The Bidding War

[Beats 190]

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.

What are the picks we take the 35th and 39th 'live' players at? eg will the 35th and 39th best 'live' players go at picks 42 and 46 (as in they are the 42nd and 46th best kids in the draft)?

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

It won't be p35 and p39, it will be more like 42/43 and 46/47. It will be the 35th and 39th best players not in academies/ father-son.

[rpfc 28,052]

What are the picks we take the 35th and 39th 'live' players at? eg will the 35th and 39th best 'live' players go at picks 42 and 46 (as in they are the 42nd and 46th best kids in the draft)?

It won't be p35 and p39, it will be more like 42/43 and 46/47. It will be the 35th and 39th best players not in academies/ father-son.

With the 5 academy players going in similar positions as my hyppthetical - we will have ND40 and ND44.

[Middymalt 244]

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.

Yeah but the club trading moves well up in the draft order I liked the old system.

[rpfc 28,052]

Yeah but the club trading moves well up in the draft order I liked the old system.

The new system allowed us to score pick 3 this year.

I think you like the old system because you cannot understand the new one.

[DubDee 24,403]

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.

The system seems like madness. Getting one of top 3 players of the year for some third rounders?

The majority of third round picks come to nothing.

Sydney won't be out of top 8 for the next decade at this rate

[Hulett Packard III 166]

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.

Bailey Rice will be taken under the father son rule and that being the case, what happens if Carlton bids for him with Pick 19?

The Saints have picks 14, 45, 68 and 81. What would they have to give up to successfully bid for Rice?

[rpfc 28,052]

The system seems like madness. Getting one of top 3 players of the year for some third rounders?

The majority of third round picks come to nothing.

Sydney won't be out of top 8 for the next decade at this rate

In reality, they are getting their academy kids and nothing else.

That is a good thing I would say.

[rpfc 28,052]

Bailey Rice will be taken under the father son rule and that being the case, what happens if Carlton bids for him with Pick 19?

The Saints have picks 14, 45, 68 and 81. What would they have to give up to successfully bid for Rice?

That will be Pick 23 or 24 if they bid with that pick. And the Saints will be blown back to the 60s and 70s for their picks.

If Carlton bid with a 1st rounder - it will eat the Saints first pick.

[rpfc 28,052]

With Rice at nominated by Carlton at 24 - the Saints fork over 39 and 60 moves to 74.

With these 7 players burning through all these picks - our pick 82 is now the 66th live pick in the draft at ND73.

And GWS have 6 more picks (1125 points), BL 2 more (444), GC 3 more (863), and Syd one more pick (59) before that ND73 (and after ND25).

Any more Academy bids will burn through at least half of those picks.

I would say Sydney are the only team that might go into deficit this year - the rest have made an attempt to mitigate the deficit issue.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

The system seems like madness. Getting one of top 3 players of the year for some third rounders?

The majority of third round picks come to nothing.

Sydney won't be out of top 8 for the next decade at this rate

As opposed to the old system where they get that same player for just their next pick? e.g. Heeney.

The system has a couple of flaws, but is a lot fairer.

[rpfc 28,052]

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).

[rpfc 28,052]

Another thing to mention - when a bid comes on a player at ND56 or later - that kid will not affect the draft at all and the 'owning' club can simply take him with their last pick, like a rookie upgrade.

So if Lovett gets nominated after that point, all we will need is a list spot, he won't affect our next pick (which is a good thing as we would have to go into deficit to get him - our ND77 has no points).

And with 13 FS and Academy players taken before it, it will be the 64th 'live' pick. Would we want to use that pick now?

[Whispering_Jack 29,234]

That will be Pick 23 or 24 if they bid with that pick. And the Saints will be blown back to the 60s and 70s for their picks.

If Carlton bid with a 1st rounder - it will eat the Saints first pick.

Could you please run through that again?

Carlton doesn't have picks 23 and 24 but it has 19.

West Coast has 23 and Essendon has 24. How do the calculations work?

[rpfc 28,052]

Could you please run through that again?

Carlton doesn't have picks 23 and 24 but it has 19.

West Coast has 23 and Essendon has 24. How do the calculations work?

By the time, their Pick 19 rolls around, it will be Pick 24 with 5 Academy kids taken before it - pushing the draft back a pick each time.

[Whispering_Jack 29,234]

By the time, their Pick 19 rolls around, it will be Pick 24 with 5 Academy kids taken before it - pushing the draft back a pick each time.

Thanks for that.

[DubDee 24,403]

As opposed to the old system where they get that same player for just their next pick? e.g. Heeney.

The system has a couple of flaws, but is a lot fairer.

I think it fairer for a team to have to use their first rounder rather than several third rounders.

[rpfc 28,052]

I think it fairer for a team to have to use their first rounder rather than several third rounders.

What if they have traded away their first rounder, second rounder and a player to get those third rounders?

Because that is what the Swans did.

But, yeah, who cares. Why let facts get in the way of a preconceived notion?

[DubDee 24,403]

What if they have traded away their first rounder, second rounder and a player to get those third rounders?

Because that is what the Swans did.

But, yeah, who cares. Why let facts get in the way of a preconceived notion?

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

And I could do without the condescension

[M C 221]

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

And I could do without the condescension

I really can't explain it any better than rpfc did

Yes, I recognise that the system may not sound perfect, but it's a big step in the right direction

Have a look at some of the trades GWS, Sydney and Brissie made in order to get their picks, and you'll see that they've given up a fair bit to get into the draft positions they're in now

Last year we bid pick 2 for Heeney, and they got him for pick 18. In the same situation this year, they would have had to pay roughly pick 5 for him, which is obviously a much fairer system than before

[rpfc 28,052]

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

And I could do without the condescension

I thought I did well to last this long - you refuse to see the facts in front of you.

You want to see them fork over a 1st round pick - they already have, you want to see them pay full price - they have traded away all picks of value.

They will have a very interesting draft day - one with Mills, maybe Dunkley and picks in the 60s and 70s.

That's it.

[deanox 9,663]

I think it's worth explaining the new system like this:

Draft picks are now worth points

Clubs bid on academy and f/s players with their picks and then, instead of matching with their next draft pick (which could be 17 picks away), the club must pay the equivalent points of the pick that was bid.

These points can start from your next pick and keep going until pick 73.

If you do not have enough points in your remain picks, you go into "debt" and keep paying next year.

This if the player is worth pick 5, you play pick 5 worth of points, which is probably close to every other pick in the draft that you own.

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

Edit: removed the "pooch" reference, added a terrible "spot" pun).

Edited October 26, 2015 by deanox

[What 18,810]

I think it fairer for a team to have to use their first rounder rather than several third rounders.

They did use their first rounder, its gone and so is Craig Bird

Effectively knocked themselves out of the draft just to get Callum Mills. He'd wanna turn out bloody good

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I think it's worth explaining the new system like this:

Draft picks are now worth points

Clubs bid on academy and f/s players with their picks and then, instead of matching with their next draft pick (which could be 17 picks away), the club must pay the equivalent points of the pick that was bid.

These points can start from your next pick and keep going until pick 73.

If you do not have enough points in your remain picks, you go into "debt" and keep paying next year.

This if the player is worth pick 5, you play pick 5 worth of points, which is probably close to every other pick in the draft that you own.

So yes, you can trade out your first round pick. But if your academy player is worth a first round pick you will probably oay every other pick and may decrease the cake of your first pooch in future years.

Was with you up until this.

Autocorrect?

[rpfc 28,052]

Yeah, deanox, I was right there and then you lost me by baking with your dog.

[ManDee 7,124]

and may decrease the cake of your first pooch in future years.

I'm in trouble that was the only bit that I understood.