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

[giantroo]

 

[perplexed]

Well then you better get on the phone and tell them that!

I'm going to trust they had the additional flexibility in mind when trading for those picks, rather than simply...we might like 3 prospects in the 4th round.

Each to their own, however.

They surely know it already. You have turned effectively turned a third rounder into two fourths. That loses flexibility and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. You can always split down, it's much harder to move up.

 

[Jeremias]

Been over it. I didn't misread. You said my stance was influenced by the club I support (despite my club not having a horse in this race). Here are your words.

Yes, you misread.

I queried whether you were able to remove bias from your posts when discussing league-wide issues.

More importantly, I said quite clearly that my own thoughts are not influenced by my club of support. Something which you have not just ignored, but bizarrely subsequently doubled down on.

Enough.

 

[perplexed]

Yes, you misread.

I queried whether you were able to remove bias from your posts when discussing league-wide issues.

More importantly, I said quite clearly that my own thoughts are not influenced by my club of support. Something which you have not just ignored, but bizarrely subsequently doubled down on.

Enough.

Last year I argued against my team receiving draft assistance, so yes, I can remove bias.

This issue has little to do with my club, yet out of nowhere, you start suggesting I may be biased. Where did that come from? It makes no sense at all. The irony being that your arguments on this issue precisely align with your club's interests.

 

[Jeremias]

Last year I argued against my team receiving draft assistance, so yes, I can remove bias.

Great. So then don't jump to the conclusion that others cannot.

It's a poor argument.

This issue has little to do with my club, yet out of nowhere, you start suggesting I may be biased.

Where did that come from? It makes no sense at all. The irony being that your arguments on this issue precisely align with your club's interests.

Again, you misread. And that's fine. It had nothing to do with your club.

/end.

 

[Cleric]

The salary cap is a talent equalisation mechanism. With the idea being teams should roughly have an equal amount of talent if they all have the same amount of money to spend.

So if a team is losing a player they should hypothetically have the money to get an equivalent player in return for that amount of money.

That’s the whole point of the system.

The draft is a different system and is so ridiculously broken by academies/FS selections that it probably shouldn’t exist

The idea of free agency was to help the players move for money, not for clubs to get free players.
We all know the big teams are the ones attracting the big free agents and not the lower placed teams with lots of cap space.
FA has hurt the smaller and less powerful clubs. It hasn't done anything to equal the competition, but rather it's done the opposite.
The team getting the player has to be made to pay a price other than just their salary, as all clubs have to pay salaries for the players they have to trade for that arnt yet FA.

 

[jdstorm]

The idea of free agency was to help the players move for money, not for clubs to get free players.
We all know the big teams are the ones attracting the big free agents and not the lower placed teams with lots of cap space.
FA has hurt the smaller and less powerful clubs. It hasn't done anything to equal the competition, but rather it's done the opposite.
The team getting the player has to be made to pay a price other than just their salary, as all clubs have to pay salaries for the players they have to trade for that arnt yet FA.

What’s broken about free agency and the cap is how clubs can defer payments across years. Means teams that will be popular can just use future money and work out the specifics later.

In practice though a hard cap without any workarounds does work to equalise talent

 

[Profop]

Maybe, but it seems an odd draft to do that in. Even if the system stays the same, your most likely team to trade up into the first round with is Brisbane (GC don't need your picks). We haven't seen the new system, but there is a chance you will still be in best position for Brisbane's first rounder.

Not really there’s Carlton that was going to need picks and Adelaide (before they stinked it up and got in front of Welsh)

With three or four clubs needing to match in and around the first round I think the strategy made a lot of sense

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Hilarious! You have been claiming my position to be biased by the club I support, whereas you are strangely impartial. Now you are claiming I shouldn't be posting on issues that my club isn't directly affect by. Should this thread be campaigners only?

It's just that you've spent pages pointing the finger at Carlton for having a vested interest regarding the changes, yet it seems like you certainly have interests of your own.

 

[dinnaz]

Yeah I just can’t see the AFL giving us the pick because that would be too much evidence that they’re doing all of this on the fly

Far more likely (if they do rush through changes that effect our picks) that they just shaft us

It’s why I hope our club is going beserk about any suggested changes for this year

Time for a bit of stiff upper lip here.
West Coasts 2nd rounder in 2023 was out to #30.
That's disgraceful for just about the worst season on record ever and rebuilding through the draft.

If for this year you drop every pick (after #2) out 10 places then we have a conversation happening about your junk picks.

 

[perplexed]

It's just that you've spent pages pointing the finger at Carlton for having a vested interest regarding the changes, yet it seems like you certainly have interests of your own.

Not really sure what those interests could be. But anyway. My criticism of Carlton posters is that the argument most are using against change doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. If Carlton had stocked up on picks and had a hand like Richmond's then you would have a point. But you didn't do this. So the argument comes across as self-serving.

 

[go_the_dockers]

The salary cap is a talent equalisation mechanism. With the idea being teams should roughly have an equal amount of talent if they all have the same amount of money to spend.

So if a team is losing a player they should hypothetically have the money to get an equivalent player in return for that amount of money.

That’s the whole point of the system.

The draft is a different system and is so ridiculously broken by academies/FS selections that it probably shouldn’t exist

It just doesn't work , as there is not enough players on the market.


If you are bottom 4, or non Vic you just can't get players to join you.

 

[Jeremias]

If you are bottom 4, or non Vic you just can't get players to join you.

Sure you can. You're not in the market for the big name free agents or trade targets, but there will always be players open to moves.

Look at last season's bottom 4...

West Coast - Flynn, Brockman
North Melbourne - Fisher, Stephens, Nyuon
Hawthorn - Ginnivan, Koschitzke, Gunston, Chol, D'Ambrosio

 

[My_Username]

Vicbias, most of the FA player movement is within Vic or players going home to Vic

Most player movement happens where there is a majority of clubs.

shock

 

[My_Username]

From a management perspective, this is a cluster **** regardless of the outcome. We're approaching mid-July and clubs are still in the dark.

This.

Whatever the effect on individual clubs this year, it's just ridiculous to have it not announced with <3 months before the trade period. With future pick trading, I'd say that no changes should be made without at least 12 months notice.

Actually, they should apply that to everything the AFL does (barring exceptional circumstances of that type that would require a full vote of the clubs)

 

[My_Username]

Exactly what I thought they did, so it's only Richmond. Give them a mid 2nd round comp pick if need be and we are done every team isn't affected.

You could argue that all clubs could be affected if they have any picks that will change....Be that trading for future picks, F/S, NGA, or whatever.

Brisbane wants Ashcroft as a F/S....Who is to say they wouldn't have done things differently if they knew about the changes to the F/S rules?

Or if their plan was to trade with Richmond for a bunch of their late picks, but that's no longer viable...they'd need a new plan....perhaps they could have arranged something better than they'll be able to do if they had known (after all, that Ashcroft will be a high pick was pretty likely last year too).

If the rule change requires that they have high pick(s) to pay for him...they could have started working on trading them in last year rather than being bent over this year by clubs knowing they need to get those picks.

Or, as others have suggested, if F/S, academy, or NGA picks can't be matched when they're early in the draft'...Once again, there goes Brisbane's draft plans...

and Brisbane is just one example. Even if your club just had a minor plan to upgrade a pick by throwing in a later pick or two for points...oops.

Richmond, and other clubs with future picks, are an easy fix (not that the AFL would)...If their 'future' picks were worth 500pts, and they're now worth 450, just give them 50pts..easy! The rest of it is a bitch to unravel however.

Far better/easier to announce the revised rules in the next month of two and say they don't take effect until 2025.

 

[sydney_gws]

You could argue that all clubs could be affected if they have any picks that will change....Be that trading for future picks, F/S, NGA, or whatever.

Brisbane wants Ashcroft as a F/S....Who is to say they wouldn't have done things differently if they knew about the changes to the F/S rules?

Or if their plan was to trade with Richmond for a bunch of their late picks, but that's no longer viable...they'd need a new plan....perhaps they could have arranged something better than they'll be able to do if they had known (after all, that Ashcroft will be a high pick was pretty likely last year too).

If the rule change requires that they have high pick(s) to pay for him...they could have started working on trading them in last year rather than being bent over this year by clubs knowing they need to get those picks.

Or, as others have suggested, if F/S, academy, or NGA picks can't be matched when they're early in the draft'...Once again, there goes Brisbane's draft plans...

and Brisbane is just one example. Even if your club just had a minor plan to upgrade a pick by throwing in a later pick or two for points...oops.

Richmond, and other clubs with future picks, are an easy fix (not that the AFL would)...If their 'future' picks were worth 500pts, and they're now worth 450, just give them 50pts..easy! The rest of it is a bitch to unravel however.

Far better/easier to announce the revised rules in the next month of two and say they don't take effect until 2025.

I think merit in changing this year, also in waiting a year .
I think best approach is to change fully for 2025, make some changes this year ( I.e limit to 3 picks per player).
Problem is that Brisbane have Ashcroft and a highly rated academy player, so hard to get both unless the current joke rules apply.

 

[jdstorm]

I think merit in changing this year, also in waiting a year .
I think best approach is to change fully for 2025, make some changes this year ( I.e limit to 3 picks per player).
Problem is that Brisbane have Ashcroft and a highly rated academy player, so hard to get both unless the current joke rules apply.

They could always just trade a starting level player.

If you think Ashcroft/academy kid will be best 22 then surely you just move a fringe best 22 guy who other teams value

 

[sydney_gws]

They could always just trade a starting level player.

If you think Ashcroft/academy kid will be best 22 then surely you just move a fringe best 22 guy who other teams value

I agree, Robertson could be traded.
AFl needs to tell clubs new rules means less double dipping, threaten northern clubs with no top 10 matching for academy players.
I might be biased , but in particular Richmond's whinging is annoying. They weren't going to upgrade 4 late 3rd/ 4th round picks for Brisbane's first rounder ( maybe if they add 2025r2 they could do it, just maybe).

 

[My_Username]

They could always just trade a starting level player.

If you think Ashcroft/academy kid will be best 22 then surely you just move a fringe best 22 guy who other teams value

Sure...but they could have done that last year too, had they known....maybe they wouldn't have, but they would have been in a better position to make such a deal for a future pick when they didn't NEED to get the deal done.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I think merit in changing this year, also in waiting a year .
I think best approach is to change fully for 2025, make some changes this year ( I.e limit to 3 picks per player).
Problem is that Brisbane have Ashcroft and a highly rated academy player, so hard to get both unless the current joke rules apply.

A future first and Robertson is enough to get it done.


They should have to sacrifice something big to get a top 5 player in the draft into the club

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don’t really care if they change the rules this season as they are a joke but it would be annoying because I doubt we would be interested in the twins unless they are coming cheap.
I will say that Carlton probably expected to be able to match Ben with a second and that those fourth rounders would come in 7-8 spots under the old system so they probably did plan for this draft.

AFLPA won’t allow compo to be dropped unless there are only UFA and no RFA because of obvious reasons.

 

[Purple Suit]

I don’t really care if they change the rules this season as they are a joke but it would be annoying because I doubt we would be interested in the twins unless they are coming cheap.
I will say that Carlton probably expected to be able to match Ben with a second and that those fourth rounders would come in 7-8 spots under the old system so they probably did plan for this draft.

AFLPA won’t allow compo to be dropped unless there are only UFA and no RFA because of obvious reasons.

Compo should be applied over a rolling 5 year period. If you are always getting free agents or it is balanced then no compo. If you are getting less players in than out then compo with adjustments for the quality of the players involved.

It would protect the clubs at the bottom of the ladder while lessening the cost for the rest of the competition. Someone should do a deep dive on it and figure out who are the winners and losers with it. Surely the AFL would have those stats.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Compo should be applied over a rolling 5 year period. If you are always getting free agents or it is balanced then no compo. If you are getting less players in than out then compo with adjustments for the quality of the players involved.

It would protect the clubs at the bottom of the ladder while lessening the cost for the rest of the competition. Someone should do a deep dive on it and figure out who are the winners and losers with it. Surely the AFL would have those stats.

Winners
Big clubs in top 6.
Vic clubs.

Losers
Everyone else.

 

[Elite Pete]

They could always just trade a starting level player.

If you think Ashcroft/academy kid will be best 22 then surely you just move a fringe best 22 guy who other teams value

100% this. Gil system was a rort for Vic teams with father/som and once the academy started cranking QLD and NSW teams.

Yes they should have Academy’s, it is one fight against the soft afl culture of wanting to play in their home state but they should have to match at a fair price. Not get 4 top 26 picks and then rort the system to have 3 first round picks.

So what if GC could only match 3 of their 4 players last year. Still a fair leg up, while the spooner gets 1 pick before 30 and watch their NGA kid go 10 picks after where their 2nd pick should’ve been.

If Brissy can only match a top 5 kid in the draft while they finish top 4* and have to throw the Academy kid back in the pool.
They already got a leg up 2 years earlier with 2 top 14 kids while contending. They could easily trade their future first which would be projected to be in the 16-20 range while the academy kid is projected to go around 12.

The shitshow has gone on too long and the majority of clubs crying are the one who are effected this year but will still get an advantage or they just wouldnt match.

 

[Elite Pete]

Sure...but they could have done that last year too, had they known....maybe they wouldn't have, but they would have been in a better position to make such a deal for a future pick when they didn't NEED to get the deal done.

They don’t NEED to, they will only do it if it benefits them. Just like some father sons who don’t get picked after spending time at the clubs or NGAs who clubs don’t think are good enough and get throw back into the pool. (Keeler for the Crows from memory is one)