News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[giantroo]

 

[DopeMaster]

I for one, advocate for a system that makes father sons more expensive in the years that Carlton have access to them, and very cheap in the years that Collingwood have access to them.

 

[THE_GUN]

I for one, advocate for a system that makes father sons more expensive in the years that Carlton have access to them, and very cheap in the years that Collingwood have access to them.

We at Richmond dont care much for what happens with father sons picks

All our players have daughters anyway

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Punish those who have done no wrong? Pull the other one.

How about stop rewarding Vic clubs who demanded father son access when the comp went national who dont need propping up?

Father son access isn’t just for Victorian clubs.

I have no issue with f/S first round f/s picks should be at fair true value.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

We at Richmond dont care much for what happens with father sons picks

All our players have daughters anyway

Archie Daffy says Hello

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Father son access isn’t just for Victorian clubs.

I have no issue with f/S first round f/s picks should be at fair true value.

But the "have to match with a first rounder" is just arbitrary when the points system if working properly can do the job.

So instead of a top 10 pick being matched with two seconds and a third, it gets matched with four seconds, because the seconds are just worth less relative to the first than they used to be.

It still gives teams flexibility - a finals team will have much more difficulty matching bids for a top 5 player than currently. But if they want to trade players or future picks for more points, they can trade fair market value for either first or second round picks.

You also won't see teams trading firsts for more points for seconds because there's no significant benefit for either team to do so.

 

[Obeanie1]

Father son access isn’t just for Victorian clubs.

I have no issue with f/S first round f/s picks should be at fair true value.

Who demanded it?

Who has benefited from it?

The clubs who demanded it. Wow what a shock.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Who demanded it?

Who has benefited from it?

The clubs who demanded it. Wow what a shock.

Irrelevant who demanded it, everyone benefits from it.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Who demanded it?

Who has benefited from it?

The clubs who demanded it. Wow what a shock.

One of your greatest footballers called Ben Cousins was drafted this way, to your club.

 

[THE_GUN]

Archie Daffy says Hello

We had Naish , Bourke & Roach all duds so not expecting much from a Daffy

 

[Cam Payne]

Father son has overwhelmingly favoured Vic clubs and changes are only fair. Though I get the feeling Freo must have someone in the pipeline and that's the reason the AFL are changing it. Conspiracy? I think not.

 

[go_the_dockers]

We had Naish , Bourke & Roach all duds so not expecting much from a Daffy

And Matthew Richardson

 

[THE_GUN]

And Matthew Richardson

And nobody else ever

 

[borrat]

Until you get rid of blatant draft tampering eg: Archie Perkins,Bailey Smith

6

Bailey Smith

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

and more the academy's are not going anywhere

and for all the people whinging about Gold Coast having enough points to get their 4 academy picks they should blame their teams for trading the picks away to Gold Coast to give them enough points

very much looking forward to another Ashcroft and hopefully this years Gulden

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

We had Naish , Bourke & Roach all duds so not expecting much from a Daffy

Richardson went ok, there’s still hope,

 

[TheLastCall]

I always liked the Father/Son concept. Not the discount.

How's this for an idea.
Drop all discounts to 10%, minus 1% for each F/S or Academy player on the teams list.
The newer teams are at a disadvantage with F/S picks.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Drop all discounts.

Start pick 1 at 5000, instead of 3000.
Picks after 20 has the same value. All other picks are proportionally adjusted.
Max of 2 picks used to match. Can use the a future first if your 2 next two picks are not enough.
If you still don't have enough points, or you have traded your future first bad luck.

 

[Kbroome]

Drop all discounts.

Start pick 1 at 5000, instead of 3000.
Picks after 20 has the same value. All other picks are proportionally adjusted.
Max of 2 picks used to match. Can use the a future first if your 2 next two picks are not enough.
If you still don't have enough points, or you have traded your future first bad luck.

So your saying that Sydney's first round pick this year which will most likely fall out of the top 19 and into atleast 20th because of Ashcroft and Welsh should have the same matching power in terms of points as for instance Richmond's 3rd round pick? Pick 20 should not be of the same value as potentially a pick in the 50s or 60s

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

So your saying that Sydney's first round pick this year which will most likely fall out of the top 19 and into atleast 20th because of Ashcroft and Welsh should have the same matching power in terms of points as for instance Richmond's 3rd round pick? Pick 20 should not be of the same value as potentially a pick in the 50s or 60s

I think he meant the points allocation for picks 20+ stay the same as now, but rescale the top 20 picks (well, first round) so they range up to 5k for 1st instead of 3k now.

 

[Kbroome]

I think he meant the points allocation for picks 20+ stay the same as now, but rescale the top 20 picks (well, first round) so they range up to 5k for 1st instead of 3k now.

Okay yeah that atleast makes logical sense. Only problem with that is that pick 20 is 1000 points in value. If pick 1 is 5000 and with still using a negative exponential graph system it would make it impossible to really match a bid for a player in the top 10 without using two picks in between 10 and 20.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Okay yeah that atleast makes logical sense. Only problem with that is that pick 20 is 1000 points in value. If pick 1 is 5000 and with still using a negative exponential graph system it would make it impossible to really match a bid for a player in the top 10 without using two picks in between 10 and 20.

So it would be realistic.

It should be near impossible if you are top 4 side, to get a top 4 pick.

I think two pick 18's would get you close enough, plus a 2nd rounder to most picks but it would hurt you next year.


With Pick 18, Pick 18 (future pick), and Pick 36 Sydney would 2500 points. Enough to match Pick 6. They would need to trade earlier in the draft, to match a player expected to go in the first 5 picks.

Pick	Old Value	New Value
1​	3000​	5000​
2​	2517​	4048.168​
3​	2234​	3490.469​
4​	2034​	3096.336​
5​	1878​	2788.912​
6​	1751​	2538.637​
7​	1644​	2327.776​
8​	1551​	2144.504​
9​	1469​	1982.909​
10​	1395​	1837.08​
11​	1329​	1707.016​
12​	1268​	1586.805​
13​	1212​	1476.448​
14​	1161​	1375.944​
15​	1112​	1279.381​
16​	1067​	1190.701​
17​	1025​	1107.933​
18​	985​	1029.107​
19​	948​	956.192​
20​	912​	912​

 

[Kbroome]

So it would be realistic.

It should be near impossible if you are top 4 side, to get a top 4 pick.

I think two pick 18's would get you close enough, plus a 2nd rounder to most picks but it would hurt you next year.


With Pick 18, Pick 18 (future pick), and Pick 36 Sydney would 2500 points. Enough to match Pick 6. They would need to trade earlier in the draft, to match a player expected to go in the first 5 picks.

Pick	Old Value	New Value
1​	3000​	5000​
2​	2517​	4048.168​
3​	2234​	3490.469​
4​	2034​	3096.336​
5​	1878​	2788.912​
6​	1751​	2538.637​
7​	1644​	2327.776​
8​	1551​	2144.504​
9​	1469​	1982.909​
10​	1395​	1837.08​
11​	1329​	1707.016​
12​	1268​	1586.805​
13​	1212​	1476.448​
14​	1161​	1375.944​
15​	1112​	1279.381​
16​	1067​	1190.701​
17​	1025​	1107.933​
18​	985​	1029.107​
19​	948​	956.192​
20​	912​	912​

Yep thinking about it its a decent system, i made a mistake in my comprehension of what you meant by pick 20 which was duly pointed out. Would make the draft in terms of matching high picks very much game theory about it because most bids you know are going to be matched i mean i wouldn't be surprised if there is like a 90-95% match rate on potential matches. I wonder if that will make it easier to match bids in the back end of the draft because the second and third rounders become less relevant for top 10 bids but for the Swans i know alot of our talent is around the 30-40 ranges for the next couple of drafts so would it make it easier to attain the picks in the 40s to match the lower tier products?

 

[FreeAgent1]

Any whispers of what the 2024 and 2025 systems will be?

I heard Callum Twomey say they would be “staged” so I assume points only will change for 2024 (reducing points of picks >30) and in 2025 will have the matching rules that is the more substantive changes.

 

[Vankri]

How many in the current Swans squad are from their academy and how many from there are predicted to be picked in this year’s draft?

 

[Kbroome]

How many in the current Swans squad are from their academy and how many from there are predicted to be picked in this year’s draft?

I believe there is currently 10 that have come from the academy but only like 6 from national draft picks as Wicks, Kirk, Edwards and McAndrew came from rookie or MSD selections. Nationally selected players include Heeney Mills Campbell Gulden Blakey Cleary.

2024
There are 3 in the draft potentially this year in Cochran Harrison and Andreacchino but i expect Cochran to be the only national selection (30-45). There was suppose to also be Mitch Woods but the Bulldogs in the NRL signed him to like a 5 year deal back in November last year but he was suppose to be a top 40 prospect alongside Cochran

2025
We have Chamberlin, Carmichael, King and McNamara and look the first 3 could easily be national selections but they aren't like Heeney etc so i expect them to be more so the 30-45 pick range but King is the one i would be watching as an opposition fan as he could be a game breaker.

2026
Then in 2026 there are currently 2 more in McCartney and McGroder but McCartney is F/S to North (Blakey 2.0) and McGroder is the best u20 long jumper in the country so he might go down the athletics route.

That said non of these guys are really top 10 prospects atm but that can change in the space of 12-24 months

 

[Profop]

Sorry but to have a system that assigns values to picks and allow you to trade picks one year in the future and then within that one year period materially change the value of said picks is manifestly unfair

I could understand that if the was trading for multiple years into the future perhaps there’s an inherent risk that you take when you trade knowing the rules could change but just one year in the future?

Just announce the changes now and then say it comes in next year. No one disadvantaged at all then