List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

 

[bedford]

Didn't let me down , be on top by midnight

 

[tombomb]

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?

Or a team finishes bottom 4, trades their first selection back for a pick in the teens and extra picks in the following draft. So they still match a high bid and get extra picks in future drafts.

Or, as you say, Gold Coast or Tassie or another team that desperately need local talent have to let a player walk because they can't get the picks to land in the right part of the draft.

Mandating that picks land in certain positions is an added complication that isn't needed.

 

[liz]

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

I read assertive suggestions that Weddle made his preference to stay in Victoria pretty clear to recruiters. If this is true, dismay over us not selecting him is as pointless as dismay over not picking Cyril Rioli.

 

[Membling]

Didn't let me down , be on top by midnight

For those unaware, Bedders is talking about post count in this thread

 

[Jewelsbon]

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.

Gee I'm glad you're not on the committee deciding on the changes.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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?

Take him at your selection, it's your call. You will be able to match within 10 spots if it falls in the last 10 of the first round so an early second would suffice. I'm comfortable they are changing it, it's better for everyone to clean it up once and for all so half the debate all year about this can stop. Just do it right, and I'm confident they will.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Gee I'm glad you're not on the committee deciding on the changes.

With any change no one will be completely satisfied, and if that's the end result it probably is 'fair' so to speak.

This has all come from this abysmal points curve they developed, it was like a first year apprentice did it. Terrible and it's overvalued junk mid round picks. That's the thing they need to fix, the matching is whatever. Personally increase the top 5-10, happy with the top 5, double the amount there, whatever there whether it be top 5 or top 10 non fussed there. You cannot match top 5 picks with junk that's the biggest issue and why everyone is up in arms. Look at the joke picks GC used and they still banked first rounders this year.

1. Fix the curve
2. Reduce the mid range values (from the second round onwards)

That's all you need to do, whether you want to put a round stipulation non fussed, but those two things have to be fixed.

 

[tombomb]

Take him at your selection, it's your call. You will be able to match within 10 spots if it falls in the last 10 of the first round so an early second would suffice. I'm comfortable they are changing it, it's better for everyone to clean it up once and for all so half the debate all year about this can stop. Just do it right, and I'm confident they will.

I don't share your confidence.

The AFL created this mess and now they are supposedly going to fix it.

The problem has been well known for years, yet the AFL has done nothing. So I am not confident that they even understand what the issue is, let alone how to fix it.

 

[Bloods86]

Take him at your selection, it's your call. You will be able to match within 10 spots if it falls in the last 10 of the first round so an early second would suffice. I'm comfortable they are changing it, it's better for everyone to clean it up once and for all so half the debate all year about this can stop. Just do it right, and I'm confident they will.

So northern clubs are forced to pay above market value for a player they paid to develop.

Sorry, that last line I can't comprehend. If you think the AFL, at the behest of non Northern clubs will "do it right", then I don't know what to say. "Do it right" for other clubs maybe.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don't share your confidence.

The AFL created this mess and now they are supposedly going to fix it.

The problem has been well known for years, yet the AFL has done nothing. So I am not confident that they even understand what the issue is, let alone how to fix it.

You are possibly right but lets hope they do, probably optimistic but hopefully they realise what the major issue is.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So northern clubs are forced to pay above market value for a player they paid to develop.

Sorry, that last line I can't comprehend. If you think the AFL, at the behest of non Northern clubs will "do it right", then I don't know what to say. "Do it right" for other clubs maybe.

All clubs northern or not will pay closer to real market value that's all this change will do. Just fix the curve and it fixes the whole thing, they actually don't need to over complicate this. The issue is the curve, pick 1 should not equal 2 and a bit junk 30 odd picks. Fix the curve everything else will be fine.

 

[Bloods86]

With any change no one will be completely satisfied, and if that's the end result it probably is 'fair' so to speak.

This has all come from this abysmal points curve they developed, it was like a first year apprentice did it. Terrible and it's overvalued junk mid round picks. That's the thing they need to fix, the matching is whatever. Personally increase the top 5-10, happy with the top 5, double the amount there, whatever there whether it be top 5 or top 10 non fussed there. You cannot match top 5 picks with junk that's the biggest issue and why everyone is up in arms. Look at the joke picks GC used and they still banked first rounders this year.

1. Fix the curve
2. Reduce the mid range values (from the second round onwards)

That's all you need to do, whether you want to put a round stipulation non fussed, but those two things have to be fixed.

GC did very well at the trade table, with a willing partner, who valued a high pick in 2023 over 2024. You seem to forget that they used up a 2023 first rounder in all this, as well as picks acquired from when they were plundered. The problem which academies are partly there to solve.

There can be some tightening sure, but you're being fairly one sided against northern clubs (no idea why), and treating an exceptional year for Gold Coast (surrounded by years of being plundered, likely plundering) as a common occurrence we need to be heavy handed in addressing.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

GC did very well at the trade table, with a willing partner, who valued a high pick in 2023 over 2024. You seem to forget that they used up a 2023 first rounder in all this, as well as picks acquired from when they were plundered. The problem which academies are partly there to solve.

There can be some tightening sure, but you're being fairly one sided against northern clubs (no idea why), and treating an exceptional year for Gold Coast (surrounded by years of being plundered, likely plundering) as a common occurrence we need to be heavy handed in addressing.

The only reason they did "very well at the trade table" is the ridiculous points curve though. Junk mid range picks should not equal 2 top 5 picks we will leave the other two out. The AFL surely just fixes the curve and we are done with these situations, the past is the past but lets not have every year where half the debatte around the trade is whether this club or that club is getting an elite talent for a bag of used chips.

 

[tombomb]

GC did very well at the trade table, with a willing partner, who valued a high pick in 2023 over 2024. You seem to forget that they used up a 2023 first rounder in all this, as well as picks acquired from when they were plundered. The problem which academies are partly there to solve.

There can be some tightening sure, but you're being fairly one sided against northern clubs (no idea why), and treating an exceptional year for Gold Coast (surrounded by years of being plundered, likely plundering) as a common occurrence we need to be heavy handed in addressing.

I don't agree with how much LP wants to increase the points by, but it is a significant problem and needs a significant change.

And it wasn't just Gold Coast last year that exposed the issues.

Brisbane were able to match on Ashcroft and Fletcher and trade for Dunkley with two picks in the teens.

Collingwood didn't even have a first round pick, they had already given it to GWS, and was still able to match on Nick Daicos without giving up their future 1st.

We were able to take Logan and then match on Campbell, without giving up our future 1st.

The system is really bad.

 

[Jewelsbon]

I don't share your confidence.

The AFL created this mess and now they are supposedly going to fix it.

The problem has been well known for years, yet the AFL has done nothing. So I am not confident that they even understand what the issue is, let alone how to fix it.

This, soooooo this!

 

[Bloods86]

I don't agree with how much LP wants to increase the points by, but it is a significant problem and needs a significant change.

And it wasn't just Gold Coast last year that exposed the issues.

Brisbane were able to match on Ashcroft and Fletcher and trade for Dunkley with two picks in the teens.

Collingwood didn't even have a first round pick, they had already given it to GWS, and was still able to match on Nick Daicos without giving up their future 1st.

We were able to take Logan and then match on Campbell, without giving up our future 1st.

The system is really bad.

As I've said, a tightening of points, discounts would be fine, particularly at the top end, or discount reduction/abolition, after the first player, if you have multiple top end prospects.

Trades have nothing to do with this. Trades can be fairly one sided, actual and on face value, related to contracts (ending or near end), players being disgruntled, salary cap issues etc.

 

[Caj]

I read assertive suggestions that Weddle made his preference to stay in Victoria pretty clear to recruiters. If this is true, dismay over us not selecting him is as pointless as dismay over not picking Cyril Rioli.

I didn’t read that anywhere

In any event if that did occur I’d expect the club to back their culture in and select the player regardless

 

[Caj]

Hardly, Weddle isn't even being played as a mid, as good as he's playing he's a mid in a poor side. How does that help our defenders. Bare in mind that trade allowed us to look forward get Grundy, etc.

It doesn’t matter what position he plays, he looks like a 200 gamer while our pick looks like a delisting candidate

As for Grundy we would’ve got him regardless, we handed over junk picks which we would’ve had regardless of the trade

 

[anotherletdown]

With any change no one will be completely satisfied, and if that's the end result it probably is 'fair' so to speak.

This has all come from this abysmal points curve they developed, it was like a first year apprentice did it. Terrible and it's overvalued junk mid round picks. That's the thing they need to fix, the matching is whatever. Personally increase the top 5-10, happy with the top 5, double the amount there, whatever there whether it be top 5 or top 10 non fussed there. You cannot match top 5 picks with junk that's the biggest issue and why everyone is up in arms. Look at the joke picks GC used and they still banked first rounders this year.

1. Fix the curve
2. Reduce the mid range values (from the second round onwards)

That's all you need to do, whether you want to put a round stipulation non fussed, but those two things have to be fixed.

Why not just reduce the discount? Or cleaner still, limit the discount to a certain number of points per draft

Pick 1 currently gets a discount of 600 points - pick 43 in value. Let's presume there's a second academy kid at pick 10 - another discount of 320 - pick 63 ish. And on and on. Can't be arsed on specific calculations but GC probably raked in 1200 or 1300 points in discounts last year - that's a pick in the mid/late teens of value plus getting the benefit of matching. It's way too generous.

 

[dosser]

Regardless of what the new rules will be, I can't wait to see how the Swans rort it with some sleight of hand on draft night

 

[bedford]

For those unaware, Bedders is talking about post count in this thread

Well thank you very much , just thought people would work it out .
There is a constant on this thread

 

[bedford]

Didn't let me down , be on top by midnight

Maybe by 1pm !

 

[Olian]

Heeney was drafted using our first round pick (which was pick 18) back in 2014. Demons bid on him at 2 but we could use our first round pick to match. Didn’t seem to unfair at the time to use our highest pick.

So AFL intervened and introduced a points system so that when Mills was drafted (Demons bid on him at pick 3). Swans traded out picks and used a mix of picks in the 30’s and 40’s to match a bid. AFL design the system, clubs work with the rules.

Since then the system has been tweaked. After 10 years the bidding system isn’t perfect but it allows Northern clubs to develop players who are locally based and less of a risk of leaving.

Last years draft highlights that concessional picks (free agent, bidding on academy and father son players) dilutes the draft order.

Eagles had pick 1 and then 30 in last years draft. At some stage isn’t the club at the bottom of the table the owner of poor list management. Eagles didn’t have a lot to trade with. Not an issue that the Northern clubs created.

End result will be that the Northern clubs will continue to be punished for successfully developing juniors who are good enough to be drafted at the AFL level.

 

[Punts]

Hayward put talks on hold to later in year

He will be gone imo

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Heeney was drafted using our first round pick (which was pick 18) back in 2014. Demons bid on him at 2 but we could use our first round pick to match. Didn’t seem to unfair at the time to use our highest pick.

So AFL intervened and introduced a points system so that when Mills was drafted (Demons bid on him at pick 3). Swans traded out picks and used a mix of picks in the 30’s and 40’s to match a bid. AFL design the system, clubs work with the rules.

Since then the system has been tweaked. After 10 years the bidding system isn’t perfect but it allows Northern clubs to develop players who are locally based and less of a risk of leaving.

Last years draft highlights that concessional picks (free agent, bidding on academy and father son players) dilutes the draft order.

Eagles had pick 1 and then 30 in last years draft. At some stage isn’t the club at the bottom of the table the owner of poor list management. Eagles didn’t have a lot to trade with. Not an issue that the Northern clubs created.

End result will be that the Northern clubs will continue to be punished for successfully developing juniors who are good enough to be drafted at the AFL level.

I’m in the minority here - but I think the right to match is enough.

I’d be comfortable with all points discounting being removed.

Yes, yes I know - father son, go-home factor, the AFL is still the VFL etc etc.

But NSW has the country’s biggest population & QLD the third. A time is coming when the northern academies are pumping out more talent than WA & SA.