Strategy Why take Will Ashcroft with the first pick?

[nickcat0]

Apologies for being ignorant about the intricacies of the Father/Son Rule, but can somebody please explain to me, the benefits of picking a player you know you won't be able to keep.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and have to give up a couple of later picks in exchange.

Wouldn't it be better, to just take the 2nd player with the original pick, and boost his confidence and self belief by showing how much you believe in him? Or does the opportunity to get an opponent to forfeit a couple of late round picks trump this?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Apologies for being ignorant about the intricacies of the Father/Son Rule, but can somebody please explain to me, the benefits of picking a player you know you won't be able to keep, in exchange for getting a pick, or maybe a couple of picks in a later round.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and in compensation GWS will have the next pick and a pick in the mid-30s.

Wouldn't it be better, to just take the 2nd player with the original pick, and boost his confidence and self belief by showing how much you believe in him? Or does the opportunity to get another player in Round 2 or Round 3 trump this?

It makes Brisbane use more draft points than if Brisbane took him at 2.

 

[JasRulz63]

It makes Brisbane use more draft points than if Brisbane took him at 2.

Though GWS won't directly benefit from that this year since their first five picks are before our first pick. They may benefit in a small way in next year's draft I guess (a third rounder moves up one spot or something.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and in compensation GWS will have the next pick and a pick in the mid-30s.

GWS don't get a pick in the mid 30s. They'd just get the next pick. So if they bid on Ashcroft with pick 1 and Brisbane match, they'd just get to pick again at pick 2. No other additional picks are given as direct compensation.

The counter to your point re giving your player the confidence of going no. 1 is that you also give them the pressure of being no. 1 (see JHF this year, Boyd in the past etc.).

 

[Foxx]

It makes more sense for two sides to have an agreement under the table not to bid on the other sides father sons or academy players.

 

[danster168]

Apologies for being ignorant about the intricacies of the Father/Son Rule, but can somebody please explain to me, the benefits of picking a player you know you won't be able to keep, in exchange for getting a pick, or maybe a couple of picks in a later round.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and in compensation GWS will have the next pick and a pick in the mid-30s.

Wouldn't it be better, to just take the 2nd player with the original pick, and boost his confidence and self belief by showing how much you believe in him? Or does the opportunity to get another player in Round 2 or Round 3 trump this?

'in exchange for getting a pick'? This may be where you're tripping up. There is no picks given etc. If gws nominate ashcroft, they either get him or Brisbane gets him and gws return to having the 1st 'normal' pick in the draft. Theres no additional picks involved.

Some clubs choose to not play games and just pick the best available (despite knowing that they will be snatched up by a father son). The same thing happened when melbourne nominated callum mills at pick 4. Sydney matched, we took Oliver.

 

[The Passenger]

I wonder if we'll ever see a club stuck with a player that wasn't the #1 player remaining on their draft board because the other club didn't match the bid...

Seems unlikely. The points discount on top of the fact the points for low draft picks are overinflated would mean for the above to occur would require a massive discrepancy in how a player is rated between the two clubs.

 

[Thetrader15]

Because there's no reason not to.

 

[11kgm]

Wonder if they will chicken out like Daicos last year, Collingwood got away with murder

 

[Dangerousfield]

It's a competitive game, Ashcroft is consensus best player in the draft, Brisbane are getting a 20% discount on the best player in the draft, make them pay.

I want to see Brisbane's six picks disappear at one go! They currently only have enough points for Ashcroft, none for Fletcher if Ashcroft gets bid at pick 1.

Also takes the pick 1 pressure off the player you do select

 

[Dangerousfield]

Wonder if they will chicken out like Daicos last year, Collingwood got away with murder

North were stupid, and it came back to bite them. Pies made off like thieves

 

[SSwans2011]

Only reason I can think of is developing goodwill. This especially makes sense for clubs with academies. Effectively, you take the chance that if you don't bid on the player, the other club repays you by doing the same down the line. For GWS, it also makes sense to show faith in the player from the outset, given their issues with player retention.

In this case, I suspect there's more factors than just those aforementioned at play. It seems GWS traded up so they could land Cadman. On top of this, there was a few pick swaps between GWS and Brisbane, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was a secret handshake in there somewhere.

 

[briztoon]

As part of every trade this year, the AFL made every club state, "for the record" that there are no "secret" or "under the table" deals not to bid on a father son or academy talent, as part of the trade.

 

[Lore]

As part of every trade this year, the AFL made every club state, "for the record" that there are no "secret" or "under the table" deals not to bid on a father son or academy talent, as part of the trade.

Which would be draft tampering and there's an entire section in the AFL Rules about what happens if you do that. Not really worth it.

 

[Giant Strides]

Will we, or Will we not?

 

[PorcelainBus]

Maybe it wouldn't put as much pressure on their actual draft pick not being "#1"????

 

[jesterwester]

As noted above, I think you always pick who you think is the best in the draft.

You don’t lose bidding on him if you think that’s the case. If they do match, then at the end of the day he wasn’t really in the open pool anyway and you can then choose the next one on your list. You have also made sure another club had to pay what you believe that player is worth. (Minus the discount, naturally)

GWS having that choice is perfect - talls traditionally take time to truly develop anyway- so they can take Cadman with the first “live” pick but without all the added pressure it comes with normally as a #1.

Only have to look at the bulldogs with JUH to see what a distraction that can be in the early days.

 

[iBeng]

Which would be draft tampering and there's an entire section in the AFL Rules about what happens if you do that. Not really worth it.

Hence the " "

 

[The Filth Wizard]

North were stupid, and it came back to bite them. Pies made off like thieves

It wasn't just us that didn't bid on him, nor did we bid on Darcy. We made two advantageous pick swaps with the Pies and Dogs later in live trading though which I doubt is a no coincidence.

 

[Lore]

Hence the " "

Yes, I liked briztoon's post and then reinforced his point with further information. i.e. agreeing with him

 

[The 747]

Apologies for being ignorant about the intricacies of the Father/Son Rule, but can somebody please explain to me, the benefits of picking a player you know you won't be able to keep, in exchange for getting a pick, or maybe a couple of picks in a later round.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and in compensation GWS will have the next pick and a pick in the mid-30s.

Wouldn't it be better, to just take the 2nd player with the original pick, and boost his confidence and self belief by showing how much you believe in him? Or does the opportunity to get another player in Round 2 or Round 3 trump this?

It depends on objectives. One, this is a competition and if you believe Tony Jams is the best player you should try to pick Tony Jams. Two, the number 1 pick gets a lot of attention, maybe you want that for your player, maybe you don't.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Apologies for being ignorant about the intricacies of the Father/Son Rule, but can somebody please explain to me, the benefits of picking a player you know you won't be able to keep, in exchange for getting a pick, or maybe a couple of picks in a later round.

As I understand it, if GWS select Will Ashcroft, then Brisbane will take him, and in compensation GWS will have the next pick and a pick in the mid-30s.

Wouldn't it be better, to just take the 2nd player with the original pick, and boost his confidence and self belief by showing how much you believe in him? Or does the opportunity to get another player in Round 2 or Round 3 trump this?

Not much to add re this year.

But in general clubs tend not to pick a F/S in the draft unless they are 'best available' at that pick. So if Ashcroft is clearly best available this year then GWS could well pick him at 1 and Bris match.

But if they are not sure then there is a an unwritten code of taking the alternative to the F/A. So most, not all but most, F/As slide in the draft.

The logic is that
1) You won't get them anyway, so why do it?
2) If all clubs aren't pricks and take the alternative player, then over time all clubs will get discounts on F/As. So it's a scratch my back type of deal. .... However, having said that there are limits. If the player is clearly best at that pick then you don't give another club a better deal.

Ashcroft is different as he is seen as the best this year. And GWS will gain some benefit by picking at 2. They know who they want and they will either get the best player this year or the player they want.

 

[SSwans2011]

I know that clubs have to say that there's no secret handshakes, but how would that actually be enforced?

It's pretty easy for GWS to say they went Cadman at Pick 1 as a show of faith, or that they wanted a KPF, etc.

For the record, I'm not shitting on GWS/Brisbane if this did happen. I don't really have a problem with 2 cubs collaborating to achieve a trade/draft result that benefits them both.

 

[iameviljez]

It makes more sense for two sides to have an agreement under the table not to bid on the other sides father sons or academy players.

AFAIK Ashcroft is so far in front of everyone else that it would raise questions if they did this.

 

[JasRulz63]

AFAIK Ashcroft is so far in front of everyone else that it would raise questions if they did this.

Not saying it'll happen, but GWS did move up to pick 1 for a KPF player, so they could easily argue they rate Cadman higher on their board.

 

[Taylor]

Holding pick #1 and not picking the player you eventually have at your club with that first pick costs the man who walks into your door $10,000 straight up from missing out on that NAB package for the #1 pick.

It's not big money for AFL, that player as a #2 pick is probably being offered $1,000,000 to sign a two year extension before the first game is played.