Should the AFL allow trading of future picks?

[Scotland]

I've never really given it much thought, but trade week is always littered with 'unders' and 'overs' discussions relating to draft picks.

Beams (potentially) to Brisbane is this year's hot topic. Pick 4 for Beams is pretty shit even under the circumstances, every club in the league with pick 4 would take that in a second. Pick 4 & 22 is better, but beyond that Brisbane's picks are worth less and less. It's easy to say 'just trade Mayes' (or whoever) but players aren't commodities in the same way picks are. You can't just punt contracted players who fit a particular bill as easily as you can swap picks.

If Brisbane could potentially offer pick 4 and their first pick from 2015 (1-18, probably looking around 6-10) how would that go down relative to other offers put forward? It's not an exact science but in terms of trading currency clubs generally only have 3 or 4 picks 18 spots apart which makes trading for top players rough on the club losing the player.

 

[Calcium Man]

I've never really given it much thought, but trade week is always littered with 'unders' and 'overs' discussions relating to draft picks.

Beams (potentially) to Brisbane is this year's hot topic. Pick 4 for Beams is pretty shit even under the circumstances, every club in the league with pick 4 would take that in a second. Pick 4 & 22 is better, but beyond that Brisbane's picks are worth less and less. It's easy to say 'just trade Mayes' (or whoever) but players aren't commodities in the same way picks are. You can't just punt contracted players who fit a particular bill as easily as you can swap picks.

If Brisbane could potentially offer pick 4 and their first pick from 2015 (1-18, probably looking around 6-10) how would that go down relative to other offers put forward? It's not an exact science but in terms of trading currency clubs generally only have 3 or 4 picks 18 spots apart which makes trading for top players rough on the club losing the player.

Yes they should.

The AFL are desperate for more player movement but still haven't worked out that teams will not shift high profile players unless forced because they get unders more often then not.

It also means a guy like Dangerfield can leave and no his club will get two first rounders instead of only Melbourne really having the currency for him.

 

[master bate]

Definitely. And instead of trade and free agency 'weeks' it should be free reign to trade or sign free agents from now until the end of the draft. Including during the draft.

 

[Yoda_]

No -

While Father/Son & Academies exist it will never happen.

Period/

 

[treefingers]

No -

While Father/Son & Academies exist it will never happen.

Period/

True. Say for example one day Hawthorn know Hodge Jnr is going to be a father son selection next year. They can then trade their first pick and their first pick for the next season for a gun player. When the next draft period comes around, they'll only have to use a second round pick (their first) to get Hodge Jnr for massive unders (assuming he's a highly rated draft pick).

 

[grundog49]

True. Say for example one day Hawthorn know Hodge Jnr is going to be a father son selection next year. They can then trade their first pick and their first pick for the next season for a gun player. When the next draft period comes around, they'll only have to use a second round pick (their first) to get Hodge Jnr for massive unders (assuming he's a highly rated draft pick).

Hodge jnr, love it

 

[Yoda_]

True. Say for example one day Hawthorn know Hodge Jnr is going to be a father son selection next year. They can then trade their first pick and their first pick for the next season for a gun player. When the next draft period comes around, they'll only have to use a second round pick (their first) to get Hodge Jnr for massive unders (assuming he's a highly rated draft pick).

It had got me thinking however. Should the AFL change the process for grading father/son prospects then it may become a reality. A highly doubtful one, but something that could be plausible. I really dbf thinking about it too much but yeah.


I quite like the idea of in draft trading. Only problem with the AFL draft and the NFL bonanza is the NFL one is held over the amount of rounds there is (eth-dog?). The AFL national draft is over and done with in an hour.

 

[S120]

No -

While Father/Son & Academies exist it will never happen.

Period/

The best argument against it at this stage. If f/s or academy rules were altered, it might come into fruition though.

Although I don't think it's a complete no go. You could have the trading of future picks and f/s & academy picks and just insist on clubs finding the right picks by trading. So if Sydney traded their 2015 first rounder in this year's trade period and still wanted to claim Callum Mills in the first round next year, it's incumbent on the club to find a first round pick somewhere. To get flexible enough to make that deal happen. Otherwise they lose the right to having him. Although that might take a re-working of the dates given trading comes after f/s nomination as it stands.

 

[master bate]

True. Say for example one day Hawthorn know Hodge Jnr is going to be a father son selection next year. They can then trade their first pick and their first pick for the next season for a gun player. When the next draft period comes around, they'll only have to use a second round pick (their first) to get Hodge Jnr for massive unders (assuming he's a highly rated draft pick).

But that's just another reason why father sons and academy bids should be matched entirely with a proper system instead of the next pick system we have now.

Based on the bids put in for Hodge Jnr (say a team bids pick 5) then the Hawks just have to offer draft picks enough to make up for approximately pick 5's value. So they then offer their 2nd and 3rd round picks of that year maybe with a 2nd rounder from the next year thrown in and bingo they have the picks available.

 

[Furn2]

The AFL is against it because a team can screw themselves royally if they get it wrong and some teams are pretty good at that already.

I always think of the Hawks in 2004 when Schwab thought the Hawks were contenders and topped up with a few players bringing in Jacobs, Croad and Beaumont.

Now imagine the Gawks had traded its 1st 2 future picks assuming they would do well and the picks would be average and then have a shocking year and have already traded away Buddy and Roughy.

It could set u back years if u get it wrong.

That said I would like to see it.

 

[eastfreo75]

No -

While Father/Son & Academies exist it will never happen.

Period/

If you trade your pick, you lose the right to use the next pick on a father/son or Academies players eg If Sydney trade their first round pick in2015, then if another team bids for Mills with a first round pick, then they lose Mills.

 

[master bate]

The AFL is against it because a team can screw themselves royally if they get it wrong and some teams are pretty good at that already.

I always think of the Hawks in 2004 when Schwab thought the Hawks were contenders and topped up with a few players bringing in Jacobs, Croad and Beaumont.

Now imagine the Gawks had traded its 1st 2 future picks assuming they would do well and the picks would be average and then have a shocking year and have already traded away Buddy and Roughy.

It could set u back years if u get it wrong.

That said I would like to see it.

It's funny because Melbourne did that for 5 years from 2007 to 2011. So I can see the problem. But then again now we have some more competent people in charge I'd like to get more picks traded out to get players in.

They'd obviously limit it to only 1 or 2 years. Plus you could limit to only 2 picks. So you give up 2 first rounders but can't then give up your second or third rounders. You'd keep the rule that you have to draft 3 players in each national draft. That would make sure clubs keep drafting.

It would also work better in a more open free agency so that your signings and how you use your salary cap is actually more important than draft picks.

 

[*PAF]

No.
We would end up with too many ruckmen.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

No

Look at Melbourne's disastrous administration over the last 10 years. If a once in a year player came along I could quite easily see a team like Melbourne selling their future ie there first pick over the next 3 drafts for such a player. A team devoid of success like the Bulldogs could also do the same, chasing a premiership.

It's asking for trouble

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

All very good points on here. I agree that allowing future draft picks increasing the efficiency of the trade market. However, what is sometimes missing from the whole free agency/trade discussion are the equality aspects. This is going to sound like a big philosophical spiel here, but I think it gets to the heart of why we watch footy and questions what the aims should be for those running the game.

Increased player movements in the league seem to fall under two trends:

1. Players who are struggling for opportunity, underperforming or are middle-to-lower tier players being traded/recruited to teams of a better fit
2. Top players (especially those who are getting on in years) being recruited to top teams or teams in premiership contention.

Most of the movement comes under the first category, and apart from concerns over player loyalty in today's game, is generally seen as good for the game. However, the big name trades that fit into the second category are of more concern. Examples: Franklin & Tippett to Sydney; Goddard to Essendon; Lake & McEvoy to Hawthorn; Dal Santo to North. And looking at potential movement this year: Clark to Geelong; Frawley to Hawthorn.

These trades seem to promote a concentration of top talent towards the top teams. This is efficient in that the gun players are being moved to teams that are in premiership contention, and where they can add the most value (from top 4 teams to premier, potentially). But does this undermine the mobility of teams lower down on the ladder? It is sometimes claimed that it can be in the interests of the bottom clubs to engage in such list management, clearing out the decks and allowing the next generation of talent to come through. However, I'm not sure if this works in practice. Melbourne has been clearing the decks since 2008, while teams that do improve tend to have a fairly balanced age structure of some experienced, some youth and some prime age players.

I bring these arguments up in this context because while I agree that future draft picks would make the player market work more efficient in the traditional sense, it may have the corollary effect of making the league more unequal (with many arguing that the introduction of free agency has already begun to increase inequality within the league). At the moment, a team like Melbourne does hold a mini-advantage in free agency by holding the highest picks in a finite draft - an advantage that the trading of future draft picks would remove, for better or worse.

The argument for capitalism regarding this issue in a wider sense is that the greater efficiency of free markets will allow the economy to fund redistributive transfers to the lower rungs of society. But is it good for footy to turn into this? Increases of wealth and concentraton of talent to the top teams, with the AFL taxing rich clubs more, or giving money and draft picks to the lower teams, without changing the systemic problems that lead to the inequality in the first place. For me, the AFL isn't a normal industry where we should allow the forces of capitalist markets to push the most efficient and best run teams (or 'franchises', as it were) to rise to the top and provide the best product (the best players), as the argument goes for enterprises in other industries. With footy, relative equality and close competition between the teams IS the commodity, and the reason why fans of all teams tune in to the footy or attend their team's home games.

Sometimes efficiency and equality work against each other (and this is an argument against capitalism in general). Free player movement between clubs is a great thing in many ways, but can in some ways undermine the competition in the league, which I think is one of the things that makes the AFL one of the best sporting leagues in the world. Do we really want the AFL to become a free market of unbridled competition, even though real world outcomes point to oligopolies and monopolies (as does the EPL, La Liga and other open market sports)? Because I think the belief of any supporter that your team can win the premiership within the next 5-10 years is more important for the health of the game.

 

[eth-dog]

It had got me thinking however. Should the AFL change the process for grading father/son prospects then it may become a reality. A highly doubtful one, but something that could be plausible. I really dbf thinking about it too much but yeah.


I quite like the idea of in draft trading. Only problem with the AFL draft and the NFL bonanza is the NFL one is held over the amount of rounds there is (eth-dog?). The AFL national draft is over and done with in an hour.

I have no idea about NFL. RIG would probably be a better choice.

I think it's a plausible idea. All clubs would know what talent levels their future F/S and Academy players would be so they'd be able to know whether or not they can trade it.

 

[Burzum]

I have no idea about NFL. RIG would probably be a better choice.

I think it's a plausible idea. All clubs would know what talent levels their future F/S and Academy players would be so they'd be able to know whether or not they can trade it.

Knowing the way a lot of clubs trade in the AFL, you'd need to make the duration of each round a week so at least one trade could be completed.

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

I think its a great idea. Like breast implants. People were skeptical in the start and it took a while yo get it right but once they did.... well just look at the results now.

 

[chadsta112]

I'm for it. Granted a completely different kettle of fish, but it works quite well in the NBA. Player X is traded to the Chicago Bulls who return trade Player Y and a pick for the first round of the year following draft. Happens quite often actually.

Did we see it to some extent when both GC and Melbourne traded their 'future picks' to GWS in the mini-draft? I reckon that worked quite well so why not use that for players who have been in the system for X amount of years? Obvious detraction from that is the F/S and academy selections that certain teams may have. I'd still like to see it implemented.

 

[Curunir]

With the F/S the AFL could just make it that if you have players eligible then you can't trade that draft picks (example: Brisbane have f/s eligible for next year so they can't trade those picks until next year when the bidding is done)

I would also make it you can only trade the picks one draft later.

Not sure what to do with the Academy System.

 

[master bate]

It had got me thinking however. Should the AFL change the process for grading father/son prospects then it may become a reality. A highly doubtful one, but something that could be plausible. I really dbf thinking about it too much but yeah.


I quite like the idea of in draft trading. Only problem with the AFL draft and the NFL bonanza is the NFL one is held over the amount of rounds there is (eth-dog?). The AFL national draft is over and done with in an hour.

The NFL draft is 7 rounds of 32 plus a few compensation picks thrown in.

The first round is held one night. Followed by the 2nd and 3rd round the next day then rounds 4 through 7 the day after. Teams have 10 minutes per pick in round one, then 7 minutes for round 2 then 5 minutes.

I'd propose you'd hold rounds 1 and 2 of the AFL draft one night, with 10 minutes for round one then 5 minutes for round 2 per pick. Then rounds 3, 4 and whatever there is of a round 5 etc the next night again with 5 minutes per pick.

10 minutes per pick sounds boring but you get speculation, then a recap of the player chosen and then any big trades. It's only a limit of 10 minutes maximum there's no minimum so it would probably move pretty quickly. Without trades I think teams would give it 3 minutes or so in between picks for the player before to be discussed and some footage shown then they'd pick.

The AFL draft is incredibly rushed as it its. There's no time between picks for some packaged video highlights of players or some conversation about who will be picked. Then they cut to interviews of top 10 draft picks and only show the names popping up on the screen of lower picks.

I understand not everyone is as keen on the draft as I am. But it airs on Fox Footy! A 24/7 footy channel and is mainly watched by footy nerds. I don't understand why you wouldn't drag out each pick and give us some stories and drama (and squeeze an ad break in).