Recruiting James Hird Academy (Father/Son and Next Generation)

[eDPS]

Spoiler: JHA Boys

Spoiler: JHA Girls

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

How about in 2019 when we get Denham, Barnard, Hird and Fletcher in 1 draft.

...

 

[Zach Package]

I'm really fuzzy on the bidding process. For the sake of the exercise, lets say next year's ladder is exactly the same as this year's and Wallis and Daniher were good enough to be rated pick 1 and 2:


1 SYD
2 HAW
3 GEEL
4 FRE
5 PORT
6 NMFC
7 ESS
8 RICH
9 WCE
10 ADEL
11 COLL
12 GCFC
13 CARL
14 WB
15 BRIS
16 GWS
17 MELB
18 STK

Assuming no FA compensation picks, our first pick would be pick 12. So if STK hypothetically bid on Wallis with pick 1, would we be forced to use pick 12 for Wallis straight off the bat, without any repercussion to STK - as in STK still pick whomever they wanted to pick with Pick 1?
Yes, we'd be obligated to match with our next available, or leave him, in which case STK have to use #1 on him, if we elect to match Wallis gets locked in at 12 as of the start of trade period and that's pretty much the end of it.

And then say Melb decided that they'd bid on Daniher with pick 2. Would we then have to use our second pick (30) immediately? again with no repercussion to Melbourne?
Same deal, we use next available if we want to match, if we don't then he's tied to Melbourne at #2.
All bidding happens before trade period so we can't do funny business like trading out all our top picks or anything like that

I understand that the scenario is outlandish, but for the sake of understanding the process, please humour me.

 

[carnthedons]

I'm really fuzzy on the bidding process. For the sake of the exercise, lets say next year's ladder is exactly the same as this year's and Wallis and Daniher were good enough to be rated pick 1 and 2:


1 SYD
2 HAW
3 GEEL
4 FRE
5 PORT
6 NMFC
7 ESS
8 RICH
9 WCE
10 ADEL
11 COLL
12 GCFC
13 CARL
14 WB
15 BRIS
16 GWS
17 MELB
18 STK

Assuming no FA compensation picks, our first pick would be pick 12. So if STK hypothetically bid on Wallis with pick 1, would we be forced to use pick 12 for Wallis straight off the bat, without any repercussion to STK - as in STK still pick whomever they wanted to pick with Pick 1?

And then say Melb decided that they'd bid on Daniher with pick 2. Would we then have to use our second pick (30) immediately? again with no repercussion to Melbourne?

I understand that the scenario is outlandish, but for the sake of understanding the process, please humour me.

Yes that's how it works in a nutshell. We could conceivably say ok, use pick 1/2 on these players as this will free up another player (assuming we don't rate them that highly). If you want an example of that, check out Emma Quayle's article on Darcy Moore.

 

[eth-dog]

I'm really fuzzy on the bidding process. For the sake of the exercise, lets say next year's ladder is exactly the same as this year's and Wallis and Daniher were good enough to be rated pick 1 and 2:


1 SYD
2 HAW
3 GEEL
4 FRE
5 PORT
6 NMFC
7 ESS
8 RICH
9 WCE
10 ADEL
11 COLL
12 GCFC
13 CARL
14 WB
15 BRIS
16 GWS
17 MELB
18 STK

Assuming no FA compensation picks, our first pick would be pick 12. So if STK hypothetically bid on Wallis with pick 1, would we be forced to use pick 12 for Wallis straight off the bat, without any repercussion to STK - as in STK still pick whomever they wanted to pick with Pick 1?

And then say Melb decided that they'd bid on Daniher with pick 2. Would we then have to use our second pick (30) immediately? again with no repercussion to Melbourne?

I understand that the scenario is outlandish, but for the sake of understanding the process, please humour me.

Pretty much

...

Imagine if they were all top 10 prospects. The meltdown would be hilarious

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Thanks guys. That clarifies something I've never been entirely clear about.

 

[Donakebab]

Hopefully we can ensure that 1992 remains the only year since 1967 that there was no Watson or Fletcher on the list.

If you include the Danihers (and why not) it is unbroken

Or could include Hird's and the unbroken chain goes back to 1966.

 

[Yoda_]

Can anyone clarify if it would be possible to get both, Tom Wallis and Harvey Daniher next year under the F/S rule? If it is possible, what is the process?

This is the reason why the whole Academies saga drew on this year as Sydney are getting a gun kid this year for basically nothing whilst next year they are once again getting a (very, very likely) academy kid AND a father son gun in the same draft.

 

[Maddaniher]

It seems that there is a change touted where Sydney may have to give up more than 1 pick for Heeney, so if Wallis and Daniher are rated that highly I'd assume we'd be up for a 1st,2nd and 3rd round pick..seems fair, hope they are rated that highly...Anyone seen Wallis play? has he got the traditional Wallis mongrel to him?

 

[Mercuri Rising]

It seems that there is a change touted where Sydney may have to give up more than 1 pick for Heeney, so if Wallis and Daniher are rated that highly I'd assume we'd be up for a 1st,2nd and 3rd round pick..seems fair, hope they are rated that highly...Anyone seen Wallis play? has he got the traditional Wallis mongrel to him?

Don't know about next year, but there definitely won't be any changes for this year's draft.

ed: can't find sauce, I think it was posted on afl.com.au though. Draft too soon to fiddle with the rules. Guess that means there's a reasonable chance something will come in next year.

 

[TheFrenchCut]

Don't know about next year, but there definitely won't be any changes for this year's draft.

ed: can't find sauce, I think it was posted on afl.com.au though. Draft too soon to fiddle with the rules. Guess that means there's a reasonable chance something will come in next year.

Read that too.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Wasn't there talk of a new rule where the picks that we give up to get the kids have to be commensurate to the bids offered by the other clubs? i.e. that we may have to give up 3 picks instead of 2?

That will be shut down. It's utter crap, all will happen is clubs agree to let the FS "slide" to the clubs pick except if the club tells the others they don't want him.

Further, it's a stick the League are using to threaten the clubs into accepting northern-state academy programs.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

My puzzle about Father-Son bidding is as follows. This a brief overview of the rules, lifted from Wikipedia:

1. Individual clubs are free to nominate potential father–son recruits within the eligibility guidelines below.
2. A meeting is held on the Monday before the start of trade week where clubs can bid for the nominated players. Each club has the option to bid, in reverse ladder order, for the nominated players.
3. If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father–son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player. If a club nominating the father–son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the Draft to select the player.
4. Any club that makes a successful bid on a father–son selection must commit to pick the player they nominate.
5. If no bid is made by another club, the club that nominated the father–son eligible player will forfeit its last selection in the draft to select the player.

Let's say St Kilda have a prospect rated at pick 10. What is to stop them bidding their R2 pick ~20 straight up on a prospect rated in the 20s, committing to take him when the parent club declines, then using pick ~40 when required on their own nominee? It essentially upgrades their pick ~40 to a 20-something.

This is the only obvious rort I can figure out.

 

[eth-dog]

My puzzle about Father-Son bidding is as follows. This a brief overview of the rules, lifted from Wikipedia:

Let's say St Kilda have a prospect rated at pick 10. What is to stop them bidding their R2 pick ~20 straight up on a prospect rated in the 20s, committing to take him when the parent club declines, then using pick ~40 when required on their own nominee? It essentially upgrades their pick ~40 to a 20-something.

This is the only obvious rort I can figure out.

They've fixed that. What happens now is they go through the (then) draft order, minus compensation picks and ask that club if they want to nominate a player. They fixed that the year Joe got drafted IIRC

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Are all bids made before any club responds though?

 

[eth-dog]

Are all bids made before any club responds though?

No. You immediately have to match it

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The problem remains then - if any club can bid on another team's player and force that club to respond, before other clubs bid on its own nominees, it opens up an exploit. Either St Kilda get to bid before dealing with their own nominee, or other clubs get to bid on St Kilda's nominee before they deal with their own. I'm not entirely sure how you resolve it.

 

[eth-dog]

The problem remains then - if any club can bid on another team's player and force that club to respond, before other clubs bid on its own nominees, it opens up an exploit. Either St Kilda get to bid before dealing with their own nominee, or other clubs get to bid on St Kilda's nominee before they deal with their own. I'm not entirely sure how you resolve it.

You can't rort it the way you said. They go through the pre trade week draft order. They ask each club whether they want to bid on a nominated player with that pick. So if St. Kilda have a player worth around pick 10, someone like Adelaide bid pick 10 when asked, then St. Kilda have to bid that.

 

[yodellinhank]

Or could include Hird's and the unbroken chain goes back to 1966.

Sub hird for somerville: unbroken streak to 1960.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

You can't rort it the way you said. They go through the pre trade week draft order. They ask each club whether they want to bid on a nominated player with that pick. So if St. Kilda have a player worth around pick 10, someone like Adelaide bid pick 10 when asked, then St. Kilda have to bid that.

Oh, so it goes by pick rather than by club, with none of this reverse-order business. That makes sense.

 

[Its Manbearpig]

I think I've asked before. Sorry for the repetition if so, would Michael long's dude (forgot his name) be coming through this year? Would we be able to get him?

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Jake Long, yes, yes. Sounds very likely to be available at the late picks the club can still use for F/S bidding.

Meanwhile, prior to the current de-listings, Long's old jumper number (#13) was the only unused option between 1 and 42. Read into that what you will.

 

[Doss]

Jake Long, yes, yes. Sounds very likely to be available at the late picks the club can still use for F/S bidding.

Meanwhile, prior to the current de-listings, Long's old jumper number (#13) was the only unused option between 1 and 42. Read into that what you will.

13 was used by Ben Duscher, the VFL captain. Since the Bendigo alignment was dropped and the seconds were actually called Essendon too, the player numbers at the club don't double up.

With the exception of Duscher, therefore, all the VFL listed players had numbers of 48 and over.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had we drafted Long with Duscher not retiring.

 

[eth-dog]

13 was used by Ben Duscher, the VFL captain. Since the Bendigo alignment was dropped and the seconds were actually called Essendon too, the player numbers at the club don't double up.

With the exception of Duscher, therefore, all the VFL listed players had numbers of 48 and over.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had we drafted Long with Duscher not retiring.

Tippa had 42, which was unused this season.

 

[Doss]

Tippa had 42, which was unused this season.

That he did, I forgot about him.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

They've fixed that. What happens now is they go through the (then) draft order, minus compensation picks and ask that club if they want to nominate a player. They fixed that the year Joe got drafted IIRC

Not true, Port bid on both Daniher and Viney with pick 7. They went through player-by-player that year, and may well still do.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-a-bargain-price/story-e6frg6n6-1226490443058

Port Adelaide bidded on both Daniher and Viney with pick No. 7.