The Bidding War

[Radar Detector 1,347]

If you trade away your first rounder and someone bid in the first round you should lose the player. That would be fair.

If you have $20 and swap it with me for two $10, should you not be able to buy something worth $20 anymore?

This system works better, it just gives people who prefer bigger notes the chance to get them and makes trading universally easier.

[deanox 9,915]

Sorry guys, amazing autocorrect. Last sevens should read something like:

But if your academy player is worth a first round pick you will probably pay every other pick this year and may also decrease the value of your first pick in future years (i.e. push it back a couple of spots).

[H_T 3,047]

With Dunkley and Rice going 22 and 24 respectively - our ND40 is now the 33rd 'live' pick in the draft.

If there are kids at BL and GC rated in the 30s - we will have the 31st 'live' pick and suddenly that 29 we gave GC - still the 28th 'live' pick - is completely redeemed.

I am just so impressed with Mahoney now - the MFC was prepared for this - we knew exactly what we were doing.

25 for Melksham is fine when it has only come forward 1 'live' pick but your ND50 is potentially the 36th 'live' pick.

TL;DR version - we will get the 3rd, 7th, and ~31st ~36th picks in the draft (excluding the FS and Academy players).

Preparation is the key they say. Failing to plan = planning to fail.

So apart from MFC being ready, have we seen evidence of other teams 'caught on the hop' a little with regards to this new system? Or was every team in the AFL prepared for this?

[rpfc 28,422]

Preparation is the key they say. Failing to plan = planning to fail.

So apart from MFC being ready, have we seen evidence of other teams 'caught on the hop' a little with regards to this new system? Or was every team in the AFL prepared for this?

The Northern states knew what they were doing - Brisbane finished with ND2 and 5 consecutive picks starting in the late 30s to take their two 1st round rated Academy talents. They especially seemed to have thought about their lot this year.

Apart from those clubs going to Northern clubs and saying we will give you a higher pick for two lower picks - for the sake of points, there really wasn't any other club other than us who drilled in on using that need to get top 10 picks - which is where you want to be in any draft. Carlton got ND8 this year, for (I am assuming) Geelong's 1st rounder next year that they got for Henderson - but it might end up hurting if Geelong has an awful a season as we all hope they do.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

The only question I have is why is the AFL paying Champion Data to develop software when they could just put rpfc in a room with a pencil and a pocket calculator?

[Mach5 4,767]

If, for instance, we get to pick 3 and no player has been bid upon, but we decide to bid on both Hopper and Mills... does it matter which order we do so?

i.e. if we bid on Mills first, he costs the points available for pick 3, but then Hopper costs the points available for pick 4 - is this correct?

Could be a bit of strategy involved re: bidding sequence, as it's obvious that both teams will not let their respective players slip through.

[rpfc 28,422]

The only question I have is why is the AFL paying Champion Data to develop software when they could just put rpfc in a room with a pencil and a pocket calculator?

Ha. I will have my excel sheet and I could do it, but it would be a slow draft and think of the pressure, LDvC!

[rpfc 28,422]

If, for instance, we get to pick 3 and no player has been bid upon, but we decide to bid on both Hopper and Mills... does it matter which order we do so?

i.e. if we bid on Mills first, he costs the points available for pick 3, but then Hopper costs the points available for pick 4 - is this correct?

Could be a bit of strategy involved re: bidding sequence, as it's obvious that both teams will not let their respective players slip through.

Yes, you are correct - it will get easier for the Northern states to pick up players the more players are bid upon.

But not by much for Hopper; they will still give up ND10 and ND34 but would get back ND60 instead of ND52 if taken before Mills.

[daisycutter 29,615]

If, for instance, we get to pick 3 and no player has been bid upon, but we decide to bid on both Hopper and Mills... does it matter which order we do so?

i.e. if we bid on Mills first, he costs the points available for pick 3, but then Hopper costs the points available for pick 4 - is this correct?

Could be a bit of strategy involved re: bidding sequence, as it's obvious that both teams will not let their respective players slip through.

i don't think you (effectively) get to vote multiple times concurrently (for academy or fs players)

i.e. we vote at p3 for academy player. academy player club matches

academy player club gets player and assumes vote p3, we slip to p4

at this stage i don't think we can vote for another academy player (or fs player) until our next pick

but i might be wrong

thoughts rpfc?

[rpfc 28,422]

i don't think you (effectively) get to vote multiple times concurrently (for academy or fs players)

i.e. we vote at p3 for academy player. academy player club matches

academy player club gets player and assumes vote p3, we slip to p4

at this stage i don't think we can vote for another academy player (or fs player) until our next pick

but i might be wrong

thoughts rpfc?

No, we can just sit there and go through them all and be complete dicks about it if we wanted to - one after the other.

[deanox 9,915]

I feel like the system is open to corruption then - we'll trade you pick 2 for those lost picks I'd you promise not to bid on our player - or is the points difference between picks insignificant to make such an agreement beneficial?

[daisycutter 29,615]

No, we can just sit there and go through them all and be complete dicks about it if we wanted to - one after the other.

thanks, i stand corrected and informed

[rpfc 28,422]

I feel like the system is open to corruption then - we'll trade you pick 2 for those lost picks I'd you promise not to bid on our player - or is the points difference between picks insignificant to make such an agreement beneficial?

Give me the exact hypothetical and I will have a look.

[deanox 9,915]

Ok hypothetical.

Club A has pick 3 in the draft, Club B has pick 4.

Club B has an Academy Player X who is worth pick 3.

There are other high rated (3-5) academy players in the draft but player X is probably the best of them. Regardless they will all go in that top couple.

Club A wants both picks 3 and 4 and offers to trade lower picks for pick 4.

Normally this needs to be the equivalent points. But if Club A agrees to bid on two other academy players at pick 3 (so technically pick 3 and 4) and not on player X, player X will slide from value from Pick 3 to Pick 7at most (academy players at 3 and 4, the Club A's other picks now at 5 and 6).

Thus player B only costs Pick 7 points not pick 3 points.

I'm not sure what the points difference is between these picks BUT if it is significant, Club B may accept unders on the original trade based on this side agreement.

Seems possible and plausible but I suspect it will be an infrequent scenario.

[rpfc 28,422]

Ok hypothetical.

Club A has pick 3 in the draft, Club B has pick 4.

Club B has an Academy Player X who is worth pick 3.

There are other high rated (3-5) academy players in the draft but player X is probably the best of them. Regardless they will all go in that top couple.

Club A wants both picks 3 and 4 and offers to trade lower picks for pick 4.

Normally this needs to be the equivalent points. But if Club A agrees to bid on two other academy players at pick 3 (so technically pick 3 and 4) and not on player X, player X will slide from value from Pick 3 to Pick 7at most (academy players at 3 and 4, the Club A's other picks now at 5 and 6).

Thus player B only costs Pick 7 points not pick 3 points.

I'm not sure what the points difference is between these picks BUT if it is significant, Club B may accept unders on the original trade based on this side agreement.

Seems possible and plausible but I suspect it will be an infrequent scenario.

Good god, man...

Yeah, if I read that correctly - it is a rare scenario but how about if a Northern state team has ND2 and Carlton (lol) has ND1 and there is a standout player in the draft that should be first picked.

Carlton can make this club use ND2 or it can allow it to take a player at ND2 if this Northern state club gave them sufficient reason to not bid on the player.

We did a similar thing with Viney a few years ago when we were involved in a ménage a trois with GC and GWS that involved Hogan, Martin and the first 3 picks of the draft and it will lead to a small points win now but will still allow the club to take an extra top player.

That would be the only loophole, BUT you have to be crap enough to get a top 3 pick...

[daisycutter 29,615]

That would be the only loophole, BUT you have to be crap enough to get a top 3 pick...

or trade for a low pick

[deanox 9,915]

Good god, man...

Yeah, if I read that correctly - it is a rare scenario but how about if a Northern state team has ND2 and Carlton (lol) has ND1 and there is a standout player in the draft that should be first picked.

Carlton can make this club use ND2 or it can allow it to take a player at ND2 if this Northern state club gave them sufficient reason to not bid on the player.

We did a similar thing with Viney a few years ago when we were involved in a ménage a trois with GC and GWS that involved Hogan, Martin and the first 3 picks of the draft and it will lead to a small points win now but will still allow the club to take an extra top player.

That would be the only loophole, BUT you have to be crap enough to get a top 3 pick...

I'm not sure it is that different to this year...

We have pick 3.

GWS have pick 7.

We want pick 7 in exchange for lower picks.

Hopper (GWS), Kennedy (GWS), Mills (Sydney) are all in the mix for the top 5. Hipwood and Keayes (both Brisbane) are also in the mix for the top 15.

It isn't unreasonable that part of our deal with GWS *could* involve not bidding on their academy players with pick 3 or 7.

Under the old system it didn't matter who bid as long as it was the next pick that was used. But now the points matter.

Similarly, essendon who have picks 4 and 5 could choose to bid at either point for the player, which may change the points:

Given their are the players that might be worth a top 5 pick, what if Essendon bid on 2 players with pick 4 and 5, took their first pick at 6 then bid on the the final player for 7? They may be able to manipulate the points for one of those players to be anywhere from Pick 4 to pick 7, based on the order they bid and draft.

Edited October 28, 2015 by deanox

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,244]

_{My brain hurts!!!}