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

[giantroo]

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I like the auction but I'd keep both styles and just have two different pools. The auction pool and the draft pool. Teams bid on points players then the team they are linked to has an option to match (likely at a small discount) or pass. Would mean fair price is basically always paid for players while giving the teams who finish lower on the ladder the option to take their picks to the draft instead (where they'll still be highly rated players).

You'd probably need a points bracket that breaks whether the points are taken off 1st or 2nd and beyond round picks but it'd be a lot of fun and most importantly to the AFL - create an extra event showcase (Auction night).

 

[TheTassieHawk]

If a team want to trade up from pick 18 to a top 5 pick then they have to give up a player of decent value to do so.

Similarly if a team want to match a bid for a top 5 pick then they should have to give up a player of decent value to get a high enough pick in the same draft to do so.

Even though the proposed points value changes appear to be a move in the right direction it won’t make enough of a difference unless a maximum of 2 picks can be used to match.

 

[sr36]

Yeah I wasn't referring to 2022, but I think we would've won in 2023. We lost to the pies by a goal, despite having a lot of injuries, and I mean a lot, then throw in Brayshaw getting concussed 5 mins in, plus we kicked horrendously for goal. I fully believe that with Mac Andrew we win the flag.

You're not watching the current game if you're arguing that paragraph based on the final score.

One of the biggest differences between Collingwood 2023 and 2024 was that our hold the lead tactics stopped working.

In that final, Collingwood outplayed Melbourne for 3 quarters and turned 25 points up. We then went into conservative mode and you gradually whittled down the lead, with all the play in your half, but our defensive mode was holding up well enough for us to hold on.

If circumstances had have made you a 5 goal better team, you would have turned at 3 quarter time in front and it would have been Collingwood at full throttle chasing you down as you tried to hold the lead.**** knows who would have won, but the game wouldn't have been played in your half for the whole final quarter like it was, leaving you with both defeat and a very flattering scoreboard at the end of the game.

 

[sr36]

If a team want to trade up from pick 18 to a top 5 pick then they have to give up a player of decent value to do so.

Similarly if a team want to match a bid for a top 5 pick then they should have to give up a player of decent value to get a high enough pick in the same draft to do so.

Even though the proposed points value changes appear to be a move in the right direction it won’t make enough of a difference unless a maximum of 2 picks can be used to match.

It's going to be interesting. Next year there's likely to be a lot of academy kids and a lot less picks with enough points to be effective to match with. You won't be able to increase your points as easily by trading down. 2nd round picks will be much more valuable with trading up a lot cheaper.

 

[sydney_gws]

It's going to be interesting. Next year there's likely to be a lot of academy kids and a lot less picks with enough points to be effective to match with. You won't be able to increase your points as easily by trading down. 2nd round picks will be much more valuable with trading up a lot cheaper.

I have no doubt it will be better, but clubs will find some minor flaw in the system, exploit it and the AFL will let it fester for 3 years before half fixing it.

 

[Stamos]

I have no doubt it will be better, but clubs will find some minor flaw in the system, exploit it and the AFL will let it fester for 3 years before half fixing it.

It will still be vastly improved over the current system.
The new DVI and reduced discount will fix most of the issues.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It will still be vastly improved over the current system.
The new DVI and reduced discount will fix most of the issues.

It’s a thousand times better. IMO they just need to get rid of the deductions or if they have it then make it a blanket ~200pts instead of a % and it will be fair enough to accept.

 

[Stamos]

It’s a thousand times better. IMO they just need to get rid of the deductions or if they have it then make it a blanket ~200pts instead of a % and it will be fair enough to accept.

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

200 points would be a bigger discount for every pick from 4 on than what is proposed.

 

[melanChronic]

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

Why is that required? If you don't have the pick that the F/S is worth then you pay the equivalent in points.

It seems to me that the discount exists purely because under old systems the clubs with F/S options were used to getting their boys for way unders. So there would have been outrage at suddenly having to pay a fair price.

 

[Stamos]

Why is that required? If you don't have the pick that the F/S is worth then you pay the equivalent in points.

It seems to me that the discount exists purely because under old systems the clubs with F/S options were used to getting their boys for way unders. So there would have been outrage at suddenly having to pay a fair price.

By definition no club has a pick that the bid is made at.
You don't think you should be able to match with the very next pick?

The values are arbitrary, they're not adjusted for the strength of the draft, or for where the dips in quality occur.
The massive reduction in DVI values, combined with a halving of the % discount in the 1st round will make clubs pay a much fairer price for their players.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

200 points would be a bigger discount for every pick from 4 on than what is proposed.

It’s the top picks that are the biggest problem though. Ashcroft will get a 600pt reduction, equivalent to pick 24 next year. These are the players who compromise the draft the most.

Someone bid on at 40 hardly affects the draft but you only get about a 40pt discount. They would still cost you picks 46 and 50 to match, so the discount hardly helps.
A set point discount would be a more fair/even way of doing it.

 

[melanChronic]

By definition no club has a pick that the bid is made at.
You don't think you should be able to match with the very next pick?

At the moment you have the ludicrous situation where clubs will trade away any pick that is around the predicted value of the player lest it gets "eaten up" by the bid. I'd rather a system where it is encouraged for clubs to use a natural pick to select their F/S or academy target, and if they miss then they pay a points premium to match with later picks.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

At the moment you have the ludicrous situation where clubs will trade away any pick that is around the predicted value of the player lest it gets "eaten up" by the bid. I'd rather a system where it is encouraged for clubs to use a natural pick to select their F/S or academy target, and if they miss then they pay a points premium to match with later picks.

You could have a 10% bonus points if the pick is within 10 picks of the bid or something.

Or a sliding scale of 18% bonus pts if it’s the next pick, sliding to 0% to 18 picks after. That imo would be the smartest way but people would complain it’s too difficult even though any 10 year old could understand it.