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

[giantroo]

 

[danster168]

Would an apology make you feel better?

Paying overs? Why?
The AFL wants there to be an incentive for clubs to develop academy/nga/ FS players.
Without a discount, you can't match a bid with the very next pick, because it's worth less. And you wouldn't be able to match a bid made late in the 3rd round.

Yes it would. Or give us a compensation pick for being digged around by incompetent decision makers at the afl that have cost us 10 years of elite service that Mac Andrew will probably provide. Such a joke.

The clubs don't develop father sons. They shouldn't be getting access to them at all in my opinion. Let alone a damn discount. The discount is getting access to the player.

you don't need match a bid with the next pick. Clubs know roughly were bids may come. They just have to match with 2 or 3 picks. The whole system is a farce.

They should just scrap the father son rule altogether.

The integrity of the comp is stuffed to the point where the ladder means nothing.

Collingwood won a flag purely on father/son and nga. Brisbane are top 4 due to father/son. Dogs are playing top 4 footy due to nga and father/son. it's stuffed but the gagged commentators can never talk about the unevenness of the competition.

 

[Suma Magic]

That table uses -748.735 in the formula instead of -750. -750 seems more likely but maybe he has seen the actual table.

 

[mpal6]

Yes it would. Or give us a compensation pick for being digged around by incompetent decision makers at the afl that have cost us 10 years of elite service that Mac Andrew will probably provide. Such a joke.

The clubs don't develop father sons. They shouldn't be getting access to them at all in my opinion. Let alone a damn discount. The discount is getting access to the player.

you don't need match a bid with the next pick. Clubs know roughly were bids may come. They just have to match with 2 or 3 picks. The whole system is a farce.

They should just scrap the father son rule altogether.

The integrity of the comp is stuffed to the point where the ladder means nothing.

Collingwood won a flag purely on father/son and nga. Brisbane are top 4 due to father/son. Dogs are playing top 4 footy due to nga and father/son. it's stuffed but the gagged commentators can never talk about the unevenness of the competition.

I'm sorry danster168.
Hope that makes you feel better man.

 

[borrat]

common sense from the afl who would have thought

 

[Dangerousfield]

Laura Kane and Ned Guy - what could possibli go wrong?

Two complete incompetants LOL

 

[sydney_gws]

Two complete incompetants LOL

Under extreme pressure from all clubs pushing their own barrow hard.
I think the curve is now about right, I personally would like a limit of 3 picks to match to be added to the equation.
Also for free agency compensation, I would like to stop the gaming of clubs paying more salary to discourage matching.
Perhaps all players should be unrestricted after 8 years , and/ or alot of the compensation being linked to things like goals scored, possessions, coaches votes ( excuding ones own coach in the 8th year), brownlow votes in the players 6th to 8th years.
That would see less McKay type deals occurring.

 

[tombomb]

DVI changes are a huge improvement and will fix most of the fairness issues. Should have been brought in immediately.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Under extreme pressure from all clubs pushing their own barrow hard.
I think the curve is now about right, I personally would like a limit of 3 picks to match to be added to the equation.
Also for free agency compensation, I would like to stop the gaming of clubs paying more salary to discourage matching.
Perhaps all players should be unrestricted after 8 years , and/ or alot of the compensation being linked to things like goals scored, possessions, coaches votes ( excuding ones own coach in the 8th year), brownlow votes in the players 6th to 8th years.
That would see less McKay type deals occurring.

You have to limit the number of picks to match.

But afl is incompetent so you will never get that.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Oh yeah, I didn't think about what specifically 54 is worth now, which is 220 points. That does make it sound like it will be harder to match

You will still be able to match you just wont be able to trade out your current r1 and still match which is how it should be). And have a deficit on your future r1 or r2 if need be (again as it should be).

 

[Stamos]

You have to limit the number of picks to match.

But afl is incompetent so you will never get that.

Why should there be a limit on picks?

It will be a lot harder to match now, but it shouldn’t be impossible.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Why should there be a limit on picks?

It will be a lot harder to match now, but it shouldn’t be impossible.

Because if you do it stops a team trading in say p15 21 22 and 23 and using them to match a bid at p2. Its harder now but not impossible. They should limit to 3 picks to match snd clise the door on it.

 

[Stamos]

Because if you do it stops a team trading in say p15 21 22 and 23 and using them to match a bid at p2. Its harder now but not impossible. They should limit to 3 picks to match snd clise the door on it.

15, 21 & 26 would match a bid at 2.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

15, 21 & 26 would match a bid at 2.

Thats why i think you limit it by scope (for example to match a top 5 bid you cant use more than 3 picks,one must be top 10 the others inside 20 etc). But clubs will try to game it.

 

[sydney_gws]

Thats why i think you limit it by scope (for example to match a top 5 bid you cant use more than 3 picks,one must be top 10 the others inside 20 etc). But clubs will try to game it.

I think the way to game the new points curve is pretty hard now, but possible still.
If you have pick 6 and a player rated number 1, you could trade 6 for 7, 25.
Trade 7 for 8 26, 8 for 9,27, 9 for 10,28.
So convert 6 into 25,26 27 28,10.
Match a bid at 1 with 24,25,26,27,28.
You would Trade 10 for a future first ( let's say 10).

So 6,24 gets you 1,10 ( the next year).
That's why limiting picks to match is important.
Of course, if you can't do all the trades I listed it won't be that easy.

 

[Profop]

I think the way to game the new points curve is pretty hard now, but possible still.
If you have pick 6 and a player rated number 1, you could trade 6 for 7, 25.
Trade 7 for 8 26, 8 for 9,27, 9 for 10,28.
So convert 6 into 25,26 27 28,10.
Match a bid at 1 with 24,25,26,27,28.
You would Trade 10 for a future first ( let's say 10).

So 6,24 gets you 1,10 ( the next year).
That's why limiting picks to match is important.
Of course, if you can't do all the trades I listed it won't be that easy.

Sorry but for this to work you’d need another team to be willing to give up a second round pick to move forward just one position. Wouldn’t be too often a team would be wanting to do that

 

[sydney_gws]

Sorry but for this to work you’d need another team to be willing to give up a second round pick to move forward just one position. Wouldn’t be too often a team would be wanting to do

That Is the standard price. Melbourne gave up 27,35 to move from 14 to 22 last year.
My example is a bit extreme, but shows the general idea.

 

[Profop]

That Is the standard price. Melbourne gave up 27,35 to move from 14 to 22 last year.
My example is a bit extreme, but shows the general idea.

It absolutely isn’t. I’m struggling to think of anyone paying that sort of price for a one pick upgrade let alone it happening four times in a row

That Melbourne trade is two second rounders for an eight pick upgrade and you’ve listed four second rounders for a four pick upgrade

 

[sydney_gws]

It absolutely isn’t. I’m struggling to think of anyone paying that sort of price for a one pick upgrade let alone it happening four times in a row

That Melbourne trade is two second rounders for an eight pick upgrade and you’ve listed four second rounders for a four pick upgrade

Its an extreme example. Teams pay alot to move up, giants paid a future first to move from 6 to 4 in 2019.
I just wish the new system was in this year.

 

[My_Username]

I think the way to game the new points curve is pretty hard now, but possible still.
If you have pick 6 and a player rated number 1, you could trade 6 for 7, 25.
Trade 7 for 8 26, 8 for 9,27, 9 for 10,28.
So convert 6 into 25,26 27 28,10.
Match a bid at 1 with 24,25,26,27,28.
You would Trade 10 for a future first ( let's say 10).

So 6,24 gets you 1,10 ( the next year).
That's why limiting picks to match is important.
Of course, if you can't do all the trades I listed it won't be that easy.

Of course, you'd need to find opposing clubs willing to help you do that.

 

[sydney_gws]

Of course, you'd need to find opposing clubs willing to help you do that.

I agree my example is a bit extreme, hopefully if anything like that happens the AFL will close the loophole.
One thing is certain, clubs will still try to use the new rules to their advantage if possible.

 

[Dangerousfield]

DVI changes are a huge improvement and will fix most of the fairness issues. Should have been brought in immediately.

Premiership fave about to get a potential number one pick for a bag of junk picks KOTD again

 

[tombomb]

Premiership fave about to get a potential number one pick for a bag of junk picks KOTD again

Well exactly, everything is about the fairness to teams that are going to get academy/f+s this year or Richmond who probably are going to try and bundle picks and trade up.

What about the fairness to the other 15 clubs?!

It's either an unfair system that needs to be changed or it isn't.

 

[sydney_gws]

Well exactly, everything is about the fairness to teams that are going to get academy/f+s this year or Richmond who probably are going to try and bundle picks and trade up.

What about the fairness to the other 15 clubs?!

It's either an unfair system that needs to be changed or it isn't.

Maybe some clubs threatened legal action?

 

[mpal6]

I'll give the new DVI curve a shelf life of 24 months until some big Vic club struggles to match their top 5 NGA player due to new terrible points curve system.

It's unfair and needs a change until it starts biting everyone and then it's not so unfair after all.

 

[sr36]

A number of years of poor list management and poor draft decisions led to North being where they are, not F/S, NGA and academy bids.

JHF, what a **** up that was, should have bid on Daicos first to cause Pies (the rich) maximum pain. Phillips over McDonald the KPF you so desperately (still) need to support Larkey, tell me about it

Neither looking worthy of a pick 2. Looking like one of the weakest drafts ever.