Opinion The AFL should introduce a 'points' system to facilitate trading

[Chiz]

The AFL should consider an overhaul of the drafting and trading system – instead of allocating draft picks, each club should be allocated ‘points’, with more points allocated to lower-placed sides. This would help prevent manipulation of the draft (particularly with respect to F-S/NGA selections), facilitate trade and fix free agency compensation.

This season, for instance, bottom-placed West Coast could be allocated 4500 points, premiers Brisbane 1500 points, and mid-placed Sydney 3000 points. These points would essentially be used as a currency to facilitate trade with other clubs, including for players and for future points. Ultimately, a club's final points balance would be used to determine their draft picks.

I’ve included some details below on how it would work. Keen to hear views on whether this change would help resolve some of the issues with the current system.



How it would work

1. Each club allocated points at the end of the season. This could be based on ladder position like the current system, but could also be determined by number of wins (including finals), which adjusts for the evenness of the competition.
2. Free agency compensation would no longer be based on ladder position, but would involve a transfer of points from the club receiving the free agent to the club losing the free agent (still based on the player's age and contract). This transfer would be below what the player would be traded for on the open market and would be capped at say 1500 points.
3. During the trade period, clubs could trade their points for players, or for future points over the next two seasons (trading for future points has to be with another club so that the total number of points in any season is fixed).
4. The points balance after trade and free agency is used to determine draft picks. I've outlined two options for this below.

Option 1: Picks allocated pre-draft
Under this option, each pick would be allocated one-by-one to the side with the highest points balance for a predetermined cost (e.g. using the Draft Value Index points).

Using the DVI as a guide, this year’s points allocation would be:
West Coast 7169
Essendon 5162
Richmond 4417
Gold Coast 3773
Melbourne 3283
Carlton 2758
Hawthorn 1962
Brisbane 1756
GWS 1478
Bulldogs 1406
North 1285
Sydney 1036
Geelong 1034
Adelaide 1026
Fremantle 875
Collingwood 407
Port 86
St Kilda 71

This means West Coast would get pick 1 for 3000 points, Essendon pick 2 for 2481 points, Richmond pick 3 for 2178, then West Coast pick 4 for 1962 (and so on) – the allocation of picks would not be exactly the same, but each team would receive the same total value.

Once picks are allocated, clubs would be able to trade these (including live trading on draft night), along with for future points. F-S/NGA bids would be treated the same way – clubs must forego future picks equal in value to where the bid comes, minus any discount.

Benefits: greater facilitation of trade, less uncertainty in trading future points, utilises existing DVI, simple change from current system

Costs: still an incentive to manipulate draft order for F-S/NGA, DVI may not reflect the actual value of a pick, clubs could aim to trade in points to finish just ahead of another club (in order to get a higher top pick).

Option 2: Draft auction
Under this option, each draft pick would be auctioned off to the highest bidder. In a year where there is a Harley Reid type of player available, pick 1 may cost 4500 points, while in a weaker draft pick 1 might only cost 2500 points.

Choosing to match a bid on a F-S/NGA player would require a club to forego the points bid on that pick, minus any discount. The club that won the bidding for that draft pick can either choose to take the next selection, or have their points refunded.

Trading current points for future points is valid, including live trading on draft night.

The auction would require some bidding rules to ensure that each pick is allocated and all points are used. These rules include:

1. Clubs must nominate how many picks they intend to take in the draft (minimum 3) – while they can pass on a pick, they cannot take more picks than they nominate. Clubs must also enter the draft with a minimum points balance, which may mean trading out future points.
2. Each pick would have a ‘reserve’ price – the club with the highest balance must open the bidding at this price. This ensures each pick is allocated; most later picks would likely be allocated for their reserve price.
3. A club must maintain a minimum points balance for any future picks (e.g. 300 points for 2 picks, 100 points for 1 pick) – this would prevent clubs from bidding all of their points on early picks.
4. Some clubs would finish with a small points surplus or deficit – this would carry over into next year’s balance.

Benefits: greater facilitation of trade, very difficult to manipulate the draft, greater draft flexibility for clubs, picks sold for their market value (adjusts for the relative strength of the draft).

Costs: significant change from current system, some bidding rules may be complex to follow.

 

[Ants]

A terrible move that would further strengthen the grip of the top teams. Effectively as they have few list holes they can concentrate their points to get up the ladder. Whereas bottom teams with lots of list holes would be faced with overpaying for a handful of picks, or forgoing the top quality. We know draft indexes generally well understate the value of the top few picks, which would almost certainly be bid on over it, wiping the bottom clubs of points to get a pick they would have automatically got under the current system.

You'd effectively give another boosting hand to the top clubs.

 

[Chiz]

A terrible move that would further strengthen the grip of the top teams.

That's the current system - Brisbane win the premiership last year and pick up probably the strongest draft pick for next to nothing, win again this year and pick up two free agents without giving up any draft capital.

Under this system Brisbane would have to give up decent draft capital for both, whilst being allocated the fewest points of any team. This means they would need to trade out players or mortgage their future by trading out future points, making it harder to stay at the top for longer.

Effectively as they have few list holes they can concentrate their points to get up the ladder. Whereas bottom teams with lots of list holes would be faced with overpaying for a handful of picks, or forgoing the top quality.

This is only a potential issue under a draft auction (option 2), not under option 1. However, top sides wouldn't have the draft capital to get far up the draft order even if they have fewer list spots.

Firstly, each team must take a minimum of 3 picks (even if they choose to pass). A team with say 2000 points (an estimate for the 4th or 5th placed) might be able to bid for a late top 10 pick at best, but would see their second and third picks fall towards the end of the draft.

Clubs can choose to 'overbid' for early picks if they want to, but there are genuine tradeoffs they are making for their other picks.

We know draft indexes generally well understate the value of the top few picks, which would almost certainly be bid on over it, wiping the bottom clubs of points to get a pick they would have automatically got under the current system.

This is why my preferred option is the draft auction. The draft value index doesn't come into play - not in the allocation of points, not in determining the value of picks.

You'd effectively give another boosting hand to the top clubs.

This system requires the top clubs to actually give up draft capital to strengthen their team. The current system doesn't.

 

[Ants]

There are much better solutions to the issues of free agency and player matching.

You say there isn't a draft index, but that ignores there will be points based by position, and minimum costs. That is effectively a draft index base.

This doesn't even touch on how priority picks would/should be awarded.

 

[Chiz]

There are much better solutions to the issues of free agency and player matching.

Keen to hear them! So far "solutions" the AFL have put forward haven't actually worked.

You say there isn't a draft index, but that ignores there will be points based by position, and minimum costs. That is effectively a draft index base.

The AFL would need to make a call on how points are allocated, just as they make a call on how draft picks are allocated (which I'd argue gives a significant leg up to the very bottom sides at the expense of the mid-lower places sides).

But the value of each pick would be determined by how much a club is willing to pay, i.e. a market mechanism. The minimum cost or reserve pick value would most likely only come into play later in the draft.

This doesn't even touch on how priority picks would/should be awarded.

If you were going to do it you would hand out 'bonus' points (which dilutes the value of existing points, just as priority picks dilute existing draft picks).

My suggestion is to allocate points based on wins rather than ladder position - West Coast finished bottom with only one win this season, so they would have more points this season than if they finished bottom with four wins.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I agree with this, but the points should be used directly to bid for players like an IPL auction, instead of being converted into picks.

 

[Chiz]

I agree with this, but the points should be used directly to bid for players like an IPL auction, instead of being converted into picks.

Could definitely be done and would create more of a spectacle, and introduce more strategy into it (though not my preference)

 

[H00t]

A points system would be everything everyone hates about the bidding system but on steroids.

Let’s bundle up our nonsense later picks to get a higher pick.

 

[Chiz]

A points system would be everything everyone hates about the bidding system but on steroids.

Let’s bundle up our nonsense later picks to get a higher pick.

It would literally prevent this - not sure how you came to this conclusion.

 

[H00t]

It would literally prevent this - not sure how you came to this conclusion.

Under your scheme teams get picks for where they sit on the points ladder.

Trading out mid range players would cause their points to spike giving them a better first pick. Rather than more mid range picks like it currently does.

Also limits teams at the bottom of the ladder trading in any players as they lose points therefore hurting their early pick rather than getting them for 2nds and 3rds like they would otherwise do.

It also limits different strategies by forcing teams into one early pick after the point calculation is done. Rather than them spreading the load out e.g. a couple of midrange 10-12 picks rather than pick 5 for instance.

 

[Bagger72]

I'd just like to see Preliminary Finalists locked out of Free Agents and only one access to either NGA, Academy or F&S inside the first round
...and Finalists locked out of Band 1 and 2 Free Agents

I think this gives everyone a fair go in the name of competitive socialism.

 

[Chiz]

Under your scheme teams get picks for where they sit on the points ladder.

Trading out mid range players would cause their points to spike giving them a better first pick. Rather than more mid range picks like it currently does.

If you're reading out a mid-range player for the equivalent of say a second-round pick, then this may bump up your first pick a few spots - so what, you still have to give something up to get it, and all teams can do this (it's not unfair).

Also limits teams at the bottom of the ladder trading in any players as they lose points therefore hurting their early pick rather than getting them for 2nds and 3rds like they would otherwise do.

The logic also applies the other way. At present, must player movements are from lower-placed teams to top teams (often at no cost to the top teams under free agency). So this would improve the first (and second) picks if the bottom sides.

It also limits different strategies by forcing teams into one early pick after the point calculation is done. Rather than them spreading the load out e.g. a couple of midrange 10-12 picks rather than pick 5 for instance.

Hence why my preferred option is an auction which gives teams full flexibility. But even if you went with option 1, teams can still trade picks like they can under the current system. And they can use future points in those trades, which aids draft flexibility.

 

[Chiz]

I'd just like to see Preliminary Finalists locked out of Free Agents and only one access to either NGA, Academy or F&S inside the first round
...and Finalists locked out of Band 1 and 2 Free Agents

I think this gives everyone a fair go in the name of competitive socialism.

The problem with competitive socialism measures is they tend to have unintended consequences.

Take free agency compensation, for instance. Higher compensation for lower-placed sides might seem fair at face value, but what actually happens is lower-placed sides choose not to match the contracts for restricted free agents, preferring the high draft pick. Who benefits most - the top sides who can easily attract free agents from bottom sides without giving up draft capital. And other bottom sides lose as their draft picks are pushed back.

(See also: priority picks, easier fixtures for bottom sides)

The unintended consequences of locking the preliminary finalists out of free agency, limiting F-S/NGA etc. is that you're preventing the main competitors to the premier from improving their list (potentially keeping the very best team up the top).

The points system I proposed doesn't prevent top teams improving their lists through free agency, F-S/NGA and trading, but ensures they have to give up adequate draft capital. For instance, they main need to trade away some future points to bring a free agent in (or trade out players), but they will eventually run out of points if they do this every season.

 

[H00t]

If you're reading out a mid-range player for the equivalent of say a second-round pick, then this may bump up your first pick a few spots - so what, you still have to give something up to get it, and all teams can do this (it's not unfair).

The logic also applies the other way. At present, must player movements are from lower-placed teams to top teams (often at no cost to the top teams under free agency). So this would improve the first (and second) picks if the bottom sides.

Hence why my preferred option is an auction which gives teams full flexibility. But even if you went with option 1, teams can still trade picks like they can under the current system. And they can use future points in those trades, which aids draft flexibility.

None of this shows any positives and only negatives compared to the current system. It makes it way more convoluted for no actual benefit

 

[Chiz]

None of this shows any positives and only negatives compared to the current system. It makes it way more convoluted for no actual benefit

1. Greater facilitation of trade
2. No manipulation of draft to acquire F-S/NGA by accumulating later picks
3. Greater flexibility around draft strategy
4. No acquiring of free agents without giving up draft capital
5. Greater certainty trading between seasons.

There you go, 5 benefits.

The current system is convoluted because it's trying to do way too much. This system would introduce a currency, instead of having teams operate a barter system.

 

[H00t]

1. Greater facilitation of trade
2. No manipulation of draft to acquire F-S/NGA by accumulating later picks
3. Greater flexibility around draft strategy
4. No acquiring of free agents without giving up draft capital
5. Greater certainty trading between seasons.

There you go, 5 benefits.

The current system is convoluted because it's trying to do way too much. This system would introduce a currency, instead of having teams operate a barter system.

1. Does it? Means every trade for a player outside of those worth a first or more end up coming at the cost of your first pick. So it wouldn’t.

2. Instead we have manipulation for every draft pick not just academies and f/s.

3. Less flexibility. Especially when such a system will be easily gameable. Will be too hard for worse teams to fill list gaps.

4. Why have free agency at this point? It’s just trading. Also limits teams down the bottom ability to get in any players without it effecting their first.

5. Certainty when it comes to how many points. Still got the problem of any trade coming from their first pick instead of being able to trade F2, F3 or F4. Plus the uncertainty of how much the points effect a teams first pick.

So I will stick by my statement.

 

[Chiz]

1. Does it? Means every trade for a player outside of those worth a first or more end up coming at the cost of your first pick. So it wouldn’t.

You think teams wouldn't be prepared to move their first pick back a couple of spots to improve this list? Teams trade their first picks all the time (to the point where most first picks are linked to another club), so this is not borne out by the evidence at all.

2. Instead we have manipulation for every draft pick not just academies and f/s.

How? You haven't explained how this would happen at all. Every point has genuine value, so there is no way you can trade away junk to improve your points balance.

3. Less flexibility. Especially when such a system will be easily gameable. Will be too hard for worse teams to fill list gaps.

Again, this system goes a long way to solving the inequities of the current system and the ability of teams to manipulate. If you think manipulation will still happen, why don't you give an example.

4. Why have free agency at this point? It’s just trading. Also limits teams down the bottom ability to get in any players without it effecting their first.

There's a whole separate discussion we could have about free agency. The current compensation system is clearly broken and allows top sides to raid talent from bottom sides without having to give up draft capital, and often without having to pay huge amounts. Whereas bottom sides generally have to pay huge amounts to attract players.

My suggestion of a below market value compensation being paid by the club receiving a free agent at least goes some way to addressing the issue.

More generally, another suggestion would be to remove free agency compensation completely, but have 3 years of restricted free agency. This means having to pay free agents a lot more to get them (or otherwise have to trade), which also puts more pressure on the salary caps of top sides.

5. Certainty when it comes to how many points. Still got the problem of any trade coming from their first pick instead of being able to trade F2, F3 or F4. Plus the uncertainty of how much the points effect a teams first pick.

Teams trade their future firsts out all the time, even though it could be pick 1 or pick 20.

So I will stick by my statement.

It appears you will do that despite any evidence to the contrary. That's fine

 

[Freomaniac]

I mean the points system applied to the NGA pics and father son picks don't they?

 

[H00t]

You think teams wouldn't be prepared to move their first pick back a couple of spots to improve this list? Teams trade their first picks all the time (to the point where most first picks are linked to another club), so this is not borne out by the evidence at all.

How? You haven't explained how this would happen at all. Every point has genuine value, so there is no way you can trade away junk to improve your points balance.

Again, this system goes a long way to solving the inequities of the current system and the ability of teams to manipulate. If you think manipulation will still happen, why don't you give an example.

There's a whole separate discussion we could have about free agency. The current compensation system is clearly broken and allows top sides to raid talent from bottom sides without having to give up draft capital, and often without having to pay huge amounts. Whereas bottom sides generally have to pay huge amounts to attract players.

My suggestion of a below market value compensation being paid by the club receiving a free agent at least goes some way to addressing the issue.

More generally, another suggestion would be to remove free agency compensation completely, but have 3 years of restricted free agency. This means having to pay free agents a lot more to get them (or otherwise have to trade), which also puts more pressure on the salary caps of top sides.

Teams trade their future firsts out all the time, even though it could be pick 1 or pick 20.

It appears you will do that despite any evidence to the contrary. That's fine

I say this is in the nicest way possible. I really don’t think you’ve properly thought this through.

1. Teams with picks 1-5 aren’t going to sacrifice points to improve their list and give up a pick at the pointy end of the draft. Plus it becomes near impossible for them to get multiple early picks to help them improve. Like West Coast having to give up pick 1 to get Starcevich while also not getting pick 2 under your system. Essendon and Tigers also traded out to get two early picks but would only have 1 under your system.

2. Good teams will be able to target specific drafts and jump ahead of teams down the bottom of the ladder, with a good list they can easily sacrifice a year or two of drafting. If people think it’s bad enough with NGA’s and academies, it would be way worse under your system.

3. Pretty easy for two teams to swap points for two drafts giving each a much higher pick in one draft. While increasing inequality by making it harder for worse teams to improve their lists.

4. Addresses nothing

5. Top teams do a bottom teams don’t give up a f1 in most cases instead use their later picks. They can’t under your system.

 

[weevil]

Under your scheme teams get picks for where they sit on the points ladder.

Trading out mid range players would cause their points to spike giving them a better first pick. Rather than more mid range picks like it currently does.

Also limits teams at the bottom of the ladder trading in any players as they lose points therefore hurting their early pick rather than getting them for 2nds and 3rds like they would otherwise do.

It also limits different strategies by forcing teams into one early pick after the point calculation is done. Rather than them spreading the load out e.g. a couple of midrange 10-12 picks rather than pick 5 for instance.

I'm not 100% across some of the mechanics that Chiz is advocating for but I think the overall concept of a points system is fundamentally strong. I think done right, it absolutely could make things massively fairer and simpler. I've been saying it should be seriously looked into for years.

I think the aspect you are both missing is that a points-based system makes it incredibly simple to add controls for balance. Those controls would be off the scale better than what we have now. From a casual glance, I think most of the things you think are huge issues are solved simply by adding a scaling factor.

Sure, a top club can trade for points, but oh look, there is a sliding scale that applies to clubs according to their ladder position. And they don't get as many points as a bottom club for doing it.

A great player wants to leave a bottom club for a top club, sure, but the points multiplier means the bottom club gets lots of additional compensation points from the AFL added on top of the deal. The same the other way round, a good player wants to go to a bottom club. They agree on a price, but after the deal, the bottom club gets additional compensation points according to the scale.

Maybe trade points are calculated based on contract amount and length? Maybe years at the bottom of the ladder are factored in, and long-term struggling clubs get an even higher multiplier? Maybe the scale gets adjusted each year to make sure the balance is right?

Sure, it is very, very different, and people hate change. You would absolutely need to model the **** out of it.

But the key is, done well, a points-based system would give you a colossal amount of options and flexibility that our current system simply can not.

 

[H00t]

I'm not 100% across some of the mechanics that Chiz is advocating for but I think the overall concept of a points system is fundamentally strong. I think done right, it absolutely could make things massively fairer and simpler. I've been saying it should be seriously looked into for years.

I think the aspect you are both missing is that a points-based system makes it incredibly simple to add controls for balance. Those controls would be off the scale better than what we have now. From a casual glance, I think most of the things you think are huge issues are solved simply by adding a scaling factor.

Sure, a top club can trade for points, but oh look, there is a sliding scale that applies to clubs according to their ladder position. And they don't get as many points as a bottom club for doing it.

A great player wants to leave a bottom club for a top club, sure, but the points multiplier means the bottom club gets lots of additional compensation points from the AFL added on top of the deal. The same the other way round, a good player wants to go to a bottom club. They agree on a price, but after the deal, the bottom club gets additional compensation points according to the scale.

Maybe trade points are calculated based on contract amount and length? Maybe years at the bottom of the ladder are factored in, and long-term struggling clubs get an even higher multiplier? Maybe the scale gets adjusted each year to make sure the balance is right?

Sure, it is very, very different, and people hate change. You would absolutely need to model the **** out of it.

But the key is, done well, a points-based system would give you a colossal amount of options and flexibility that our current system simply can not.

Would the scaling factor only be free agents or all trading?

Only free agents does nothing while having it effect all trading becomes ridiculous with a player being worth less just because he’s in a top team.

Seems an awful lot of effort to attempt to reinvent the wheel only to get a less effective wheel.

 

[Chiz]

I'm not 100% across some of the mechanics that Chiz is advocating for but I think the overall concept of a points system is fundamentally strong. I think done right, it absolutely could make things massively fairer and simpler. I've been saying it should be seriously looked into for years.

I'm glad you get it! Conceptually it's giving every club a bag of cash (but you get a bigger bag if you finish down the bottom) and saying 'spend this however you like on bringing in players either through trade or through the draft'. Does it give a leg up to the bottom sides? Yes. Does it allow flexibility? Yes. Can a top side bring in enough points to get pick 1? Yes, but they would have to trade out sizeable future draft capital and quality players.

I think the aspect you are both missing is that a points-based system makes it incredibly simple to add controls for balance. Those controls would be off the scale better than what we have now. From a casual glance, I think most of the things you think are huge issues are solved simply by adding a scaling factor.

I don't think a sliding scale is necessary. If a top side wants to trade in more points (eg to match an NGA bid), their options are:

• trade away future points (which is limited because they are expecting to finish high in the future)
• trade out players (but they won't get many points for fringe players, so would have to trade out quality players).

Sure, a top club can trade for points, but oh look, there is a sliding scale that applies to clubs according to their ladder position. And they don't get as many points as a bottom club for doing it.

A great player wants to leave a bottom club for a top club, sure, but the points multiplier means the bottom club gets lots of additional compensation points from the AFL added on top of the deal. The same the other way round, a good player wants to go to a bottom club. They agree on a price, but after the deal, the bottom club gets additional compensation points according to the scale.

Is this for trade or free agency? Either way I don't think it's necessary. The only aspect of the system that should be linked to ladder position should be the allocation of points.

Sure, it is very, very different, and people hate change. You would absolutely need to model the **** out of it.

I've been advocating a points based system for ages and have modelled a range of different circumstances. The trickiest part is making sure all points are used for all picks, but I believe I've got it to work for a full draft auction.

But the key is, done well, a points-based system would give you a colossal amount of options and flexibility that our current system simply can not.

This.

 

[Chiz]

I say this is in the nicest way possible. I really don’t think you’ve properly thought this through.

I've actually modelled it extensively and it works. You've posted your gut reaction.

1. Teams with picks 1-5 aren’t going to sacrifice points to improve their list and give up a pick at the pointy end of the draft. Plus it becomes near impossible for them to get multiple early picks to help them improve. Like West Coast having to give up pick 1 to get Starcevich while also not getting pick 2 under your system. Essendon and Tigers also traded out to get two early picks but would only have 1 under your system.

I think you're arguing about allocating picks based on final points balance as opposed to an auction?

Note that no team is giving up their first pick by trading in a mid-level player - at worst they are pushing it back a couple of sports, which is a genuine trade-off some would be willing to make.

2. Good teams will be able to target specific drafts and jump ahead of teams down the bottom of the ladder, with a good list they can easily sacrifice a year or two of drafting. If people think it’s bad enough with NGA’s and academies, it would be way worse under your system.

Why can only good teams do this? All teams can trade away future points to target a specific draft, but good teams will have fewer expected future points to trade. A bottom side could easily trade away say 2000 future points to build their balance for a strong draft, and still would be expected to have plenty of points the following season.

3. Pretty easy for two teams to swap points for two drafts giving each a much higher pick in one draft. While increasing inequality by making it harder for worse teams to improve their lists.

It's an entirely valid strategy to target a high pick one draft and forgo a high pick the next. But it's not manipulating the system like you suggest. In an auction picks will be bought for their market value.

4. Addresses nothing

Think it through.

5. Top teams do a bottom teams don’t give up a f1 in most cases instead use their later picks. They can’t under your system.

They would use points. And yes, this would affect the position of the picks they can take, that is what teams are trading off. The bottom side could take pick 1, pick 19 and pick 37, or they could take pick 2, pick 24, pick 40 and a good player from another side (worth around pick 20).

 

[weevil]

Would the scaling factor only be free agents or all trading?

Only free agents does nothing while having it effect all trading becomes ridiculous with a player being worth less just because he’s in a top team.

Seems an awful lot of effort to attempt to reinvent the wheel only to get a less effective wheel.

Actually, it’s super easy, barely an inconvenience...

You know how human civilisation moved away from bartering and adopted money? We did that because money makes trading goods massively simpler. It’s the exact same thing here.

Clubs get a points allocation based on their ladder position. They are no longer forced into coming up with massively convoluted (“I’ll give you two sheep, a chicken and a bag of rice for your donkey”) trades for players. They just use points to purchase them instead. The player wants to go, the clubs agree on a price, and it is a done deal. It's a thousand times easier than we do it now.

Everyone complains about how massively unfair the current system is for the poor (lower-ranked) clubs. That is incredibly hard to fix because we are stuck using a barter system. A points system makes fixing it really easy. We can tax the rich clubs and give discounts to the poor clubs in a million different ways.

 

[weevil]

I'm glad you get it! Conceptually it's giving every club a bag of cash (but you get a bigger bag if you finish down the bottom) and saying 'spend this however you like on bringing in players either through trade or through the draft'. Does it give a leg up to the bottom sides? Yes. Does it allow flexibility? Yes. Can a top side bring in enough points to get pick 1? Yes, but they would have to trade out sizeable future draft capital and quality players.

I don't think a sliding scale is necessary. If a top side wants to trade in more points (eg to match an NGA bid), their options are:

• trade away future points (which is limited because they are expecting to finish high in the future)
• trade out players (but they won't get many points for fringe players, so would have to trade out quality players).

Is this for trade or free agency? Either way I don't think it's necessary. The only aspect of the system that should be linked to ladder position should be the allocation of points.

I've been advocating a points based system for ages and have modelled a range of different circumstances. The trickiest part is making sure all points are used for all picks, but I believe I've got it to work for a full draft auction.

This.

It's not strictly necessary, but it makes it super, super easy to do if we need to. Concepts like taxes and discounts are ultra-easy to apply if needed to balance inequities.

It's massively more flexible than the goat for chickens bartering we have now.