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

[giantroo]

 

[RUNVS]

This idea always comes up in theory and I like the idea in principle but there's an entire operations research field of auction theory that needs to be explored more.

The main problem with this is in cases where there's an extremely good pick 1 you get situations where you're essentially forcing that player to go at the cost of the 2nd most points + 1 more point.

For instance West Coast might have had to pay 4099 points for Harley Reid becasue every other team would be willing to give up their entire draft hand and top up their list with delisted free agents or whatever, just to get Harley Reid.

If West Coast in that scenario want to trade some points for players that would ordinarily be second or third rounders but pay enough points that forces them to go below 4098 points, they lose access to Harley Reid. This diminishes their hand more than the 3000 points ascribed to pick 1.

Say that Harley Reid's identical twin is going in the same draft. He would then go for 1 more point than the team with the 3rd most points, 3741 points. Etc. Etc.

It goes against the intention of the draft that West Coast can access the best player in the draft - that half the time will be better than an average pick 1 - and still retain a reasonable draft hand otherwise to recruit players.

It doesn't mean that an auction is bad per se but there's other ways of utilising an auction that's different to your suggestion e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction

Or you would otherwise have to explore situations where the amount of points given to each team has far greater deviation, etc.

That is true but it is where a team would need to be smart and not overpaying for players, even if they really want a specific player.

Yes, a team could spend all their draft points in one single monster bid, but it means they have no points left after that and can only start getting more players after every other club has stopped bidding and the bids are 0 points, it reverting to finishing order then.

However, lets say a team does this 3 years in a row.

2024
Pick 1
Pick 55
Pick 65

2025
Pick 1
Pick 60
Pick 70

2026
Pick 1
Pick 48
Pick 54

Yes that team has 3 pick 1 players, but that is not a healthy list build as basically having 1 player coming in each season is not enough for even replacing the players who are retiring or being traded away.

If a few teams really go all in on the early picks a team like West Coast for instance, who have plenty of points in hand, could basically ignore the early selections, and then snap up picks, 8, 9 and 10 all in a row, picking up 3 top 10 pick players instead of going all out for pick 1.

Teams that get sucked into bidding too much would not necessarily benefit in the long term.

It also means teams that are crappy, and need a high number of younger players coming in, like West Coast or Richmond, can save points and bid a little later in the draft, getting three B+ players instead of one A+ player, which could be more useful to them in their current list situation.

However, if a team is pretty happy with their list, and just need a bit of cream, then they may be willing to, for one year at least, go all out on a player they very much want. I imagine a few years ago Adelaide would have happily done that to get JHF, and they likely would have been willing to pay more than most other clubs despite having fewer points than a club like North Melbourne.

 

[4tune8]

Yep, it means you essentially can't go into more debt than the amount of points the premiers would have the following year, because if you win the flag, you'd still have negative points and would go into debt in a third draft following the bid, which is a big no-no (as you can't also trade draft picks that much in advance).

The change is just reflecting that

Cheers for that, I wasn't dreaming after all

 

[Mat Mann]

I agree those guys are a good start. We went to the draft and 8 players on Saturday were first round picks we drafted - not academy or FS related. How many over the past 3 years have been first round top end talent for the Saints? 2 or 3? Saints need to hit the draft for another 2-3 years and try to get as many first rounders as possible and hope they hit on the later picks as well.

Step 2 & 3 are difficult if not irrelevant until you create a nucleus through the draft and can sell a vision and plan, which the Saints haven't done. Otherwise the option is just to try to overpay to get people to come for $$$.

Also re step 2, Saints aren't going to attract talent treating their players like this. Terrible culture and decision-making.

yep we still need to keep drafting, no argument, but we lost Gresham last year to FA, get Band 2 compo (end of round 1) and instead of it being pick 19-20, it turns into pick 28, due to all the NGA picks. that's the point. The ability for clubs to hit the draft is diminished, the cycle is becoming longer and longer if you don't have NGA/Academy's/FS streams.

West Coast finished last and had pick 1 and PICK 30

re Battle, imagine what the player had to have done to get this reaction from any organization, from the President/Coach and Captain, always 2 sides to every story and Josh is already painted as the good guy so he won't say otherwise, and the club won't speak on it. Seb Ross who was upset at being delisted still came.

 

[Elixuh]

yep we still need to keep drafting, no argument, but we lost Gresham last year to FA, get Band 2 compo (end of round 1) and instead of it being pick 19-20, it turns into pick 28, due to all the NGA picks. that's the point. The ability for clubs to hit the draft is diminished, the cycle is becoming longer and longer if you don't have NGA/Academy's/FS streams.

West Coast finished last and had pick 1 and PICK 30

re Battle, imagine what the player had to have done to get this reaction from any organization, from the President/Coach and Captain, always 2 sides to every story and Josh is already painted as the good guy so he won't say otherwise, and the club won't speak on it. Seb Ross who was upset at being delisted still came.

St Kilda has benefited from the NGAs, including multiple guys you mentioned as 'great drafting'. Third most games from NGAs. Why didn't old Fred Basset mention the NGAs? Is it because the Sainters are benefiting from that one?

 

[4tune8]

That is true but it is where a team would need to be smart and not overpaying for players, even if they really want a specific player.

Yes, a team could spend all their draft points in one single monster bid, but it means they have no points left after that and can only start getting more players after every other club has stopped bidding and the bids are 0 points, it reverting to finishing order then.

However, lets say a team does this 3 years in a row.

2024
Pick 1
Pick 55
Pick 65

2025
Pick 1
Pick 60
Pick 70

2026
Pick 1
Pick 48
Pick 54

Yes that team has 3 pick 1 players, but that is not a healthy list build as basically having 1 player coming in each season is not enough for even replacing the players who are retiring or being traded away.

If a few teams really go all in on the early picks a team like West Coast for instance, who have plenty of points in hand, could basically ignore the early selections, and then snap up picks, 8, 9 and 10 all in a row, picking up 3 top 10 pick players instead of going all out for pick 1.

Teams that get sucked into bidding too much would not necessarily benefit in the long term.

It also means teams that are crappy, and need a high number of younger players coming in, like West Coast or Richmond, can save points and bid a little later in the draft, getting three B+ players instead of one A+ player, which could be more useful to them in their current list situation.

However, if a team is pretty happy with their list, and just need a bit of cream, then they may be willing to, for one year at least, go all out on a player they very much want. I imagine a few years ago Adelaide would have happily done that to get JHF, and they likely would have been willing to pay more than most other clubs despite having fewer points than a club like North Melbourne.

I like your model a lot, it simplifies a lot of the issues with the current system and would certainly help in establishing the parameters for salary cap trading which is something that the AFL are struggling with right now.

As another poster alluded to earlier, there's a basic flaw in this style of bidding in an auction, where 2 or 3 (or more) clubs are fighting for the same player and the cost for that player becomes artificially inflated because of that competition, I know that most would say 'tough t***ies', nonetheless it's still a flaw.

A solution would be a 'Dutch' auction where instead of starting the price low and going up incrementally with bids, start the price high until a club deems that's what they're willing to pay and jump in. It completely eliminates the competitive nature of a traditional auction format.

 

[Mat Mann]

St Kilda has benefited from the NGAs, including multiple guys you mentioned as 'great drafting'. Third most games from NGAs. Why didn't old Fred Basset mention the NGAs? Is it because the Sainters are benefiting from that one?

Owens and Windhaeger, taken at 33 and 47 when both were free to anyone above pick 20?
Couldn't touch Cam McKenzie who went pick 7 2 years later, yet the northern academies remained open at any period of the draft

We aren't asking for an exemption, just the same FAIR rule for all

 

[RUNVS]

I like your model a lot, it simplifies a lot of the issues with the current system and would certainly help in establishing the parameters for salary cap trading which is something that the AFL are struggling with right now.

As another poster alluded to earlier, there's a basic flaw in this style of bidding in an auction, where 2 or 3 (or more) clubs are fighting for the same player and the cost for that player becomes artificially inflated because of that competition, I know that most would say 'tough t***ies', nonetheless it's still a flaw.

A solution would be a 'Dutch' auction where instead of starting the price low and going up incrementally with bids, start the price high until a club deems that's what they're willing to pay and jump in. It completely eliminates the competitive nature of a traditional auction format.

Yes there is a lot of different auctions that could work, including Dutch, though I must admit my knowledge of precisely how a Dutch auction works is limited.

I actually went with a blind draft auction to try and lessen the chances of teams trying to outbid each other, as no one wants to make an offer that is essentially 500 points more than the second team.

 

[Elixuh]

Owens and Windhaeger, taken at 33 and 47 when both were free to anyone above pick 20?
Couldn't touch Cam McKenzie who went pick 7 2 years later, yet the northern academies remained open at any period of the draft

We aren't asking for an exemption, just the same FAIR rule for all

Even if you changed the rules drastically there are no players we wouldn't have on the list from our academy. We've had no top end talent from the academy. It actually doesn't bother me to change the academy access rules, other than we need to retain some advantage to be able to pick up players over other clubs.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That is true but it is where a team would need to be smart and not overpaying for players, even if they really want a specific player.

Yes, a team could spend all their draft points in one single monster bid, but it means they have no points left after that and can only start getting more players after every other club has stopped bidding and the bids are 0 points, it reverting to finishing order then.

However, lets say a team does this 3 years in a row.

2024
Pick 1
Pick 55
Pick 65

2025
Pick 1
Pick 60
Pick 70

2026
Pick 1
Pick 48
Pick 54

Yes that team has 3 pick 1 players, but that is not a healthy list build as basically having 1 player coming in each season is not enough for even replacing the players who are retiring or being traded away.

If a few teams really go all in on the early picks a team like West Coast for instance, who have plenty of points in hand, could basically ignore the early selections, and then snap up picks, 8, 9 and 10 all in a row, picking up 3 top 10 pick players instead of going all out for pick 1.

Teams that get sucked into bidding too much would not necessarily benefit in the long term.

It also means teams that are crappy, and need a high number of younger players coming in, like West Coast or Richmond, can save points and bid a little later in the draft, getting three B+ players instead of one A+ player, which could be more useful to them in their current list situation.

However, if a team is pretty happy with their list, and just need a bit of cream, then they may be willing to, for one year at least, go all out on a player they very much want. I imagine a few years ago Adelaide would have happily done that to get JHF, and they likely would have been willing to pay more than most other clubs despite having fewer points than a club like North Melbourne.

I'm not sure you're appreciating the complexity of auction theory (this is an entire academic field and businesses like Google developed incredibly sophisticated mechanisms to e.g. sell ad space on websites) nor are giving full credit to the interchangeability of players that are freely accessable and the fact that teams won't care if they have to fill out the list with rookies or delisted free agents or whatever if they can jump the draft and get a good player. The Dogs are proof of this - we were giving games to Lachie McNeil acquired for nothing because we were happy that we could also put Jamarra on the park. Every Dogs fan is happy with the sacrifice of putting McNeil rather than a random pick 31 on the park because Jamarra and Darcy exist, even if we admit that there is a small and disequal tradeoff, simply put because the 31st best player in a given draft year can't be expected to be that much better than Lachie McNeil, or Lachie Bramble, who we also picked up as a delisted free agent from another club who was in turn already a mature ager rookie when Hawks picked him up. Yet there are also pick 31s that fail to play an AFL game.

I like the idea of an auction, but in order to achieve the same goals that the draft already does, you'd need to engage with the literature and come up with different systems than the one you're proposing. I demonstrated that an auction can essentially diminish the value of the bottom of the draft - instead of West Cost having pick 1 and 19, they would lose out on pick 19 in order to outbid the points of pick 2. That's one example.

As someone who studied economics/operations research myself (so I touched on auction theory without studying it in detail), the reason different auctions exists is because the nature of the audience, the number of things on "sale", the currency used, the aims that are meant to be achieved etc. all differ, and therefore you use different auction systems. You've already suggested a "blind" system. You could have count down and count up systems. All reach different optimal levels and ultimately distribute AFL talent in a different way at different costs to different teams, which the AFL and you should investigate as to how this does this.

 

[4tune8]

Yes there is a lot of different auctions that could work, including Dutch, though I must admit my knowledge of precisely how a Dutch auction works is limited.

I actually went with a blind draft auction to try and lessen the chances of teams trying to outbid each other, as no one wants to make an offer that is essentially 500 points more than the second team.

A Dutch auction is very simple, start the price high then drop the price incrementally until someone deems it appropriate to jump in.

The current system for bidding at home auctions is open to abuse from shill bidding, where a bidder artificially places bids having no interest in winning the auction as he's purely there to drive the price up, doesn't matter if he wins the auction as there are no contracts involved and it just goes to the next highest bidder. Obviously this has nothing to do with what you've proposed.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Even if you changed the rules drastically there are no players we wouldn't have on the list from our academy. We've had no top end talent from the academy. It actually doesn't bother me to change the academy access rules, other than we need to retain some advantage to be able to pick up players over other clubs.

To be fair, Hipwood and Keays (Hipwood still on your list) were drafted with rules that for one year only allowed the use of points for draft picks that exceeded the number of list spots opened, which was closed off as a rule that very year (why they allowed it in the first place is anyone's guess when it was so obvious that is what teams would do).

Dogs did the same thing with Jamarra to be fair when there wasn't the alternative because they hadn't agreed how much smaller list sizes were actually be until between the end of trade week and the draft, post-COVID cuts to list sizes to save money.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The current system for bidding at home auctions is open to abuse from shill bidding, where a bidder artificially places bids having no interest in winning the auction as he's purely there to drive the price up, doesn't matter if he wins the auction as there are no contracts involved and it just goes to the next lowest bidder. Obviously this has nothing to do with what you've proposed.

A blind auction solves this. Teams can't see what each other bidded, only the winning team gets announced

 

[stallon]

I'm not sure you're appreciating the complexity of auction theory (this is an entire academic field and businesses like Google developed incredibly sophisticated mechanisms to e.g. sell ad space on websites) nor are giving full credit to the interchangeability of players that are freely accessable and the fact that teams won't care if they have to fill out the list with rookies or delisted free agents or whatever if they can jump the draft and get a good player. The Dogs are proof of this - we were giving games to Lachie McNeil acquired for nothing because we were happy that we could also put Jamarra on the park. Every Dogs fan is happy with the sacrifice of putting McNeil rather than a random pick 31 on the park because Jamarra and Darcy exist, even if we admit that there is a small and disequal tradeoff.

I like the idea of an auction, but in order to achieve the same goals that the draft already does, you'd need to engage with the literature and come up with different systems than the one you're proposing. I demonstrated that an auction can essentially diminish the value of the bottom of the draft - instead of West Cost having pick 1 and 19, they would lose out on pick 19 in order to outbid the points of pick 2. That's one example.

As someone who studied economics/operations research myself (so I touched on auction theory without studying it in detail), the reason different auctions exists is because the nature of the audience, the number of things on "sale", the currency used, the aims that are meant to be achieved etc. all differ, and therefore you use different auction systems. You've already suggested a "blind" system. You could have count down and count up systems. All reach different optimal levels and ultimately distribute AFL talent in a different way at different costs to different teams, which the AFL and you should investigate as to how this does this.

Then you add in free agency, where the clubs that go all in for top pick every year will attract the best free agents, its just a sustainable system to have an auction.
Imagine clubs who can attract free agents like Collingwood or Geelong getting access to a top 10 pick every year while comepting? They wouldnt care what those later picks end up being because they can supplement with free players

 

[RUNVS]

Then you add in free agency, where the clubs that go all in for top pick every year will attract the best free agents, its just a sustainable system to have an auction.
Imagine clubs who can attract free agents like Collingwood or Geelong getting access to a top 10 pick every year while comepting? They wouldnt care what those later picks end up being because they can supplement with free players

Except all those pick 1 players are all going to be demanding some pretty big salaries.

 

[Mat Mann]

Even if you changed the rules drastically there are no players we wouldn't have on the list from our academy. We've had no top end talent from the academy. It actually doesn't bother me to change the academy access rules, other than we need to retain some advantage to be able to pick up players over other clubs.

so let's say that's true, what advantage should my club get?, because we can't compete as it is, the AFL has made their rules to see certain clubs competitive in the draft and others to be competitive in attendance and audiences, are we just supposed to suck it and perenially be an afterthought?

 

[Elixuh]

so let's say that's true, what advantage should my club get?, because we can't compete as it is, the AFL has made their rules to see certain clubs competitive in the draft and others to be competitive in attendance and audiences, are we just supposed to suck it and perenially be an afterthought?

What advantage do you want? I agree that in the Melbourne/VFL market you get the fewest advantages - other than you do exist in a very nice part of Melbourne that should be appealing.

 

[stallon]

Except all those pick 1 players are all going to be demanding some pretty big salaries.

No doubt, but a club only needs 3-4 of those blokes, then no doubt theyll find a few players with late picks, and top up with free agency middle tier guys like the Pies have done this year with Perryman for example, and chase guys like Peatling.

 

[RUNVS]

No doubt, but a club only needs 3-4 of those blokes, then no doubt theyll find a few players with late picks, and top up with free agency middle tier guys like the Pies have done this year with Perryman for example, and chase guys like Peatling.

Also, looking at the history of pick 1's, how many of them are actually the best in their draft? You are putting a lot of eggs into the one basket only selecting one really top end talent a year.

 

[stallon]

Also, looking at the history of pick 1's, how many of them are actually the best in their draft? You are putting a lot of eggs into the one basket only selecting one really top end talent a year.

Doesnt necessarily have to paying up for pick 1, but targeting a specific kid and paying up for a top 5 pick if that makes it easier for you.
Do it 5 times, get a hit on 4 of them. Find enough in the later stages of the draft and free agency to fill the rest of the squad with decent talent

 

[RUNVS]

Doesnt necessarily have to paying up for pick 1, but targeting a specific kid and paying up for a top 5 pick if that makes it easier for you.
Do it 5 times, get a hit on 4 of them. Find enough in the later stages of the draft and free agency to fill the rest of the squad with decent talent

Different draft strategies work for different clubs. That may work for a club on the rise that has most of the pieces already in place but it would be a terrible strategy for a club like Richmond or West Coast.

I think the blind draft auction gives clubs a lot more freedom to build a list how they want to build it.

 

[Dmoney]

Long time saints fan here. Basset is WRONG . Saints drafted Mitch Owen’s and windhager and Peris (who we delisted after 1 season). We literally have a father son in this years draft elwood peckett. So if Bassett was true on his word. He wont draft Elwood because “everyone deserves a fair chance”. But no we will draft him. I hate this argument about but he’s talking about 1st round picks. You don’t know how good a kid will be.yes Mitch Owens went in the 2 round but you don’t know gold coast or north wanted to pick him or not. Teams have had there fair chance of father sons they may be at an advantage but its not about fairness. Eg Jackson archer for north Melbourne 51st pick. Jake waterman

2

Jake Waterman

Age

26

Ht

192cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.3

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.2

5star

T

1.2

3star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.8

2star

K

7.8

3star

HB

2.0

1star

M

5.8

5star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.5

5star

D

12.2

3star

K

7.6

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

4.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.8

4star

77 pick for west coast. Zaine Cordy

21

Zaine Cordy

Age

27

Ht

195cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

3.5

4star

T

2.1

4star

MG

180.4

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.4

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

2.9

3star

T

1.9

3star

MG

180.4

3star

D

6.8

2star

K

3.8

2star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

pick 62. Jase Burgoyne pick 60. Calshear Dear pick 56.

 

[buttox]

I just don't like the discount.
It should be 18% for the wooden spooner and 1% for the premiership team.
And no discount for a second first round pick.
Clubs getting multiple first round picks is bs.
Make it harder to get them is all .
I'm fine with the game needing to improve in the northern states it totally does. But 2 first round picks should be really hard to achieve for any club.

 

[stallon]

Long time saints fan here. Basset is WRONG . Saints drafted Mitch Owen’s and windhager and Peris (who we delisted after 1 season). We literally have a father son in this years draft elwood peckett. So if Bassett was true on his word. He wont draft Elwood because “everyone deserves a fair chance”. But no we will draft him. I hate this argument about but he’s talking about 1st round picks. You don’t know how good a kid will be.yes Mitch Owens went in the 2 round but you don’t know gold coast or north wanted to pick him or not. Teams have had there fair chance of father sons they may be at an advantage but its not about fairness. Eg Jackson archer for north Melbourne 51st pick. Jake waterman 77 pick for west coast. Zaine Cordy pick 62. Jase Burgoyne pick 60. Calshear Dear pick 56.

Just because he may get a little bit out of the broken rules doesnt mean he isnt able to complain about the rules.
Its clearly broken and creates a HUGE inequality in the comp as these players in the early parts of the draft are obtained for cents on the dollar far under market value.
The late picks sure are a little uneven but reality is at that point of the draft all the kids are more or less even, its only maybe a positional need that might not be able to be filled if a KPF for example isnt available at pick 60 because the only one left is linked to a club.

Access to f/s isnt necessarily an issue as long as the price paid is correct. If the AFL refuses to fix the price paid then f/s should be removed

 

[Dogflogger]

Every reason why st Kilda can’t possibly win a flag.

i thought we were talking about the unfairness of the draft and how some teams (collingwood) get never ending cheap draftees.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Extending on the auction idea and concerns raised - Teams nominate their preferred player in reverse ladder order (like they do now) - then the 17 other clubs put a bid in (silently - bids not shown to each other).

The top bid is then shown (points, not which team), and the team at selection then chooses to either match the bid, or pass (top bid wins). Kind of replicates the Zone access process, but using reverse ladder order.

That way Eagles don't have to blind bid for Reid - they can wait to see what "someone" else bid, before making the decision.

However - given the nature of draftees being list manager's 'shiny new toys' - I can see the points curve increasing exponentially, such that if Eagles said no to Reid's points, they may end up with 3-4 of the top 10.

Clubs might choose to opt out of some drafts completely - only spending minimal amount and banking their points for next years "Superdraft".