List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals
- Thread starter hairy biker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Oct 14, 2016
- 3,057
- 3,806
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I think both ideas are flawed for the same reasons
You could effectively get stone walled out of the opportunity to match by other clubs. Plus, the premium to get up the board probably outweighs the current discount for accepting the bid. It just opens up too many bidding angles and although it might be clearer for fans, it doesn't make things clearer - in practice.
If those options go through the academies could, at certain talent brackets depending on ladder finish become totally neutered. As ugly as it is at times, the points system is a cleaner way to deal with bidding.
Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that NGA's and compensation picks should be scrapped, discounts dropped to 5 or 10% for academies and no discount should exist for father sons
I agree. All that needs to happen is that the points need to be rebalanced to give the higher picks more value. It would be the cleanest, most efficient response without over-complicating things. In addition, it still allows clubs to trade out of the first round to accumulate points so that clubs without academy/FS picks can take advantage of extra first round picks for themselves.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Double the top 5, and triple the top 3. It should be almost impossible to match in the top 3 but if you do you trade out of the next draft too.
If it’s impossible to match in the top 3 then what is the point of having academies? Why bother investing the money and time?
Nope, that won't work because it is too severe. Maybe double the top 10, but I haven't done the maths or thought too deeply about it.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Not really too severe, the curve is diabolical, the top 5 should be protected as much as we can. Double the points value at least. Last year we saw how bad these points curves are right now. I would be happy with doubling the top 10. Personally I'd add that the first pick for matching MUST be within 10 selections of the bid.
The maths needs to be a power function, not simple multiplication. That way you get a hyperbolic or similar curve that better represents the relative value of the players. Points matching from far away becomes virtually impossible if you limit the number of lower picks that can be used to either 2 or 3.
Is it in the interests of the VFL media to make this point?
Every club has access to father/sons (except GWS and GC but that is a function of time)
The academy is on top of father/sons. Collingwood was lucky to have a good crop.
Some wags over on another thread have demanded that the Swans draft Wes Walley, on the basis that …. well, with a name like that, he HAS to be in red & white.
wafl.com.au
Wesley Walley | WAFL
wafl.com.au
Problem is that he goes missing.Some wags over on another thread have demanded that the Swans draft Wes Walley, on the basis that …. well, with a name like that, he HAS to be in red & white.
Wesley Walley | WAFL
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It isn’t impossible if you are forced to have one pick within 10 selections of the bid.
I thought the problem was more that his teammates looked past him at every opportunity, kept burning him. When eventually they find him, game over.
If they bring in a "must have a pick in same round" or "must have pick within X picks" rule, it'll be fine until the Pies, Blues or Tigers miss out on a F/S because no-one will trade with them on draft night.
Then we'll have another knee jerk reaction to adjust, to placate the non Northern clubs.
sataris
Chief Toastie Officer
- Feb 15, 2015
- 10,694
- 21,694
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Dillon probably thinks that the NRL are still in Vegas.
I'm using the word 'thinks' generously.
Problem is, some seemed to be fixated on this idea that matching picks need to land in certain parts of the draft.
If you fixed the curve, none of that would matter. And it is just an unnecessary complication that will dilute an actual solution.
Because the AFL stuff up nearly everything they touch, no matter how simple, my expectation is that they will make minor adjustments to the curve and discount and introduce some complicated bidding system to say you need to use at least one first round pick to match a bid in the first round.
So you will still have the stupid situation of Collingwood or the bulldogs or us finishing top 4 and being able to match a bid in the top 3 without giving up anything close to fair value. As well as the situation where Gold Coast can finish down the bottom, trade back to get a whole suite of future selections and still match a bid at the top.
Both of those scenarios couldn't happen if they properly rated the draft index to reflect actual value.
We were linked to Weddle and he was available at our pick which we then on traded to Hawthorn
There’s plenty to play out still, but as it stands right now it’s up there with the Stephens over Serong debacle
It doesn't need to be that dramatic.
I'd increase pick 1 to about 3750 pts and remove the discount. Then index it gradually down through the first round.
If you remove access to the best players, I don't know what the point is for having an academy.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Make pick 1 a round figure, I'd go 4000 points at a minimum, remove the discount in the top 10, and you MUST use a first round selection to match a first round pick.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
You are Soooooo far off with what you are suggesting!
Need to match within 10 picks & triple the points for first round picks!!!
eg.. A club finishes 9th, missing finals. They have an Academy or F/S likely to go at pick 1.
They will need to somehow get about extra 5000 pts as they cant trade down their pick 9 worth 1000pts. So they use their 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks + their future 1st, 2nd, 3rd round picks + their future picks from 2 years away!
in summery, you want a club that misses finals to use their entire draft hand for the next three years to match a bid on pick 1?
The other option is they can sell their salary cap space, or trade out A grade players.
You either clearly havent thought this through, (despite posting this same crap for two years) or You are clearly an imposter from the VFL boys club.
Increasing pick 1 by 750 pts and removing the discount is a significant change and would strike the right balance between fairness and still having an incentive for academies and f/s to exist.
The second part about where the matching picks land just isn't needed if you fix the actual problem. But my expectation is because the AFL never fix anything, that is probably the (non) solution they will come up with.
- Mar 29, 2019
- 3,811
- 11,000
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Not sure if he'll be in our range come draft time, but just learnt that Christian Moraes and his family are Swans supporters!
I look forward to us overlooking him. Only for him to go on and be an absolute weapon for someone else and far better than whoever we overlooked him for.
Right so what happens if you make sure you have a first rounder but the player slides a little, so the bid comes after, but then no-one will trade with you. So you lose access to an academy player even though you had planned for it.
Or even more clear cut, someone bids with the final pick of the first round. How can you match it then?
- Status
