List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[BigMonty]

Keep the system for Academies and FS as is, if you match a bid then no 25% discount. If you select with your pick yiu get the 25% discount.

You use your next pick with the balance taken from your future frdp. If that is traded then you cannot match. Simples

Force the recruiting team to make the decisions not the AFL.

If you trade your picks away as you do not think that highly of a player don't come squeeling to us. You can also trade list spots on the night to cover that unexpected eventuality.

Once again place the onus on the club to solve not the AFL


On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Punter]

Or abolish

 

[jimmytigs]

Or abolish

im careful about abolishing,i lived through the joyous wonderful years of 83-86,where we had 5 4 3 and 2 wins,we were on the verge of winning our 4th spoon in a row,while carlton and hawthorn topped up with spuds kernahan motley bradley dorotich and platten,after playing in 15 of the 18 grand finals between 68 and 85 between them,then 7 of the next 10

as bad as things look,i would hate to be so joyous again

 

[The Punter]

im careful about abolishing,i lived through the joyous wonderful years of 83-86,where we had 5 4 3 and 2 wins,we were on the verge of winning our 4th spoon in a row,while carlton and hawthorn topped up with spuds kernahan motley bradley dorotich and platten,after playing in 15 of the 18 grand finals between 68 and 85 between them,then 7 of the next 10

as bad as things look,i would hate to be so joyous again

None of those players were father-sons

This is what a no-draft system would look like

I'm for removing the perversions of the draft, like the father-son rule and the academies, because they cannot ever be fairly implemented.

 

[gringo2011]

The draft and the fixture and a stack of stuff in the afl is designed to promote equality. The issue really stems from the fact that some other stuff will inevitably wind up promoting inequality. COLA and the academies in particular. Father son to a lesser degree.

The biggest issue the game has right now is free agency. I support it but inevitably free agency has always shown the rich get richer and so far in the AFL that’s remained the same.

Players deserve to have freedom to move around and maximize their earnings and career but frankly if we want proper equality clubs needs to be able to move them on without their consent too.

The FS was a small impact but once you add academy is like the difference between a flea bit and an infestation. Too much is coming out.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Keep the system for Academies and FS as is, if you match a bid then no 25% discount. If you select with your pick yiu get the 25% discount.

You use your next pick with the balance taken from your future frdp. If that is traded then you cannot match. Simples

Force the recruiting team to make the decisions not the AFL.

If you trade your picks away as you do not think that highly of a player don't come squeeling to us. You can also trade list spots on the night to cover that unexpected eventuality.

Once again place the onus on the club to solve not the AFL


On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Easy answer is to have the points scale terminate at the end of 2nd round and remove the discount.
That fixes everything without the need for any other changes.
In so doing, the premiership winner could still access a kid at P1 but it would cost them 2x FRDPs and 2x SRDPs which would prevent them from other significant list development.

That only half fixes the problem though. Free agency should simply be eliminated, forcing top players on to short contracts if they want to chase the big $$$ and a premiership at the same time. The ability of clubs having access to elite players without a knock-on effect to the rest of their list is equally as damaging as the perverted draft.

 

[Diehard Saint]

None of those players were father-sons

This is what a no-draft system would look like

I'm for removing the perversions of the draft, like the father-son rule and the academies, because they cannot ever be fairly implemented.

100%
Some inequities will never change due to number of teams and the number of rounds played. And of course all those “big” games which I can never see changing.

But abolishing the F/S and Academies is an easy fix to at least try and equalise things a little more. These out of Vic clubs have been around for years now, they should not be getting the extra help any more.

As for F/S…you’re either a professional code or a romantic. Can’t be both.

 

[luca77]

As for F/S…you’re either a professional code or a romantic. Can’t be both.

Yes you can . And they are. It's not the black and white world that people try to paint it as sometimes.

Continuing on from my chat with Punter yesterday, yeah I agree that the other million ways in which things are unfair should be addressed one by one.

But firstly, some advantages are unfixable - for example Geelong having a home ground advantage and the lure of the surf coast lifestyle while the other Melbourne teams (especially those based at the docklands) have practically no home ground advantage, and have to outbid each other and beg players to come.

Secondly, there are unfair aspects of the game that have no benefit whatsoever. Those are the ones that should be addressed first IMO. So long as clubs pay a fair price, the F-S unquestionably adds interest and emotion to the game. And I think if players have a strong family connection to a club they should be helped to get there.

Stripping it out for the sake of fairness, when there is so much else that is incredibly unfair, is losing something lots of people consider to be valuable (even if you and Punter don't) while taking a p!55 in the ocean when it comes to addressing fairness in the comp for mine.

I'll happily reconsider my opinion when most of the other big issues have been addressed, and this one rule is making a big difference between a fair comp and an unfair comp. Which it was for a long time due to the unfairly cheap price clubs were having to pay.

 

[phantom13]

100%
Some inequities will never change due to number of teams and the number of rounds played. And of course all those “big” games which I can never see changing.

But abolishing the F/S and Academies is an easy fix to at least try and equalise things a little more. These out of Vic clubs have been around for years now, they should not be getting the extra help any more.

As for F/S…you’re either a professional code or a romantic. Can’t be both.

I like the idea of the F/S and ultimately a 10 or 15% discount on draft points applied properly isnt making a world of difference.

If Nick Daicos should have been first and Collingwood has to get pick 4 or 5 to get him i can live with that.

 

[The Punter]

I like the idea of the F/S and ultimately a 10 or 15% discount on draft points applied properly isnt making a world of difference.

If Nick Daicos should have been first and Collingwood has to get pick 4 or 5 to get him i can live with that.

Collingwood had pick 2 and traded it away because they knew they wouldn't need it to select the best player in the draft.

Collingwood won the premiership last year and all three of their All-Australian players were sons of former players (and very good ones at that).

The Father Son rule isn't fixable.

 

[stavro#4]

I see Cal Twomey has effectively just put Battle on band 1 compensation watch…

And again linked him to Hawthorn.

 

[phantom13]

Collingwood had pick 2 and traded it away because they knew they wouldn't need it to select the best player in the draft.

Collingwood won the premiership last year and all three of their All-Australian players were sons of former players (and very good ones at that).

The Father Son rule isn't fixable.

It absolutely is though and thats exactly my point.

In that instance Collingwood has to find a way to make pick 2 match the points value for whatever Naicos is nominated at with the discount.

EG. Hes nommed with pick 1 ahead of the draft and the discount shows that Collingwood has to have pick 4 or better to match, not pooling picks, not future picks no bullshit.

System fixed.

 

[The Punter]

It absolutely is though and thats exactly my point.

In that instance Collingwood has to find a way to make pick 2 match the points value for whatever Naicos is nominated at with the discount.

EG. Hes nommed with pick 1 ahead of the draft and the discount shows that Collingwood has to have pick 4 or better to match, not pooling picks, not future picks no bullshit.

System fixed.

IMO system fixed if Nick Daicos ends up getting drafted by whichever team finished last in his draft year. He should be wearing royal blue stripes and not black ones. Collingwood's membership numbers would be the same, and we'd still get too many shots of Peter Daicos in corporate boxes enjoying the performance of his son.

 

[stavro#4]

The first four are contracted and the post mentioned "for free" so perhaps we are looking at Borlase (UFA). Had a pretty good debut game last year and was the only Crow to get a coaches vote on the weekend. Still only 21.

Keane has been more than handy but has a year to run, Crows would be entitled to get a decent amount back if he wants to go back to Collingwood at the end of the year.

I said key defenders that are free will attract bigger salaries not that we are keen on a free agent or out of contract defender.

 

[stavro#4]

So we put Max Hall in #40. Weird move give #37 was available.

Unless...

View attachment 2010409
View attachment 2010408

Not sure why anyone is laughing at your post.

I’ll give you a link….

 

[phantom13]

IMO system fixed if Nick Daicos ends up getting drafted by whichever team finished last in his draft year. He should be wearing royal blue stripes and not black ones. Collingwood's membership numbers would be the same, and we'd still get too many shots of Peter Daicos in corporate boxes enjoying the performance of his son.

Well thats a different discussion and im not necessarily anti abolishing it, i like it and think its very easily fixed.

I looked it up and pick 1 is worth 3000 points, from memory Nick was nommed at pick 4 which is 2034 points. Call it a 20% discount for father son is 1628 points, pick 7 is worth 1644.

With my idea Collingwood need to find a way to get pick 7 or better to match the Daicos bid to get him, whatever they need to do to make that happen is up to them.

Still give clubs a crack at getting their F/S but theyre paying very very close to market rate for him.

For the record as it stands they used 38, 40, 42 and 44 for him which is 1651 points.

 

[The Punter]

Well thats a different discussion and im not necessarily anti abolishing it, i like it and think its very easily fixed.

I looked it up and pick 1 is worth 3000 points, from memory Nick was nommed at pick 4 which is 2034 points. Call it a 20% discount for father son is 1628 points, pick 7 is worth 1644.

With my idea Collingwood need to find a way to get pick 7 or better to match the Daicos bid to get him, whatever they need to do to make that happen is up to them.

Still give clubs a crack at getting their F/S but theyre paying very very close to market rate for him.

For the record as it stands they used 38, 40, 42 and 44 for him which is 1651 points.

I think the issue there is a club can then demand a king's ransom for pick 7 if they hold it, at a time when they cannot trade players (post-trade week), with the clock ticking (draft picks are timed). It would correct things too far.

You see, my problem is I don't see why Nick Daicos has to play for Collingwood. I do see why Nick Daicos should have played for North Melbourne (they're terrible and need the talent, which is what the draft should do - send the best talent to where it is most needed).

 

[phantom13]

I think the issue there is a club can then demand a king's ransom for pick 7 if they hold it, at a time when they cannot trade players (post-trade week), with the clock ticking (draft picks are timed). It would correct things too far.

You see, my problem is I don't see why Nick Daicos has to play for Collingwood. I do see why Nick Daicos should have played for North Melbourne (they're terrible and need the talent, which is what the draft should do - send the best talent to where it is most needed).

North didnt even nominate him though. Its hard to hold anyone else accountable for it when North chose not to nom him.

Collingwood doesnt have to get pick 7 they just have to get a pick within the top 7, they still get some competitive tension when they can literally go to any club inside the top 7 to get a deal done.

 

[phantom13]

Naicos wasnt even the first father son nommed that year

 

[Sainter1873]

North didnt even nominate him though. Its hard to hold anyone else accountable for it when North chose not to nom him.

Collingwood doesnt have to get pick 7 they just have to get a pick within the top 7, they still get some competitive tension when they can literally go to any club inside the top 7 to get a deal done.

What do you mean by North didn’t nominate him?

 

[phantom13]

What do you mean by North didn’t nominate him?

North didnt nominate to draft him with pick 1, nor did the next 3 teams.

He was first nominated by Gold Coast.

Now you can argue North didnt wanna waste pick 1 with a nom that would be matched but pick 2 was a Sam Darcy nomination and from my recollection JHF was just about a consensus number 1 pick from a while out.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Just get rid of the flipping academies .... its a nationwide sport played now in all states with an established national U18 comp

Also North should have been pushed to Tassie (to keep it at 18 teams) and the fixture could then be 17 games + Finals ..... all play each other once (home one year / away the next)

Or make it a 18 game fixture comp with the extra game being a Derby game... ie- Adelaide v Port / Freo v Eagles / Brions v Suns / Swans v GWS / Melbourne teams can swap who they play each year depending on ladder positions (top teams play each other .... bottom sides play each other) .... this extra game can be fixtured as a mid year game .... each team gets 2 byes ... one after 6th round and one after 12th round

Unfortunately North won't be going to Tassie ... but in a 19 Team comp the AFL should still revert back to an 18 game fixture where all teams play each other once ..... but money rules so it probably won't happen

 

[The Punter]

North didnt even nominate him though. Its hard to hold anyone else accountable for it when North chose not to nom him.

Collingwood doesnt have to get pick 7 they just have to get a pick within the top 7, they still get some competitive tension when they can literally go to any club inside the top 7 to get a deal done.

My recollection is that they did not nominate him because they couldn't get him so didn't see the need. It doesn't matter because there was no way they could ensure he ended up at North Melbourne, which was my point.

So they moved onto Horne-Francis, which while not exactly a success for North Melbourne to say the least, they managed (in a convoluted way in a very complicated draft ) to turn into picks 2 & 3 (which, after not being able to select Ashcroft, became Wardlaw and Sheezel).

 

[phantom13]

Just get rid of the flipping academies .... its a nationwide sport played now in all states with an established national U18 comp

Also North should have been pushed to Tassie (to keep it at 18 teams) and the fixture could then be 17 games + Finals ..... all play each other once (home one year / away the next)

Or make it a 18 game fixture comp with the extra game being a Derby game... ie- Adelaide v Port / Freo v Eagles / Brions v Suns / Swans v GWS / Melbourne teams can swap who they play each year depending on ladder positions (top teams play each other .... bottom sides play each other) .... this extra game can be fixtured as a mid year game .... each team gets 2 byes ... one after 6th round and one after 12th round

Unfortunately North won't be going to Tassie ... but in a 19 Team comp the AFL should still revert back to an 18 game fixture where all teams play each other once ..... but money rules so it probably won't happen

Im tipping itll be a 20 team comp pretty quickly at which point they should do 2 conferences of 10 with every team playing every other team twice (once home and once away).

Do 2 or 3 bye weeks, 4 weeks final series (top 6) with the Grand Final being the two conference champs playing.

 

[phantom13]

My recollection is that they did not nominate him because they couldn't get him so didn't see the need. It doesn't matter because there was no way they could ensure he ended up at North Melbourne, which was my point.

So they moved onto Horne-Francis, which while not exactly a success for North Melbourne to say the least, they managed (in a convoluted way in a very complicated draft ) to turn into picks 2 & 3 (which, after not being able to select Ashcroft, became Wardlaw and Sheezel).

Why didnt GWS nom him at 2 then? Adelaide the year before nominated JUH when they couldnt get him?

If hes worth pick 1 then nominate him, as it stands he was drafted at pick 4.

My point is really that the difference between picks 1 and 5 is generally pretty small, right about that discounted amount. You wanna turf the whole thing so in reality we are not arguing anything equivalent. I wouldnt be anti them scrapping it (although i like it for purely romantic reasons) im just saying if they keep it its actually very very easily fixed.