News AFL attempt to close academy draft pick swap loophole

[Obeanie1]

AFL to make changes to academy draft rules

The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks, in a move that is likely to affect the Giants this year.

www.theage.com.au

"The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks at other clubs, in a move that is likely to have ramifications for Greater Western Sydney this year.

The Swans created a stir last year when they manipulated the league's points bidding system to acquire academy graduate Nick Blakey at No.10 for picks 34, 39 and 40 – a price which was widely accepted as a bargain."


Well that sounds all well and good but just as the AFL close one loophole clever clubs ind the next one.

I can see the AFL closing these live draft night pick swaps as soon as a academy or father son bid is made but I can also see smart clubs simply assessing the risk v rewards and trading picks in the trade period prior to the draft instead.

This would be a tad more risky as the club is guessing if and when a bid will come in the draft. But some calls will be easier to make than others.

Look at GWS and Greene. Looks like he will be a top 5 pick and the Essendon pick GWS hold will be used. Therefore expect GWS to trade that pick for future picks and later picks this year during trade week. If that pick is say pick 9 they trade that for a future 1st plus a 2019 2nd rounder during the trade period prior to draft night. Once the Greene academy selection is sorted what would stop them live trading picks to land another 1st rounder this draft?

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I'm curious how they intend to do so, given they can't tell it's happening until both legs have occurred.

Perhaps a clause that says if you've matched a bid you're then blocked from trading in another pick between the bid and the first pick used to match? That would cover the pre-draft attempts the article flags too.

 

[iBeng]

*Cough* NGA Academy getting you kids who grew up around Football *Cough*

 

[briztoon]

AFL to make changes to academy draft rules

The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks, in a move that is likely to affect the Giants this year.

www.theage.com.au

"The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks at other clubs, in a move that is likely to have ramifications for Greater Western Sydney this year.

The Swans created a stir last year when they manipulated the league's points bidding system to acquire academy graduate Nick Blakey at No.10 for picks 34, 39 and 40 – a price which was widely accepted as a bargain."


Well that sounds all well and good but just as the AFL close one loophole clever clubs ind the next one.

I can see the AFL closing these live draft night pick swaps as soon as a academy or father son bid is made but I can also see smart clubs simply assessing the risk v rewards and trading picks in the trade period prior to the draft instead.

This would be a tad more risky as the club is guessing if and when a bid will come in the draft. But some calls will be easier to make than others.

Look at GWS and Greene. Looks like he will be a top 5 pick and the Essendon pick GWS hold will be used. Therefore expect GWS to trade that pick for future picks and later picks this year during trade week. If that pick is say pick 9 they trade that for a future 1st plus a 2019 2nd rounder during the trade period prior to draft night. Once the Greene academy selection is sorted what would stop them live trading picks to land another 1st rounder this draft?

This was what clubs did anyway, before the AFL introduced live pick trading last year.

GWS were great at it, often trading multiple picks to move up the draft to get a pick in before having to match a bid on their first highly rated academy player.

 

[briztoon]

AFL to make changes to academy draft rules

The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks, in a move that is likely to affect the Giants this year.

www.theage.com.au

"The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks at other clubs, in a move that is likely to have ramifications for Greater Western Sydney this year.

The Swans created a stir last year when they manipulated the league's points bidding system to acquire academy graduate Nick Blakey at No.10 for picks 34, 39 and 40 – a price which was widely accepted as a bargain."


Well that sounds all well and good but just as the AFL close one loophole clever clubs ind the next one.

I can see the AFL closing these live draft night pick swaps as soon as a academy or father son bid is made but I can also see smart clubs simply assessing the risk v rewards and trading picks in the trade period prior to the draft instead.

This would be a tad more risky as the club is guessing if and when a bid will come in the draft. But some calls will be easier to make than others.

Look at GWS and Greene. Looks like he will be a top 5 pick and the Essendon pick GWS hold will be used. Therefore expect GWS to trade that pick for future picks and later picks this year during trade week. If that pick is say pick 9 they trade that for a future 1st plus a 2019 2nd rounder during the trade period prior to draft night. Once the Greene academy selection is sorted what would stop them live trading picks to land another 1st rounder this draft?

Other clubs not wanting to trade out a 2019 first pick for a future pick obviously. You need a willing trade partner.

As I mentioned in my previous post, more likely GWS try and trade their two first round picks, currently 10 & 14, to move up to pick 4 or 5, and bring in an early third or late second round pick.

St Kilda with pick 4, and their next pick not until pick 55, might consider two mid first round picks to be a better outcome than one high pick, especially in a draft where it's viewed as a standout top two, then a gap to the next 10 to 12 players.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Great news. While I love the fact that the Academy system has significantly increased drafting numbers throughout New South Wales and Queensland, I hate the fact it entitles us to an unfair advantage.

The more that can be done to even the access to these kids for all teams, the better.

 

[eastfreo75]

Other clubs not wanting to trade out a 2019 first pick for a future pick obviously. You need a willing trade partner.

As I mentioned in my previous post, more likely GWS try and trade their two first round picks, currently 10 & 14, to move up to pick 4 or 5, and bring in an early third or late second round pick.

St Kilda with pick 4, and their next pick not until pick 55, might consider two mid first round picks to be a better outcome than one high pick, especially in a draft where it's viewed as a standout top two, then a gap to the next 10 to 12 players.

GWS are in very difficult spot with green.

To maximise the bid they must have one pick before Green and enough points(picks) for Green.

Sure, they can trade 10,14 for 5 but won’t have enough points for Green.

Unless, a Giant leaves ie Coniglio they can’t do both unless they trade their 2020 first round pick for 2019 points.

A lot of water under the bridge with other clubs need extra first round picks to trade for players.

 

[philthy05]

I offered the solution ages ago.

Bids have to be matched with bids in the round and following round the player receives the bid.

As an example Blakey was bid on in the first round. He would require the bid to be matched with picks from the first or second round. He was matched with a second rounder and 2 3rds.

 

[briztoon]

GWS are in very difficult spot with green.

To maximise the bid they must have one pick before Green and enough points(picks) for Green.

Sure, they can trade 10,14 for 5 but won’t have enough points for Green.

Unless, a Giant leaves ie Coniglio they can’t do both unless they trade their 2020 first round pick for 2019 points.

A lot of water under the bridge with other clubs need extra first round picks to trade for players.

They’re probably going to lose Patton and Bonar this trade period, so they should be able to find enough second round picks to cover the bid.

 

[Wayne Swan]

Trying to write rules to stop this is like trying to herd cats. Even though we've done it, I'm against clubs being able to game the system when everyone knows they have a highly rated player tied to them.

GWS will have a problem if Essendon go much higher and Green solidifies as a top 5 pick, unless they trade out Coniglio gaining Hawks first as part of the deal which should cover the points required for Green at pick 5. Gives GWS another two first round picks, nice haul albeit with Cogs gone.

 

[fridgeman]

A lot of speculation on here and I dont think the club is too worried about the points required as there is enough top end talent on the list it is about adding depth and finding role players to develop as if those 1st round picks after the first 2 years require 400k to stay at the club that is not sustainable and a risk which I think the club learnt from Ahern and Pickett
I can see the club looking to get some picks in the 2nd and 3rd round to offer flexibility for trades and players it may have an eye on
Ideally I think the club would take Green and then have a couple of targets late 1st round early 2nd and then a couple of rookies, plenty of options with possible trades of Patton and Bonar and then possible free agency compo for Tomlinson so the club should have plenty of points to play around with to try and pick up its targets
Plenty of time till these decisions are made and I am sure we will see a lot of speculation with 99% of the speculation wrong

 

[0utsider]

I offered the solution ages ago.

Bids have to be matched with bids in the round and following round the player receives the bid.

As an example Blakey was bid on in the first round. He would require the bid to be matched with picks from the first or second round. He was matched with a second rounder and 2 3rds.

A lot of clubs would end up missing out on father/sons and the likes due to simply not being able to get a pick in those rounds. Other teams would see how much value a second rounder would have to Sydney, in this example, and be asking for a first rounder for it.

 

[0utsider]

Easy solution to me is to say a team can’t trade in or use a pick that is earlier than the latest pick they have already used in a bid. It’s a simple solution that should have been thought of prior to even introducing live trading.

 

[philthy05]

A lot of clubs would end up missing out on father/sons and the likes due to simply not being able to get a pick in those rounds. Other teams would see how much value a second rounder would have to Sydney, in this example, and be asking for a first rounder for it.

No they wouldn’t.

In your example Sydney always would have had the points with their first bad second to begin with, and after the Carlton trade would have easily had the points with the 3 2nd rounders.

The only way a team wouldn’t be able to match a bid would be if they traded all their relevant picks from that year and the following year out and if they’ve done that knowing they have a f/s or academy pick then they’ve done it for a reason and they miss out because they’ve made a decision to prioritise something else.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

No they wouldn’t.

In your example Sydney always would have had the points with their first bad second to begin with, and after the Carlton trade would have easily had the points with the 3 2nd rounders.

The only way a team wouldn’t be able to match a bid would be if they traded all their relevant picks from that year and the following year out and if they’ve done that knowing they have a f/s or academy pick then they’ve done it for a reason and they miss out because they’ve made a decision to prioritise something else.

Imagine for a moment Blakey gets bid on directly after Sydney's original first round pick. Their second rounder alone isn't sufficient to match, and under your proposal thirds aren't useable. So... are they expected to load up on second rounders just in case that happens? Do they miss out through pure bad luck if they haven't done so?

(The easy way out is the use the existing deficit rules to take points off that round the following year)

 

[philthy05]

Imagine for a moment Blakey gets bid on directly after Sydney's original first round pick. Their second rounder alone isn't sufficient to match, and under your proposal thirds aren't useable. So... are they expected to load up on second rounders just in case that happens? Do they miss out through pure bad luck if they haven't done so?

(The easy way out is the use the existing deficit rules to take points off that round the following year)

The following years picks are accessible in that scenario. As per trade week and already available in current rules.

 

[Thetrader15]

How about they just go back to a normal draft with live trading and get rid of the NGA and FS

 

[Thetrader15]

The rules are already in place to prevent this.

Each trade is supposed to be independent and stand up on it's own.

The second part doesn't stack up for me, pick 22 last year (a strong draft) for a 2nd of a team expected to be top 4 in a weaker draft which will be about 30.

The AFL just shouldn't have signed off on it and enforced their own rules.

 

[Les Malone]

Great news. While I love the fact that the Academy system has significantly increased drafting numbers throughout New South Wales and Queensland, I hate the fact it entitles us to an unfair advantage.

The more that can be done to even the access to these kids for all teams, the better.

I don't think the academy system is unfair to non NSW, QLD cubs, i am assuming many of the northern state draftees would not have made it to the AFL without the academies which in turn allows the Melbourne clubs for ex to draft locals which otherwise would have gone North, its a win win, also quite a few academy players have been drafted by non NSW,QLD clubs and have gone on/are having good careers.

At a guess it evens out, however the first sign that NSW or QLD are going OK the Melbourne clubs who are in a very tight competitive market will squeal - ignore them i say.

 

[rgauci]

Was this ever resolved?

 

[TheTassieHawk]

I'm curious how they intend to do so, given they can't tell it's happening until both legs have occurred.

Perhaps a clause that says if you've matched a bid you're then blocked from trading in another pick between the bid and the first pick used to match? That would cover the pre-draft attempts the article flags too.

That is a simple adjustment that would seem to reduce the likelihood that teams can double dip.

Other possible measures could be a maximum of 2 draft picks to be used to match a bid or the first pick must be worth 70% of the discounted draft points of the pick being bid.

Personally I think the most effective idea would be too overhaul the AFL draft points table to make the earlier picks worth much more relative to the later picks. That way the academy and NGA clubs would have less of an incentive to trade down in the order. If that makes it harder to recruit these players then increase the discount.

 

[Thetrader15]

That is a simple adjustment that would seem to reduce the likelihood that teams can double dip.

Other possible measures could be a maximum of 2 draft picks to be used to match a bid or the first pick must be worth 70% of the discounted draft points of the pick being bid.

Personally I think the most effective idea would be too overhaul the AFL draft points table to make the earlier picks worth much more relative to the later picks. That way the academy and NGA clubs would have less of an incentive to trade down in the order. If that makes it harder to recruit these players then increase the discount.

I think the max 2 picks to make the points is the way...now that teams are looking at this and have already swapped picks, don't rule out the AFL changing the rules a couple of days before draft night

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

The whole live trading is just a gimmick for media attention . Trying to turn it into the circus of the NBA or NFL drafts .

Get rid of it all it does it allow clubs to manipilate the draft .

Father son selections should still get 20% and NGA should only get 10% points reductions . The reward is priority .

Only allow as many picks in the draft as list spots and if you use all your picks and still have list spots you have to take picks after the 5th round has finished .

You would have some serious thinking to do about the picks you intended to use on bids if it meant taking 2 kids in the 90s rather than 4 over the first 60 picks

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Here we go:

“A club may not trade away a selection with another club for a later selection, use that later selection to counter a bid on one of their Academy players and then once that player is secured, trade in a selection with that same club to receive a higher selection in the national draft order,” an AFL spokesperson confirmed to foxfooty.com.au.

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

The Swans found a sneaky draft loophole last year. The AFL just closed it

www.foxsports.com.au

And so, in classic AFL fashion, the loophole has not actually been closed.

1) Sydney didn't use a "later selection" from West Coast to match any bids.

Let's be generous and assume that's just a head office suit not knowing what they're talking about.

2) You now need two clubs to deal with, but given you're overpaying by the nature of the deal there's a very real possibility you'll find two suitors.