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

[giantroo]

 

[Elixuh]

why wouldn't you give it to Barkley? Stop running the ball Hurts

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Sorry, it's been that sort of morning I shouldn't be surprised nowadays. Coffee detox till our second child is not good for me thank you

 

[beatnik]

haha, nice try Elixuh Our father-sons outside of Viney were lowly ranked juniors.

That’s just the luck of the genetic draw…if they’d been better, you’d be arguing the exact opposite of what you’re saying now and that just makes you a hypocrite

 

[beatnik]

you earn them by finishing low on the ladder. i.e. there is a cost to receiving the good draft pick. We can get hung up on the semantics of the word 'deserve' but you don't get good draft picks if you're a good team. That's an obvious equalisation measure. And that's where the Academy/Father-son have really trivialised the value of a flag. in my opinion of course. But this is going around in circles I think it's pretty clear that a top 4 team shouldn't have 2 number 1 picks in quick succession.

Could you cry any harder?

I don’t remember you complaining when Collingwood snagged Daicos or when Murphy chose not to come to Brisbane under f/s or when the Lions didn’t make the finals for more than a decade

As a Melbourne club who has chosen not to merge or relocate to develop the game in a frontier state for the good of the national game, then you can’t complain that the teams who did receive incentives for doing just that…sorry, not sorry

 

[sydney_gws]

Could you cry any harder?

I don’t remember you complaining when Collingwood snagged Daicos or when Murphy chose not to come to Brisbane under f/s or when the Lions didn’t make the finals for more than a decade

As a Melbourne club who has chosen not to merge or relocate to develop the game in a frontier state for the good of the national game, then you can’t complain that the teams who did receive incentives for doing just that…sorry, not sorry

Magpies to Darwin might work.
Darwin is closer to Manchester as well ( didn't Eddie say he wanted them to be the Manchester United of the AFL).

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

you earn them by finishing low on the ladder. i.e. there is a cost to receiving the good draft pick. We can get hung up on the semantics of the word 'deserve' but you don't get good draft picks if you're a good team. That's an obvious equalisation measure. And that's where the Academy/Father-son have really trivialised the value of a flag. in my opinion of course. But this is going around in circles I think it's pretty clear that a top 4 team shouldn't have 2 number 1 picks in quick succession.

"Not Tanking".

 

[danster168]

"Not Tanking".

either way, you lose something by tanking. you gotta finish low on the ladder. This academy/f-s is basically the AFL's way of tanking the league.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

either way, you lose something by tanking. you gotta finish low on the ladder. This academy/f-s is basically the AFL's way of tanking the league.

Or alternatively, people see it as getting talent at a discount, of which the discount can be slightly exaggerated by a poor points system.

The method of that discount is both random to an extent (F/S), helps benefit the operations of the code (romanticism of the game, northern expansion, helps talent retention of the fact that northern teams have to relocate greater players).

People are capable of understanding the depth, nuance and complexity of the rules, and not make ridiculous statements such as "tanking the league".

 

[Vindicater]

I still don't understand the purpose of the discount?

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Here's something i discussed with mates over a beer in the last week, which i think works well

Father son rule reset

1. Father sons to still be nominated by chosen qualified club pre draft, as is currently
2. Father son players all enter the open draft, allowing them to be selected by the club at their correct spot in the draft
3. After a mandatory 2 year contract with that club, the nominated father son club can exercise their father son rights to the player, and hand over their FIRST ROUND draft pick in either of the next two drafts from that date. Player obviously must agree to the move.

So for example, Levi Ashcroft is selected by Carlton at pick 3 in the 2024 draft, but is tagged as a Brisbane Lions father son player, and therefore only signs a mandatory two year contract for this player, where as all other first round picks sign a 3 year contract.

If Brisbane have their heart set on Levi, they need to trade up accordingly to pay fair value for him in the 2024 draft. If not, after two years, they hand over their first round pick, so its still a risk for Carlton to pick him up as he may leave after two years, but it gives them a chance to fall in love with their club, and forge his own path at his selected club.

If the player does not show potential in his first two years, the nominated father son club does not have to exercise their father son rights to that player, and that player loses the father son tag.

Means no more free hits for nominated father son clubs, and allows clubs who have had minimal father sons access to these players, and to be able to back themselves in to get that player to want to stay at their club.

Father son rule as it stands only benefits a select few clubs, and not all 18 clubs.

 

[jdstorm]

I still don't understand the purpose of the discount?

The AFL is pro nepotism

 

[Profop]

Here's something i discussed with mates over a beer in the last week, which i think works well

Father son rule reset

1. Father sons to still be nominated by chosen qualified club pre draft, as is currently
2. Father son players all enter the open draft, allowing them to be selected by the club at their correct spot in the draft
3. After a mandatory 2 year contract with that club, the nominated father son club can exercise their father son rights to the player, and hand over their FIRST ROUND draft pick in either of the next two drafts from that date. Player obviously must agree to the move.

So for example, Levi Ashcroft is selected by Carlton at pick 3 in the 2024 draft, but is tagged as a Brisbane Lions father son player, and therefore only signs a mandatory two year contract for this player, where as all other first round picks sign a 3 year contract.

If Brisbane have their heart set on Levi, they need to trade up accordingly to pay fair value for him in the 2024 draft. If not, after two years, they hand over their first round pick, so its still a risk for Carlton to pick him up as he may leave after two years, but it gives them a chance to fall in love with their club, and forge his own path at his selected club.

If the player does not show potential in his first two years, the nominated father son club does not have to exercise their father son rights to that player, and that player loses the father son tag.

Means no more free hits for nominated father son clubs, and allows clubs who have had minimal father sons access to these players, and to be able to back themselves in to get that player to want to stay at their club.

Father son rule as it stands only benefits a select few clubs, and not all 18 clubs.

I mean this is insane, what about all the players that are still AFL quality and have a father/son tie to a club but are not worth a first round pick?

So basically Essendon would have selected MRJ around pick 50 back in the day and after two years if we wanted him we’d have had to give up a first round pick?

 

[boncer34]

I mean this is insane, what about all the players that are still AFL quality and have a father/son tie to a club but are not worth a first round pick?

So basically Essendon would have selected MRJ around pick 50 back in the day and after two years if we wanted him we’d have had to give up a first round pick?

It's certainly an interesting concept.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

I mean this is insane, what about all the players that are still AFL quality and have a father/son tie to a club but are not worth a first round pick?

So basically Essendon would have selected MRJ around pick 50 back in the day and after two years if we wanted him we’d have had to give up a first round pick?

Then Richmond should have selected him prior to pick 50 to mitigate that risk.

Cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Profop]

Then Richmond should have selected him prior to pick 50 to mitigate that risk.

Cant have your cake and eat it too.

Except if the player is a first round talent. Then you can after a two years hiatus?

 

[Purple Suit]

Then Richmond should have selected him prior to pick 50 to mitigate that risk.

Cant have your cake and eat it too.

But why have a set trade value that would only apply to 5% of all father son picks?

It’s not even fair value, it’s massive overs for most father sons except maybe Ashcroft, N Dacois & Darcy. You should just ditch the whole concept rather than making it more complicated.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

But why have a set trade value that would only apply to 5% of all father son picks?

It’s not even fair value, it’s massive overs for most father sons except maybe Ashcroft, N Dacois & Darcy. You should just ditch the whole concept rather than making it more complicated.

There is no fair value as it currently stands. The club you support are one of the ones getting significantly negatively impacted by the current father son rule.

If a club wants a father son selection, they either need to draft them at their correct value in their initial draft, or run the risk of paying overs in two years time.

This approach works well.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Except if the player is a first round talent. Then you can after a two years hiatus?

How so?

 

[Profop]

How so?

Well you’re getting a first round talent at the appropriate cost when you didn’t have the required pick

Basically Brisbane getting Ashcroft for pick 18 in a couple of years

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There is no fair value as it currently stands. The club you support are one of the ones getting significantly negatively impacted by the current father son rule.

If a club wants a father son selection, they either need to draft them at their correct value in their initial draft, or run the risk of paying overs in two years time.

This approach works well.

There's plenty of F/S players that have entered the league with late draft picks that nobody really cares if they can "jump" a team that might have wanted to draft them with pick 55 when the father/son club got them for free or close to it instead. That really isn't the issue here. That F/S club shouldn't be forced to use a very early draft pick, to continue on the tradition, to recruit a player that's maybe barely a AFL standard player anyway.

For instance, I think it's good that Cooper Harvey is playing for his father's team. It keeps North fans engaged, and continues the Harvey story at North. But North may have only wanted to recruit him anyway when they know that they could effectively take him with their last list spot. If North were forced to draft him in the open draft, they probably wouldn't have taken him in the open draft, and everyone misses out, and nobody really cares that he's playing for North instead of another club - Cooper Harvey is hardly single-handily winning games for North and will not likely ever do so in his career.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Well you’re getting a first round talent at the appropriate cost when you didn’t have the required pick

Basically Brisbane getting Ashcroft for pick 18 in a couple of years

What did they pay for him this year??

 

[Profop]

What did they pay for him this year??

About that, probably slightly less based on the picks that came back but that’s not the point. They get to pay the same sort of unders for a star player but your ‘idea’ also makes it way, way worse for players not as skilled to get to their fathers club

 

[EBERT THE KING]

About that, probably slightly less based on the picks that came back but that’s not the point. They get to pay the same sort of unders for a star player but your ‘idea’ also makes it way, way worse for players not as skilled to get to their fathers club

No it doesnt.

It removes the free hit that their fathers club gets on them.

They pay fair value.

 

[T4P]

Fans criticise draftees for saying they don't want to get drafted to an interstate club, but oh no we should protect draftees who want to play for daddy's club.

There's no romanticism about a club calling dibs on a talented player because daddy played there.

There is romanticism in a club picking that player in a free draft, not because they're getting a good talent cheaper.

Father son needs to go

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

Here's something i discussed with mates over a beer in the last week, which i think works well

Father son rule reset

1. Father sons to still be nominated by chosen qualified club pre draft, as is currently
2. Father son players all enter the open draft, allowing them to be selected by the club at their correct spot in the draft
3. After a mandatory 2 year contract with that club, the nominated father son club can exercise their father son rights to the player, and hand over their FIRST ROUND draft pick in either of the next two drafts from that date. Player obviously must agree to the move.

So for example, Levi Ashcroft is selected by Carlton at pick 3 in the 2024 draft, but is tagged as a Brisbane Lions father son player, and therefore only signs a mandatory two year contract for this player, where as all other first round picks sign a 3 year contract.

If Brisbane have their heart set on Levi, they need to trade up accordingly to pay fair value for him in the 2024 draft. If not, after two years, they hand over their first round pick, so its still a risk for Carlton to pick him up as he may leave after two years, but it gives them a chance to fall in love with their club, and forge his own path at his selected club.

If the player does not show potential in his first two years, the nominated father son club does not have to exercise their father son rights to that player, and that player loses the father son tag.

Means no more free hits for nominated father son clubs, and allows clubs who have had minimal father sons access to these players, and to be able to back themselves in to get that player to want to stay at their club.

Father son rule as it stands only benefits a select few clubs, and not all 18 clubs.

What about not having father son matching in the first round at all? Then teams have to trade for them, that would mean they are paying fair value?

And yes yes, bin academy matching in the first round too.

That way the players that are borderline still get a chance (Cooper Harvey for example). And players like Darcy or Daicos get picked to any team and then if their fathers team is desperate for them they trade for them after 3 years.