List Mgmt. Trade & Draft Discussion 2023 post season - Picks Reid,30,40,49,66 (Bush league)

[Lore]

Hello Eagles fans!

The embedded resources below are kept up to date by the trade board mods (as much as possible – we are human after all). Enjoy!

Spoiler: 2023 Draft Order

Spoiler: 2024 Draft Order, aka Future Picks

Spoiler: Blue Tick Rumours

Keys you may like to sticky this post & move it to the start of the thread (so the sticky post doesn't rotate if a post is deleted before it), or copy it to your draft thread if you have one.

 

[Wce17]

Yeo needs to get on and stay on the park

I agree same with McGovern. Was going to mention those 2 but IF they can get on the park they will be fine.

 

[Grahame]

And had the advantage none of the key forwards have anymore if being able to sit in the goal square and lead out to a surging midfield.
Now BS team defence governs he floods the Oppo i50 and is now forced to sprint back on the rebound.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

Also Suma had the advantage of a fairly handy midfield feeding him.

 

[briztoon]

Also, are you all aware that the SA and WA clubs operate under different eligibility requirements for NGA kids, as opposed to the Victorian clubs.

 

[Keys]

The NGA/Northern Academies/Father Son issue can essentially be solved by recalibrating the points system

As it stands a bid at pick 1 can be matched with pick 2. Or with picks 13 and 24. Or a bunch of R2 picks if a club can collect enough

It’s unrealistic and bears no resemblance the the true value of picks

So change the points such that a bid for pick 1 would require a couple of top 10 picks to match. A top 10 bid likely needs a couple of top 20 picks. A top 20 pick needs a couple in the 20’s to match and so on

Then put in a couple of checks - maximum of 2 picks to match and in addition to forcing a club to hold no more picks than they have list spots don’t allow them to trade for additional picks once the draft starts like the Suns did

Because of the more onerous requirements allow clubs to use future picks to match based on their current year ladder position. Gives clubs lower down the ladder an advantage when matching

Then treat all of the clubs the same - remove the inability to match inside the top 40. Then all clubs are equal

Scrap FA compensation or at a minimum keep any compensation out if R1. Remove the attachment of picks to ladder position - so middle of R2, end of R2, middle of R3, end of R3. Maybe use a start of R2 pick as Band 1

And no priority picks unless there are exceptional circumstances outside the club’s control. Bad list management like we’ve seen from North, and us, shouldn’t be grounds for a helping hand

Applying the above to this years draft:

• No PP for North
• All 3 FA compo picks are beginning of R2 or later
• Gold Coast would have needed something like 4x R1 picks and 4x R2 picks to match. Maybe 5x R1 picks. Means that the additional picks created by the bid are balanced by the picks going out to match from this years or next years draft
• Similar for the other academy and F/S bids

Instead of pick 30, our R2 pick becomes more of a low 20’s pick at worst and we could match a Collard bid

That’s not particularly complex and far less compromised than it has become

 

[CountryLad]

Not going to try and defend the Northern academies, but if they are going to wind back the NGA concessions, then they need to make it the same rules for all 14 clubs, because it’s so open to be rorted as well.

McGrath at Essendon would be nga eligible, so to Erasmus at Freo.

Almost 50% of Australia’s current population would be eligible, according to the latest census, as one of the requirements is being born overseas, or have one parent born overseas.

Mind you, if all the fricken Victorian clubs stopped poaching Gold Coast’s draftees, they’d probably be a top 4 club at the moment, and wouldn’t have been able to match all 4 kids.

So why all the hoohaa?

Because the AFL jumped at shadows when the other Victorian clubs whinged about the Bulldogs getting JUH.

Personally don’t have a huge issue if the Suns ended up with the academy boys.
The issue for most is how much they have to pay for them. The system is a Rort, not only did they get the 4 kids they now also hold 3 first rounders and 2 second rounders next year by being able to bank points.

We finish last and second last the last two years and our second pick comes in at 30 and can’t select an academy kid at pick 28 after the suns have selected all 4 of there academy kids. That’s the issue.

 

[Keys]

I like what the Saints have done with Sandringham by guaranteeing they’ll rookie list at least one player from there each year for the next 3 years

Might be something West Coast could look at with the WAFL side to assist in attracting talent. Undertake that at least one player will be rookie listed the following year

Would encourage draft hopefuls to sign on knowing that they’d be competing with realistically no more than about 5 players for an AFL spot

 

[EagleMan87]

I wonder if part of GWS/Adelaide's reluctance to take our F1 is the presumption that lightning won't strike thrice regarding injuries and that we'll rise out of the bottom four next year.

 

[briztoon]

Personally don’t have a huge issue if the Suns ended up with the academy boys.
The issue for most is how much they have to pay for them. The system is a Rort, not only did they get the 4 kids they now also hold 3 first rounders and 2 second rounders next year by being able to bank points.

We finish last and second last the last two years and our second pick comes in at 30 and can’t select an academy kid at pick 28 after the suns have selected all 4 of there academy kids. That’s the issue.

The future second round pick GC has came from Hawthorn in the Chol trade, not from trading and banking picks.

 

[Bestbird]

The NGA/Northern Academies/Father Son issue can essentially be solved by recalibrating the points system

As it stands a bid at pick 1 can be matched with pick 2. Or with picks 13 and 24. Or a bunch of R2 picks if a club can collect enough

It’s unrealistic and bears no resemblance the the true value of picks

So change the points such that a bid for pick 1 would require a couple of top 10 picks to match. A top 10 bid likely needs a couple of top 20 picks. A top 20 pick needs a couple in the 20’s to match and so on

Then put in a couple of checks - maximum of 2 picks to match and in addition to forcing a club to hold no more picks than they have list spots don’t allow them to trade for additional picks once the draft starts like the Suns did

Because of the more onerous requirements allow clubs to use future picks to match based on their current year ladder position. Gives clubs lower down the ladder an advantage when matching

Then treat all of the clubs the same - remove the inability to match inside the top 40. Then all clubs are equal

Scrap FA compensation or at a minimum keep any compensation out if R1. Remove the attachment of picks to ladder position - so middle of R2, end of R2, middle of R3, end of R3. Maybe use a start of R2 pick as Band 1

And no priority picks unless there are exceptional circumstances outside the club’s control. Bad list management like we’ve seen from North, and us, shouldn’t be grounds for a helping hand

Applying the above to this years draft:

• No PP for North
• All 3 FA compo picks are beginning of R2 or later
• Gold Coast would have needed something like 4x R1 picks and 4x R2 picks to match. Maybe 5x R1 picks. Means that the additional picks created by the bid are balanced by the picks going out to match from this years or next years draft
• Similar for the other academy and F/S bids

Instead of pick 30, our R2 pick becomes more of a low 20’s pick at worst and we could match a Collard bid

That’s not particularly complex and far less compromised than it has become

The Points allocation system has been an annoyance for me since Juh/Daicos F&S when clubs traded for a bunch of late picks.

You would have thought the AFL would have done something before now as it was a pretty obvious flaw in the system in terms of fairness.

It is not frickin complex AFL, it is just obvious and stupid.

Rant over

 

[CountryLad]

The future second round pick GC has came from Hawthorn in the Chol trade, not from trading and banking picks.

Yes aware that some picks may come from trades and we can knit pick over stuff like that. However the main central issue is that it’s a system that is being abused within the rules by clubs that are getting a major advantage from it.

The advantage was meant to be that they can retain local kids so they aren’t always losing players. It’s turned into something far greater than that whilst also indirectly impacting on other club’s positions in the draft through trading and swapping picks.

 

[3agles87]

Not going to try and defend the Northern academies, but if they are going to wind back the NGA concessions, then they need to make it the same rules for all 14 clubs, because it’s so open to be rorted as well.

McGrath at Essendon would be nga eligible, so to Erasmus at Freo.

Almost 50% of Australia’s current population would be eligible, according to the latest census, as one of the requirements is being born overseas, or have one parent born overseas.

Mind you, if all the fricken Victorian clubs stopped poaching Gold Coast’s draftees, they’d probably be a top 4 club at the moment, and wouldn’t have been able to match all 4 kids.

So why all the hoohaa?

Because the AFL jumped at shadows when the other Victorian clubs whinged about the Bulldogs getting JUH.

Ooohhhh, this is gonna be good

also, almost half the population is already eligible for just the northern academies.

 

[Hook461123]

Its not just the access to the kids that is the advantage though. It is the development opportunities as well. Rogers was talking about how he went to training, was having meetings with the team and pretty much living the life of an AFL player. Its a huge advantage getting that sort of development at that age.
11 of 22 u16 All Australian team are from the 4 Northern academies. There was 1 WA kid. WA kids are struggling to keep up with the academy programs.

 

[bzparkes]

Academies are a pretty simple proposition to resolve, I'd have thought.

Let clubs add anyone to the academy they wish(no stipulations on parent's lineage, etc) and clubs can freely pick one player ahead of the draft. Then, if they want to pick any more, they pay a premium for the privilege of doing so.

This ensures the clubs have incentive to actually develop players in their academies, thus bettering talent pathways, but they end up having to make a real decision on whether they actually want to draft additional players. By doing so, they'd need to trade in picks, not out, to pay the premium, so other clubs will benefit from them doing so.

 

[Bender_]

Loving all these ideas on how to fix the academy players in the draft - honestly there are some good ones.

The result will be something along the lines of non-Northern academies rules stay the same, Northern academies can take a maximum of 5 academy players per draft. And the AFL will pat each other on the back for another job well done on fixing not fixing yet another issue.

 

[darksquare]

The NGA/Northern Academies/Father Son issue can essentially be solved by recalibrating the points system

As it stands a bid at pick 1 can be matched with pick 2. Or with picks 13 and 24. Or a bunch of R2 picks if a club can collect enough

It’s unrealistic and bears no resemblance the the true value of picks

So change the points such that a bid for pick 1 would require a couple of top 10 picks to match. A top 10 bid likely needs a couple of top 20 picks. A top 20 pick needs a couple in the 20’s to match and so on

Then put in a couple of checks - maximum of 2 picks to match and in addition to forcing a club to hold no more picks than they have list spots don’t allow them to trade for additional picks once the draft starts like the Suns did

Because of the more onerous requirements allow clubs to use future picks to match based on their current year ladder position. Gives clubs lower down the ladder an advantage when matching

Then treat all of the clubs the same - remove the inability to match inside the top 40. Then all clubs are equal

Scrap FA compensation or at a minimum keep any compensation out if R1. Remove the attachment of picks to ladder position - so middle of R2, end of R2, middle of R3, end of R3. Maybe use a start of R2 pick as Band 1

And no priority picks unless there are exceptional circumstances outside the club’s control. Bad list management like we’ve seen from North, and us, shouldn’t be grounds for a helping hand

Applying the above to this years draft:

• No PP for North
• All 3 FA compo picks are beginning of R2 or later
• Gold Coast would have needed something like 4x R1 picks and 4x R2 picks to match. Maybe 5x R1 picks. Means that the additional picks created by the bid are balanced by the picks going out to match from this years or next years draft
• Similar for the other academy and F/S bids

Instead of pick 30, our R2 pick becomes more of a low 20’s pick at worst and we could match a Collard bid

That’s not particularly complex and far less compromised than it has become

We already almost have enough data to recalibrate the points system. Simply, the value of a pick is what other teams have been prepared to pay for it when it is used to pick a player. Never mind the "X games played" metric, because that neglects the quality of the games; and ignore all trading for academy or F/S access.

We know how this is going to turn out. High picks will be much more valuable than the points system currently values them, and low picks will be much less valuable. If we recalibrated accordingly, there would be no chance that GC could pay for Walter, Read, Rodgers and Graham with coins they found behind the sofa cushions - pick 3 might be worth 30% more than it currently is, and a pick in the 30s might be worth 30% less.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Gun academy prospects are gonna be drafted no matter what, so if we must have academies, there should be an academy draft too.

Eagles get pick 1 (Walter), 19 etc in the academy draft, pick 1 (Reid), 19 etc in the regular draft.

Who says no?

 

[Bender_]

Gun academy prospects are gonna be drafted no matter what, so if we must have academies, there should be an academy draft too.

Eagles get pick 1 (Walter), 19 etc in the academy draft, pick 1 (Reid), 19 etc in the regular draft.

Who says no?

Can we split the academy pick like we can the rookie draft?

/Tredrea

 

[Aarick13]

Do the nominations before trade week so teams have to use whatever draft picks they have at the time. Get all the teams in and quickly run a draft. Pick 1 pass, Pick 2 pass, Pick 3 Bid Jed Walter Gold Coast match using pick 4+extra pick then get the change back like how it works now. Continue. If you don't think a player is worth it don't bid for them. Team A might decide not to match and you use your draft pick and can't trade it. Players would probably fall down the draft a little with clubs not wanting to lock in a pick before know what else would be on the board.

Let them go into a deficit if need be then during trade week they can choose to either get picks to cover the deficit this year or get future picks and the deficit pushes their first pick back how ever many points are needed.

Then when it goes to the draft you can still call out their name and get them on stage. Nothing changes for the player. I'm sure all the Academy and F/S players knew their team would be taking them.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Catching up with some of the post-draft videos with the draftees and reading some of their comments, and I'm pretty pumped. So much enthusiasm and excitement. I reckon we've done very well given the hand we were dealt (or weren't dealt by the AFL).

Need to get around to watching all the highlight videos too!

 

[Art OF war]

Yes aware that some picks may come from trades and we can knit pick over stuff like that. However the main central issue is that it’s a system that is being abused within the rules by clubs that are getting a major advantage from it.

The advantage was meant to be that they can retain local kids so they aren’t always losing players. It’s turned into something far greater than that whilst also indirectly impacting on other club’s positions in the draft through trading and swapping picks.

Further to this Country and briztoon , GC actually traded some of their excess rnd 3 picks for future rnd 3 picks which were not mentioned in your above diatribe.

I honestly believe it got to the point GC had rorted the system that much, they passed prematurely on their last couple of picks. If you actually look at the picks they passed on, other clubs were still trading up after that, they could have easily got another F4 or 2.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Further to this Country and briztoon , GC actually traded some of their excess rnd 3 picks for future rnd 3 picks which were not mentioned in your above diatribe.

I honestly believe it got to the point GC had rorted the system that much, they passed prematurely on their last couple of picks. If you actually look at the picks they passed on, other clubs were still trading up after that, they could have easily got another F4 or 2.

The issue is that the Suns demand such a premium, I suspect they got greedy and ran out of time.

 

[BartBart]

The NGA/Northern Academies/Father Son issue can essentially be solved by recalibrating the points system

As it stands a bid at pick 1 can be matched with pick 2. Or with picks 13 and 24. Or a bunch of R2 picks if a club can collect enough

It’s unrealistic and bears no resemblance the the true value of picks

So change the points such that a bid for pick 1 would require a couple of top 10 picks to match. A top 10 bid likely needs a couple of top 20 picks. A top 20 pick needs a couple in the 20’s to match and so on

Then put in a couple of checks - maximum of 2 picks to match and in addition to forcing a club to hold no more picks than they have list spots don’t allow them to trade for additional picks once the draft starts like the Suns did

Because of the more onerous requirements allow clubs to use future picks to match based on their current year ladder position. Gives clubs lower down the ladder an advantage when matching

Then treat all of the clubs the same - remove the inability to match inside the top 40. Then all clubs are equal

Scrap FA compensation or at a minimum keep any compensation out if R1. Remove the attachment of picks to ladder position - so middle of R2, end of R2, middle of R3, end of R3. Maybe use a start of R2 pick as Band 1

And no priority picks unless there are exceptional circumstances outside the club’s control. Bad list management like we’ve seen from North, and us, shouldn’t be grounds for a helping hand

Applying the above to this years draft:

• No PP for North
• All 3 FA compo picks are beginning of R2 or later
• Gold Coast would have needed something like 4x R1 picks and 4x R2 picks to match. Maybe 5x R1 picks. Means that the additional picks created by the bid are balanced by the picks going out to match from this years or next years draft
• Similar for the other academy and F/S bids

Instead of pick 30, our R2 pick becomes more of a low 20’s pick at worst and we could match a Collard bid

That’s not particularly complex and far less compromised than it has become

At risk of repeating myself...

Step 1 - remove 20% discount

 

[Keys]

At risk of repeating myself...

Step 1 - remove 20% discount

Yep. That as well

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

Not going to try and defend the Northern academies, but if they are going to wind back the NGA concessions, then they need to make it the same rules for all 14 clubs, because it’s so open to be rorted as well.

McGrath at Essendon would be nga eligible, so to Erasmus at Freo.

Almost 50% of Australia’s current population would be eligible, according to the latest census, as one of the requirements is being born overseas, or have one parent born overseas.

Mind you, if all the fricken Victorian clubs stopped poaching Gold Coast’s draftees, they’d probably be a top 4 club at the moment, and wouldn’t have been able to match all 4 kids.

So why all the hoohaa?

Because the AFL jumped at shadows when the other Victorian clubs whinged about the Bulldogs getting JUH.

Correction On Erasmus. He was lined up to be a WCE NGA but the paperwork did not get filed. No problem as he went early. He made the first 18 at Hale the issue was cricket being an option.

The NGA rules were made different for the northern clubs to
1. Grow the game in rugby states
2. Encourage clubs to put work into players on the fringes and get them into Australian Rules
3. Compensate for not having father sons
4. Offset the “go home factor”

I firmly believe in 1 and hence the AFL should be funding it. I guess they are with Lions Suns and Giants getting extra funding.

With 2, it may be happening for 4 clubs but the other 14 clubs have almost given up with no benefit on offer

Lack of F/S is a joke with Brisbane/Fitzroy and Sth Melbourne/Sydney.

Now 4 should be redundant. How many players have gone to the Lions in recent years? I don’t think an6 of the Sun’s big 4 this year are going to be asking to go home to mummy in Melbourne!


No FA compensation
No priority picks until after R2
A club can only match in points a player in the first if they hold a first round
In this year, Suns would have needed to hold 3 first rounders to get Walter, Read and Rogers.
No discount and any points deficit to be taken off the future first round
Father Son, Academy and NGA to both apply the same

 

[Deplorable trumpster]

The issue is not that the AFL is incompetent and can't understand why the system is ridiculous and how to fix it. The issue is that they don't want to fix it as it is a ever of control that they want to maintain. They want to be able to pick winners and manipulate outcomes, and by picking winners you are by default picking losers aswell. And it is very depressing to be a supporter of one of the clubs who is one of the losers in the scheme and is being held down by the AFL.