 15 next year, Melbournes first (12?) and pick 33 we could cash them into the AFL and trade them to Gc for Pick 2 and then GC get pick 3 with our points. Allowing us to take Lukosius or Rankine.

Not quite the way I read it. There's no "cashing in" with the AFL - you'd need to find a club to cash this year into next year with.

So in your scenario, you'd have pick 15ish next year (1112 points).

If you could find a club willing to sell ~2000 points of next years draft for this year, then you'd get where I think you're trying to.

Under this system, Adelaide currently has picks 16, 36 and 51, worth 1376 points. So I'd suggest you'll fall short of getting the 2000 points required to get pick 1, and would end up around pick 3, plus whatever points values your 2nd and 3rd point picks grant you.

Additionally, you wouldn't guarentee you'd end up there. Other clubs could look at a similar strategy.

 

[1990crow]

Not quite the way I read it. There's no "cashing in" with the AFL - you'd need to find a club to cash this year into next year with.

So in your scenario, you'd have pick 15ish next year (1112 points).

If you could find a club willing to sell ~2000 points of next years draft for this year, then you'd get where I think you're trying to.

Under this system, Adelaide currently has picks 16, 36 and 51, worth 1376 points. So I'd suggest you'll fall short of getting the 2000 points required to get pick 1, and would end up around pick 3, plus whatever points values your 2nd and 3rd point picks grant you.

Additionally, you wouldn't guarentee you'd end up there. Other clubs could look at a similar strategy.

Melbournes pick 12 next year for Lever.

 

[Chiz]

I think the points system has it's place when bidding on father son's and academy selections, but as a whole a quantifiable draft pick will be worth more or less to a club based on their needs. It would be like saying to someone "well you had a ferrari but we have now given you 3 family cars worth the same as that ferrari so it's all equal and balances out for you" or vice versa for the family. A quantifiable draft pick that can be traded between two or more clubs is an asset that can moved around. A fluid number of points becomes better or worse depending on your original situation (points).

Teams are allocated points at the end of the season according to ladder position - I just used the indicative draft order to work this out. So it is wrong to say that you're taking away with one hand and giving with another - it is just a different (and better) way of allocating picks.

And points are clearly more quantifiable than draft picks...

I notice you don't seem to want to address how shuffling other clubs back in the draft is inequitable when they have had nothing to do with the dealings of other clubs. A massive sticking point for mine.

Again, there is no shuffling - it is a different allocation system. The draft picks you are allocated are always equal in value to the points you have, regardless of the trading of other teams.

I'd admit it is complicated, but three teams got together and a deal was reached, just because it appears 'messy' we have to change the system?

Not what I said - was just pointing out that the current system is messier.

Again, other teams would be penalised when they are not even involved. The Jack Watts scenario posted earlier suggests a team could give Melbourne the value to get them pick 19 by trading the value of a 2nd and a late 3rd which is completely inequitable because Watts isn't worth 19 but they traded two assets that were of less or no use to said team to manipulate an outcome, at the expense of other clubs around that selection. Doesn't work for me.

This example wasn't quite right - there is no trading of draft picks for players under the proposed system, because no team has draft picks to trade, only points. As I've said, it is much harder to manipulate an outcome under the proposed system.

It makes it easier for some teams to get deals done in certain circumstances. Hawthorn is a great example this year, starting from such a low base. Let's say they traded Paul Puopolo this year and get a 2nd round draft pick for him which they need to get back into the draft a bit earlier. Under your system, 'x' amount of points equivlent to this draft pick are added to their paltry total which may only improve their selections marginally, coming from such a low base with other teams having significantly more points to keep picking before them.

Under my system Hawthorn have picks 32 and 45 (pretty similar to what they actually have). If they traded for a second-round equivalent then their first pick would probably move up to the early 20s, and the second would shift down a bit - a pretty similar outcome.

We also had a situation last year where Carlton decided to trade an earlier selection for a handful of slightly later selections because it was of more benefit to them to add some talent in around the area they wanted to. These types of deals would only add or subtract value from a teams selections and not give them the ability or flexibility to do deals like this is order to draft and shape their list as they see fit. If these later selections were worth the same as the earlier selection Carlton gave on a points value, win-win trades (helped the O'meara trade get through) like this couldn't and won't occur. Likewise when we gave up 21 and 22 for 10 a couple of years ago. 2 picks in the second were of more benefit to the Dogs and a higher selection better for us; under the points system these deals become convoluted and probably don't happen. I think your system is far messier and whilst it has its pros, has too many cons.

I noted in the OP that clubs could choose to exchange picks after the trade period. Alternatively, an auction system would achieve the same result.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[TommyD13]

Good idea in principle and have no doubt it would work practically, but I just feel we need to wait before we make such a drastic change to the system. Let the current system get settled in my opinion and then fine tune it

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

Here is a trade from last year - tell me this is not messy?

View attachment 426081

Under the proposed system, Brisbane could have traded Hanley directly to Gold Coast for about 1200 points without the need for Port Adelaide to get involved. Far less messy..e.

You’re still talking points.

Once you convert those points into draft picks by bidding on U18yos that’s when issues arise.

You have to spend your cash, it’s no good sitting in your bank account...

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

I don't see how this is a problem. Wild fluctuations and bidding wars are simply the market in action. It's a much better reflection of how much clubs value certain players than a draft.

Plus, this way clubs are more responsible for their own success or failure. They can't just claim they were dealt a bad hand because the teams drafting above them selected the players they wanted.

It would be interesting to see how it would work.

But imagine if the premiership team, say Richmond this year, bid everything on Pick 1 and got the best kid in the land?

Or what would probably happen is he wooden spoon team would be forced into putting all their eggs in one basket to get the #1 kid, but they won’t have enough points for much else, so equalisation would be compromised.

It’s quite risky with disrupting equalisation.

 

[HolyRioli]

It would be interesting to see how it would work.

But imagine if the premiership team, say Richmond this year, bid everything on Pick 1 and got the best kid in the land?

Or what would probably happen is he wooden spoon team would be forced into putting all their eggs in one basket to get the #1 kid, but they won’t have enough points for much else, so equalisation would be compromised.

It’s quite risky with disrupting equalisation.

Not necessarily. The bottom team might not get pick 1, but if they price out their rivals they might end up with picks 4, 5 and 6 instead.

 

[Jonts]

I like the idea and think it would be an upgrade but I can't see the AFL changing it, partly due to how the average fan wouldn't understand it. Hell enough of the AFL media don't understand the current bidding system

 

[Johnny Bananas]

But imagine if the premiership team, say Richmond this year, bid everything on Pick 1 and got the best kid in the land?

If they truly value one player enough to blow their entire year's recruitment on them, why shouldn't they? Richmond would not be allocated as many points as the other clubs, so any lower club would be able to outbid them for that player (unless they've lowered their point stockpile from trading). And if those clubs simply don't value that player as much as Richmond does, why should they have him?

It really comes down to what you believe the goal of equalisation is. Is it to try and manufacture success for a failing team, or to give that team the chance to succeed while still requiring them to make good decisions and work for it? If it's the latter, an auction is better because there's less luck involved.

Suppose you have a draft with a big gulf in talent between the top rated player and the rest. The team with the #1 pick may have only got the spoon by 0.1 in percentage, but ends up with (potentially) a much greater prize than the second-bottom team, purely due to the luck of the draw. If this were an auction, the top player would be appropriately valued based on talent. The wooden spooner still has every chance to get this future superstar because they have more resources than anyone else. It just requires them to make smart decisions instead of having this massive gift from above falling in their laps.

Or what would probably happen is he wooden spoon team would be forced into putting all their eggs in one basket to get the #1 kid, but they won’t have enough points for much else, so equalisation would be compromised.

That depends entirely on how many points are allocated to different teams. If equalisation shouldn't be compromised in any way, then the points allocation should be more heavily weighted to the bottom of the ladder. While the draft is a valid tool, in a year with one standout prospect it gives the wooden spooner too much of a benefit compared to the other struggling teams, and in a very even draft (like this year) it may give the struggling teams too little benefit compared to the rest of the competition.