Opinion Points based drafting and trading?

[RUNVS]

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion.

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

What do you think? What do you like about the idea, what are the flaws, and do you think the idea is fesible?

 

[TedDougChris]

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion.

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

What do you think? What do you like about the idea, what are the flaws, and do you think the idea is fesible?

I've suggested similar things in the past, I think there is real merit in looking at an option like this. Sometimes the player you need structurally isn't available at your pick, but you could pool points to try and get the player you need this way.

 

[ArdentEagle]

I like this. Would be very entertaining too.

 

[Ocha905]

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion.

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

What do you think? What do you like about the idea, what are the flaws, and do you think the idea is fesible?

This is a brilliant idea. Bonus points for taking away the existing arbitrary points assigned for each pick. Current point system simply isn't balanced since teams have exploited it with Father Son nominations by trading back for rubbish 40+ picks.

 

[RUNVS]

This is a brilliant idea. Bonus points for taking away the existing arbitrary points assigned for each pick. Current point system simply isn't balanced since teams have exploited it with Father Son nominations by trading back for rubbish 40+ picks.

To me it would balance the draft and also give far more options for clubs to rebuild the way they want to rebuild.

Imagine North finishing the bottom of the ladder 3 years in a row, or near the bottom, and instead of going for pick 1 or pick 2 which would likely be super expensive they could sit out the bidding until pick 7 and go for 7, 8 and 9 three years in a row. They could bring in 9 top 10 picks in the space of 3 years, completely transforming their list and rebuilding much faster than they could under the current system. Sure they would not get the Jason Horne types, but they would still be able to bring in 9 really good players.

It also makes trading so much easier and way less complicated. Instead of haggling over picks, especially if a team doesn't quite have a pick in the zone the player is worth, the two teams could just negotiate a points number. It would make it so almost any team can trade with almost any team.

Right now we have a barter system, something used 5000 years ago, this would transform our system into a currency system, and I think we all agree having money is way better than having to trade 3 lambs and a piglet to Harvey Norman to get an iPhone.

 

[AusMC]

I like the concept, would be a nice change, and seemingly a 'fairer' way of conducting business.
However I also see some potential issues:

1. How do you ensure that a sufficient number of rookies are selected? Ie. All teams go all-in and only 30-odd players are drafted. I know that clubs need a minimum number of players on their lists, but this would still be possible.
2. AFL have tried so hard to stop clubs from rooting themselves by enforcing at least 1 first-round pick within a set amount of time (2 years?). Do we trust clubs to safeguard their own futures?
3. How would compensation points work when a free agent gets poached? Set in stone, or variable?

 

[RUNVS]

I like the concept, would be a nice change, and seemingly a 'fairer' way of conducting business.
However I also see some potential issues:

1. How do you ensure that a sufficient number of rookies are selected? Ie. All teams go all-in and only 30-odd players are drafted. I know that clubs need a minimum number of players on their lists, but this would still be possible.
2. AFL have tried so hard to stop clubs from rooting themselves by enforcing at least 1 first-round pick within a set amount of time (2 years?). Do we trust clubs to safeguard their own futures?
3. How would compensation points work when a free agent gets poached? Set in stone, or variable?

Admittedly this isn't definite but I was thinking that the rookie draft would still be a thing but it would be decided by the order which the main draft ended up, so let's say Adelaide went all out and got pick 1 to get Horne they would have pick 1 of the rookie draft. Of course that only goes as far as their first selection, so if Adelaide managed to some how get pick 2 they would not have pick 2 in the rookie draft.

As for 2 I am imagining that the points you have are the points you have, so if a club gets down to 0 points they can't go into deficit for next year, they just can't bid on any picks. I imagine once it has reached a point in the draft where no one is left bidding for picks the draft will revert to the ladder order, but I imagine that would probably happen in the 50's as clubs would make sure they have enough points to be bidding for players in the 30's and 40's as there is still good players there. It is possible in later picks clubs would only be bidding something like 5 points, but if those 5 points gets you pick 39 or whatever, forcing the clubs who don't have any points to wait until no one is bidding anymore before they can take more picks themselves then it would be worth bidding those small amounts for the picks in the 40's and so on.

So if Adelaide used all their points to get pick 1 they would have to wait until every other team has finished bidding on picks before they can get another pick, which could be in the 50's or 60's.

As for free agency compensation I imagine that would be in points form now, so the AFL using some kind of formula assigns a points value to each free agent who moves to another club and those points go to the players original club so they have more points in the draft.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

To me it would balance the draft and also give far more options for clubs to rebuild the way they want to rebuild.

Imagine North finishing the bottom of the ladder 3 years in a row, or near the bottom, and instead of going for pick 1 or pick 2 which would likely be super expensive they could sit out the bidding until pick 7 and go for 7, 8 and 9 three years in a row. They could bring in 9 top 10 picks in the space of 3 years, completely transforming their list and rebuilding much faster than they could under the current system. Sure they would not get the Jason Horne types, but they would still be able to bring in 9 really good players.

It also makes trading so much easier and way less complicated. Instead of haggling over picks, especially if a team doesn't quite have a pick in the zone the player is worth, the two teams could just negotiate a points number. It would make it so almost any team can trade with almost any team.

Right now we have a barter system, something used 5000 years ago, this would transform our system into a currency system, and I think we all agree having money is way better than having to trade 3 lambs and a piglet to Harvey Norman to get an iPhone.

Technically North have that option under the current system. They don't have to use pick 1.
And Adelaide have already offered 3x first rounders for the pick 1 this year which was knocked back.

Pick 1 is shiny and worth more than anything anyone could offer. The player runs faster out there, tackles harder, jumps higher because they picked them at Pick 1 (so clubs seem to think....?).

 

[sydney_gws]

I have posted this on other threads before but I think it deserves its own thread at least in terms of the discussion.

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

What do you think? What do you like about the idea, what are the flaws, and do you think the idea is fesible?

I don't think it works as higher places sides will bid all their points on the first round, forcing lower placed clubs to give up their 2nd round picks to match.

 

[RUNVS]

I don't think it works as higher places sides will bid all their points on the first round, forcing lower placed clubs to give up their 2nd round picks to match.

If Adelaide for instance blew all their points on pick 1 that means sure they may get JHF but it also means they won't have another pick until possibly the 50's or 60's, until every other team is done bidding on picks. Sure that may work for one year but it is not sustainable as every club needs 2 or 3 younger players pushing into the first team every year in order to offset older players leaving or being replaced.

 

[TedDougChris]

If Adelaide for instance blew all their points on pick 1 that means sure they may get JHF but it also means they won't have another pick until possibly the 50's or 60's, until every other team is done bidding on picks. Sure that may work for one year but it is not sustainable as every club needs 2 or 3 younger players pushing into the first team every year in order to offset older players leaving or being replaced.

I think it works in drafting for needs. I have previously said that rebuilds seem harder as you don’t always have the talent there in the spots you need - when you have picks.

for example, someone desperate for a kpf could have bid a lot of points for JUH last year, or Thilthorpe, or McDonald - accepting they will get a gun in a position of need.

Also, it might help clubs pay fair value for academy or NGA selections.