This is a really good idea where clubs get allocated points instead of picks, especially when combined with the later suggestion in the thread that the draft is based on a points auction.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-afl-should-allow-teams-to-trade-points-instead-of-picks.1179684/

One of the biggest problems with the trade period is the interval nature of clubs picks.  Pick 19 is too much for Jack Watts but pick 37 is not enough.   Club could pay in points the exact value.

Interesting OP, mate. 

This works for me now, but if the MFC was still at the foot of the ladder what would we say about this?

I'd want the #1 pick to be the biggest carrot. If a team could combine their points to outbid that pick, I wonder how this would undermine equalisation. I guess in theory teams could trade the #1 pick now too. Maybe it's a new paradigm I just need to get my head around?

Equalisation is always at the forefront of these discussions for me, because as we know, everyone is not on an even playing field. 

We dont ever want a number 1pick

We canot handle the number1

6 minutes ago, A F said:

Interesting OP, mate. 

This works for me now, but if the MFC was still at the foot of the ladder what would we say about this?

I'd want the #1 pick to be the biggest carrot. If a team could combine their points to outbid that pick, I wonder how this would undermine equalisation. I guess in theory teams could trade the #1 pick now too. Maybe it's a new paradigm I just need to get my head around?

Equalisation is always at the forefront of these discussions for me, because as we know, everyone is not on an even playing field. 

Like one poster says, you may get outbid for pick 1 but may end up with 4, 5 and 6 instead.

16 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Like one poster says, you may get outbid for pick 1 but may end up with 4, 5 and 6 instead.

Yep, fair enough. 

No thanks. Last gets pick 1 is how I think it should be. Bit unfair if a club finishes last and there's a clear number 1 pick and a club with a much better list is 4th last and has a bunch of mid round draft picks so can justify going all in on buying the number 1 pick.

I'd open up future trading for 2 and 3 years in to the future and allow pick protections first. That's a way to give clubs more flexibility.

Then change the trade period to all off season (with a xmas break). There shouldn't be such a rush to deal contracted players. Let them work through it with clubs over time.

Then increase draftee deals with club options and change all uncontracted players to restricted free agents after 4 years and free agents after 6 years and work on a system for restricted free agents to move clubs via a tender bidding system or sign and trades.

14 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

No thanks. Last gets pick 1 is how I think it should be. Bit unfair if a club finishes last and there's a clear number 1 pick and a club with a much better list is 4th last and has a bunch of mid round draft picks so can justify going all in on buying the number 1 pick.

I'd open up future trading for 2 and 3 years in to the future and allow pick protections first. That's a way to give clubs more flexibility.

Then change the trade period to all off season (with a xmas break). There shouldn't be such a rush to deal contracted players. Let them work through it with clubs over time.

Then increase draftee deals with club options and change all uncontracted players to restricted free agents after 4 years and free agents after 6 years and work on a system for restricted free agents to move clubs via a tender bidding system or sign and trades.

I guess this is the grey I was searching my own mind for, but being only one coffee down for the day, the old noggin isn't doing its thing.

I'd agree with you, master, old boy, this time. Not super keen on your Mahoney bashing, but on board with this one.

29 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

This is a really good idea where clubs get allocated points instead of picks, especially when combined with the later suggestion in the thread that the draft is based on a points auction.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-afl-should-allow-teams-to-trade-points-instead-of-picks.1179684/

One of the biggest problems with the trade period is the interval nature of clubs picks.  Pick 19 is too much for Jack Watts but pick 37 is not enough.   Club could pay in points the exact value.

I quite like the idea. With blind binding, the draft would become a bit like a big poker tournament.

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

I quite like the idea. With blind binding, the draft would become a bit like a big poker tournament.

Blind bidding would be awesome.  Player is announced, club makes its offer.  BANG!  Player goes to club, club has reduced points to bid elsewhere.  Teams getting desperate.  After the event, they can rank the picks on the ‘points value’ to determine which was the number 1 pick etc.  Great sport!  Would be worth watching, and less like watching paint dry.

All the spurts in the media will then crap on about ‘how much’ a draftee might be worth, driving up and down perceived value.  

 

Get it done Gill!

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

No thanks. Last gets pick 1 is how I think it should be. Bit unfair if a club finishes last and there's a clear number 1 pick and a club with a much better list is 4th last and has a bunch of mid round draft picks so can justify going all in on buying the number 1 pick.

I'd open up future trading for 2 and 3 years in to the future and allow pick protections first. That's a way to give clubs more flexibility.

Then change the trade period to all off season (with a xmas break). There shouldn't be such a rush to deal contracted players. Let them work through it with clubs over time.

Then increase draftee deals with club options and change all uncontracted players to restricted free agents after 4 years and free agents after 6 years and work on a system for restricted free agents to move clubs via a tender bidding system or sign and trades.

I think if I were at the ass end of the ladder, I'd probably actually prefer to end up with (say) 4, 5 and 6 (per 55's example) than just no. 1. It allows for spreading the risk out a lot further, putting your eggs in different baskets as it were.

Even in the professional era, there's a huge risk that the first player taken in the draft becoming good but not star quality.

Interesting concept.

2 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

I quite like the idea. With blind binding, the draft would become a bit like a big poker tournament.

 

28 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Blind bidding would be awesome.  Player is announced, club makes its offer.  BANG!  Player goes to club, club has reduced points to bid elsewhere.  Teams getting desperate.  After the event, they can rank the picks on the ‘points value’ to determine which was the number 1 pick etc.  Great sport!  Would be worth watching, and less like watching paint dry.

All the spurts in the media will then crap on about ‘how much’ a draftee might be worth, driving up and down perceived value.  

 

Get it done Gill!

Blind bidding might be awesome, but I suspect blind binding would be even better.

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

I think if I were at the ass end of the ladder, I'd probably actually prefer to end up with (say) 4, 5 and 6 (per 55's example) than just no. 1. It allows for spreading the risk out a lot further, putting your eggs in different baskets as it were.

Even in the professional era, there's a huge risk that the first player taken in the draft becoming good but not star quality.

Interesting concept.

That should be your choice though. If you're last it usually means you are no good. There's a chance there's sides with far stronger lists finishing 3rd or 4th last and have draft capital to take the gun number 1 pick who some years might be a Hodge or Riewoldt. It is interesting that the number 1 pick has been a poisoned chalice for a while now but at some stage that trend has to reverse.

Points over picks with the potential to steal a number 1 pick might be a tanking incentive we could do without as well.

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

That should be your choice though. If you're last it usually means you are no good. There's a chance there's sides with far stronger lists finishing 3rd or 4th last and have draft capital to take the gun number 1 pick who some years might be a Hodge or Riewoldt. It is interesting that the number 1 pick has been a poisoned chalice for a while now but at some stage that trend has to reverse.

Points over picks with the potential to steal a number 1 pick might be a tanking incentive we could do without as well.

Pick 1 cannot be "stolen" off 18th - they are free to bid for it and are in the box seat to do so because they will have the most points unless another club amasses more through trading.  Still unless that club bids more points than the total that 18th has they can still secure pick 1.   Right now 18th really has limited choice - it's use pick 1 or try to trade with other clubs with interval picks - that may not exist.

It's definitely an anti-tanking measure, it gives clubs more flexible access to various picks.

Watts trade a perfect example where points would be better than picks.  Watts chose Port and Port's earliest pick is 31 so that's what the trade has to be.  Pick 31 is 606 points, if it was points instead of picks we could have negotiated with Port and then deployed the points we have to our best advantage in further trades or at the draft, but that option was not available.

Same with the Lever trade - we could have offered Adelaide 2000 points which gives them and us a lot of flexibility.

At least it is 31 which was Ron's famous number 

 

31 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Watts trade a perfect example where points would be better than picks.  Watts chose Port and Port's earliest pick is 31 so that's what the trade has to be.  Pick 31 is 606 points, if it was points instead of picks we could have negotiated with Port and then deployed the points we have to our best advantage in further trades or at the draft, but that option was not available.

Same with the Lever trade - we could have offered Adelaide 2000 points which gives them and us a lot of flexibility.

Port had 34 as well, plus later picks, plus future picks. They could've easily included 34 for 45 and given us another couple of hundred points right there.

Or done a deal with a club in the mid 20's to move back a few spots for other things.

There's a lot of teams getting very creative to do deals. 

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

Port had 34 as well, plus later picks, plus future picks. They could've easily included 34 for 45 and given us another couple of hundred points right there.

Or done a deal with a club in the mid 20's to move back a few spots for other things.

There's a lot of teams getting very creative to do deals. 

Yes but points would remove the need for those convolutions