Official Club Stuff Carlton Academy - Next Gen & Father/Son/Daughter Discussion

[Weiterbot23]

The annoying part is not being able to get pumped for good performances.

If SOSOS and rice turn it on
And are both top 20 we will have to pay through the nose.

So every best on ground performance is almost a negative


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FoeverBlues]

Still reckon Watson was victim to the worst development.

and still IS

 

[ferrisb]

To sum up, if we expect to finish low the following year and teams bid second rounders for Rice and SOSOS, we should skip on one of them. Downgrading #2 to #5 is too much for players with risk.

For this reason, if Rice wants Blues or Saints, he should nominate Saints to make sure he gets where he wants to go.

If either go even briefly later than #22/#26, we would only downgrade from #2 to #4.

But you're right, if they both go that high, you might be better passing on one. Ergo you might be better off telling Bailey we don't want to take the risk and therefore he should nom the Saints.

I'd HOPE the club would be running through various hypothetical scenarios, thinking about implications for 2016 etc. That kind of variable/scenario analysis is analysed to an inch of its life (with great effect) in sports like Formula 1. I'm just not sure the AFL/Carlton has cottoned on to that kind of thinking.

Then again, if I can do it in my spare time, surely they can do it in their full time....

 

[slashin_velvet]

Thanks for the hard yards ferrisb - really appreciate the write up/analysis

 

[Styxx]

Still a few months to go. All we would need is for one to be solid enough and not spectacular and we will be set.

 

[ferrisb]

The annoying part is not being able to get pumped for good performances.

If SOSOS and rice turn it on
And are both top 20 we will have to pay through the nose.

So every best on ground performance is almost a negative

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and no, K.

YES - My heart feels the same way as you.

NO - But my head says - wherever they land, we're going to get a reasonable discount.

If they prove themselves to be top flight kids, then I don't care if one gets bid on @ #15. We'd use our pick #20 and still walk away with a bit of a bargain. And the kicker is we always have the choice to say no to using #20 if we want.

Would I love to get them cheaply? Hell yeahs! But don't deny yourself the happiness of cheering them on this year. We seriously can't afford to be giving away happy football thoughts this year!

 

[Pick7]

No one will touch sosos so I think we will be fine.

 

[HBF]

No one will touch sosos so I think we will be fine.

He does show glimpses, but he'll be at Carlton next year for sure. And we won't have to pay a premium for him.

 

[Cringle]

This.
He's never been given ample time to prove himself at AFL level. We've killed his career at Carlton. Feel for the kid.

What I am absolutely lost on... is why over Watsons 4-5 years at Carlton.. was he never told to cut down?

He's running around at over 100kg (half of that may be his head)... surely he could've had a coach work with him on cutting down the bf% and even trim some muscle of his lower body.

Honestly sometimes it feels as if we draft kids and let them find out how to make the grade or not, without teaching them how to make it.

 

[Jimmae]

Yeah that's pretty much spot on Ferris.

ODN, if we trade in a pick higher than about 35 (let's say we moved on White), that would cover the excess.

That leaves you with effectively picks 1, 19, 22 & 25 and 2 picks at the bottom of the draft, instead of 1, 19, 32, 37, 55, 73.

It's a decent exchange, and it improves the later they go due to the fixed discount after pick 18 (197 points).

 

[Cringle]

Yeah that's pretty much spot on Ferris.

ODN, if we trade in a pick higher than about 35 (let's say we moved on White), that would cover the excess.

Lol your avatar is pretty ****ing funny!

... and sad...

 

[Jimmae]

Lol your avatar is pretty ******* funny!

... and sad...

Haha cheers

 

[PuffDragon89]

Hopefully not selling Rice Dreams like Ice Creams in Nice Dreams...

 

[Dramoth]

So... this bidding is all done live in the draft? It isnt done before trade week like they used to do?

So technically, any and all trades for picks we do this year could realistically reduce the deficit owed for next year if we are going to finish low enough on the ladder?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So... this bidding is all done live in the draft? It isnt done before trade week like they used to do?

So technically, any and all trades for picks we do this year could realistically reduce the deficit owed for next year if we are going to finish low enough on the ladder?

Yes.

I believe so - if they can sort their algorithm out appropriately.

We could use a couple of second rounders to lessen the damage

 

[Jimmae]

So... this bidding is all done live in the draft? It isnt done before trade week like they used to do?

So technically, any and all trades for picks we do this year could realistically reduce the deficit owed for next year if we are going to finish low enough on the ladder?

Live bidding, so you'll always be using picks after the pick of the club that submitted the bid.

If we expect to finish low again next year, it would be important for the club trade for a pick that would cover the expected short fall of our points total to prevent a small points tally from sliding us down the first round order next season.

Imagine having something like 20 points and it costing you pick 1, with no return. That's the drawback of this system, but you can at least plan ahead. Live trading and flexibility in how to pay for points would be much more welcome though.

 

[Jimmae]

Yes.

I believe so - if they can sort their algorithm out appropriately.

We could use a couple of second rounders to lessen the damage

What I hope is that the algorithm isn't set in stone but changes every 3-5 years as the drafting process continues to improve. I think the curve is way too dramatic at the moment.

 

[Dramoth]

He does show glimpses, but he'll be at Carlton next year for sure. And we won't have to pay a premium for him.

SOSOS is going to be interesting. There could be clubs out there who just want to screw us up some more (Essendon* being a major one I think), who might bid high on Jack in an effort to force us to take him at a higher pick.

I am sure that SOS is going to have some tactics to counter this.

Then again, having Jack playing high school football instead of TAC is a good plan for him to get to us.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Live bidding, so you'll always be using picks after the pick of the club that submitted the bid.

If we expect to finish low again next year, it would be important for the club trade for a pick that would cover the expected short fall of our points total to prevent a small points tally from sliding us down the first round order next season.

Imagine having something like 20 points and it costing you pick 1, with no return. That's the drawback of this system, but you can at least plan ahead. Live trading and flexibility in how to pay for points would be much more welcome though.

I think it wouldnt take away from your first pick next year. From my interpretation the system is designed to cause the least change to the draft order and preferences eliminating picks over shifting picks value down.

I.e if we were 200 short. The system would cost us a 3rd round pick rather than downgrading out first round pick a space or two by 200 points

But thats just my understanding

 

[TooBlue14]

As I believe that we wouldn't bid on Bailey if he nominated CARLTON I hope the saints would do the same if the reverse were to happen.

 

[Jimmae]

I think it wouldnt take away from your first pick next year. From my interpretation the system is designed to cause the least change to the draft order and preferences eliminating picks over shifting picks value down.

I.e if we were 200 short. The system would cost us a 3rd round pick rather than downgrading out first round pick a space or two by 200 points

But thats just my understanding

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf
"In order to pay for the player, the Nominating Club’s next available pick moves backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required.

If the points required are greater than the value of the next available pick, the remaining points are subtracted from the Nominating Club’s next selection and so on, until all points are paid.

If a Nominating Club does not have enough points to secure a F/S or Academy selection in a given Draft, the points required will carry over to the Club’s first selection the following year.

In this case, points will be deducted prior to the trade period to ensure the Nominating Club pays it points debt, rather than trades picks away. Clubs will not be eligible to participate in the bidding system if they still owe points going into the next draft."

So it's always from the next pick until that pick's value is consumed. Pick 74 and onwards have no value, so after the top of the 5th round the points total gets taken from the first pick of the following year, unless it is consumed prior to pick 74.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Well thats a stupid system

 

[1981]

I preferred the panel of experts idea but I suppose it lacked transparency

So this is the Einstein approach

 

[Jimmae]

It's a good start, but they need to get live trading and re-think the fixed points payment approach.

If a team slides from pick 1 down to pick 2 for nothing, just watch as that team gets a priority pick in following seasons until they fix that.

 

[PuffDragon89]

What I'm not understanding with this live bidding is IF Bailey is nominated at 15-22, how are we to know when SOSOS will be nominated, how much he's worth and if we will end up in the red and lose 1st round draft positions next year?
If SOSOS goes late, we end up with a discount...if he goes #25-30 we will be giving up a draft spot next year...If this is the case, we go into the draft not knowing where our F/S selection will be nominated or how many points we'll need to match it...or we tell Rice to nominate the Saints as it's a risk the club's not willing to take, either way is utter shite.

Anyone able to clear this up?

Cheers