Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Didn't you get pick 2 for Weller, who wanted out to return home, in the most bizarre trade ever. If you're upset about that deal then idk what to tell you. You're making our points for us old boy.
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2025 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
News AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks
- Thread starter Holden Hillbilly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Didn't you get pick 2 for Weller, who wanted out to return home, in the most bizarre trade ever. If you're upset about that deal then idk what to tell you. You're making our points for us old boy.
And used pick 2 to get Andrew Brayshaw. That's quite an upgrade.
Also, I would argue that this isn’t entirely true.
The afl didn’t arbitrarily decide on the points value, they used a formula based on draft history didn’t they?
The junk picks are not horribly overvalued really.
the issue is that when you bundle a bunch of low value picks together it forms a high value that isn’t representative of their collective worth.
It’s a flaw in the system that needs to be fixed, by not allowing late picks to be bundled together for high bids.
The best way to do that ?
By arbitrarily deciding on a different set of values for draft picks hoping to price late picks out from being used? (when you and I both know there would be zero consesus on exactly how to do that, every poster here would suggest a different number)
Or
A rule that just doesn’t allow late picks to be bundled for high bids ?
One of those answers is simple common sense.
Thanks Phil: this is helpful.
The two statements quoted above are mutually contradictory. If you manage to understand that, the confusion you’ve demonstrated throughout the thread should take care of itself.
Grand Uncle Horace
Shake down the thunder
My point is that both clubs are still recruiting other players. GC is still behind on the balance sheet but Brisbane has gotten priority picks and now seems to regularly trade in guns while also getting high end talent and playing finals. You don't need help.
You're also proof that onfield results don't turn into off field success once you stop winning. Propping up the Northern clubs trying to build some sort of legacy at the expense of other clubs isn't going to do anything different long term. Having a fair and equitable competition that results equalization would be preferred.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
We are a destination club tho, whereas Freo is always going to be second fiddle to WCE. Different markets. Different problems. It would also help if your current coach played a modern AFL gameplan.
No legacy building. We are just growing the game.
They absolutely do not contradict. You’re making an error claiming so.
I’ve displayed no confusion here at all.
Late draft picks are not horribly over valued.
The afl used draft data to decide the points.
The issue is the bundling of multiple late picks that teams freely trade away together to add up to a lot of points.
The solution to that isn’t to inflate high picks, or decrease late picks an arbitrary number, it’s to not allow multiple late picks to be used to match bids on high selections.
Simple.
It depends what you think the 'problem' is.
If the problem is that teams are getting cheapie players by ****ing up the draft for the other 17 clubs, it doesn't even address the problem.
The proposal of needing to match within X picks of the bid, or needing to match the bid using only 2 draft picks would be far the best solution.
Both methods provide a means to access those players, but both methods also fairly charge that if you wan't elite talent, you need to pay.
If the academies and F/S picks continue, it has to be via one of the above models.
I'd argue it's just the boom / bust nature of the system. When you have sustained finals appearances you become a destination club. When teams are down the bottom, they do not get the big recruits. Freo trumped WC for Jackson recently which disproves your theory as they are at the bottom of the cycle.
The AFL has to recognize this and adjust the system to not give advantages to those teams at the top of the cycle like Brisbane and Sydney are still getting. The system should be even for all or have rules that outline when and how special treatment can occur. The whole discretionary priority picks system is massively flawed and open to corruption.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Freo raiding Melbourne's list but not getting any special treatment, you hate to see it.
Are you sure about that? Rankine was drafted before the rule changed to include metro SA & WA areas but this tweet below suggests both Wanganeen-Milera and Alleer were a part of the Crows' NGA:
This link also confirms Alleer was a part of the Crows' NGA that 2021 season and he most definitely grew up in Adelaide:
Crows NGA graduate rewarded for years of hard work
Crows Academies Next Generation Academy graduate Leek Alleer earns SANFL debut.
Are you sure about that? Rankine was drafted before the rule changed to include metro SA & WA areas but this tweet below suggests both Wanganeen-Milera and Alleer were a part of the Crows' NGA:
This link also confirms Alleer was a part of the Crows' NGA that 2021 season and he most definitely grew up in Adelaide:
Crows NGA graduate rewarded for years of hard work
Crows Academies Next Generation Academy graduate Leek Alleer earns SANFL debut.www.afc.com.au
Yes we have players in our nga but do not have access to them. A large number of drafted sa players have come from port or the crows ngas that we don’t have access to. Will verrall for example was in ports nga from memory and dozens of others.
Welcome to our world, and why I also laugh at the footy fans from non trad afl states who ask why would they bother with helping ngas if they didn’t get access to them… well port and the crows always have.
It's the same as the Vic clubs, no? Access beyond pick 40. Right?
Not saying it's fair. Just pointing out that it's the same as 10 other clubs in the AFL.
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
I’m still confused by how you word this. Is it ok if one late first + multiple 3rds matches a top 5? Because that is still not a trade anyone is doing
What?
No. My suggestion to stop teams from matching bids by trading out early picks and matching with a a bunch of late picks is to make a rule that a bid has to be matched by picks in the round and following round to a bid.
Ie first round bids can only be matched by 1st and 2nd round picks
Second round bids can only be matched by second and 3rd round picks and so on.
Completely and utterly ends the shitshow of teams trading out early picks to avoid them being used and using multiple late picks to match on highly rated prospects.
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
It’s an improvement though of course not all second rounders are equal (I think second round this year went to early 40s which is also territory of bs 3rds)
I’ve been following this ping pong between you and the other two guys. Your points are very valid and in principle I agree with them. The way I see it, what the other two are arguing is that a team that finishes higher up the ladder still could get a top talent cheaply even under your proposal unless the point value of the top 5 or so picks (or whatever the magic number is) is so high that it becomes practically impossible to accumulate enough points to match it (ie, say delist/retire 15-20 players to get that many draft picks, just for argument’s sake).
Personally I’d prefer your proposal though. Even if a premier club is lucky enough to have a gun FS prospect that particular year, realistically how often would that happen? I doubt it would be THAT often and overall I’d say it would even itself out in the long run (win some, lose some)
Under my proposal Collingwood instead of getting daicos for a bunch of later picks would have had to use their 1st rounder, 2nd rounder, and then would have still been shy which would have required them to trade their future 1st or future 2nd (Or trade a player worth that much or go into deficit that amount and would have cost even more if teams hadn’t of baulked at bidding on him in the first few draft picks)
I dont see how that is “cheaply” by the definition of a system that saw daicos bought for picks that clubs often start looking at passing on.
The idea of bidding was never to make teams pay through the nose for these players.
It was to do away with the farcical nature of teams getting guns with 3rd rounders (like how Geelong got hawkins).
The bid match process got warped by teams finding away around it.
The afl attempted to skirt around the edges of fixing it by the change to the list spot rules and that has not made a lick of difference
My rule completely and unequivocally stamps out the ability to rort the original intention.
Instead of trading, why not just take the points deficit off them the next season from their first 2 picks? Eg. They get to bid even if they don't have any points but they then have future picks locked till they have paid for it.
I'd hate to miss out on a F/S just because we're currently going ok, especially if it is a big name. Just make them pay fair value and miss out on other high talent players in the future till they have no debt.
Well they would have the option to do either, trade in picks or go into deficit.
Just like now.
All my rule does is remove the ability to rort the system and apply the rule as the afl would have originally intended in spirit.
The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.
AFL head of football Laura Kane wrote to all clubs in October before the national draft, putting them on notice of the plan to review the system. The review of the draft – and suggestions for change – will be a top agenda item at a meeting between the AFL and club general managers of football on Thursday.
As part of the review the AFL will also revisit an alternative option already put forward by Collingwood’s head of football Graham Wright and Geelong’s then list manager Stephen Wells at the time the points system was devised.
Under the arrangement, if a bid comes for a father-son or academy player in round one, a club would have to use a first-round pick to match. If the club had bids on two players in the opening round, they would need to use two first-round picks, either by trading for an extra selection or by using their future first-rounder.
This alternative scenario required that a club matching a bid on a player would have to use a pick no more than nine selections (half a round) later than when a bid arrived. If, for example, a bid came for a player at pick two and the club didn’t have a first-round selection until pick 15, they would need to trade up the order to obtain a pick no later than 11. Or the club would need to use pick 15 and their second-round pick.
The Wright-Wells alternative was not pitched as a solution, but rather as framework from which a system could be fine-tuned.
A source with knowledge of another scenario, who did not wish to be named as they had not made the suggestion, said another option was to keep the basic points system but only allow clubs to use the points attached to two draft picks to match any bid on a player.
The AFL does not want to change academy rules, the priority access for the northern academies or father-son rules, but wants to simplify the system and require clubs to use picks closer to the initial bid.
AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks
The AFL will overhaul the national draft to force clubs to pay a fairer market rate to secure father-son or academy players.www.theage.com.au
That sounds sound in theory.
Access isn't the main issue it's playing funny buggers and using late picks to land Nick Daicos and Ashcroft
In essence double dipping.
Would like the AFL to address the elephant in the room.
How successful does a club need to be to have priority access other clubs don't have removed or scaled back?
Similar threads
