Opinion The bidding system

[Elmer_Hauser]

Yep. Look at St Kilda fans who were already circling like vultures the moment Ben King was drafted to Gold Coast, or Adelaide fans with the SA kids Gold Coast drafted. It is really ugly.

AFL need to open things up for Gold Coast, make it so they pretty much get exclusive access to half of Queensland and all of the Northern Territory. There won't be a go home factor for someone drafted from NT.

The NBA have strict anti tampering rules that specifically prevents teams talking to out of contract players/stars until after contract expires (they come down hard if it happens during the season)

The AFL have to bring that rule here and any club found guilty of say talking to Ben King about coming over before the end of season should be stripped of draft picks and cop a massive fine.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yep. Look at St Kilda fans who were already circling like vultures the moment Ben King was drafted to Gold Coast, or Adelaide fans with the SA kids Gold Coast drafted. It is really ugly.

AFL need to open things up for Gold Coast, make it so they pretty much get exclusive access to half of Queensland and all of the Northern Territory. There won't be a go home factor for someone drafted from NT.

Its not about go home factor. There will always be a leave factor if the club isnt well run. They dont need picks or a bigger zone they need a massive increase in the soft cap above other clubs to be used only on coaching and development resources. If they do that and they get a quality senior coach and much better admin and management staff than they have they will increase their retention dramatically.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Its not about go home factor. There will always be a leave factor if the club isnt well run. They dont need picks or a bigger zone they need a massive increase in the soft cap above other clubs to be used only on coaching and development resources. If they do that and they get a quality senior coach and much better admin and management staff than they have they will increase their retention dramatically.

It doesn't exactly help when we have many sleazy player managers (not naming names but I think we know who I'm taking about) fielding calls and offers from other clubs and getting into their clients ears even whilst still contracted for another year or so, which is why I firmly believe an Anti Tampering Rule needs to be brought in to the AFL.

It probably won't prevent The Suns losing all their young guns, but at least stops all the rumours and innuendo surrounding them during the season and gives the club some stability from that perspective.

Absolutely got no doubt that St Kilda, Collingwood and probably Hawthorn have made contact with Ben King's management already, and I don't like it at all. And yes I know Carlton did this is several times in the past (esp with Judd)

 

[TryAnHit]

Think the academy are great... but the way they can add up junk picks is a joke of the system.

Maybe could look to bring in a rule where you need a pick with 5 picks of the bid... Guy guys bid at 1... you need a top 6 pick to match... Bid at 11.. you need a top 17 pick to match.

Means the club still gets a chance to match but has to own their way to get there... not just pile a bunch of shit together

 

[RUNVS]

Think the academy are great... but the way they can add up junk picks is a joke of the system.

Maybe could look to bring in a rule where you need a pick with 5 picks of the bid... Guy guys bid at 1... you need a top 6 pick to match... Bid at 11.. you need a top 17 pick to match.

Means the club still gets a chance to match but has to own their way to get there... not just pile a bunch of sh*t together

One major problem with that idea.

Say Sydney have an academy player expected to go within the top 6 or so.

So Sydney get pick 10 to cover that, but what if said player falls to pick 12 and Sydney's next pick is pick 32?

 

[Hendo_21]

It doesn't exactly help when we have many sleazy player managers (not naming names but I think we know who I'm taking about) fielding calls and offers from other clubs and getting into their clients ears even whilst still contracted for another year or so, which is why I firmly believe an Anti Tampering Rule needs to be brought in to the AFL.

It probably won't prevent The Suns losing all their young guns, but at least stops all the rumours and innuendo surrounding them during the season and gives the club some stability from that perspective.

Absolutely got no doubt that St Kilda, Collingwood and probably Hawthorn have made contact with Ben King's management already, and I don't like it at all. And yes I know Carlton did this is several times in the past (esp with Judd)

Carlton did it with Cogs, Williams and Shiel as well.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Carlton did it with Cogs, Williams and Shiel as well.

I did state in my post that Carlton did it (talking to players during the season) a few times in the past mate.

I honestly want the whole practise outlawed if possible

 

[Turbocat]

No discount on R1 picks, its not required...clubs would gladly pay to just access player of that quality.

 

[Colonial]

Its not about go home factor. There will always be a leave factor if the club isnt well run. They dont need picks or a bigger zone they need a massive increase in the soft cap above other clubs to be used only on coaching and development resources. If they do that and they get a quality senior coach and much better admin and management staff than they have they will increase their retention dramatically.

Easy to say when most of the draftees come from your home state.

 

[Colonial]

All for losing priority access and the discount as soon as there’s a national under 18s, there’s a limit and greater control on 3rd party deals and the GF is shared nationally (not just because a pandemic hit).

Unlikely all, let alone 1, of these things happen so… Good day.

 

[TryAnHit]

One major problem with that idea.

Say Sydney have an academy player expected to go within the top 6 or so.

So Sydney get pick 10 to cover that, but what if said player falls to pick 12 and Sydney's next pick is pick 32?

Sydney take him with pick 10 if they want him...

 

[RUNVS]

Sydney take him with pick 10 if they want him...

Yeah, your system sucks. It would be completely unworkable.

 

[Lore]

As I posted elsewhere, the main problem that I have with the way the academies work at the moment (and the same applies to father/son and NGA) is that the bidding system lets the club double dip on the discount. You shouldn't be able to get a 20% discount on bid matching (in the first round, 197 point discount thereafter) and then also be vacuuming up points in the second round as well. One or the other is enough incentive.

 

[DragoDelph]

My own personal take.

Remove the discount.
Remove academy restrictions (Northern vs NGA)
Any bid must be matched with a pick within 10 places of the bid. (I think 5 is too tight, getting up to pick 11, from pick 17 is still a hard ask)

Agreed
Knee jerk reaction to the bulldogs and us, but doesn't affect NSW/QLD.
Still think the better option would have been, remove discount, matching bid must include a pick with 10 spots of bid.
Really make clubs think if it's worth moving up the order, rather than out, to match a bid. Same rules for F/S and Academy.

Make for more draft night drama too

Yep, look at last year.
Bulldogs would have had to have traded up to get JUH, instead of down. Instead of adding a new pick in the first round, it just shifts it, which changes the talent available. They also would have had to ensure they had currency to trade up for Darcy this year, meaning there may have been a choice, do they sacrifice one for the other? Removes Treloar as an option, as they wouldn't have had the picks.
Then there's Sydney, To take Campbell, either they would have had to trade down for 2x lower picks, or use a future first to trade back in around 12-ish.
Collingwood would not have traded of this year, knowing they'd need a pick in and around 11 for Daicos.
Melbourne would have had to try and make currency and trade up into the mid-first for Andrew.

It's about not disadvantaging the other clubs, by giving them the chance to gain currency from the clubs with academy or NGA, and not creating new picks and forcing the other clubs further down the order.

 

[RUNVS]

As I posted elsewhere, the main problem that I have with the way the academies work at the moment (and the same applies to father/son and NGA) is that the bidding system lets the club double dip on the discount. You shouldn't be able to get a 20% discount on bid matching (in the first round, 197 point discount thereafter) and then also be vacuuming up points in the second round as well. One or the other is enough incentive.

Going to a full points system and removing picks all together would fix those issues.

 

[Lore]

Going to a full points system and removing picks all together would fix those issues.

I'm sure clubs would find a way to game that system too.

 

[RUNVS]

I'm sure clubs would find a way to game that system too.

Maybe so but it would be much fairer. It would be moving from what is essentially a barter system to a currency system.

 

[H00t]

Going to a full points system and removing picks all together would fix those issues.

I’m not necessarily against a full points system but I feel so many changes would have to occur in order to make it feasible.

Teams having to put all bids in pre draft alongside how many selections they will take and how many points for each of those selections. Then the draft order is determined based on the result of those bids.

So draft day itself doesn’t change as the picks are organised from the blind bidding beforehand. Then trading with future points/ current picks can happen on draft night.

There is still the problem of current later picks being well over valued so the whole points system would also need a remodel. Plus this system would be weight towards teams taking less picks in the draft as they can stockpile points for 1-2 selections versus teams rebuilding needing to take many picks.

 

[RUNVS]

I’m not necessarily against a full points system but I feel so many changes would have to occur in order to make it feasible.

Teams having to put all bids in pre draft alongside how many selections they will take and how many points for each of those selections. Then the draft order is determined based on the result of those bids.

So draft day itself doesn’t change as the picks are organised from the blind bidding beforehand. Then trading with future points/ current picks can happen on draft night.

There is still the problem of current later picks being well over valued so the whole points system would also need a remodel. Plus this system would be weight towards teams taking less picks in the draft as they can stockpile points for 1-2 selections versus teams rebuilding needing to take many picks.

I am more in favour of a live bidding system on draft day but your idea works too.

On your last point though a smart team could get some good picks in the 30's for not much. All teams need to do is save a few dozen points for picks in the 40's, 50's and 60's while the bulk of the points would be used earlier.

Would give teams a lot more flexibility in rebuilding as well.

 

[H00t]

I am more in favour of a live bidding system on draft day but your idea works too.

On your last point though a smart team could get some good picks in the 30's for not much. All teams need to do is save a few dozen points for picks in the 40's, 50's and 60's while the bulk of the points would be used earlier.

Would give teams a lot more flexibility in rebuilding as well.

The big stumbling block I always have when I think about the bidding plan. Is I doubt how much flexibility and change it would bring.

All the value in the draft is in early picks. Every team would be throwing all their points at their first pick and some towards their second (if they have any left over)

If you decide to try and split your points you’ll be pushed back by all the other teams jumping in ahead of you. No team would want to be pushed back.

It should make trading players a lot simpler (though list managers will still disagree to the last minute).

But I don’t feel it will result in a big change in the end result of the draft.

 

[RUNVS]

The big stumbling block I always have when I think about the bidding plan. Is I doubt how much flexibility and change it would bring.

All the value in the draft is in early picks. Every team would be throwing all their points at their first pick and some towards their second (if they have any left over)

If you decide to try and split your points you’ll be pushed back by all the other teams jumping in ahead of you. No team would want to be pushed back.

It should make trading players a lot simpler (though list managers will still disagree to the last minute).

But I don’t feel it will result in a big change in the end result of the draft.

The thing is though that there is so much talent in the late first round all the way to the end of the 3rd round, and you see teams doing trades to get 3rd round picks during the draft as well so clearly teams are valuing the later picks. They would not need to save too many points either as something like 10 points might be enough to secure pick 40, and 1 point could secure pick 50.

What is more valuable.

A team bidding all their points on pick 1, or a top rated team instead bidding on picks 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

I am not sure the answer, but it would give teams a lot of flexibility to do what they think is best for their list.

 

[Bestbird]

Just need to adjust the value of the 3rd and particular the 4th round draft picks which virtually have no value at all

 

[eastfreo75]

One major problem with that idea.

Say Sydney have an academy player expected to go within the top 6 or so.

So Sydney get pick 10 to cover that, but what if said player falls to pick 12 and Sydney's next pick is pick 32?

They lose the player.

Teams playing finals shouldn’t getting top 5 pick.

 

[TryAnHit]

They lose the player.

Teams playing finals shouldn’t getting top 5 pick.

No... they have pick 10... if they rate the player they take him with their first pick... is no reason the player should be free.

RUNVS wanted swans to pass the player on 10... and they say how can we match when he is bid on at 12... when they could have taken him at 10

 

[La Dispute]

No discount on R1 picks, its not required...clubs would gladly pay to just access player of that quality.

There should be no discount on any players, and really clubs should pay an additional fee for the privilege of exclusive access to players.

I’d like to see a 20% points tax on all academy prospects.