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

[giantroo]

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And the dogs you need to find 3 replacements for Ugle-hagan, Sam Darcy and Liberatore. it's simply not going to happen to find 3.

Liberatore wasn't considered at top-20 player in the draft though.
Sam Darcy hardly contributed to any on-field success before this year.

I'm pretty absolute in saying that premierships mean next to nothing now.

Most people have the common sense to understand that clubs still have to pay something for these players, and they still have to retain them under the salary cap.

So we won it on merit.

No, you didn't because you got Viney. Why is it merit with Viney (a top 5-10 prospect you got with a pick outisde the top 20) but the Dogs not merit with Libba (who wasn't a top 20 prospect?)

 

[GC2015]

I get what you're saying. You've just picked out 1 player though. You'd need to find replacements for 4 players. Daicos x 2, Moore and Quaynor.

And the dogs you need to find 3 replacements for Ugle-hagan, Sam Darcy and Liberatore. it's simply not going to happen to find 3.

Okay if you want to go through it - Collingwood used their natural pick 9 to recruit Darcy Moore, Josh Daicos was drafted with their natural pick 57 and Quaynor was bid on with pick 13 when Collingwood's natural pick that year was 16. I just don't think the Pies are a very good example of what you're suggesting because they were around the mark / used their natural picks anyway.

Let's be really clear about the Bulldogs here - they've gotten worse since they recruited Ugle-Hagan and Darcy when they were the Grand Finalists. They were already good and have fallen away since then. It's not like the Pies or Lions where you could make an argument about F/S picks leading them to a premiership.

I'm pretty absolute in saying that premierships mean next to nothing now. The Dees won a flag with Viney and having only 1 good father/son in 20 years is probably close to an afl low. So we won it on merit.

So it's okay for your club to win a flag with a F/S player in the team, but not other clubs? How does that make any sense?

 

[Obeanie1]

Fair to say this will be one of the last times we'll see a trade like this taking place. Using several third rounders to match a top 2 bid won't be possible from next year onward.

It shouldn't have been allowed this year. AFL was weak as you know what when it folded to the crying Blues and Lions who cracked it when it looked like they will miss out on one last rort in 2024.

So the highest ranked player in the draft will go to the premiers for a hand full of junk picks.

The AFL does love propping up its pet expansion clubs. Seems to happen every year.

 

[GC2015]

It shouldn't have been allowed this year. AFL was weak as you know what when it folded to the crying Blues and Lions who cracked it when it looked like they will miss out on one last rort in 2024.

So the highest ranked player in the draft will go to the premiers for a hand full of junk picks.

The AFL does love propping up its pet expansion clubs. Seems to happen every year.

To be fair, approving future trades from the year before and then pulling the rug to change the rules is unfair on clubs like Carlton and Brisbane, who were only doing those deals 12 months prior because they thought the rules would remain the same. The AFL also has to take some responsibility here if they're going to change the rules on a whim.

Were you as outraged when the Bulldogs got access to pick 2 Sam Darcy after getting the number 1 pick the year before and making the Grand Final in 2021? Seems to be some selective outrage / anti-northern club spin going on here.

 

[Obeanie1]

To be fair, approving future trades from the year before and then pulling the rug to change the rules is unfair on clubs like Carlton and Brisbane, who were only doing those deals 12 months prior because they thought the rules would remain the same. The AFL also has to take some responsibility here if they're going to change the rules on a whim.

Were you as outraged when the Bulldogs got access to pick 2 Sam Darcy after getting the number 1 pick the year before and making the Grand Final in 2021? Seems to be some selective outrage / anti-northern club spin going on here.

What future pick trades?

Carlton stuffed up thinking they would go lower. They will be picked up in the mid to late 20's. Get a 20% discount and pay with 3rd rounders.

Blues then traded in and out of 2024 and 2025 to improve its 1st rounder this year. Nothing to do with the father son bids.

What did the Lions trade last year? 2023. Go have a look. It was a couple of late pick swaps. Nothing significant at all.

They just won the premiership but still cried about potentially losing some points or a pick.

I do not see any justification from the Lions or Blues on why these changes couldn't have come in this year.

Essendon did its pick trades recently not last year.

Who exactly would have been disadvantaged from what they did in 2023? I'd love to understand who and how.

 

[GC2015]

What future pick trades?

So Carlton trade in four 2024 picks in the third / fourth rounds last year and you think that's got nothing to do with them planning to match bids for the Camporeale twins? Come on now. Their plans were obvious 12 months ago. Turns out they didn't need them for the most part, but that doesn't mean it's fair to just change the rules on them and other clubs. B.Camporeale was named in the AA team and SA's MVP so it's not like we're talking about rookie prospects.

I'll concede that Brisbane did most of their work for Levi Ashcroft this year. I'll cop that one.

 

[danster168]

Liberatore wasn't considered at top-20 player in the draft though.
Sam Darcy hardly contributed to any on-field success before this year.

Most people have the common sense to understand that clubs still have to pay something for these players, and they still have to retain them under the salary cap.

No, you didn't because you got Viney. Why is it merit with Viney (a top 5-10 prospect you got with a pick outisde the top 20) but the Dogs not merit with Libba (who wasn't a top 20 prospect?)

2010 Phantom Draft

Paul Daffey's official prediction of who will go where in Thursday night's NAB AFL Draft

www.nmfc.com.au

Incorrect. Libba was rated higher than Wallis by some clubs and Wallis was bid with Port's first round pick. So fair to say Libba would've been taken well ahead of pick 40 and wouldn't be at the dogs.

Sam Darcy I agree with. But his form this year was the sole reason why you finished where you finished. It also allows you to focus your resources on recruiting other players of need because you already have a key position sured up.

Regarding Viney, it's because we've had 1 good father-son/NGA in about 20 years whereas the dogs have had Darcy, West, Ugle-Hagan, Wallis, Cordy and Hunter with Croft on the way. Barely comparable.

 

[danster168]

Okay if you want to go through it - Collingwood used their natural pick 9 to recruit Darcy Moore, Josh Daicos was drafted with their natural pick 57 and Quaynor was bid on with pick 13 when Collingwood's natural pick that year was 16. I just don't think the Pies are a very good example of what you're suggesting because they were around the mark / used their natural picks anyway.

Let's be really clear about the Bulldogs here - they've gotten worse since they recruited Ugle-Hagan and Darcy when they were the Grand Finalists. They were already good and have fallen away since then. It's not like the Pies or Lions where you could make an argument about F/S picks leading them to a premiership.


So it's okay for your club to win a flag with a F/S player in the team, but not other clubs? How does that make any sense?

So the dogs bid on Darcy Moore at pick 5. In a fair system, he goes to the bulldogs and the Pies would have a choice between Duggan, Peter Wright, Ahern, Corey Ellis, Lachie Weller, Marchbank, Cockatoo, Lever, Garlett and Durdin. So the chances are that they are going to pick a spud. Not guaranteed, but more likely than not.

With Quaynor, he was bid on before the pies pick, which just demonstrates that he shouldn't be at the pies under a fair system. Pick 16 was Ned McHenry, then followed by Sam Sturt, Xavier Duursma, Liam Stocker, Collier-Dawkins, Ely Smith, Xavier O'Halloran and Jez Mclennan. So most likely, a spud is picked up there.

Out: Darcy Moore, Quaynor, Daicos
In: Cockatoo, Liam Stocker, Sam Darcy.

There goes the flag, top 4 and probably top 8.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

2010 Phantom Draft

Paul Daffey's official prediction of who will go where in Thursday night's NAB AFL Draft

www.nmfc.com.au

Incorrect. Libba was rated higher than Wallis by some clubs and Wallis was bid with Port's first round pick. So fair to say Libba would've been taken well ahead of pick 40 and wouldn't be at the dogs.

Top 25 draft prospects

He has a few key players dropping out like Watson, Pitt and Wilkinson http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103717/default.aspx 1. David Swallow (East Fremantle): Is a complete midfielder who can do it all. At the age of 17 he finished fourth in the Liston Trophy (the...

www.bigfooty.com

Liberatore 22, Wallis not in the top 25. So not a top 20 prospect.

Anyway, you're basically splitting hairs if you're saying that taking a pick 25 with actually a pick 40. It really isn't that big a deal, in contrast to jumping 5 spots in the top 10 or whatever. Which ironically the Dogs were able to with Ayce Cordy, who was considered a 5-10 prospect with pick 13. Just nobody complains about the Dogs getting that advantage (which was clearly bigger than the Wallis and Liberatore ones), Cordy became a flop, even though the draft day value we got was far greater.

But his form this year was the sole reason why you finished where you finished. It also allows you to focus your resources on recruiting other players of need because you already have a key position sured up.

It really takes some lateral thinking, if attributing wins to a single player (as silly as that is), for it not to be Marcus Bontempelli, who was more or less unanimously considered the best player of the season acrosss all teams.

Darcy,

I'll cop that. We should pay more. But the romantic idea that he's a third generation Bulldog is not immaterial. It's why I enjoy the sport, as much as I enjoy a fair competition. I like the fact that I can watch Daicos' kids running around for the Pies too, even if I think they should have paid more.

West

Dogs paid roughly what he was worth. A pick in the 20's that has taken a while to get going and wasn't even selected for the final this year when fit, so not a cemented best 22 player anyway.

Ugle-Hagan

Sure. They changed the rules in response. But that was because the AFL dragged their heels in confirming exactly what the list sizes would be in the 2020-21 off-season, allowing for the Dogs to accumulate more points.

Wallis,

Not drafted with any higher of a pick than his rough draft rating. Pick 17 in the draft. Not in the top 25 power rankings with the above example.

Cordy and Hunter

Third rounders. If you think that jumping up from pick 55 to 45 in the draft or whatever is the sole reason for a club's success, you surely have rocks in your head.

Croft on the way

But his form this year was the sole reason why you finished where you finished. It also allows you to focus your resources on recruiting other players of need because you already have a key position sured up.

You're contradicting yourself here. Croft didn't play an AFL game in his first year and may never even be good enough to play an AFL game. Yet you're counting Darcy's on-field success this year as part of the reason why it's a win. So either you're measuring the relative gain on draft day, or you're measuring the direct on-field success. If it's the latter, you cannot include Croft in this list as he's yet to play a game (such that you also never included Ayce Cordy). You're contradicting your own already flawed points but including Croft in this list.

Anyway, the point being is that every single list move is done in the context of others.

When the Dogs traded for Adam Treloar (who they were getting for free because of Pies' salary cap issues), they attached pick 14 to the deal despite getting him for free, so we could get a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks back for Jamarra.

If Jamarra wasn't able to be selected by us, it is quite literally impossible to know what we would have paid for Treloar or what picks would have been involved, so your little exercise of "Dogs would have had player X instead of player Y" is a bit silly. The Dogs could have drafted Max Holmes with a pick we would have kept. We also could have drafted Finlay Macrae if we kept that pick 14. It's impossible to know and that's even assuming that the Dogs would have kept pick 14 anyway in acquiring Treloar, which they may not have, or maybe would have gotten future picks. The point being it's stupid to attribute one or the other as saying the "what if" as there's so many directions the what ifs could have happened.

All we know that the Dogs paid a bunch of late picks for Jamarra but we did give up a pick in the teens to get there, we just multiplied the value of that pick in the teens by engaging in draft value index points exchange rate arbitration, which is an issue with how the

 

[GC2015]

Out: Darcy Moore, Quaynor, Daicos
In: Cockatoo, Liam Stocker, Sam Darcy.

There goes the flag, top 4 and probably top 8.

How do they lose Daicos if they had a natural pick 2 and the bid didn't come until pick 4? Maybe you could say he slid because he was a F/S pick, but I remember a lot of people thought Jason Horne-Francis was the best available junior at the time. It's entirely possible Collingwood would have drafted Nick Daicos with their natural pick 2 had they not had F/S access to him. You can't categorically say Collingwood wouldn't have recruited Nick Daicos if they didn't have F/S access to him.

Now let's talk about your club benefitting from the F/S rule. Jack Viney was considered a draft prospect in the 6-8 range leading into the 2012 draft (source) and Port Adelaide bid on him with their pick 7. The Dees secured him with pick 26. That's an absolute steal - a top 10 pick for the price of a pick in the mid 20s and he goes on play 200+ games for the Dees, captain the club + becomes a premiership winner for them. Unbelievably good deal for Melbourne. Care to tell us how that's any more fair than any of the other players you've brought up?

 

[danster168]

How do they lose Daicos if they had a natural pick 2 and the bid didn't come until pick 4? Maybe you could say he slid because he was a F/S pick, but I remember a lot of people thought Jason Horne-Francis was the best available junior at the time. It's entirely possible Collingwood would have drafted Nick Daicos with their natural pick 2 had they not had F/S access to him. You can't categorically say Collingwood wouldn't have recruited Nick Daicos if they didn't have F/S access to him.

Now let's talk about your club benefitting from the F/S rule. Jack Viney was considered a draft prospect in the 6-8 range leading into the 2012 draft (source) and Port Adelaide bid on him with their pick 7. The Dees secured him with pick 26. That's an absolute steal - a top 10 pick for the price of a pick in the mid 20s and he goes on play 200+ games for the Dees, captain the club + becomes a premiership winner for them. Unbelievably good deal for Melbourne. Care to tell us how that's any more fair than any of the other players you've brought up?

because Daicos would've gone 1. Just because the bid doesn't come until later doesn't mean that clubs don't rate them at 1. Because the club with the number 1 pick wants their player to feel loved. Exact reason why Tigers won't nominate Ashcroft. I wouldn't have thought this needed explaining.

Regarding Viney, I'm not saying the Viney pick itself is fair but considering most clubs have had 5 Vineys on their list over a 20 year period its only fair that we got one. No club had been disadvantaged more than the Demons with the f/s and academy rules than the dees. Should have Mac Andrew too.

So given what most clubs have got over the last 20 years the dees probably are about 5-10 f/s and academy players short of most teams. So every bit if success is legit. a lot of asterisks on clubs like Brisbane, Dogs, Pies and Sydney. Like what does Brisbane's future success even mean when they get gifted 2 number 1 picks in a row? most clubs are flagging it from there.

Do the dees win the flag with Mac Andrew and Daicos? 100%. That's all the competition is this days.

 

[Purple Suit]

To be fair, approving future trades from the year before and then pulling the rug to change the rules is unfair on clubs like Carlton and Brisbane, who were only doing those deals 12 months prior because they thought the rules would remain the same. The AFL also has to take some responsibility here if they're going to change the rules on a whim.

Were you as outraged when the Bulldogs got access to pick 2 Sam Darcy after getting the number 1 pick the year before and making the Grand Final in 2021? Seems to be some selective outrage / anti-northern club spin going on here.

The AFL changes rules all the time that impact teams. Just because it’s a Big Vic team, they decide to leave the broken system for another 12 months.

When Freo had an NGA coming through in 2021 they changed the matching rules that season & could only match bids after 40 after 4-5 years in the system. Carlton took that player at 27 so was the beneficiary of the rule change.

Swings and round abouts except when you track how the AFL operates, it’s never even and they pander to the powerful vic clubs or their pet projects.

 

[Profop]

What future pick trades?

Carlton stuffed up thinking they would go lower. They will be picked up in the mid to late 20's. Get a 20% discount and pay with 3rd rounders.

Blues then traded in and out of 2024 and 2025 to improve its 1st rounder this year. Nothing to do with the father son bids.

What did the Lions trade last year? 2023. Go have a look. It was a couple of late pick swaps. Nothing significant at all.

They just won the premiership but still cried about potentially losing some points or a pick.

I do not see any justification from the Lions or Blues on why these changes couldn't have come in this year.

Essendon did its pick trades recently not last year.

Who exactly would have been disadvantaged from what they did in 2023? I'd love to understand who and how.

The Tigers would have been

The future picks (at the time) we traded for in 2023 with the expectation of bundling them up for a higher pick to a team that needed to match an early selection (Brisbane) would have been rendered worthless

 

[GC2015]

because Daicos would've gone 1. Just because the bid doesn't come until later doesn't mean that clubs don't rate them at 1. Because the club with the number 1 pick wants their player to feel loved. Exact reason why Tigers won't nominate Ashcroft. I wouldn't have thought this needed explaining.

Would he have? I do remember Horne-Francis being very highly rated at the time. If you're right then it's very likely the Pies would've drafted JHF and it's debatable as to what would have happened from there. You can't automatically assume Horne-Francis would have wanted to leave Collingwood after 12 months. North and Collingwood were very different teams in that 2022 season.

That's not always the case, by the way. Adelaide made the Bulldogs pay full price for Ugle-Hagan by bidding on him with pick 1 in the 2021 draft, instead of drafting Thilthorpe with pick 1 to make him "feel loved". So yeah, what you're suggesting isn't always true despite you thinking it doesn't need explaining.

Regarding Viney, I'm not saying the Viney pick itself is fair but considering most clubs have had 5 Vineys on their list over a 20 year period its only fair that we got one. No club had been disadvantaged more than the Demons with the f/s and academy rules than the dees. Should have Mac Andrew too.

It's fair that Melbourne get a top 10 player (Viney) for a cheap price when you've got teams like St Kilda, Richmond and Fremantle who have never really had a standout father-son pick come through? How about just being grateful that your team was able to benefit from the rule instead of trying to find ways to justify why the Dees are victims? You wouldn't think your club had won the flag just three years ago with the way you're carrying on.

So given what most clubs have got over the last 20 years the dees probably are about 5-10 f/s and academy players short of most teams. So every bit if success is legit. a lot of asterisks on clubs like Brisbane, Dogs, Pies and Sydney. Like what does Brisbane's future success even mean when they get gifted 2 number 1 picks in a row? most clubs are flagging it from there.

Do the dees win the flag with Mac Andrew and Daicos? 100%. That's all the competition is this days.

That's a very short memory you've got there. What about the priority picks Melbourne received? Pick 1 in 2009, pick 17 in 2008, pick 3 in 2003, pick 1 in 1997. To claim that Melbourne have gone without is just simply not true. There are lots of clubs that have received significantly less than the Dees over the last 20 years.

Did the Dees win a flag with a F/S pick they got on the cheap (Viney)? Yes. Would the Dees be better if they had retained academy access to Mac Andrew? Most likely. Would the Suns be better if they had retained academy access to Will Ashcroft after pumping five years of development into him? Most likely. These things happen. Swings and roundabouts.

The AFL changes rules all the time that impact teams. Just because it’s a Big Vic team, they decide to leave the broken system for another 12 months.

When Freo had an NGA coming through in 2021 they changed the matching rules that season & could only match bids after 40 after 4-5 years in the system. Carlton took that player at 27 so was the beneficiary of the rule change.

Swings and round abouts except when you track how the AFL operates, it’s never even and they pander to the powerful vic clubs or their pet projects.

To be fair, Fremantle was one of the few teams to benefit greatly from NGA access when they used it to secure pick 9 Liam Henry in 2019. They matched Carlton's bid for Henry with picks 49, 52, 55, 58 & 73. Cheap price to pay for a top 10 pick.

But yes. Swings and roundabouts. I firmly believe Carlton and Richmond were the main reason the AFL didn't change the rules this year. If it had just been Brisbane benefitting then I'm fairly sure the rule would've changed.

 

[cosmicwinduptoy]

Would he have? I do remember Horne-Francis being very highly rated at the time. If you're right then it's very likely the Pies would've drafted JHF and it's debatable as to what would have happened from there. You can't automatically assume Horne-Francis would have wanted to leave Collingwood after 12 months. North and Collingwood were very different teams in that 2022 season.

That's not always the case, by the way. Adelaide made the Bulldogs pay full price for Ugle-Hagan by bidding on him with pick 1 in the 2021 draft, instead of drafting Thilthorpe with pick 1 to make him "feel loved". So yeah, what you're suggesting isn't always true despite you thinking it doesn't need explaining.


It's fair that Melbourne get a top 10 player (Viney) for a cheap price when you've got teams like St Kilda, Richmond and Fremantle who have never really had a standout father-son pick come through? How about just being grateful that your team was able to benefit from the rule instead of trying to find ways to justify why the Dees are victims? You wouldn't think your club had won the flag just three years ago with the way you're carrying on.


That's a very short memory you've got there. What about the priority picks Melbourne received? Pick 1 in 2009, pick 17 in 2008, pick 3 in 2003, pick 1 in 1997. To claim that Melbourne have gone without is just simply not true. There are lots of clubs that have received significantly less than the Dees over the last 20 years.

Did the Dees win a flag with a F/S pick they got on the cheap (Viney)? Yes. Would the Dees be better if they had retained academy access to Mac Andrew? Most likely. Would the Suns be better if they had retained academy access to Will Ashcroft after pumping five years of development into him? Most likely. These things happen. Swings and roundabouts.


To be fair, Fremantle was one of the few teams to benefit greatly from NGA access when they used it to secure pick 9 Liam Henry in 2019. They matched Carlton's bid for Henry with picks 49, 52, 55, 58 & 73. Cheap price to pay for a top 10 pick.

But yes. Swings and roundabouts. I firmly believe Carlton and Richmond were the main reason the AFL didn't change the rules this year. If it had just been Brisbane benefitting then I'm fairly sure the rule would've changed.

He's not right. JHF was the consensus number 1. It's why Adelaide and Richmond made huge offers to North to try and pry away the number 1 pick.

 

[Obeanie1]

So Carlton trade in four 2024 picks in the third / fourth rounds last year and you think that's got nothing to do with them planning to match bids for the Camporeale twins? Come on now. Their plans were obvious 12 months ago. Turns out they didn't need them for the most part, but that doesn't mean it's fair to just change the rules on them and other clubs. B.Camporeale was named in the AA team and SA's MVP so it's not like we're talking about rookie prospects.

I'll concede that Brisbane did most of their work for Levi Ashcroft this year. I'll cop that one.

And in the end they didn't need to.

Did they?

Those boys are going late 2nd in the 30's.

Who gives a rats after a 20% discount it will cost the Blues a pick in the late 40's or 50's.

Insignificant. They didn't trade a 1st to make that happen either. They flip flopped with late picks.

So does that really justify holding up these needed reforms?

And the premier gets another pick 1 ranked player for junk picks. And the Suns land another top 10 talent and build yet another loades draft hand into next year. Great outcome.?

 

[GC2015]

He's not right. JHF was the consensus number 1. It's why Adelaide and Richmond made huge offers to North to try and pry away the number 1 pick.

Thought so. In which case, Collingwood get Daicos with their natural pick 2 and nothing changes.

And in the end they didn't need to.

Did they?

Those boys are going late 2nd in the 30's.

Who gives a rats after a 20% discount it will cost the Blues a pick in the late 40's or 50's.

Insignificant. They didn't trade a 1st to make that happen either. They flip flopped with late picks.

So does that really justify holding up these needed reforms?

And the premier gets another pick 1 ranked player for junk picks. And the Suns land another top 10 talent and build yet another loades draft hand into next year. Great outcome.?

It wasn't just Carlton, though. As mentioned above, Richmond also traded into the future with the goal of securing high end picks later down the track. Changing the rules affects that as well, which is why they also voiced their opposition to it. I'll reiterate that I think the rules WOULD have changed had it just been Brisbane that was potentially benefitting. Throw Carlton and Richmond in the mix and I think the AFL were worried about pissing too many people off.

Also, let's be clear. Brisbane were always getting Ashcroft, regardless of whether it was under the current rules or the 2025 rules. Yes, they likely would have paid more for him under 2025 rules, but he was going to Brisbane regardless. The real joke is that Richmond are unlikely to make Brisbane pay full price for Ashcroft when he's considered by most to be the best player in this draft pool. If opposition clubs are unwilling to bid on players for their own selfish reasons/agreements done under the table, then the whole idea of 'paying a fair price' goes out the window anyway.

Daicos shouldn't have slid to pick 4, but he did. Why didn't GWS bid on him with pick 2 or 3? The rules of a bidding system mean nothing if they are dependent on separate party doing the right thing when there is often incentive to not do the right thing.

 

[danster168]

Would he have? I do remember Horne-Francis being very highly rated at the time. If you're right then it's very likely the Pies would've drafted JHF and it's debatable as to what would have happened from there. You can't automatically assume Horne-Francis would have wanted to leave Collingwood after 12 months. North and Collingwood were very different teams in that 2022 season.

That's not always the case, by the way. Adelaide made the Bulldogs pay full price for Ugle-Hagan by bidding on him with pick 1 in the 2021 draft, instead of drafting Thilthorpe with pick 1 to make him "feel loved". So yeah, what you're suggesting isn't always true despite you thinking it doesn't need explaining.


It's fair that Melbourne get a top 10 player (Viney) for a cheap price when you've got teams like St Kilda, Richmond and Fremantle who have never really had a standout father-son pick come through? How about just being grateful that your team was able to benefit from the rule instead of trying to find ways to justify why the Dees are victims? You wouldn't think your club had won the flag just three years ago with the way you're carrying on.


That's a very short memory you've got there. What about the priority picks Melbourne received? Pick 1 in 2009, pick 17 in 2008, pick 3 in 2003, pick 1 in 1997. To claim that Melbourne have gone without is just simply not true. There are lots of clubs that have received significantly less than the Dees over the last 20 years.

Did the Dees win a flag with a F/S pick they got on the cheap (Viney)? Yes. Would the Dees be better if they had retained academy access to Mac Andrew? Most likely. Would the Suns be better if they had retained academy access to Will Ashcroft after pumping five years of development into him? Most likely. These things happen. Swings and roundabouts.


To be fair, Fremantle was one of the few teams to benefit greatly from NGA access when they used it to secure pick 9 Liam Henry in 2019. They matched Carlton's bid for Henry with picks 49, 52, 55, 58 & 73. Cheap price to pay for a top 10 pick.

But yes. Swings and roundabouts. I firmly believe Carlton and Richmond were the main reason the AFL didn't change the rules this year. If it had just been Brisbane benefitting then I'm fairly sure the rule would've changed.

You don't get priority picks for free. You've got to be one of the worst teams in the league to get them. So literally the opposite to getting them for free.

The Saints may not have had much father-son success but they've been very fortunate with NGA's.

The dogs never paid fair price for Ugle-Hagan. They didn't have pick 1, so therefore he shouldn't be a bulldog. Bottom line.

You seem to have conveniently skipped over the Collingwood players that I listed and who would've most likely been taken instead.

Why didn't GWS bid on Daicos? Literally the exact reason why Ashcroft probably won't get nominated until pick 2 or 3 or 4. There's no incentive to nominate the player. Making another club pay 300 more points or whatever isn't enough incentive.

It's not swings and roundabouts. That's exactly why it should be changed. When do you think another club will get 2x top 1 picks as a father-son? Condering the dees have had 1 father-son in 20 years and 0 NGA's of note (considering the afl take all of our nga's away) then it's fair to say that it would take about 1000 years to get the access Brisbane got and probably 100 years to get all the father-sons a team like the dogs and pies have enjoyed. That's not swings and roundabouts. Don't use terms you don't understand.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You don't get priority picks for free. You've got to be one of the worst teams in the league to get them. So literally the opposite to getting them for free.

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (accelerating their rebuild and ensuring a bad team doesn't reduce the level of competiveness and interest in the sport).

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (ensuring that fan interest and
cultural development of a club is maintained by having children of players play for the same club, ensuring that the level of interest in the sport isn't reduced).

Both compromise the purity of a draft being reverse ladder order. Both are done in the wider interests of fan interest and health of the code.

The Saints may not have had much father-son success but they've been very fortunate with NGA's.

Different argument with different goals (that it, the AFL's obligation as the custodian of the code to support multiculturalism)

The dogs never paid fair price for Ugle-Hagan. They didn't have pick 1, so therefore he shouldn't be a bulldog. Bottom line.

Nobody denies this, but a large reason of this was because the Dogs were able to use extra picks beyond their open list spots to match the bid, but only because the amount of open list spots during trade period was unknown, because they had yet to confirm the reduction in list sizes as a COVID cost cutting measure. A literal one off that wasn't possible in 2019 and not possible in 2021. You have consistently ignored this point every time it has been raised

There's no incentive to nominate the player

No, the incentive could be that it is possible, however remote, that a bid isn't matched, and a club gets a player they rated. It's not unheard of. Sydney didn't match Josh Dunkley, etc.

Richmond might bid of Ashcroft because from the moment they bid on him, there is the possibility (however unlikely) that they do manage to actually get him as their most preferred player.

It's not swings and roundabouts.

It is, because at least without the bad SANFL/WAFL rules all teams except GWS and GC now have at least a random chance of benefiting from F/S, except for maybe the fact that successful clubs are more likely to have more 100 gamers. Swings and roundabouts is just another way of saying some clubs benefit from variance/randomness. Which is true. There's no guarantee that the Dogs' father sons will be better in the future than Saints', despite the past fact that it was. Given 16 clubs are more or less equally likely to benefit from F/S from 2025 onward through the draft, that it literally swings and roundabouts.

When do you think another club will get 2x top 1 picks as a father-son?

But just because it's happened in the past doesn't make it more or less likely to happen in the future.

Condering the dees have had 1 father-son in 20 years

You're not less likely in the future than other clubs

then it's fair to say that it would take about 1000 years to get the access Brisbane got

But it's also fair to suggest that two top draft prospects father happened to be a Brisbane player is just enitely due to random chance and if that random chance happened to any other club that club could have also recruited the Ashcrofts under the same discount. It's no different than the random chance that saw Jack Trengove crack is navicular bone that ended his career. It's no different than the random chance that saw the same Will Ashcroft you complain about tear an ACL. Is it fair to say that it would take Melbourne 1000 years to get the same injury luck from a top junior that Brisbane got?

In summary nobody denies that some teams win genetic lotteries and it helps them win games. In the past, we probably sacrificed too much of that for the romanticism of father son. But we have been making the changes - a top 2 prospect in Hawkins went for a 3rd round pick in 2006, and since then, the rules have been changed numerous times to pay closer and closer to true market value. But most people agree that some discount on fair market value for the benefit of the romanticism of father/son is worth it, even if it benefits the random winners of the club generic lottery. Melbourne have been losers of the lottery, but it doesn't mean that the lottery was rigged (which is what you re suggesting)

 

[danster168]

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (accelerating their rebuild and ensuring a bad team doesn't reduce the level of competiveness and interest in the sport).

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (ensuring that fan interest and
cultural development of a club is maintained by having children of players play for the same club, ensuring that the level of interest in the sport isn't reduced).

Both compromise the purity of a draft being reverse ladder order. Both are done in the wider interests of fan interest and health of the code.



Different argument with different goals (that it, the AFL's obligation as the custodian of the code to support multiculturalism)

Nobody denies this, but a large reason of this was because the Dogs were able to use extra picks beyond their open list spots to match the bid, but only because the amount of open list spots during trade period was unknown, because they had yet to confirm the reduction in list sizes as a COVID cost cutting measure. A literal one off that wasn't possible in 2019 and not possible in 2021. You have consistently ignored this point every time it has been raised

No, the incentive could be that it is possible, however remote, that a bid isn't matched, and a club gets a player they rated. It's not unheard of. Sydney didn't match Josh Dunkley, etc.

Richmond might bid of Ashcroft because from the moment they bid on him, there is the possibility (however unlikely) that they do manage to actually get him as their most preferred player.

It is, because at least without the bad SANFL/WAFL rules all teams except GWS and GC now have at least a random chance of benefiting from F/S, except for maybe the fact that successful clubs are more likely to have more 100 gamers. Swings and roundabouts is just another way of saying some clubs benefit from variance/randomness. Which is true. There's no guarantee that the Dogs' father sons will be better in the future than Saints', despite the past fact that it was. Given 16 clubs are more or less equally likely to benefit from F/S from 2025 onward through the draft, that it literally swings and roundabouts.

But just because it's happened in the past doesn't make it more or less likely to happen in the future.



You're not less likely in the future than other clubs

But it's also fair to suggest that two top draft prospects father happened to be a Brisbane player is just enitely due to random chance and if that random chance happened to any other club that club could have also recruited the Ashcrofts under the same discount. It's no different than the random chance that saw Jack Trengove crack is navicular bone that ended his career. It's no different than the random chance that saw the same Will Ashcroft you complain about tear an ACL. Is it fair to say that it would take Melbourne 1000 years to get the same injury luck from a top junior that Brisbane got?

In summary nobody denies that some teams win genetic lotteries and it helps them win games. In the past, we probably sacrificed too much of that for the romanticism of father son. But we have been making the changes - a top 2 prospect in Hawkins went for a 3rd round pick in 2006, and since then, the rules have been changed numerous times to pay closer and closer to true market value. But most people agree that some discount on fair market value for the benefit of the romanticism of father/son is worth it, even if it benefits the random winners of the club generic lottery. Melbourne have been losers of the lottery, but it doesn't mean that the lottery was rigged (which is what you re suggesting)

1. Why are you explaining the priority pick system for me. I'm a dees fan. I know how they work. If the dogs wanted to come last and win under 5 games for several years to get Ugle-Hagan I could live with that. Getting him at a massive discount when a fair system wouldn't even give them access to him is a joke.

2. You said it yourself. There is no incentive. You said 'however remote'. That's not incentive. Maybe with later picks yes, but not with super early picks where if you nominate a player that you know you aren't getting, the club is essentially saying 'we love you but we love this other player more'. There's no reason to bid.

3. There is 0% chance Rich get Ashcroft. None. Zilch. They won't bid on him. Not to mention the player at pick 1 gets like 10k. Another incentive not to bid on him.


4. Yes, the 'chances' with the F/S are even. Has the outcome been even in the last 20 years? Not even close. If the F/S is t stay it should be 1 Father/son per club every 10 years. That means the club has to choose which f/s to take. For the record 1 in 10 years is still more than Melbourne and some other clubs.

5. You say we've come a long way since Hawkins etc. But why does it take 15 years to change a rule that Danster from Bigfooty knew was a massive problem? I really shouldn't be that far ahead of the curve. And then they introduced this stupid points system where pick 45, 52,54,59, 63 and 65 = pick 10 or something crazy. When the dees lost Mac Andrew I thought, 'oh well, for the betterment of the game, I'll live with it'. Then they change the rules back again to benefit all of the other clubs. No compensation for losing him. Such a corrupt game. So I would say that the game is rigged. 1 year before Ugle-Hagan was drafted, it was clear he was going pick 1. The AFL chose to not change the rules then despite having the time to do so. They waited until after benefiting the dogs before changing the rules. And then with other clubs, like mine, they decide to steal Mac Andrew and Tairon Ah-mu (potential first rounder next year) from our academy with no questions asked. It's clear the afl are making up the rules as they go. So yes, a big possibility that it is for corrupt reasons like growing the Gold Coast etc.

 

[Stamos]

Insiders’ guide to player movement: How to fix free agency and the future of father-son bids

In the first of a two-part series on direction of player movement in the AFL, we look at free agency, academies, new future trading rules and whether a traditional rebuild is still possible as the draft becomes increasingly compromised.

www.theage.com.au

https://archive.md/FEs5j

 

[sydney_gws]

And in the end they didn't need to.

Did they?

Those boys are going late 2nd in the 30's.

Who gives a rats after a 20% discount it will cost the Blues a pick in the late 40's or 50's.

Insignificant. They didn't trade a 1st to make that happen either. They flip flopped with late picks.

So does that really justify holding up these needed reforms?

And the premier gets another pick 1 ranked player for junk picks. And the Suns land another top 10 talent and build yet another loades draft hand into next year. Great outcome.?

It helps the tv deal if lions are successful, so a pretty corrupt move by the AFL.
But it is a sport played professionally in 1 country, so if not the largest sport it is completely irrelevant, all the people getting paid well in the industry would get paid considerably less, have to get a real job.

 

[Obeanie1]

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (accelerating their rebuild and ensuring a bad team doesn't reduce the level of competiveness and interest in the sport).

The AFL deemed it prudent in addition of the "fair" equal nature of the draft of reverse ladder order to gift one club additional draft assets once they hit a tipping point, for the purposes of the strength of the code as a whole (ensuring that fan interest and
cultural development of a club is maintained by having children of players play for the same club, ensuring that the level of interest in the sport isn't reduced).

Both compromise the purity of a draft being reverse ladder order. Both are done in the wider interests of fan interest and health of the code.



Different argument with different goals (that it, the AFL's obligation as the custodian of the code to support multiculturalism)

Nobody denies this, but a large reason of this was because the Dogs were able to use extra picks beyond their open list spots to match the bid, but only because the amount of open list spots during trade period was unknown, because they had yet to confirm the reduction in list sizes as a COVID cost cutting measure. A literal one off that wasn't possible in 2019 and not possible in 2021. You have consistently ignored this point every time it has been raised

No, the incentive could be that it is possible, however remote, that a bid isn't matched, and a club gets a player they rated. It's not unheard of. Sydney didn't match Josh Dunkley, etc.

Richmond might bid of Ashcroft because from the moment they bid on him, there is the possibility (however unlikely) that they do manage to actually get him as their most preferred player.

It is, because at least without the bad SANFL/WAFL rules all teams except GWS and GC now have at least a random chance of benefiting from F/S, except for maybe the fact that successful clubs are more likely to have more 100 gamers. Swings and roundabouts is just another way of saying some clubs benefit from variance/randomness. Which is true. There's no guarantee that the Dogs' father sons will be better in the future than Saints', despite the past fact that it was. Given 16 clubs are more or less equally likely to benefit from F/S from 2025 onward through the draft, that it literally swings and roundabouts.

But just because it's happened in the past doesn't make it more or less likely to happen in the future.



You're not less likely in the future than other clubs

But it's also fair to suggest that two top draft prospects father happened to be a Brisbane player is just enitely due to random chance and if that random chance happened to any other club that club could have also recruited the Ashcrofts under the same discount. It's no different than the random chance that saw Jack Trengove crack is navicular bone that ended his career. It's no different than the random chance that saw the same Will Ashcroft you complain about tear an ACL. Is it fair to say that it would take Melbourne 1000 years to get the same injury luck from a top junior that Brisbane got?

In summary nobody denies that some teams win genetic lotteries and it helps them win games. In the past, we probably sacrificed too much of that for the romanticism of father son. But we have been making the changes - a top 2 prospect in Hawkins went for a 3rd round pick in 2006, and since then, the rules have been changed numerous times to pay closer and closer to true market value. But most people agree that some discount on fair market value for the benefit of the romanticism of father/son is worth it, even if it benefits the random winners of the club generic lottery. Melbourne have been losers of the lottery, but it doesn't mean that the lottery was rigged (which is what you re suggesting)

Sorry. Most people do not agree that a discount should apply to father son picks.

Bar the club gaining the father son.

How do you come up with fans are OK with the discount? Because of the romance?

Really?

They are getting first dibs access rights. Why do they deserve a discount as well?

Clubs are getting access to a player ahead of all others. That should be the only benefit. Not as in this years case you get another #1 rated kid PLUS here ya go, you can't afford him pick wise so have a 20% discount to help you out even further.

AFL do not care if finals and premiership teams get stronger at the detrement of teams at the bottom. They don't.

 

[danster168]

Sorry. Most people do not agree that a discount should apply to father son picks.

Bar the club gaining the father son.

How do you come up with fans are OK with the discount? Because of the romance?

Really?

They are getting first dibs access rights. Why do they deserve a discount as well?

Clubs are getting access to a player ahead of all others. That should be the only benefit. Not as in this years case you get another #1 rated kid PLUS here ya go, you can't afford him pick wise so have a 20% discount to help you out even further.

AFL do not care if finals and premiership teams get stronger at the detrement of teams at the bottom. They don't.

and then changing the rules just after Brisbane have fully cashed in on the inequality further disadvantages the other clubs.

And the afl media are fully gagged but it's the biggest blight on the game today.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Sorry. Most people do not agree that a discount should apply to father son picks.

Bar the club gaining the father son.

How do you come up with fans are OK with the discount? Because of the romance?

Really?

They are getting first dibs access rights. Why do they deserve a discount as well?

Clubs are getting access to a player ahead of all others. That should be the only benefit. Not as in this years case you get another #1 rated kid PLUS here ya go, you can't afford him pick wise so have a 20% discount to help you out even further.

AFL do not care if finals and premiership teams get stronger at the detrement of teams at the bottom. They don't.

I mean sure we can argue whether the romanticism is worth 20% but I'm making the broader point that we've only been trending in one direction.

Secondly, the difference between a 3rd and 4th round pick is so minuscule, I genuinely believe that once a player gets to pick 40 or whatever, that the romanticism is worth the player's father's son effectively getting him for nothing rather than having to match a bid on pick 41 or whatever even if they don't have any draft picks left

AFL do not care if finals and premiership teams get stronger at the detrement of teams at the bottom. They don't.

Concessions above and beyond the existing access to pick 1 on the draft have being given to North and GC in the last few years suggests otherwise.