In light of young jack lovett training with the club today, thought the following would be of interest

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-to-pay-higher-draft-price-for-father-son-academy-stars/story-fni5f22o-1227198697857

This one makes my head spin 'daisy', there has to be a better way.

...and as for father/son, I think it should be left alone.

  On 28/01/2015 at 04:04, rjay said:

This one makes my head spin 'daisy', there has to be a better way.

...and as for father/son, I think it should be left alone.

yes, the article needs a lot of filling out

a good task for rpfc methinks - lol

  On 28/01/2015 at 04:04, rjay said:

This one makes my head spin 'daisy', there has to be a better way.

...and as for father/son, I think it should be left alone.

Too hard for me rjay I gave up

Mind bogglingly complicated.

Sounds like the MRP points system.

Maybe (to paranoid me) just another way the AFL have dreamed up to screw us.

the fact that the bidding takes place as part of ND with dynamic calculations and multiple pick shifts occurring real-time would make draft planning a nightmare if not impossible

if done this year would be toughest on carlscum (3 fs's) essenscum (2fs's) and the northern academy clubs

It's complicated but what I think they are trying to fix is that under the current model, pick 1 and pick 18 have the same value. Ditto pick 2 and pick 19. Consequently, if you finish higher up the ladder, a father-son pick is nominally "cheaper".

For example, if Melbourne and Hawthorn both had sons of fathers that they wished to secure in the 2014 draft, the bidding system would say that if any other team chose to bid their second round pick, Melbourne and Hawthorn would have to use their round 1 pick to secure that player. In 2014 that would have cost Melbourne pick 2 but Hawthorn pick 18. I think the scheme is an attempt to close that gap. If I'm right, it's a benefit to a lower placed team, not a disadvantage.

This was mooted a few months back and I have no idea how Gillon can just say the following without thinking about how it would affect people's thinking:

  Quote

“so mathematically based it blows your head off”.

Landsberger throws in the 'Moneyball-like' reference because he is an idiot - again, MB is simply a recruiting strategy based on statistical analysis of existing players form.

This is something altoghether different and revolutionary for how we have F/S and Academy players enter the league.

This won't affect a situation like Stretch coming to us, it will however make Sydney pay more for Heeney as the article plays out.

Giving each pick an intrinsic value is not ideal in our Teenage Lottery Draft but if teams have to surrender more picks for more talent then so be it.

And, if it leads to trading future picks, and allowing trading on draft day then great - that will help the league too.

And it is not designed to screw anyone except the teams in the top 4-6 teams that are getting talent without paying the proper price tag.

could you explain (better that is) the Stretch and Heeney examples in the article?

a lot seemed to have been poorly described or not at all and i got lost

  On 28/01/2015 at 05:07, rpfc said:

And it is not designed to screw anyone except the teams in the top 4-6 teams that are getting talent without paying the proper price tag.

Looks like we are screwed this year 'rp'.

Excellent system. The afl.com.au article describes it better. And also gives this detailed example: http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf
The Stretch example is well explained here. Basically we paid very slight unders (after the 15% discount).

I had a read of the BigFooty thread and there seemed to be a lot of criticism of the points scale.

On the contrary if you analyse every trade of picks for picks over the last few years the proposed points scale seems to be pretty spot on.
I would go as far as to suggest AFL club List management departments use this exact scale.

And to those Sydney fans who would cry because they would have to give up picks 18, 37 and 38 for Heeney, (and maybe a similar price for Mills next year), consider this:
If Melbourne were offered a trade of picks #18, #37, #38 in exchange for #2, would we take it? I seriously doubt it.
Therefore the price for Heeney under the new system is fair (in fact still quite discounted).

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:00, Mega_Watts said:

Excellent system. The afl.com.au article describes it better. And also gives this detailed example: http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/biddingsystemfeedback.pdf

The Stretch example is well explained here. Basically we paid very slight unders (after the 15% discount).

I had a read of the BigFooty thread and there seemed to be a lot of criticism of the points scale.

On the contrary if you analyse every trade of picks for picks over the last few years the proposed points scale seems to be pretty spot on.

I would go as far as to suggest AFL club List management departments use this exact scale.

And to those Sydney fans who would cry because they would have to give up picks 18, 37 and 38 for Heeney, (and maybe a similar price for Mills next year), consider this:

If Melbourne were offered a trade of picks #18, #37, #38 in exchange for #2, would we take it? I seriously doubt it.

Therefore the price for Heeney under the new system is fair (in fact still quite discounted).

I thought excactly the same MW. I was intially skeptical on how it would play out but they have done really well with this.

And it also leads us into the possibility of trading future picks (which I think is just around the corner).

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:20, Is Dom Is Good said:

I thought excactly the same MW. I was intially skeptical on how it would play out but they have done really well with this.

And it also leads us into the possibility of trading future picks (which I think is just around the corner).

...and is this a good thing?

Maybe you could outline the pluses and minuses...

where do compo (any type) and trade picks fit into the calculations?

are they part of it or excluded (as now)?

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:33, rjay said:

...and is this a good thing?

Maybe you could outline the pluses and minuses...

Off topic, but I think this is a great idea. Simply because it increases the liquidity in the trading market.

Historically a lot of trades are hindered/delayed/aborted as the club "buying" does not have enough assets (or the right value of assets) to complete the deal.

Consider the Dayne Beams trade.

Collingwood considered that he was worth better than pick 1, or two first round picks. (Let's say 4000 points based on the AFL scale).

This is probably fair, noting that an unmotivated seller will charge overs.

At the time the Lions had the following picks (or something similar depending on free agency compos):

5 - 1878

24 - 785

42 - 395

60 - 146

78 - 0

Total points - 3204, which is not enough. And Brisbane probably don't want to trade all their picks in the draft!

If Brisbane can trade their 2015 pick (assuming it is also pick 5) then they have 2*1878 = 3756 points to offer straight up.

A much better spot to start negotiations. The deal would probably go through straight away.

(This ignores the fact that you would probably discount the value of future picks somewhat. Maybe by 10%?).

The combination of picks that Coll and BL could trade (assuming they can each trade 2014 and 2015 picks) should lead to a fair outcome for the Beams trade.

And a much more speedy resolution to this trade. (Allowing other lesser trades to be completed that might otherwise be held up).

Edit: The main "minus" is that some clubs might mortgage their future, by selling off all their future draft picks.

The AFL would probably create a rule to protect clubs from themselves.

e.g. you can only trade picks one year in advance. Or you must use a first round pick at least once every two years.

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:50, Mega_Watts said:

Off topic, but I think this is a great idea. Simply because it increases the liquidity in the trading market.

Historically a lot of trades are hindered/delayed/aborted as the club "buying" does not have enough assets (or the right value of assets) to complete the deal.

Consider the Dayne Beams trade.

Collingwood considered that he was worth better than pick 1, or two first round picks. (Let's say 4000 points based on the AFL scale).

This is probably fair, noting that an unmotivated seller will charge overs.

At the time the Lions had the following picks (or something similar depending on free agency compos):

5 - 1878

24 - 785

42 - 395

60 - 146

78 - 0

Total points - 3204, which is not enough. And Brisbane probably don't want to trade all their picks in the draft!

If Brisbane can trade their 2015 pick (assuming it is also pick 5) then they have 2*1878 = 3756 points to offer straight up.

A much better spot to start negotiations. The deal would probably go through straight away.

(This ignores the fact that you would probably discount the value of future picks somewhat. Maybe by 10%?).

The combination of picks that Coll and BL could trade (assuming they can each trade 2014 and 2015 picks) should lead to a fair outcome for the Beams trade.

And a much more speedy resolution to this trade. (Allowing other lesser trades to be completed that might otherwise be held up).

Edit: The main "minus" is that some clubs might mortgage their future, by selling off all their future draft picks.

The AFL would probably create a rule to protect clubs from themselves.

e.g. you can only trade picks one year in advance. Or you must use a first round pick at least once every two years.

The trade still got done with the current system and most do these days. I would need to be convinced that this is a good idea.

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:50, Mega_Watts said:

Off topic, but I think this is a great idea. Simply because it increases the liquidity in the trading market.

Historically a lot of trades are hindered/delayed/aborted as the club "buying" does not have enough assets (or the right value of assets) to complete the deal.

Consider the Dayne Beams trade.

Collingwood considered that he was worth better than pick 1, or two first round picks. (Let's say 4000 points based on the AFL scale).

This is probably fair, noting that an unmotivated seller will charge overs.

At the time the Lions had the following picks (or something similar depending on free agency compos):

5 - 1878

24 - 785

42 - 395

60 - 146

78 - 0

Total points - 3204, which is not enough. And Brisbane probably don't want to trade all their picks in the draft!

If Brisbane can trade their 2015 pick (assuming it is also pick 5) then they have 2*1878 = 3756 points to offer straight up.

A much better spot to start negotiations. The deal would probably go through straight away.

(This ignores the fact that you would probably discount the value of future picks somewhat. Maybe by 10%?).

The combination of picks that Coll and BL could trade (assuming they can each trade 2014 and 2015 picks) should lead to a fair outcome for the Beams trade.

And a much more speedy resolution to this trade. (Allowing other lesser trades to be completed that might otherwise be held up).

Edit: The main "minus" is that some clubs might mortgage their future, by selling off all their future draft picks.

The AFL would probably create a rule to protect clubs from themselves.

e.g. you can only trade picks one year in advance. Or you must use a first round pick at least once every two years.

Imagine the damage BP could have inflicted with this option of trading future picks for current duds! The AFL equivalent of The Doomsday Machine in Dr Strangelove.

  On 28/01/2015 at 05:07, rpfc said:

And it is not designed to screw anyone except the teams in the top 4-6 teams that are getting talent without paying the proper price tag.

Agree but we have FA To ensure that for the top teams.

Apparently Collingwood are pushing for Father/s/son rules to be changed.

This will help them draft guys who they know are Collingwood sons but they just can't remember exactly which one is the Father.

The maths is somewhat complicated. The idea is very simple.

Pay additional or move back in the draft in order to get to a reasonable level of compensation for the value of a draftee.

Having it as part of the draft is also a very important step forward.

As for the actual maths and the exchanging of draft picks - something similar already is inbuilt in more trades. Most can get their heads around it after the deals go through.

The academies will become pipelines. They have to be restricted to stop top 3 draft picks going for pick 18 or even top 20 picks going for pick 40. That is a farce that undermines the equalisation aspect of the draft.

Father son is less of an issue as it's a bit of what goes around comes around for most teams and should level out more now West Coast and Adelaide are up level and probably not too long until Freo and Port will be.

But Joe Daniher was a freak talent. If not number 1 then top 2. Essendon got him for pick 10. Bottom 4 teams lost access to an elite talent. The Viney situation was wrapped up in multiple deals, but the principle is the same.

  On 28/01/2015 at 10:28, Biffen said:

Apparently Collingwood are pushing for Father/s/son rules to be changed.

This will help them draft guys who they know are Collingwood sons but they just can't remember exactly which one is the Father.

Haha or the mother.

... leave the Father/Son bidding the same as is, but make it that Father/Sons are drafted in the 5th round for all. stop this bidding bullsh.

As for the academies squads, give every club a Zone they get their academy recruits from from within the clubs home state & development area.

And Allow each club to select their first preference from within their own academy squad, as a pre-draft selection. all other academy players if old enough must be enrolled into the national draft.

Each club would then get their first choice from their stock of academy players pre-draft, not using a NDPick, but using a senior list spot for this player.

  On 28/01/2015 at 06:33, rjay said:

...and is this a good thing?

Maybe you could outline the pluses and minuses...

As MW mentioned the biggest positive is more bargaining power when trading. It will also give clubs more flexibility with their list management, say for example in our previous few years we needed more mature age players to fill our list, but also needed to keep getting young talent also. We could've traded one of our future picks for a mature age player, that way we can still use all our picks that year but also get a mature age player.

An example of a negative would be if a club predicted the other to finish 2nd last the next year and they ended up finishing 10th or something like that. That would mean they would get a worse pick than predicted. But that is just part of it and as always you win some and lose some.

Obviously there would need to be rules in place such as:

- Can only trade one or two seasons ahead

- Can only trade 1 or 2 future picks at any one time

I think trading future picks would be a good initiative.