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

[tombomb]

Confusing?

I’ve asked you repeatedly where you draw the line at premium mark up on picks? At what draft pick does it stop?

How does it expressly stop teams from still using multiple later picks or are teams still just using more later picks? Since there’s no rule change saying they cannot.

If early picks are now worth a heap more points, doesn’t that just mean early draft picks are now worth more points in trades as well?

So a team can still trade that worth a *load first out for multiple later picks to match?

If a team trades out a first rounder for more points they trade out a pick worth 1700 points and look for 1900 points in return.

If you’ve decided to raise that pick value to 2700 points , that’s the value in picks a team will look to in return yeah?

If you drive up early points values, their trade value will surely follow.

Your “solution” requires making a lot of arbitrary decisions regarding values, making an arbitrary cut off, and hoping that then solves the problem.




Opposed to my suggestion you baulked at, simply ruling that only picks in the round and following round can be used to match bids.

Which absolutely and categorically ends the ability to stockpile and pay for prospects with bundles of late picks.

There’s no fuss no muss.

I'm not going to go through and list the entire draft order and what I think each pick should be worth.

I am saying pick 3 should not be worth three selections in the 30s. They need to increase the value of those higher picks so teams can't stockpile a handful of junk picks and match bids for top 10 selections.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

 

[philthy05]

I'm not going to go through and list the entire draft order and what I think each pick should be worth.

I am saying pick 3 should not be worth three selections in the 30s. They need to increase the value of those higher picks so teams can't stockpile a handful of junk picks and match bids for top 10 selections.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

At no point have I asked you to do that.

You’re arguing that so it seems I’ve asked for something extreme as a cop out to avoid answering the questions I’ve posed.


Sure, the points values aren’t really correctly balanced, but arbitrarily re-jigging them doesn’t solve the issue we’re talking about.

In absolutely zero way does it stop teams from stockpiling later picks and paying for bids with them.


As I said, your solution does not contain any rule stopping them.

As I also pointed out, which you’ve refused to address again and again, if you drive up the points value of draft picks you’re driving up their trade value as well.

That high draft pick you’ve driven up now buys more later picks worth more value.

I don’t need your help understanding anything. You’re getting frustrated that I keep pointing out the flaws in your “simple” solution.

 

[tombomb]

At no point have I asked you to do that.

You’re arguing that so it seems I’ve asked for something extreme as a cop out to avoid answering the questions I’ve posed.


Sure, the points values aren’t really correctly balanced, but arbitrarily re-jigging them doesn’t solve the issue we’re talking about.

In absolutely zero way does it stop teams from stockpiling later picks and paying for bids with them.


As I said, your solution does not contain any rule stopping them.

As I also pointed out, which you’ve refused to address again and again, if you drive up the points value of draft picks you’re driving up their trade value as well.

That high draft pick you’ve driven up now buys more later picks worth more value.

I don’t need your help understanding anything. You’re getting frustrated that I keep pointing out the flaws in your “simple” solution.

If I went through and responded to everything in your posts, it would take a very long time.

Your solution doesn't fix the actual problem. All your doing is creating a new way for teams to rort the system.

Collingwood and the Bulldogs would still be able to get Daicos and Darcy for about 30% of their actual value. Same with Gold Coast with Walter and Sydney with Mills and so on. You'd still be able to match pick 1 with a pick in the teens and then a bunch in the 40s.

They would keep their pick in the teens and then match the rest of it using junk later picks. They just wouldn't need as many later picks.

Or if they had a high first round pick, they would trade it for a late one and add extra first round picks the following year.

If you increase the value of higher picks, teams that finish high on the ladder couldn't do that. They would have to trade out their future first at least to get enough points to match a top 3 bid.

And teams that finish low on the ladder would have a real decision to make about whether they just hold their position in the draft and let it be absorbed when a bid comes.

The whole thing could be solved in 5 minutes.

 

[philthy05]

If I went through and responded to everything in your posts, it would take a very long time.

Your solution doesn't fix the actual problem. All your doing is creating a new way for teams to rort the system.

Collingwood and the Bulldogs would still be able to get Daicos and Darcy for about 30% of their actual value. Same with Gold Coast with Walter and Sydney with Mills and so on. You'd still be able to match pick 1 with a pick in the teens and then a bunch in the 40s.

They would keep their pick in the teens and then match the rest of it using junk later picks. They just wouldn't need as many later picks.

Or if they had a high first round pick, they would trade it for a late one and add extra first round picks the following year.

If you increase the value of higher picks, teams that finish high on the ladder couldn't do that. They would have to trade out their future first at least to get enough points to match a top 3 bid.

And teams that finish low on the ladder would have a real decision to make about whether they just hold their position in the draft and let it be absorbed when a bid comes.

The whole thing could be solved in 5 minutes.

1. In what way is my stated solution open to being rorted? There is no way for it to be rorted. You make no claim to how it can be, only stating that it can.

2. My suggestion does fix the problem. Late picks can no longer be bundled for highly rated prospects under my rule change.

if late picks cannot be used under my rule, then clubs cannot bundle multiple late picks to use for highly rated prospects ergo I’ve solved the problem.

Yes?

3. Pies and dogs get daicos and Darcy for 30% under value? Wtf do you mean by this? This is you in a nutshell, making up a claim with no supporting evidence and claiming it as some sort of fact.

4. You claim you could match pick 1 with a teens pick and picks in the 40’s?

Let’s test that.

Pick 1 = 3000 points - 20% discount = 2400

Teens pick - 1329 to 938

Approx half way point of that for this is pick 15 - 1112 pts leaving 1288 pts.

You say that can be made up with picks in the 40’s (which technically isn’t 2nd round picks unless pushed well back by compo picks which can happen. You’ve also chosen end of 2nd round to try to help your point.)

It would take 4 late second rounders to make up the points under your picks in the 40’s example. Which Collingwood and dogs aren’t getting unless they trade a future first away? As they’re already using a first in your example

So your horrid worst case scenario of my suggestion not working is Collingwood having to pay 2 1sts instead of the picks in the 40’s and 50’s they paid for daicos?

Cool.

 

[tombomb]

1. In what way is my stated solution open to being rorted? There is no way for it to be rorted. You make no claim to how it can be, only stating that it can.

2. My suggestion does fix the problem. Late picks can no longer be bundled for highly rated prospects under my rule change.

if late picks cannot be used under my rule, then clubs cannot bundle multiple late picks to use for highly rated prospects ergo I’ve solved the problem.

Yes?

3. Pies and dogs get daicos and Darcy for 30% under value? Wtf do you mean by this? This is you in a nutshell, making up a claim with no supporting evidence and claiming it as some sort of fact.

4. You claim you could match pick 1 with a teens pick and picks in the 40’s?

Let’s test that.

Pick 1 = 3000 points - 20% discount = 2400

Teens pick - 1329 to 938

Approx half way point of that for this is pick 15 - 1112 pts leaving 1288 pts.

You say that can be made up with picks in the 40’s (which technically isn’t 2nd round picks unless pushed well back by compo picks which can happen. You’ve also chosen end of 2nd round to try to help your point.)

It would take 4 late second rounders to make up the points under your picks in the 40’s example. Which Collingwood and dogs aren’t getting unless they trade a future first away? As they’re already using a first in your example

So your horrid worst case scenario of my suggestion being rorted / not paying value is Collingwood having to pay 2 1sts instead of the picks in the 40’s and 50’s they paid for daicos?

Cool.

Team can easily acquire multiple picks between 30 and 50 if they have to.

First of all they have their own second round pick and their future second round which they can trade. Then they just need to find (maybe) two more, which they could either trade out of the previous drafts, lose a fringe player, or bundle later picks to move up a bit.

If the bid comes outside the top 2, you would only need a pick in the late teens and two picks in the 30s.

So we would be in the exact same situation we are now where a team that finishes high up the ladder, matches a bid on a really high pick without having to give up anything comparable.

Unless the value of higher selections are increased, it doesn't matter what complicated clauses are thrown in, any team that has a really highly rated academy or f+s will still be making out like bandits.

 

[philthy05]

Team can easily acquire multiple picks between 30 and 50 if they have to.

First of all they have their own second round pick and their future second round which they can trade. Then they just need to find (maybe) two more, which they could either trade out of the previous drafts, lose a fringe player, or bundle later picks to move up a bit.

If the bid comes outside the top 2, you would only need a pick in the late teens and two picks in the 30s.

So we would be in the exact same situation we are now where a team that finishes high up the ladder, matches a bid on a really high pick without having to give up anything comparable.

Unless the value of higher selections are increased, it doesn't matter what complicated clauses are thrown in, any team that has a really highly rated academy or f+s will still be making out like bandits.

1. So now you’re calling pick 50 a second round pick? You’re really struggling here.

2. Yeah they have access to their second rounders and can trade for more.

- how is that a negative?

Teams having to trade for and / or use 2nd rounders to add to their first rounder to match a bid is far better than the current system of bundling together late picks galore.

3. It would take a pick in the teens and 2 picks in the 30’s to match a bid outside pick 2?

Ummm yes, it would roughly take a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders to match a bid as high as 3.


That is the literal definition of what we’re trying to achieve yes?

That’s better than the current system of a team using multiple late picks to match such a bid

 

[tombomb]

1. So now you’re calling pick 50 a second round pick? You’re really struggling here.

2. Yeah they have access to their second rounders and can trade for more.

- how is that a negative?

Teams having to trade for and / or use 2nd rounders to add to their first rounder to match a bid is far better than the current system of bundling together late picks galore.

3. It would take a pick in the teens and 2 picks in the 30’s to match a bid outside pick 2?

Ummm yes, it would roughly take a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders to match a bid as high as 3.


That is the literal definition of what we’re trying to achieve yes?

That’s better than the current system of a team using multiple late picks to match such a bid

No, that isn't what we are trying to achieve.

Pick 16 + 35 and 36 is not close to a fair price for pick 3.

 

[The_Reaper]

what argument do they have to receive easier access to nga academy prospects?

Because Fremantle and West Coast already have reduced access to academy players due to the eligibility rules.

 

[GC2015]

Because Fremantle and West Coast already have reduced access to academy players due to the eligibility rules.

Not true. The AFL changed the rules to include metropolitan areas of WA & SA in the NGAs. This was proven in 2021 when Perth/Fremantle local Jesse Motlop was NGA eligible for Fremantle had he not been bid on before pick 40.

 

[The Tilt]

3. It would take a pick in the teens and 2 picks in the 30’s to match a bid outside pick 2?

Ummm yes, it would roughly take a 1st rounder and two 2nd rounders to match a bid as high as 3.

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but you're not seriously suggesting that a late 1st rounder + 2 picks in 30s is equivalent to pick 3, are you? No club in their right mind would give up 3 for those picks. That doesn't solve the problem: clubs would still be getting academies and father-sons for way unders.

I don't think you've understood the problem with the draft value index. If they get the points allocation right, then there'd be no feasible combination of picks in the 30s, 40s and 50s that allows a club to match a top 5 pick. Collingwood used pick 38 (along with a few lower ones) to match the bid on on Daicos at pick 4. Currently, 38 is worth 23% of pick 4 in terms of points. If they had the points weighting right, it would be well under 10%. With the discount removed, the only way to match a bid pick 4 would be to have at least one relatively high pick available.

The issue with your suggestion of just insisting on first rounder is that it benefits clubs finishing higher up the ladder: a club that's just won the flag pays a lower price (pick 18) than a club finishing lower down the ladder. It will just generate more anomalous outcomes that piss people off.

 

[philthy05]

Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but you're not seriously suggesting that a late 1st rounder + 2 picks in 30s is equivalent to pick 3, are you? No club in their right mind would give up 3 for those picks. That doesn't solve the problem: clubs would still be getting academies and father-sons for way unders.

I don't think you've understood the problem with the draft value index. If they get the points allocation right, then there'd be no feasible combination of picks in the 30s, 40s and 50s that allows a club to match a top 5 pick. Collingwood used pick 38 (along with a few lower ones) to match the bid on on Daicos at pick 4. Currently, 38 is worth 23% of pick 4 in terms of points. If they had the points weighting right, it would be well under 10%. With the discount removed, the only way to match a bid pick 4 would be to have at least one relatively high pick available.

The issue with your suggestion of just insisting on first rounder is that it benefits clubs finishing higher up the ladder: a club that's just won the flag pays a lower price (pick 18) than a club finishing lower down the ladder. It will just generate more anomalous outcomes that piss people off.

How can you not see that a team having to pay a first and 2 2nds for a player is far better than paying picks in the 50’s, which is what happens now?

I’m not claiming pick 16, and so and so is worth pick 3. Why the hell are you hung up on that? They’re not meant to. That is not the point.

The point is teams are meant to be getting a discount for players they’ve developed through their academy or f/s.

The issue is that it is rorted at the moment my teams trading out high picks for a tonne of later picks teams don’t really value and paying for the players with those picks. Picks that teams virtually give away like candy.


As I’ve said a hundred times if you raise a draft picks points value by x amount, teams will just ask for x more in moderate value to junk picks in a trade.

Also, I have no idea how you’ve arrived at the fact my suggestion that bids made in a round need picks in the round and following round benefits teams finishing late. You’ve provided zero logic for that claim.

 

[radiojake]

As usual, the AFL world is suddenly pretty reactive over Gold Coast's haul - rarely is anyone proactive in seeing possible problems as they further manipulate things like draft, FA and all the like - On the surface, I don't have a huge problem with this particular draft for Gold Coast - atleast they have a good shot of actually keeping these kids, rather than seeing them run home back to Melbourne in a couple of seasons which is what has happened for the past 10 years - I also imagine that 4 first round draft picks from an academy will end up being the exception, not the rule - If it does become the latter, then expect some more reactive tinkering in a few years time

 

[RUNVS]

As usual, the AFL world is suddenly pretty reactive over Gold Coast's haul - rarely is anyone proactive in seeing possible problems as they further manipulate things like draft, FA and all the like - On the surface, I don't have a huge problem with this particular draft for Gold Coast - atleast they have a good shot of actually keeping these kids, rather than seeing them run home back to Melbourne in a couple of seasons which is what has happened for the past 10 years - I also imagine that 4 first round draft picks from an academy will end up being the exception, not the rule - If it does become the latter, then expect some more reactive tinkering in a few years time

The AFL have seen Victorian clubs have won 15 of the last 17 premierships and have decided to act swiftly by punishing Gold Coast.

 

[philthy05]

No, that isn't what we are trying to achieve.

Pick 16 + 35 and 36 is not close to a fair price for pick 3.

i can’t argue logic with someone who has no grasp of what that is.

At this stage your complete stubbornness and refusal to address time and again the issues I’ve brought up with your “let’s just raise draft picks points by 1000 points” idea is stopping us from having any sort of rational debate.

1. The biggest issue with matching bids is that teams are trading for a number of junk picks and bundling them together to add up.

This is a fact.

If you cannot concede that this is true then I’m arguing with the equivalent of a flat earther


Your idea to increase value of high draft pick points in no way outlaws the ability to trade for bulk late picks and use them to match.

In no way.

At worst it means you need more.

I’ve brought this up with you countless times and you just ignore it and dig in.

If you raise the value of early draft picks it raises the trade value of those picks.

If a pick that was 2500 becomes 3500 you’re simply re-defined how many points a team is going to ask back in a trade for that high pick.

Again, another thing I’ve brought up with you that you continue to ignore , have never addressed but still dig in your heels.

Team A has a nga, wants to trade out that pick. Team b offers them a trade with a bunch of picks that is a net positive for points.

When you jack up the price of pick from 2500 > 3500 , team A isn’t going to accept a trade of 2500 from it in this theoretical future. They accept the trade that gives them 3799 points now. It just takes more junk picks to make up the value, and team A will use those picks to form a considerable part of matching the bid.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So your fix to stop teams from stockpiling and using later draft picks is to make early picks so exorbitantly highly valued?

And hope that team then don’t use as many late picks?

If you’re increasing the points value of early picks can’t teams just buy more later picks with them when they trade them out?

At what point do draft picks not have a massive markup in points in your fix?

Where are you drawing the line?



If you want to stop teams using bundles of later picks, just make a rule that they can’t use bundles of later picks.. like my rule. Which is a simple as * rule.

Hard to buy late picks when you need “x” number of list spots to get the picks. And given picks after I think 75 carry 0 points there is a level where you can’t bridge a gap with crap (second to third rounders) if you value picks 1-5 very high (say triple current values)

Edit also I think you and the swans supporters have been a little at cross purposes. Both of you seem to agree current system sucks, your solution is a little better than status quo but they are (to me) arguing it doesn’t provide enough premium for the (say) top 5 picks to even have a late first be involved, they seem to want a system where the top picks (I have said 5 - somewhat arbitrary) are so premium price that you almost need 2 later firsts to match.

 

[tombomb]

i can’t argue logic with someone who has no grasp of what that is.

At this stage your complete stubbornness and refusal to address time and again the issues I’ve brought up with your “let’s just raise draft picks points by 1000 points” idea is stopping us from having any sort of rational debate.

1. The biggest issue with matching bids is that teams are trading for a number of junk picks and bundling them together to add up.

This is a fact.

If you cannot concede that this is true then I’m arguing with the equivalent of a flat earther


Your idea to increase value of high draft pick points in no way outlaws the ability to trade for bulk late picks and use them to match.

In no way.

At worst it means you need more.

I’ve brought this up with you countless times and you just ignore it and dig in.

If you raise the value of early draft picks it raises the trade value of those picks.

If a pick that was 2500 becomes 3500 you’re simply re-defined how many points a team is going to ask back in a trade for that high pick.

Again, another thing I’ve brought up with you that you continue to ignore , have never addressed but still dig in your heels.

Team A has a nga, wants to trade out that pick. Team b offers them a trade with a bunch of picks that is a net positive for points.

When you jack up the price of pick from 2500 > 3500 , team A isn’t going to accept a trade of 2500 from it in this theoretical future. They accept the trade that gives them 3799 points now. It just takes more junk picks to make up the value, and team A will use those picks to form a considerable part of matching the bid.

You keep saying the problem is that teams are bundling late picks.

That isn't the problem. I've explained this to you about 5 times, and you can't get your head around it.

The problem is that teams aren't paying a fair price to match bids on higher selections.

 

[philthy05]

You keep saying the problem is that teams are bundling late picks.

That isn't the problem. I've explained this to you about 5 times, and you can't get your head around it.

The problem is that teams aren't paying a fair price to match bids on higher selections.

That is the problem.


Your assertion of the teams not paying a fair price is a vague statement. It’s not identifying why.

It’s not a fair price because …. (I’ll give you the answer here…) teams trade into a bunch of later draft picks which teams give up easily and use those to match.


For the 1000th time you’ve quoted me and said the exact same thing without addressing the issues I’ve brought up with your flawed suggestion.

 

[Purple Suit]

Not true. The AFL changed the rules to include metropolitan areas of WA & SA in the NGAs. This was proven in 2021 when Perth/Fremantle local Jesse Motlop was NGA eligible for Fremantle had he not been bid on before pick 40.

That’s the issue though, the eligibility rules are different for different clubs and zones. QLD / NSW have every kid in there and unlimited scope to bid while WA / SA have specific criteria & only bids after 40.

The rules need to be transparent & the same for all. If it’s about QLD / NSW player retention then make rules around it that apply to all clubs if they regularly get raided too. No competition should have diffferent rules for different clubs, it’s insane.

 

[philthy05]

Hard to buy late picks when you need “x” number of list spots to get the picks. And given picks after I think 75 carry 0 points there is a level where you can’t bridge a gap with crap (second to third rounders) if you value picks 1-5 very high (say triple current values)

Edit also I think you and the swans supporters have been a little at cross purposes. Both of you seem to agree current system sucks, your solution is a little better than status quo but they are (to me) arguing it doesn’t provide enough premium for the (say) top 5 picks to even have a late first be involved, they seem to want a system where the top picks (I have said 5 - somewhat arbitrary) are so premium price that you almost need 2 later firsts to match.

Teams have had zero issue creating list spots to stockpile draft picks.

Also, tripling top 5 draft picks? Carn. That’s crazy. That would make it near impossible for any team to match bids on a player.

Increasing the point value dramatically quite possibly also deter teams from trading top 5 picks and especially future picks if they might be top 5.

Is stopping teams from getting father sons and deterring trading of picks what we really want?

No.

The original idea was teams pay a fairer value (and it’s not meant to be full value, there’s a reason we have the discount) after teams got studs for 3rd rounders for years.

That idea got twisted when teams manipulated the system by trading out picks for lots of junk picks and bundling them together.

All we need to do is close that loophole that allows that. There’s no reason to be stupid about it and overreact or to try to close a loophole by making a rule that in no way actually closes the loophole, only hopes to price out the ability to do it… sometimes… to an extent.

 

[philthy05]

Not true. The AFL changed the rules to include metropolitan areas of WA & SA in the NGAs. This was proven in 2021 when Perth/Fremantle local Jesse Motlop was NGA eligible for Fremantle had he not been bid on before pick 40.

I have no idea what you’re on about.

Metro kids are not included in Sa ngas.


If they were rankine and wanganeen Milera would have been on port or crows lists to name a couple.


Ngas should either be

1. Afl run no clubs with priority access to help develop kids

Or

2. Club run with non-trad states having priority access


Having this hodge podge mess that only exists cause a couple of vic heavyweights threw a tantrum is absurd.

 

[The Tilt]

1. The biggest issue with matching bids is that teams are trading for a number of junk picks and bundling them together to add up.

This is a fact.

Right. And this is entirely due to points value index massively overvaluing points at the lower end of the draft. If you fix this, then (by definition) junk picks will be worth junk points. Bundling together a bunch of those picks will still add up to very few points. Matching a bid on (say) a top 5 pick will require a club to be holding something much higher up the draft order.

Please note: if you respond by saying “then teams will just add more junk picks!!”, then you don’t understand what correcting the points values index means. Fixing the currently warped allocation of points would effectively prevent clubs from reliably increasing points by trading down the draft table.

On my point about your proposal benefiting teams who’ve finished higher up the ladder. I may have misunderstood the proposal, but on the face of it, it forces a team finishing 10th to use their pick 9 to match an earlier bid, whereas the premier gets to use pick 18. i.e. already strong teams are benefited by paying a lower price. Again, I might have misread what you’re proposing.

 

[philthy05]

Right. And this is entirely due to points value index massively overvaluing points at the lower end of the draft. If you fix this, then (by definition) junk picks will be worth junk points. Bundling together a bunch of those picks will still add up to very few points. Matching a bid on (say) a top 5 pick will require a club to be holding something much higher up the draft order.

Please note: if you respond by saying “then teams will just add more junk picks!!”, then you don’t understand what correcting the points values index means. Fixing the currently warped allocation of points would effectively prevent clubs from reliably increasing points by trading down the draft table.

On my point about your proposal benefiting teams who’ve finished higher up the ladder. I may have misunderstood the proposal, but on the face of it, it forces a team finishing 10th to use their pick 9 to match an earlier bid, whereas the premier gets to use pick 18. i.e. already strong teams are benefited by paying a lower price. Again, I might have misread what you’re proposing.

Why do I keep saying a team can just add more late picks?

Because it’s still an option if you rejig the points value.

Re-jigging the points value at best makes it harder to do, it doesn’t stop it. You’re making it more difficult to use a loophole when the smart thing to do is just make a rule the entirely eliminates the loophole.

Changing point values does not eliminate the loophole. It’s a lot of work that at best makes it more difficult. A rule that you can only use picks in the round and following round of a bid completely closes the loophole. And it’s not difficult to do. There’s no arbitrary decisions to be made.

If you asked 10 people here how to re-do the points values you would get 10 different answers.


And yes , you’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve proposed.

 

[Elixuh]

It warms my heart to see supporters of clubs who have benefited from constantly raiding GC's list complaining about their haul of local talent in the draft.

 

[Purple Suit]

It warms my heart to see supporters of clubs who have benefited from constantly raiding GC's list complaining about their haul of local talent in the draft.

GC and Brisbane have raided our list yet we don’t get any special treatment.

 

[werdna78]

GC and Brisbane have raided our list yet we don’t get any special treatment.

Remind us what you got for Weller?