News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[H00t]

Probably find that with your example Richmond will need to split that pick into a lower top 10 and a later 1st round pick.

But a dare say the AFL will add some sort of watering down to allow Richmond to keep pick 3 and their FS.

So a term has to give up their early pick on the chance a player might be bid on late in the first round? Seems a lot worse than the current scenario.

It also massively favours the top teams as they have an easier time matching bids and have the power to try and force trades.

 

[H00t]

Yeah I think that’s just far to much common sense for the AFL

Only other solution if the AFL wanted to tweek the model suggested is that to match a bid on a player you must use at least one pick within 18 picks so it’s still essentially the same round

Will be interesting if they used the reported model if we teams with academy and F/S picks load up on the late picks in the respective rounds they think the bid would come at

Needing to use a pick within 18 picks at least makes more sense than needing that pick to be in the same rounds.

If they have to go that route I hope they go this way.

Although I think this sort of matching should really only be with 1st round picks. After that match with whatever.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Needing to use a pick within 18 picks at least makes more sense than needing that pick to be in the same rounds.

If they have to go that route I hope they go this way.

Although I think this sort of matching should really only be with 1st round picks. After that match with whatever.

Yeah I agree
Hopefully they have thought of these kinds of scenarios and have worked out a decent way around

Another option is letting a club use a future pick from next years draft to match the bid but we won’t know the points value of the specific pick until next year so makes it difficult to work out what other later picks could be used

It definitely seems that whatever route the afl takes it’s going to further complicate the draft overall

 

[mpal6]

“However under the changes, teams would now need to pay the same price point at which another clubs bids for a player — as in match a first-round bid using a first-round pick — not with a combination of later selections.”

Wonder what would happen if a player is bid on late in a round or even as the final pick in a round and the team that the specific player is linked to has already used a much earlier pick to draft a player

Eg Richmond have pick 3 and use it but say Carlton use pick 19 to bid on a father son selection

If Richmond prioritized the higher draft pick to get elite top end talent, they've to accept giving up on the father son. Two bites of cherry in first round is exactly what they are trying to stop.

Son will come back in 2 years via trade if he really wants to play for Richmond.

 

[H00t]

If Richmond prioritized the higher draft pick to get elite top end talent, they've to accept giving up on the father son. Two bites of cherry in first round is exactly what they are trying to stop.

Son will come back in 2 years via trade if he really wants to play for Richmond.

Top teams getting a pick 1-5 level talent while paying peanuts is much worse than a top team getting a second player in that 15-20 area.

Teams needing a pick in the first round only stops the second but does nothing for the first.

Lower teams just get punished more which is the opposite of what equalisation should be about.

There are much better solutions.

 

[mpal6]

Top teams getting a pick 1-5 level talent while paying peanuts is much worse than a top team getting a second player in that 15-20 area.

Teams needing a pick in the first round only stops the second but does nothing for the first.

Lower teams just get punished more which is the opposite of what equalisation should be about.

There are much better solutions.

And once you start diluting it with exceptions, that's when all rules go out of window and it'll look a sea of exceptions.

You get one selection in first round, use it to pick your player if they get matched. If you think the pick is too high and there is a better player, then make that decision to take him knowing your father son is going elsewhere. It can't be both.

 

[Muddiemoose]

And once you start diluting it with exceptions, that's when all rules go out of window and it'll look a sea of exceptions.

You get one selection in first round, use it to pick your player if they get matched. If you think the pick is too high and there is a better player, then make that decision to take him knowing your father son is going elsewhere. It can't be both.

I dunno if I see it so black and white it’s an extreme example but what if I slightly adjusted it because it can still happen

Richmond finish 18th
Use pick 1

They stockpile mid to late 2nd round picks because they expect a bid to come around that point for the father son

But seemingly out of no where a team bids on the father son selection at pick 18 despite him not being projected to go around pick 30

Seems unfair to the team that finished at the bottom that they are completely locked out of an opportunity to bid the player despite having stockpiled enough draft capital within a reasonable range

I have no issue with keeping clubs accountable but I feel the use of rounds as the cut off point to match overly arbitrary when other options like must use a pick within 18 picks or something along those lines
Still serves the purpose without teams getting locked out either

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I dunno if I see it so black and white it’s an extreme example but what if I slightly adjusted it because it can still happen

Richmond finish 18th
Use pick 1

They stockpile mid to late 2nd round picks because they expect a bid to come around that point for the father son

But seemingly out of no where a team bids on the father son selection at pick 18 despite him not being projected to go around pick 30

Seems unfair to the team that finished at the bottom that they are completely locked out of an opportunity to bid the player despite having stockpiled enough draft capital within a reasonable range

Yes, so the idea to overcomplicating with more rules rather than simply making updating the points value creates problems like you discribed.

This is the mathematical basis for the points that they assign to each pick. I have drawn my own black line to what I think would be a better graph:

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Currently, you can "buy" pick 1 with about three pick 20's. there's no reason why it shouldn't be four pick 20's, instead, should you hold those four picks.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Yes, so the idea to overcomplicating with more rules rather than simply making updating the points value creates problems like you discribed.

This is the mathematical basis for the points that they assign to each pick. I have drawn my own black line to what I think would be a better graph:

View attachment 1962052

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Currently, you can "buy" pick 1 with about three pick 20's. there's no reason why it shouldn't be four pick 20's, instead, should you hold those four picks.

I even saw someone write today that maybe instead of teams getting a discount to match the bid they pay a tax of say for eg 10% of the points value

The team who gets to match the bid should pay for the luxury of moving up the draft order and leapfrogging other teams getting to draft a targeted player instead of having to pick from the pool of players that are available when they have pick

At first I didn’t really like the idea but the more I thought about it it made sense

 

[H00t]

And once you start diluting it with exceptions, that's when all rules go out of window and it'll look a sea of exceptions.

You get one selection in first round, use it to pick your player if they get matched. If you think the pick is too high and there is a better player, then make that decision to take him knowing your father son is going elsewhere. It can't be both.

It’s not about exceptions. Its about a rule that works and makes sense.

Needing to use a first round pick to match a bid in the first round is silly when it becomes harder and harder to match bids the later in the first round it goes especially when the 1st round goes 18 picks. And a player bid with the last of the first round is unmatchable where a pick later and it’s easily matched.

Late first round picks aren’t nearly the problem as teams not needing to pay much for early picks.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Yes, so the idea to overcomplicating with more rules rather than simply making updating the points value creates problems like you discribed.

This is the mathematical basis for the points that they assign to each pick. I have drawn my own black line to what I think would be a better graph:

View attachment 1962052

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Currently, you can "buy" pick 1 with about three pick 20's. there's no reason why it shouldn't be four pick 20's, instead, should you hold those four picks.

While I agree limiting to rounds is a very poor solution when you put any kind of thought behind it I have a slight disagreement in that I really think you need a limit on the number of picks you can use to match. I dont want teams matching pick 1 for four picks in the 20s, I hate that, clubs will still come out massively ahead. Limit it to two picks max per bid, that achieves the same result of limiting per round but without the same restrictions

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It’s not about exceptions. Its about a rule that works and makes sense.

Needing to use a first round pick to match a bid in the first round is silly when it becomes harder and harder to match bids the later in the first round it goes especially when the 1st round goes 18 picks. And a player bid with the last of the first round is unmatchable where a pick later and it’s easily matched.

Late first round picks aren’t nearly the problem as teams not needing to pay much for early picks.

It also inflates the value of late first round picks, which is exactly what we dont want to happen because it's benefitting the stronger teams

 

[mpal6]

I dunno if I see it so black and white it’s an extreme example but what if I slightly adjusted it because it can still happen

Richmond finish 18th
Use pick 1

They stockpile mid to late 2nd round picks because they expect a bid to come around that point for the father son

But seemingly out of no where a team bids on the father son selection at pick 18 despite him not being projected to go around pick 30

Seems unfair to the team that finished at the bottom that they are completely locked out of an opportunity to bid the player despite having stockpiled enough draft capital within a reasonable range

I have no issue with keeping clubs accountable but I feel the use of rounds as the cut off point to match overly arbitrary when other options like must use a pick within 18 picks or something along those lines
Still serves the purpose without teams getting locked out either

Using your example, either Richmond should be prepared to trade down from pick 1 to a handful of later first round picks so it voluntarily picks the player at say pick 17. So my scenario would be pick 1 traded for pick 5,12,17. They got 3 players instead of pick 1 and they're holding 17 knowing that's their last chance to get the father son before someone else has a go in the first round.

What you're projecting is Richmond knowingly take different players at 5,12,17 and expect kindness from club holding pick 18. I guarantee you if the club holding pick 18 don't bid, Richmond would still pick someone else at 19 and keep extending that kindness until it runs out and someone actually bids on their father son.

End of the day player will get bid on where another club rates him. Sydney did it to GWS with Harry Rowston. Collingwood did it to Brisbane with Blake Coleman. It's a cut throat business and if they get the calculations wrong, they live with consequences.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

While I agree limiting to rounds is a very poor solution when you put any kind of thought behind it I have a slight disagreement in that I really think you need a limit on the number of picks you can use to match. I dont want teams matching pick 1 for four picks in the 20s, I hate that, clubs will still come out massively ahead. Limit it to two picks max per bid, that achieves the same result of limiting per round but without the same restrictions

But if the points value are more accurate it's irrelevant. If a team has four list spots open and has somehow made the trades to get those four early picks I have no issue with them using the system to get that player. The 20% discount can be minimised as well.

There is also no exchange rate benefit to any club trading one pick for two if the points value are accurate.

If a player is genuinely bidded on with pick 1 I have no issue with a three-time premiership team losing their entire draft hand for three consecutive years to get that pick 1 player, if that's what the maths suggests.

 

[mpal6]

It’s not about exceptions. Its about a rule that works and makes sense.

Needing to use a first round pick to match a bid in the first round is silly when it becomes harder and harder to match bids the later in the first round it goes especially when the 1st round goes 18 picks. And a player bid with the last of the first round is unmatchable where a pick later and it’s easily matched.

Late first round picks aren’t nearly the problem as teams not needing to pay much for early picks.

There is a whole trade period available to settle on the later picks. They can trade future picks, first round downgrade, players who leave will net picks - so many options. I don't agree with the view that getting later picks will be so hard so we should let the father/son academy clubs a free pass to have multiple quality players.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

But if the points value are more accurate it's irrelevant. If a team has four list spots open and has somehow made the trades to get those four early picks I have no issue with them using the system to get that player. The 20% discount can be minimised as well.

There is also no exchange rate benefit to any club trading one pick for two if the points value are accurate.

If a player is genuinely bidded on with pick 1 I have no issue with a three-time premiership team losing their entire draft hand for three consecutive years to get that pick 1 player, if that's what the maths suggests.

I agree in principal but without proof, feel like we'd still get to a situation where it's rorted. Limiting the picks that can be used completely removes any possible rorting I think

If they do try to limit it by round, it will fail spectacularly very quickly.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Using your example, either Richmond should be prepared to trade down from pick 1 to a handful of later first round picks so it voluntarily picks the player at say pick 17. So my scenario would be pick 1 traded for pick 5,12,17. They got 3 players instead of pick 1 and they're holding 17 knowing that's their last chance to get the father son before someone else has a go in the first round.

What you're projecting is Richmond knowingly take different players at 5,12,17 and expect kindness from club holding pick 18. I guarantee you if the club holding pick 18 don't bid, Richmond would still pick someone else at 19 and keep extending that kindness until it runs out and someone actually bids on their father son.

End of the day player will get bid on where another club rates him. Sydney did it to GWS with Harry Rowston. Collingwood did it to Brisbane with Blake Coleman. It's a cut throat business and if they get the calculations wrong, they live with consequences.

I still feel like it could lead to potentially unwanted consequences that actually work against equalisation and that is what these changes are meant to combat

Like Snuffaluphagus mentioned it possibly inflates the value of the last 2 - 3 picks in any round and could make them more valuable in the eyes of clubs over picks in the low to mid teens

That just works in favour of the stronger teams

We also regularly see later picks In the draft move down the order potentially having some picks slip into a different round that was unforeseen

Throw in end of round priority picks that can also complicate it all

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I agree in principal but without proof, feel like we'd still get to a situation where it's rorted. Limiting the picks that can be used completely removes any possible rorting I think

If they do try to limit it by round, it will fail spectacularly very quickly.

If the points assigned to picks are accurate to the general consensus as to what they're worth (so say pick 20 is worth 1/4 of pick 1, not 1/3 as it currently is, and that pick 45 is worth nothing, not something like it currently is), how exactly can it get rorted?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

If the points assigned to picks are accurate to the general consensus as to what they're worth (so say pick 20 is worth 1/4 of pick 1, not 1/3 as it currently is, and that pick 45 is worth nothing, not something like it currently is), how exactly can it get rorted?

I'm sure we said that with the current system when it was introduced and when they included the fix of limiting picks to how many draft spots you have. I agree, I have nothing to substantiate my opinion, just that the clubs seems to find a way when there isnt enough rules (as they should, it's their jobs).

You're probably right, I just would rather be sure it's a complete fix because the sooner clubs have no way of getting these kids dirt cheap, the sooner my club can compete on a closer to level playing field

 

[LordLucifer]

REVISED AFL TRADE & DRAFT STRUCTURE


NATIONAL DRAFT POINTS VALUES​

EQUALISATION ROUND

(for all non-finalists only from the year prior in reverse ladder finishing position)


EQ.1 - 5000

EQ.2 - 4750

EQ.3 - 4512

EQ.4 - 4286

EQ.5 - 4072

EQ.6 - 3868

EQ.7 - 3675

EQ.8 - 3491

EQ.9 - 3317

EQ.10 - 3151


ROUND ONE

R1.1 - 2993

R1.2 - 2844

R1.3 - 2566

R1.4 - 2438

R1.5 - 2316

R1.6 - 2200

R1.7 - 2090

R1.8 - 1986

R1.9 - 1886

R1.10 - 1792

R1.11 - 1702

R1.12 - 1676

R1.13 - 1536

R1.14 - 1459

R1.15 - 1386

R1.16 - 1317

R1.17 - 1251

R1.18 - 1181


ROUND TWO

R2.1 - 1129

R2.2 - 1073

R2.3 - 1019

R2.4 - 968

R2.5 - 920

R2.6 - 874

R2.7 - 830

R2.8 - 788

R2.9 - 749

R2.10 - 711

R2.11 - 676

R2.12 - 642

R2.13 - 610

R2.14 - 579

R2.15 - 550

R2.16 - 523

R2.17 - 497

R2.18 - 472


ROUND THREE

R3.1 - 448

R3.2 - 426

R3.3 - 404

R3.4 - 384

R3.5 - 365

R3.6 - 347

R3.7 - 329

R3.8 - 313

R3.9 - 297

R3.10 - 282

R3.11 - 268

R3.12 - 255

R3.13 - 242

R3.14 - 230

R3.15 - 218

R3.16 - 207

R3.17 - 197

R3.18 - 187


ROUND FOUR

R4.1 - 178

R4.2 - 169

R4.3 - 160

R4.4 - 152

R4.5 - 145

R4.6 - 137

R4.7 - 131

R4.8 - 124

R4.9 - 118

R4.10 - 112

R4.11 - 106

R4.12 - 101

R4.13 - 96

R4.14 - 91

R4.15 - 86

R4.16 - 82

R4.17 - 78

R4.18 - 74


ROUND FIVE

R5.1 - 70

R5.2 - 67

R5.3 - 63

R5.4 - 60

R5.5 - 57

R5.6 - 54

R5.7 - 52

R5.8 - 49

R5.9 - 46

R5.10 - 44

R5.11 - 42

R5.12 - 40

R5.13 - 38

R5.14 - 36

R5.15 - 34

R5.16 - 32

R5.17 - 29

R5.18 - 28


ROUND SIX

R6.1 - 26

R6.2 - 25

R6.3 - 24

R6.4 - 23

R6.5 - 22

R6.6 - 21

R6.7 - 20

R6.8 - 19

R6.9 - 18

R6.10 - 17

R6.11 - 16

R6.12 - 15

R6.13 - 15

R6.14 - 13

R6.15 - 12

R6.16 - 10

R6.17 - 9

R6.18 - 8


OTHER

* no discounts for father-son or academy choices

* free agency compensation picks permanently scrapped

* priority picks and any other assistance picks permanently scrapped

* father-son qualification reduced to 1-game

* player nominates club of choice if father played for more than one club

* primary list is reduced to a maximum of 40 players only

* rookie list is scrapped permanently

* any player who is being paid above the median AFL salary figure can be traded to another club without their consent

 

[H00t]

There is a whole trade period available to settle on the later picks. They can trade future picks, first round downgrade, players who leave will net picks - so many options. I don't agree with the view that getting later picks will be so hard so we should let the father/son academy clubs a free pass to have multiple quality players.

What does having a full trade period do when you can’t match a bid at pick 18?

If a bid comes at 17 the team must have pick 18 to match.

Where a bid at pick 19 can be matched by any team. Same as a bid at pick 1.

Getting those later picks will be damn near impossible especially when teams will know the value of them. It’s a nonsensical idea.

 

[Muddiemoose]

What does having a full trade period do when you can’t match a bid at pick 18?

If a bid comes at 17 the team must have pick 18 to match.

Where a bid at pick 19 can be matched by any team. Same as a bid at pick 1.

Getting those later picks will be damn near impossible especially when teams will know the value of them. It’s a nonsensical idea.

Yup pick 18 will essentially become the most valuable pick in the draft for any club with an elite father son or academy candidate

Each draft tends to have at least 2 or 3 players that fit into this category at a minimum so it automatically means multiple clubs will be trying to outbid each other for that particular pick

The winners of the flag any year will be loving life with a free ride down the draft order by auctioning off that pick

If nuffies like us on Bigfoot can easily work that out imagine the shenanigans clubs will be pulling

 

[mpal6]

What does having a full trade period do when you can’t match a bid at pick 18?

If a bid comes at 17 the team must have pick 18 to match.

Where a bid at pick 19 can be matched by any team. Same as a bid at pick 1.

Getting those later picks will be damn near impossible especially when teams will know the value of them. It’s a nonsensical idea.

Everyone calls first pick in night 2 as the most valuable pick blah blah and the best trade I've seen it for it so far is a 2nd rounder swap along with a future second rounder. You're playing on extrapolations and calling things as nonsensical, those end of first round picks will still get traded at the value they are normally sought after.

You're arguing a month out from draft during the trade window a club knows the exact father son player who will get bid on at pick 18 so they can jack up the price. Well that sounds like comedy gold to me. I'll be shocked if the likely draft player order is finalized by then as there are draftees moving up n down the list constantly. You could predict the likely draft order of may be the first 5 or 10 and beyond that its a yo yo.

It still goes back to the point I made earlier - if some club rates a player highly, they will bid. Harry Rowston was expected to go mid 20s early 30s, Sydney put a bid on him in teens. It happens all the time and you can't get hung up on that one scenario.


"The opening day of the trade period will be Monday, October 7 and it will close on Wednesday, October 16, with the prime-time finish on the final day now an established part of the wheeling, dealing and drama.

The draft will again be split over two nights in November, with the first round to be conducted on Wednesday, November 20 and the rest of the national draft to follow on Thursday, November 21. The rookie and pre-season drafts will be staged on Friday, November 22."

 

[Dangerousfield]

Don't try and make it complicated. Value picks at the value they have been traded by the clubs themselves so -

1. Make the points curve much steeper and have any points value extinguish by pick 36-40
2. Simple rule you can only match with a maximum of two picks
3. No discount, being able to match is bonus enough

By doing those three easily done things, the whole drama is solved. You don't need a whole heap of other complicated and rortable grey areas. Apply those three points to last years GC draft, or JUH, Daicos, Ashcroft etc and you'll see clubs having to pay a premium to jump up the draft order. No more bag full of crap picks to bag a super star

And bloody fix the rorting of FA compo!!!

 

[H00t]

Everyone calls first pick in night 2 as the most valuable pick blah blah and the best trade I've seen it for it so far is a 2nd rounder swap along with a future second rounder. You're playing on extrapolations and calling things as nonsensical, those end of first round picks will still get traded at the value they are normally sought after.

You're arguing a month out from draft during the trade window a club knows the exact father son player who will get bid on at pick 18 so they can jack up the price. Well that sounds like comedy gold to me. I'll be shocked if the likely draft player order is finalized by then as there are draftees moving up n down the list constantly. You could predict the likely draft order of may be the first 5 or 10 and beyond that its a yo yo.

It still goes back to the point I made earlier - if some club rates a player highly, they will bid. Harry Rowston was expected to go mid 20s early 30s, Sydney put a bid on him in teens. It happens all the time and you can't get hung up on that one scenario.


"The opening day of the trade period will be Monday, October 7 and it will close on Wednesday, October 16, with the prime-time finish on the final day now an established part of the wheeling, dealing and drama.

The draft will again be split over two nights in November, with the first round to be conducted on Wednesday, November 20 and the rest of the national draft to follow on Thursday, November 21. The rookie and pre-season drafts will be staged on Friday, November 22."

There’s no real difference currently between pick 18 and 19 apart from the time before these picks need to be made.

There is however a very real difference if teams have to match with a first round pick. As pick 18 guarantees any player left in the pool where as pick 19 guarantees any player not aligned with another club.

I’m also not the one arguing that clubs have to know well in advance when their players will be bid on. That’s what you are doing by suggesting teams should trade for these late picks without knowing when a bid will be.

Teams will bid when they feel necessary (though some bid to screw teams over) this rule change goes ahead though it severely limits or prevents teams from matching. Plus it targets the wrong end of the first round. It gets even sillier if the rule applies for bids after the first round.