News AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

[philthy05]

Come on. I never said we directly traded pick 2 for Nick. However we did give it up because of him. Spin all you want. Those are the facts. Nick cost us pick 2..... indirectly.... l

Here you are saying you paid pick 2 for daicos

In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for ND.

And then you repeat it again in that post

“Nick cost us pick 2”

No he ****ing didn’t.

He cost you the late picks you traded for him.

The 2020 draft picks you traded for cost you pick 2

 

[Walshawk]

GWS and GC have no father sons, so they should have better academy access than Swans or Lions.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What in the actual * does this mean?

I think it means that without the access to the players the northern clubs will not support the academies with funds/ coaching support

 

[philthy05]

I think it means that without the access to the players the northern clubs will not support the academies with funds/ coaching support

So their intention isn’t to “grow the game” at all?

It’s to obtain direct access to those players?




Which is what I’ve said all along.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Sadly we poorly traded out pick 2 because of N Daicos for not much. If the system was different we would have keep that pick. In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for ND. We also used pick 8 (if I remember correctly) for Moore and a pick in the 50s or J Daicos because no one wanted him. Sadly Collingwood isnt the best club for getting cheap father sons despite having 3 good ones.

Here you are saying you paid pick 2 for daicos




And then you repeat it again in that post

“Nick cost us pick 2”

No he ******* didn’t.

He cost you the late picks you traded for him.

The 2020 draft picks you traded for cost you pick 2

Theres no point continuing this conversation. Im not sure if you lack the basic english skills to understand what I am saying or if you are just attempting to troll. You continue to try to take what I say out of context and continue to double down on your lack of understanding. On top of that you are cutting up sections of what I am saying to remove the context and putting it in quotations. But even then it doesn't quite say what you are suggesting. No cool.

 

[philthy05]

Theres no point continuing this conversation. Im not sure if you lack the basic english skills to understand what I am saying or if you are just attempting to troll. You continue to try to take what I say out of context and continue to double down on your lack of understanding. On top of that you are cutting my sentences in half to misquote them.

You’ve continued to claim I’m wrong, but here it ****ing is.

here’s just a couple of times you’ve said it.

In the end through poor trading we paid pick 2 for ND.

. Nick cost us pick 2..... indirectly..

you said what you said.

It’s right there in black and white.

You believe daicos cost you pick 2.



He. did. not. cost. you. pick 2.


A couple of 2020 draft picks and the arrogance to think you couldn’t flop in the next season cost you pick 2.


Daicos cost you a bunch of later picks.




You could say,

We made a dumb trade decision to trade away a future draft pick because we had daicos coming and thought it would be better to use it in the previous draft sure


In absolutely zero ****ing way does that equate to paying pick 2 for daicos.




You made a wild claim, and now keep trying to dig that hole.



Here you go ..

Facts. Don’t ****ing bother unless you can tell me which of these is an incorrect.

Pies traded a future pick that became pick 2 for 2020 draft picks


Pies used late picks to match the daicos bid in 2021.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

You could say,

We made a dumb trade decision to trade away a future draft pick because we had daicos coming and thought it would be better to use it in the previous draft

Thats what I said.

 

[My_Username]

So their intention isn’t to “grow the game” at all?

It’s to obtain direct access to those players?




Which is what I’ve said all along.

It's BOTH.

 

[philthy05]

Thats what I said.

No it’s not.

At no point have you conceded that you traded a future pick for 2020 picks and that you in fact used late picks for daicos (which is facts)


You said daicos cost you pick 2.


He didn’t.


If you said something you didn’t mean (more than once) then say it was a mistake.


Nothing you’ve said as a but but … changes that you’ve repeatedly said you paid pick 2 for daicos.

In no roundabout way did daicos cost you pick 2. he cost you late picks.

 

[philthy05]

It's BOTH.

But they don’t need priority access to players in order to do that do they? Ergo, it’s not a reason for it to exist.


What they need access to those players for is to be competitive. That’s why they need access, that’s why their fans want those players.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So their intention isn’t to “grow the game” at all?

It’s to obtain direct access to those players?




Which is what I’ve said all along.

Why would northern clubs care about growing the game? It’s an afl directive but they incentivise the northern clubs to do it with the priority access; I believe that attempts to do it directly by afl failed which is why they went with using clubs. Mind that was based on what swabs supporters have told me.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

No it’s not.

At no point have you conceded that you traded a future pick for 2020 picks and that you in fact used late picks for daicos (which is facts)

Collingwood traded a future 1st for later picks in 2020 and we traded later picks the year later for Nick Daicos. We did exactly what you said

You said daicos cost you pick 2.

He did. We would not have traded that pick out if Daicos didnt exist. In other word we would have kept the pick.

If you said something you didn’t mean (more than once) then say it was a mistake.

Ive made no mistakes. You are just a bit pedantic about exact words and the understanding of the english language. You dont like me using the words "Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2" because for some reason you take that to mean that I am saying that we payed pick 2 directly to get Daicos. I am not saying that. I am saying that we traded out that future pick 2 because Collingwood thought it would be absorbed by the Daicos bid. It was stupid, which I said at the time.

Nothing you’ve said as a but but … changes that you’ve repeatedly said you paid pick 2 for daicos.

And I will say it again.

In no roundabout way did daicos cost you pick 2. he cost you late picks.

Let me ask you this. If Daicos didnt exist would have Collingwood traded out that future pick 2? If the answer is no (which is what I believe) then Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2. Sure they never had to trade the pick out and we did get some 2nd rounders (sort of) for the pick. But that trade would not have occurred without Daicos.

 

[philthy05]

Collingwood traded a future 1st for later picks in 2020 and we traded later picks the year later for Nick Daicos. We did exactly what you said



He did. We would not have traded that pick out if Daicos didnt exist. In other word we would have kept the pick.


Ive made no mistakes. You are just a bit pedantic about exact words and the understanding of the english language. You dont like me using the words "Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2" because for some reason you take that to mean that I am saying that we payed pick 2 directly to get Daicos. I am not saying that. I am saying that we traded out that future pick 2 because Collingwood thought it would be absorbed by the Daicos bid. It was stupid, which I said at the time.



And I will say it again.


Let me ask you this. If Daicos didnt exist would have Collingwood traded out that future pick 2? If the answer is no (which is what I believe) then Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2. Sure they never had to trade the pick out and we did get some 2nd rounders (sort of) for the pick. But that trade would not have occurred without Daicos.

It’s not being pedantic to insist that words mean what they actually mean.

In no way did you pay pick 2 for daicos.

As for the last paragraph. What a load of horseshit.

We have zero way of knowing whether pies would have traded a future pick out to get into the 2020 draft if daicos didn’t exist. It’s guesswork, and it’s entirely pointless in the context anyway.


Trading your future first for 2020 picks doesn’t mean you paid or used them to acquire daicos



Port just traded our future first.

Once we draft Rome Burgoyne next year as a father son can I claim that we paid pick 15 (or whatever) for him?

 

[Outtatym]

Genuine question how much input do clubs actually have with these academy's? It's not like they are using their coaches/fitness staff etc to run kids clinics or training sessions outside of the pathway?

 

[eastfreo75]

The points system is a joke.

First round picks are undervalued by 25% to 50%.

Then teams get another 25% discount on top of that.

Maybe we do this:
1. Bidding is before the trading period.
2. No discounts.
3. Keep the current points system.
4. Teams go into deficit are carried into future.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

It’s not being pedantic to insist that words mean what they actually mean.

In no way did you pay pick 2 for daicos.

As for the last paragraph. What a load of horseshit.

We have zero way of knowing whether pies would have traded a future pick out to get into the 2020 draft if daicos didn’t exist. It’s guesswork, and it’s entirely pointless in the context anyway.


Trading your future first for 2020 picks doesn’t mean you paid or used them to acquire daicos



Port just traded our future first.

Once we draft Rome Burgoyne next year as a father son can I claim that we paid pick 15 (or whatever) for him?

Did GCS trade out pick 4 this year because of its academy bids?

Everyone knows the answer is hell yes.

Did Collingwood trade out its future 1st in 2020 because of Daicos?

Hell yes.... but you say that its guess work. Well what if I said that its not guess work because there would be people that know the answer to this and the question just needs to be asked. Its not rocket science.

Hey Eddie McGuire.. Did you trade out a future 1st in 2020 because you were going to pick up Nick Daicos in 2021?

Hey Derek Hine.... repeat question.....

Hey Ned Guy... etc

Here is a newspaper article quote that helps to remove the guess work

.

With Daicos likely to command the bid under the father-son rules within the first five selections of next year's draft, a club source confirmed the Magpies are open to trading their first pick for next season, to improve the set of draft selections they take into this year's draft, having acquired the Bulldogs' future second round selection to use on points required for Daicos.

Collingwood pick swaps still possible

Collingwood supporters are still getting their heads around Adam Treloar and Jaidyn Stephenson's departures as the Magpies consider trading next year's future first round pick to strengthen their position at this year's draft.

www.google.com

Is it pointless in the context?...... hell no.... This is my only point and therefore the only context in this conversation Im not disagreeing with pretty much anything you are saying apart from the point that ..... Nick Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2 because the only reason they traded it out was because he was going to be selected the folowing year.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Until they revise free agency this is the lesser problem. That North can avoid paying Ben McKay something like a million bucks a year and then get doubly rewarded with pick 3 is insane.

Just because Essendon are idiots shouldn’t push everyone else down the draft order by a pick.

There needs to be an official in depth investigation into this considering who the new CEO is. If anything corrupt is discovered then North should be stripped of first round draft picks for two seasons minimum. The pick package should also come under the scope.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Geelong is happy to give up it's Father-Son rights if they have an academy with access to every country and regional kid in Victoria.

You know it makes sense.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Do it in 2025.

We got Camporeale's incoming.

Ditto the Lions who have Ashcroft junior. Hoping to match the bid with a handful of BBQ shapes

 

[philthy05]

Did GCS trade out pick 4 this year because of its academy bids?

Everyone knows the answer is hell yes.

Did Collingwood trade out its future 1st in 2020 because of Daicos?

Hell yes.... but you say that its guess work. Well what if I said that its not guess work because there would be people that know the answer to this and the question just needs to be asked. Its not rocket science.

Hey Eddie McGuire.. Did you trade out a future 1st in 2020 because you were going to pick up Nick Daicos in 2021?

Hey Derek Hine.... repeat question.....

Hey Ned Guy... etc

Here is a newspaper article quote that helps to remove the guess work

.

With Daicos likely to command the bid under the father-son rules within the first five selections of next year's draft, a club source confirmed the Magpies are open to trading their first pick for next season, to improve the set of draft selections they take into this year's draft, having acquired the Bulldogs' future second round selection to use on points required for Daicos.

Collingwood pick swaps still possible

Collingwood supporters are still getting their heads around Adam Treloar and Jaidyn Stephenson's departures as the Magpies consider trading next year's future first round pick to strengthen their position at this year's draft.

www.google.com

Is it pointless in the context?...... hell no.... This is my only point and therefore the only context in this conversation Im not disagreeing with pretty much anything you are saying apart from the point that ..... Nick Daicos cost Collingwood pick 2 because the only reason they traded it out was because he was going to be selected the folowing year.

1. Guessing what someone would do is the LITERAL ****ing definition of guesswork

2. And as I’ve explained to you whether Collingwood would or would not have traded that pick, is completely irrelevant to your claim pies paid pick 2 for daicos

3. For the hundredth time. Pies did not pay pick 2 for daicos as you claimed originally and continue to push.

4. I challenged you to answer a question before and you didn’t.

I’m going to ask you again..


Port traded out our first rounder for next year.

When we inevitably draft Rome Burgoyne, would we say Rome Burgoyne cost us pick 15 (or wherever our first lands)?




Please please walk into this Chinese finger trap.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

1. Guessing what someone would do is the LITERAL ******* definition of guesswork

2. And as I’ve explained to you whether Collingwood would or would not have traded that pick, is completely irrelevant to your claim pies paid pick 2 for daicos

3. For the hundredth time. Pies did not pay pick 2 for daicos as you claimed originally and continue to push.

4. I challenged you to answer a question before and you didn’t.

I’m going to ask you again..


Port traded out our first rounder for next year.

When we inevitably draft Rome Burgoyne, would we say Rome Burgoyne cost us pick 15 (or wherever our first lands)?




Please please walk into this Chinese finger trap.

Na im done. I think I have made my point.

 

[go_the_dockers]

My proposals ( 3 parts, pick some or all).


1. Limit the discount.

Instead of a fixed 20%, clubs get, say, 200 pts of discount per year*, to use on FS/Academy/NGA picks.

If you don't use it, it banks up, so if you don't get a FS for 5 years, you can use 1,000 points on him (which might mean you get him for free..and even have change left over).

If you run out of points, you can still match the bid, but you need to pay full price.

* - instead of 200 pts per year, another option would be to give different points depending on ladder position each year...such as 20pts*position, so the GF winner, being 1st gets 20pts, while the wooden spooner gets 18*20=360pts.

I can think of other potential adjustments to how many points clubs get, but don't trust the AFL enough to give them that kind of discretion.

----------------------

I'd also look at forcing clubs to have a pick within 1 round (18 picks, with any extra picks not being counted) of the player you're matching. This pick can be acquired by live trading.

--------------------

Free agency compensation comes in points, not picks.

This allows more variety in the compensation, so just making a threshold doesn't mean nearly as much, making it less open to manipulation.

These points can be used to upgrade existing picks (so you don't get more picks, just better ones)....Probably with a limit of not acquiring top 10 picks this way.

The same system could be used for assistance packages.

Awesome, we have 3000 points if discount built up. Can't wait to use it.

Now we just need eligible players.

 

[philthy05]

Na im done. I think I have made my point.

By made your point you mean keep insisting that pies paid pick 2 for daicos even though they traded that pick the year before for 2020 draft picks unrelated to the picks they used to pick up daicos a year later.

I knew you would dodge the question about ports future first and if that means we used pick 15 on Rome Burgoyne. lol.

 

[My_Username]

Awesome, we have 3000 points if discount built up. Can't wait to use it.

Now we just need eligible players.

That is kinda the point.

Clubs that get fewer players get more benefit per player.

That said, I'd say everyone starts at zero....Sorry, but backdating would just start more arguments.

 

[My_Username]

But they don’t need priority access to players in order to do that do they? Ergo, it’s not a reason for it to exist.


What they need access to those players for is to be competitive. That’s why they need access, that’s why their fans want those players.

What motivation would they have to put in the kind of effort they do if they don't get something out of it?