On 23/10/2015 at 03:45, poita said:

Are we able to bid on more than one academy player? For example, we put a bid in for Mills with pick 3. Sydney match our bid. Can we then go again with Hopper, and Kennedy potentially, before we finally take Parish?

Yes.

Though i don't think we will bid on any GWS academy kids, as part of our deal to trade up in the draft (Gentleman's agreement type thing).

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:40, rpfc said:

Actually, this is wrong, the discount is 20%, not 25% which is the assumption above. It was changed to 20% mid year. I will give it another go when I have time.

rpfc, do you remember if the fs discount ended up the same as academy discount or is it different (as originally suggested)?

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:45, poita said:

Are we able to bid on more than one academy player? For example, we put a bid in for Mills with pick 3. Sydney match our bid. Can we then go again with Hopper, and Kennedy potentially, before we finally take Parish?

I would hate for some of these guys to slip through to 7 or 8 before someone puts a bid in, and Sydney get more freebies.

It seems as though Carlton and Brisbane are both set on their picks, so we might be the first club that can stir up some trouble for other clubs.

Yes we can and hopefully we do.

With Sydney trading with Essendon and us trading with GWS their might be an understanding not to bid between those teams.

But we traded pick 7 for 10 with GWS. I don't see use owing GWS anything when it comes to pick 3.

So I hope we bid for all 3, one after another.

Of course we'd have to rate the kids, and hope they are keen to move to Melbourne (the GWS boys being from the Riverina I'd suggest they'd have no issues) and deal with the blow back if we bid on all 3 and didn't get them. I'd worry about the psychology it puts on the kid who we eventually take if he knows he's our 4th choice. But at the same time we can deal with that.

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:49, daisycutter said:

rpfc, do you remember if the fs discount ended up the same as academy discount or is it different (as originally suggested)?

They are both set at 20%.

  On 22/10/2015 at 08:55, rpfc said:

Ok, so I am unsure of the ins and outs and I have tweeted Patrick Keane about whether or not Sydney's matching of Mills by using 33, 36, and 37 as an example, will turn the Lions 38 into 35 with the equivalent points.

Patrick Keane confirmed the fluid nature of the picks on the night - so once Mills is taken - Brisbane's, and GWS's picks become more valuable. They go 'up' the draft as picks are burnt through.

Essentially it becomes easier and easier for teams to get their talented academy kids the more there are.

  On 23/10/2015 at 04:32, rpfc said:

Patrick Keane confirmed the fluid nature of the picks on the night - so once Mills is taken - Brisbane's, and GWS's picks become more valuable. They go 'up' the draft as picks are burnt through.

Essentially it becomes easier and easier for teams to get their talented academy kids the more there are.

There has to be a flaw in that.

For example GWS want academy player X and Sydney want academy player Y.

It comes to pick three and melbourne think player X is worth pick 3 and name him. GWS burn through their picks, Sydneys picks become worth more. Then melbourne calls player Y and Sydney pays less than it would have both on matching pick 4 not pick 3, even though wed take either at pick 3, plus it's later picks might be worth 3 places more worth of points potentially meaning less draft debt.

Surely the points value of the picks for that draft can't change during the event?

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:44, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Sydney were meant to pay more than the pick 18 they used last year for Heeney to get Mills this year. That's the point of it.

Yet with pick 14 plus Craig Bird, Sydney traded for extra points in a deal that still went against them to get 25 and 44 or whatever it was.

Now as Sydney can match up to pick 5 just by using those points. So if for some reason we don't bid on Mills with pick 3 it's very likely that Sydney will get Mills for picks 14 and Craig Bird.

That's a bit ridiculous and not how the system was designed to work. To get an elite junior they were meant to give up a lot more than pick 14 and a steak knives player. It was meant to cost them their entire draft if they didn't have a high pick.

I think if you want a player in the first round then you should at least have to keep a first round pick to form part of your bid. You can manipulate the points after that but at least give up the value as it stands of the first round pick without double dipping by moving it back in the draft for extra points.

That's why I was confused when the FS/academy bidding didn't happen before trade period as it had previously. The reason the bidding happens before is to stop teams trading out picks they would otherwise have to use on those players. Now the points system mitigates against that somewhat but not entirely as the Swans example shows.

  On 23/10/2015 at 04:44, deanox said:

There has to be a flaw in that.

For example GWS want academy player X and Sydney want academy player Y.

It comes to pick three and melbourne think player X is worth pick 3 and name him. GWS burn through their picks, Sydneys picks become worth more. Then melbourne calls player Y and Sydney pays less than it would have both on matching pick 4 not pick 3, even though wed take either at pick 3, plus it's later picks might be worth 3 places more worth of points potentially meaning less draft debt.

Surely the points value of the picks for that draft can't change during the event?

The first point isnt a problem, we have to make a choice between players at 3 and then the next bid is at pick 4. This is logical.

Thec2nd point is a not an issue either, its analogous to how our picks 46 + 50 will move forward in value.

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:59, Georgiou R.R. Martin said:

Yes we can and hopefully we do.

With Sydney trading with Essendon and us trading with GWS their might be an understanding not to bid between those teams.

But we traded pick 7 for 10 with GWS. I don't see use owing GWS anything when it comes to pick 3.

So I hope we bid for all 3, one after another.

Of course we'd have to rate the kids, and hope they are keen to move to Melbourne (the GWS boys being from the Riverina I'd suggest they'd have no issues) and deal with the blow back if we bid on all 3 and didn't get them. I'd worry about the psychology it puts on the kid who we eventually take if he knows he's our 4th choice. But at the same time we can deal with that.

doubt it. we will only get 2 chances in reality

  On 23/10/2015 at 04:56, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's why I was confused when the FS/academy bidding didn't happen before trade period as it had previously. The reason the bidding happens before is to stop teams trading out picks they would otherwise have to use on those players. Now the points system mitigates against that somewhat but not entirely as the Swans example shows.

If it isn't mitigated, it is only because lower picks are weighted too high (i.e. worth more points than they should be, relative to top picks).

In reality, if you trade out your first pick and have a high rated academy player, you'll lose all the rest of your picks in the top 73 this year and then down grade next year's first round pick.

I will have a look in a sec, but I will also try to get some clarity around what 'the end of the draft' means.

Pick 74 (0 points) or Rd 8 the first round that isn't listed in the 'indicative draft order'...

If Syd burns through 4 picks for Mills do they get picks 74-77 or 131-135?

  On 23/10/2015 at 03:15, rpfc said:

A team that 'bids' on a Northern State Academy player, or a Father/Son player, will make the team that wants to keep that player pay a certain price through draft picks rather than just be allowed to use their next available pick.

All the picks in the draft up to 72 have points attached to them to determine how many picks they must 'give up' to take that player.

For example, if Sydney had a player that was worth Pick 1 - Carlton would bid on him with Pick 1. Sydney would then have to surrender all the picks they have to meet the equivalent amount of points as Pick 1.

How's that?

Not bad. Think I'm getting there.

Thanks

Still sounds needlessly complicated but it is the Afl

  On 23/10/2015 at 07:48, DubDee said:

Not bad. Think I'm getting there.

Thanks

Still sounds needlessly complicated but it is the Afl

Last year Sydney got the best midfielder in the draft for Pick 18, we had to pay Pick 2 and Pick 3 for similar talents.

This year Sydney will do it again, but this time they will pay with 33, 36, 37, and 44 and while one might say that that is not making them pay enough - it has forced them out of the draft till Pick 54.

Ok, so with the 'live' moving up of picks - this is going to be a draft that will just confuse the [censored] out of you...

If Mills is nominated at 3, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 11, Hipwood at 15 and Keays at 18 (please let me know if they are off in your opinion).

Sydney will pay 33, 36, 37, 44 for Mills and 63.

GWS will pay 10 and 34 for Hopper and 43.

GWS will pay 40, 43, and 50 for Kennedy and 73.

BL will pay 35 and 36 for Hipwood and 62.

BL will pay 36 and 37 for Keays and 56.

No, the above is not a typo, because the picks disappear and pick below move 'up' the draft - the Lions will most likely pay with the same picks for their Academy players...

You are forgiven if I have lost you here but if this occurs or something similar - we will have the 35th and 39th 'live' picks in the draft.

  On 23/10/2015 at 08:30, rpfc said:

Ok, so with the 'live' moving up of picks - this is going to be a draft that will just confuse the [censored] out of you...

If Mills is nominated at 3, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 11, Hipwood at 15 and Keays at 18 (please let me know if they are off in your opinion).

Sydney will pay 33, 36, 37, 44 for Mills and 63.

GWS will pay 10 and 34 for Hopper and 43.

GWS will pay 40, 43, and 50 for Kennedy and 73.

BL will pay 35 and 36 for Hipwood and 62.

BL will pay 36 and 37 for Keays and 56.

No, the above is not a typo, because the picks disappear and pick below move 'up' the draft - the Lions will most likely pay with the same picks for their Academy players...

You are forgiven if I have lost you here but if this occurs or something similar - we will have the 35th and 39th 'live' picks in the draft.

so, one late 2nd rounder and 1 early 3rd rounder

  On 23/10/2015 at 08:39, daisycutter said:

so, one late 2nd rounder and 1 early 3rd rounder

Yes, and what is funny is that the pick (29) we gave up to GC is the 28th live pick because most of the 'burnt' picks will be after that pick and before 46 and 50.

I have to say - I don't know whether who thought about this or whether we even did - but excellent work by the FD.

  On 23/10/2015 at 08:45, rpfc said:

Yes, and what is funny is that the pick (29) we gave up to GC is the 28th live pick because most of the 'burnt' picks will be after that pick and before 46 and 50.

I have to say - I don't know whether who thought about this or whether we even did - but excellent work by the FD.

good point

though according to some, being a shallow draft, it is a complete chook raffle after p25

still i'd rather have p35, p39 than p46, p50. that's a big improvement

should be quite a few acasemy leftovers too floating around

we should make sure we analyse them too

  On 23/10/2015 at 06:07, rpfc said:

I will have a look in a sec, but I will also try to get some clarity around what 'the end of the draft' means.

Pick 74 (0 points) or Rd 8 the first round that isn't listed in the 'indicative draft order'...

If Syd burns through 4 picks for Mills do they get picks 74-77 or 131-135?

Ok, so when Syd, GWS, and the BL get picks kicked to the end of the draft it will be on ladder position so from my scenario:

Bl has 4 picks at the end, GWS 5 and Sydney 6.

ND98 BL

ND99 GWS

ND100 Syd

ND101 BL

ND102 GWS

ND103 Syd

ND104 BL

Etc.

  On 23/10/2015 at 08:53, daisycutter said:

good point

though according to some, being a shallow draft, it is a complete chook raffle after p25

still i'd rather have p35, p39 than p46, p50. that's a big improvement

should be quite a few acasemy leftovers too floating around

we should make sure we analyse them too

Sydney will have picks 47, 60, 65, and 68 (611 points) and a parachute of 1728 points of deficit for remaining Academy players.

GWS will have 51, 57, 58, and 59 (769) and the parachute.

BL will have 38, 56, and 64 (760) and the parachute.

Would be a bit difficult to get the lower ranked Academy players; the AFL has made it easier to get the lower rounds players by stipulating that the discount for Rd 2 players and onwards will be kept at 197 (the discount for Pick 18).

  On 23/10/2015 at 08:00, rpfc said:

Last year Sydney got the best midfielder in the draft for Pick 18, we had to pay Pick 2 and Pick 3 for similar talents.

This year Sydney will do it again, but this time they will pay with 33, 36, 37, and 44 and while one might say that that is not making them pay enough - it has forced them out of the draft till Pick 54.

The best midfielder in the draft again and they don't even have to use a pick in the top 30

Sounds completely fair!

  On 23/10/2015 at 10:07, DubDee said:

The best midfielder in the draft again and they don't even have to use a pick in the top 30

Sounds completely fair!

Yeah, because they traded it away to mitigate the pain.

Look at the sum of the parts and look beyond the sound bite:

IN: Sinclair, Talia

OUT: Jetta, Bird, ND14,

They traded Bird and ND14 to give them enough points to help them get Mills and possibly Dunkley. Getting both will see them have no other picks in top 60.

  On 23/10/2015 at 09:15, rpfc said:

Sydney will have picks 47, 60, 65, and 68 (611 points) and a parachute of 1728 points of deficit for remaining Academy players.

GWS will have 51, 57, 58, and 59 (769) and the parachute.

BL will have 38, 56, and 64 (760) and the parachute.

Would be a bit difficult to get the lower ranked Academy players; the AFL has made it easier to get the lower rounds players by stipulating that the discount for Rd 2 players and onwards will be kept at 197 (the discount for Pick 18).

so if i understand you, they can get lower ranked academy players cheaply, but only by mortgaging next year's picks

is that right?

if so they would have little protection for next year's top academy picks

this certainly gets quite involved and chancey

Essentially, they can get a top 3 player by using multiple third rounders. A bit like if we were able to get Brayshaw by using picks 45, 47 & 49 (hypothetically).

Like it or not, that's the new system. It's up to you whether it's an improvement on last year's situation: drafting the best midfielder with pick 17 alone.

Why is there an assumption of a 'gentleman's agreement'? The trade was completed in the two club's interests. Now we shift to drafting. For us not to evaluate all potential draftees and go to the draft clear on our order of preference would be ridiculous. If a GWS academy player was the best, and available at 3, we would have to nominate them.

I think the idea of nominating kids to 'force' someone to burn their points is also stupid (you might just get stuck holding the bunny).

I don't know too much about the academy kids, but we bid on 'glass jaw Heeney' last year. If Mills is as good as they say, or even Kennedy slides to 7, then we should have interviewed them, evaluated them and be ready to pick them. It is then up to the academy club to decide if they want to bid up and match for them or not.

However, these clubs have actually already shown their hand by trading down for points. This means they limit their ability to draft anything else other than the academy selection at the quality end of the draft. We, on the other hand, have the ability to draft academy (depending on matching strategies) or non academy kids with our delicious picks 3 and 7.

I think we are in a really good spot. I would be pizzed if we now didn't go after the best available simply to benefit another club.

  On 23/10/2015 at 11:30, daisycutter said:

so if i understand you, they can get lower ranked academy players cheaply, but only by mortgaging next year's picks

is that right?

if so they would have little protection for next year's top academy picks

this certainly gets quite involved and chancey

If they don't have any picks left this year that have any points attached to them that will happen.

BUT, the round of the nomination that sends them into deficit is the round that their deficit will be paid next year. So that will mean that their 1st rd pick in 2016 is only affected if a bid from Rd 1 sends them into deficit this year.