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.

I just can't see a positive in it at all and why it would be a good initiative.

It seems like it would make the draft even more of a lottery than it already is.

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 is wrong and it is why I like the current system that exists. In the current system it basically goes through every teams draft pick, if Melbourne had pick 2 the only way we would use this draft pick on the father/son is if the team with pick 1 bid on him. Whilst this means that teams like Sydney were able to reap the benefits as they were able to get a top 5 pick for pick 18, we also have recieved the benefits by being able to get Jack Viney with a pick in the 30s.

Had collingwood been able to finish in the top 8 this year or even the top 4 they would not have been complaining as it would have made Darcy Moore much more of a steal. The main argument against the current system is that these "academy players" should be available to all, but I think let the system be despit Isaac Heeney and Callum Mills being incredibly highly ranked players it helps promote the game in these areas and converts rugby league/union players into footballers. Let it be, the AFL have been fiddling with too much of late.

This is wrong and it is why I like the current system that exists. In the current system it basically goes through every teams draft pick, if Melbourne had pick 2 the only way we would use this draft pick on the father/son is if the team with pick 1 bid on him. Whilst this means that teams like Sydney were able to reap the benefits as they were able to get a top 5 pick for pick 18, we also have recieved the benefits by being able to get Jack Viney with a pick in the 30s.

Had collingwood been able to finish in the top 8 this year or even the top 4 they would not have been complaining as it would have made Darcy Moore much more of a steal. The main argument against the current system is that these "academy players" should be available to all, but I think let the system be despit Isaac Heeney and Callum Mills being incredibly highly ranked players it helps promote the game in these areas and converts rugby league/union players into footballers. Let it be, the AFL have been fiddling with too much of late.

I agree because of this as well. If not for the academies, players like this would be playing different sports.

I think it's better for the game as a whole if the academies stay. The reason this is an issue right now is because Heeney is apparently such a big talent and Sydney paid so little.

I agree because of this as well. If not for the academies, players like this would be playing different sports.

I think it's better for the game as a whole if the academies stay. The reason this is an issue right now is because Heeney is apparently such a big talent and Sydney paid so little.

Add to that Sydney are a top team at the moment and Eddie is whinging about it.

The commission was put in place to make decisions in the best interests of the game. The academy's are in the best interests of the game not necessarily us or other Melbourne clubs.

There are other issues like equalisation that are much more important to address.

I just can't see a positive in it at all and why it would be a good initiative.

It seems like it would make the draft even more of a lottery than it already is.

It works really well in the NBA. It helps to get trades done so essentially it makes the system more fair as at the moment clubs are getting shafted on trades pretty often.

This is wrong and it is why I like the current system that exists. In the current system it basically goes through every teams draft pick, if Melbourne had pick 2 the only way we would use this draft pick on the father/son is if the team with pick 1 bid on him. Whilst this means that teams like Sydney were able to reap the benefits as they were able to get a top 5 pick for pick 18, we also have recieved the benefits by being able to get Jack Viney with a pick in the 30s.

Had collingwood been able to finish in the top 8 this year or even the top 4 they would not have been complaining as it would have made Darcy Moore much more of a steal. The main argument against the current system is that these "academy players" should be available to all, but I think let the system be despit Isaac Heeney and Callum Mills being incredibly highly ranked players it helps promote the game in these areas and converts rugby league/union players into footballers. Let it be, the AFL have been fiddling with too much of late.

I don't really know what your issue is; all teams will be in the same boat.

The advantages the academies have given the interstate teams is unfair and it being tied to the F/S is unfortunate but Sydney should have given up more for Heeney and we should have given up more for Viney.

I don't think making the prices fairer for talent is anything but a good thing.

I just can't see a positive in it at all and why it would be a good initiative.

It seems like it would make the draft even more of a lottery than it already is.

How would trading future picks make the draft 'more of a lottery'?

It just means that deals are easier to get done if you have a future draft picks to offer - perhaps the rumoured Dangerfield would have been done if we could offer a future pick.

A coach like Roos would make excellent use of having more assets at his disposal during trade week.

The changes seem a good one to me. The Academies are a rort.

Edit: spelling

Edited January 29, 201510 yr by Fat Tony

How would trading future picks make the draft 'more of a lottery'?

It just means that deals are easier to get done if you have a future draft picks to offer - perhaps the rumoured Dangerfield would have been done if we could offer a future pick.

A coach like Roos would make excellent use of having more assets at his disposal during trade week.

Trading futures (any type of future) is by it's nature is a lottery 'rpfc'.

On this issue and it's seemingly natural extension to trading picks I don't want this done piecemeal without us looking at all issues to do with equalisation. If it's a part of wide ranging changes to the draft, free agency and equalisation as a whole I would be much more accepting.

Trading futures (any type of future) is by it's nature is a lottery 'rpfc'.

On this issue and it's seemingly natural extension to trading picks I don't want this done piecemeal without us looking at all issues to do with equalisation. If it's a part of wide ranging changes to the draft, free agency and equalisation as a whole I would be much more accepting.

Fair enough.

But piecemeal reform is one way to legislate - some people have issues with doing it one way and other people have issues with doing it the other way.

I would remind anyone that reforms of the reforms are always necessary. ie. You never know all the unintended consequences and you will have to continue to refine whatever legislation you bring in.

Sometimes when you want everything done at once, you get nothing done at all.

Fair enough.

But piecemeal reform is one way to legislate - some people have issues with doing it one way and other people have issues with doing it the other way.

I would remind anyone that reforms of the reforms are always necessary. ie. You never know all the unintended consequences and you will have to continue to refine whatever legislation you bring in.

Sometimes when you want everything done at once, you get nothing done at all.

yes, minister

I don't really know what your issue is; all teams will be in the same boat.

The advantages the academies have given the interstate teams is unfair and it being tied to the F/S is unfortunate but Sydney should have given up more for Heeney and we should have given up more for Viney.

I don't think making the prices fairer for talent is anything but a good thing.

i think what you're reffering to is when i said it was wrong, and that was just the quotes explanation of the current system.

I dont really see how it is much of an advantage, whilst having players trained in the acadamies can be an advantage, the players in victoria being exposed to tac cup, the players in having SANFL and WAFL are probably more of an advantage than these acadamies. The reason these acadamies exist is because those regions are significantly behind the main three AFL areas and thus gives the kids in these areas an opportunity to develop at a similar rate.

Why it is an issue is because Isaac Heeney could well have been a top 5 pick, but for the most part top 10 picks have not come out of these acadamies, so if they are able to get one or two every 10 years then good on them.

i think what you're reffering to is when i said it was wrong, and that was just the quotes explanation of the current system.

I dont really see how it is much of an advantage, whilst having players trained in the acadamies can be an advantage, the players in victoria being exposed to tac cup, the players in having SANFL and WAFL are probably more of an advantage than these acadamies. The reason these acadamies exist is because those regions are significantly behind the main three AFL areas and thus gives the kids in these areas an opportunity to develop at a similar rate.

Why it is an issue is because Isaac Heeney could well have been a top 5 pick, but for the most part top 10 picks have not come out of these acadamies, so if they are able to get one or two every 10 years then good on them.

The problem is they have another one on the way this season. And it isn't just top picks - the Lions and Swans are taking a multitude of players up and down the draft that they have first dibs on - and while it is excellent that these kids are kept in the game - making these teams pay a more market price is not going to stop this development - it is just going to make the teams pay a fairer price.

Edited January 29, 201510 yr by rpfc

The problem is they have another one on the way this season. And it isn't just top picks - the Lions and Swans are taking a multitude of players up and down the draft that they have first dibs on - and while it is excellent that these kids are kept in the game - making these teams pay a more market price is not going to stop this development - it is just going to make the teams pay a fairer price.

...but won't they be paying over market price. I'm not just talking draft picks here but also the cost of running an academy which the clubs in football states don't have to pay for.

The only true way for it to be fair is if the AFL run the academies and everyone goes into the draft.

...but won't they be paying over market price. I'm not just talking draft picks here but also the cost of running an academy which the clubs in football states don't have to pay for.

The only true way for it to be fair is if the AFL run the academies and everyone goes into the draft.

Well, not to be cute, but where do you think the clubs get the money to pay for those academies?

The problem is they have another one on the way this season. And it isn't just top picks - the Lions and Swans are taking a multitude of players up and down the draft that they have first dibs on - and while it is excellent that these kids are kept in the game - making these teams pay a more market price is not going to stop this development - it is just going to make the teams pay a fairer price.

I reckon apart from the first round picks (top 5) they play around Market price anyway. It's just they are lucky that Heeney and Mills have developed well. If they were not in the top 2 and finished where melbourne did then they would have paid a fair price for Heeney.

They have not had 2-3 players in a draft from their academy in which they would have been getting a steal, example the Bulldogs with father sons.

I just don't see the big advantage they have really and over complicating a system is bound to bring poor results.

Well, not to be cute, but where do you think the clubs get the money to pay for those academies?

Then maybe the AFL should take over the academies and there would be no problem.

With my non supporters good of the game hat on though, I think the non football states need to have incentive to help grow the game. This doesn't mean more cash to take star players from other clubs but money to grow their own players and give the supporters some real ownership.

I reckon apart from the first round picks (top 5) they play around Market price anyway. It's just they are lucky that Heeney and Mills have developed well. If they were not in the top 2 and finished where melbourne did then they would have paid a fair price for Heeney.

They have not had 2-3 players in a draft from their academy in which they would have been getting a steal, example the Bulldogs with father sons.

I just don't see the big advantage they have really and over complicating a system is bound to bring poor results.

Well, if the teams are paying 'around market price anyway' then the picks they give over won't change much at all and this new system will not bring poor results.

Then maybe the AFL should take over the academies and there would be no problem.

With my non supporters good of the game hat on though, I think the non football states need to have incentive to help grow the game. This doesn't mean more cash to take star players from other clubs but money to grow their own players and give the supporters some real ownership.

This won't stop those teams from getting those players though - it just means that when they get a great gift - they have to pay appropriately for it. Handing over another second round and third pick for a top 2 talent is not much of a bad deal anyway...

If we wouldn't entertain trading ND2 for ND8 and ND9 in 2009 then getting ND2 (Heeney) for ND18, ND36, and ND37 is a pretty good deal for the Swans...

What annoys me is the discount being touted. Highlights the AFL's priorities that the 4 teams with academies are being touted as getting a 25% discount, but the father son selections are mentioned as being between 15-25%.

There is no real reason these should be different (if anything skew them the other way IMO) except for the AFL's philosophy that all animals are created equal, just that some are more equal than others...

...but won't they be paying over market price. I'm not just talking draft picks here but also the cost of running an academy which the clubs in football states don't have to pay for.

The only true way for it to be fair is if the AFL run the academies and everyone goes into the draft.

Great idea, and as some have already alluded to leave the father/son alone. It all evens itself out.

Then maybe the AFL should take over the academies and there would be no problem.

With my non supporters good of the game hat on though, I think the non football states need to have incentive to help grow the game. This doesn't mean more cash to take star players from other clubs but money to grow their own players and give the supporters some real ownership.

If the AFL take over the academies then it creates 2 problems:

1. You lose local control and likely efficiency as well as incentive for the employees involved

2. The kids don't have a direct path to staying in their home state which the rugby clubs and other sports can provide

The incentive will still be there even if they have to pay the appropriate price for the likes of Heeney and Mills.

If the incentive was to get cheap highly rated draft picks then the whole thing was a rort.

The incentives for the academies were:

- Increase the percentage of home grown players, which can be achieved by taking a mix of early, middle, late round and rookie players - 2 or 3 local players per year will eventually end up with Sydney having > 50% home grown and on a level playing field with most other clubs

- Increase the NSW/QLD players drafted in general (for which the AFL kicks in 250k per year to the clubs)

There are a number of other benefits of the academies

- Get kids and families involved in AFL and likely supporters and members of the clubs involved (incredibly good value advertising)

- Increase the number and standard of junior participation as well as coaching, which creates a positive reinforcement cycle of kids playing AFL

- Likewise increase the senior participation rates and standard of the NEAFL

The Swans have chosen to hire Paul Roos and now Michael O'Loughlin as academy coach. They are big names with big price tags. The other clubs aren't spending nearly as much. The AFL might have to bump up the 250k contribution to 500k, but there's no way they should pay the full inflated cost of Sydney's million dollar academy regardless of whether the swans are getting first call on top rated kids or not.

Great idea, and as some have already alluded to leave the father/son alone. It all evens itself out.

Does it?

Geelong: Scarlett, Ablett, N Ablett, Hawkins, Blake

Adelaide: no one

West Coast prior to this year: no one

Maybe over time it evens out. But Geelong not only did so well with Scarlett and Ablett but the had the 2006 draft where they got Selwood in the first round and Hawkins in the third. The current system would see them take Hawkins with their first pick most likely (pick 7). The proposed system would likely see Hawkins taken at the exact same pick with a 25% discount, possibly involving a downgrade of another pick. Either way without both Hawkins and Selwood it's unlikely Geelong would win the 2011 flag and they would also be further south on the ladder than they are now.

What did we pay for Viney and Stretch?

What if Selwood was already picked?

Eagles have some father sons on the way and there's no guarantees all father sons will be gun players.

Firstly the points for picks system has most likely been used by recruiters for years. It's a well known concept for sports such as the NFL - http://www.mynfldraft.com/points.php

I like it - it allows supporters to gain an understanding of how clubs value trades.

In regards to trading future picks, could someone give me an idea if a range is applied to it in other codes? Say we trade for someone's first pick next year, what happens if they go significantly better or worse than anticipated? Would it be a trade for a pick between 10-15 for example? Or would it be set at first round, like it or leave it?

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.

It screws everyone equally, not just the teams that finish top of the ladder.

Jack Viney situation for example:

We have pick 4 and take Jimmy Toumpas. Pick 5 is bid for Jack Viney, we're then left with the choice of passing on him or scrounging together the equivalent of 3 top 30 picks.

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

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

They would be part of it, this bidding would be live on draft night after all other trades have been completed. In an open draft (such as this years) it's a good thing. If a player your team may rate head and shoulders above a f/s slides through to a locked in pick you can't take them now. Under this system you could take that player and the f/s.

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.

It did, but it went through quite late and potentially held up quite a lot of trades. Every year we have 4 days of waiting for the "biggest" trade to go through and then there's a flurry of activity as everyone knows how things sit.

Allowing this would see the Beams trade go through day 1, there's no frenzy to get all the remaining trades in and most likely there will be more trades as those lesser trades would spawn their own subsequent trades.

... 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.

Father son bidding used to be a 3rd round pick. Geelong ruined that when they got Hawkins for a pick in the 40's when he was rated as a top 3 (and quite probably #1).

I like the every team gets an academy idea, but it doesn't work in Victoria with 10 teams.

This is wrong and it is why I like the current system that exists. In the current system it basically goes through every teams draft pick, if Melbourne had pick 2 the only way we would use this draft pick on the father/son is if the team with pick 1 bid on him. Whilst this means that teams like Sydney were able to reap the benefits as they were able to get a top 5 pick for pick 18, we also have recieved the benefits by being able to get Jack Viney with a pick in the 30s.

Had collingwood been able to finish in the top 8 this year or even the top 4 they would not have been complaining as it would have made Darcy Moore much more of a steal. The main argument against the current system is that these "academy players" should be available to all, but I think let the system be despit Isaac Heeney and Callum Mills being incredibly highly ranked players it helps promote the game in these areas and converts rugby league/union players into footballers. Let it be, the AFL have been fiddling with too much of late.

FWIW, Jack Viney was pick 26, not 'in the 30's'. FWIW port bid pick 7 on him.

I dont really see how it is much of an advantage, whilst having players trained in the acadamies can be an advantage, the players in victoria being exposed to tac cup, the players in having SANFL and WAFL are probably more of an advantage than these acadamies. The reason these acadamies exist is because those regions are significantly behind the main three AFL areas and thus gives the kids in these areas an opportunity to develop at a similar rate.

Why it is an issue is because Isaac Heeney could well have been a top 5 pick, but for the most part top 10 picks have not come out of these acadamies, so if they are able to get one or two every 10 years then good on them.

It's an advantage because they have priority over the player. Not sure how you can't see that as an advantage?

Yes the most talented kids in the state now have the opportunity to receive coaching equivalent (if not significantly better.) to TAC sides.

Without intimate knowledge of the academies I'd argue that all they do is cherry pick the top athletes/ talents and that their effect at growing the game at a grass roots level is minimal.

What did we pay for Viney and Stretch?
What if Selwood was already picked?
Eagles have some father sons on the way and there's no guarantees all father sons will be gun players.

We paid pick 26 for Viney (port bid pick 7) and we paid 42 for Stretch (adelaide bid pick 29).

Without applying discounts, under the proposed points system we ended up 915 point ahead with Viney (equivalent to pick 20) and 258 points ahead for stretch (equivalent to pick 51).