Changes to the Draft system

[whatwhat say what 23,007]

21 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The way Peter Gordon explained it is that it is designed to give the lower clubs a better chance of getting a good player.

He likened it to basketball where with one draft pick you can get a star player and because there are only five players on court you can dramatically change your success rate.

Out of interest are there father/son and academy picks etc in the US sporting system?

nope

you go where you're drafted, until you are a free agent

oh, and if the team who holds your contract wants to ship you off elsewhere whilst you are under contract? sayonara!

the only way free agency should continue to exist in the afl system is if the clubs have the power to trade players where they want whilst in-contract

jeremy howe would currently be playing for gc17

[Moonshadow 17,677]

I think it makes better sense to leave the draft sequence alone, but make top 6 teams pay market value via draft points for free agents they recruit. The bonus for them is the player chooses their club and they don't need to trade with that club. Teams 7-18 (or thereabouts) lose no points, or at worst, points determined by where they finish on the ladder over preceding 2 years.

[Diamond_Jim 12,629]

10 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I think it makes better sense to leave the draft sequence alone, but make top 6 teams pay market value via draft points for free agents they recruit. The bonus for them is the player chooses their club and they don't need to trade with that club. Teams 7-18 (or thereabouts) lose no points, or at worst, points determined by where they finish on the ladder over preceding 2 years.

As I understand it free agency was bought in as the quid pro quo for the AFLPA not challenging the present restrictions on the basis of restraint of trade. Anything that reduces the ability of a player to maximise his wage will be resisted. Your suggestion which sounds sensible could in practice reduce the amount offered by the higher ranked clubs so it would be resisted unless it was part of an overall renegotiation including reducing the number of years before free agency applies.

It's time for the AFLPA to perhaps become a little more transparent about its longer term goals. There are so many competing interests and it is hard to believe that it can be even handed when representing all those interests.

[spirit of norm smith 16,594]

free agency was brought in to ‘even the competition’ but it meant experienced players leaving bottom clubs to seek premiership glory or a chance at a premiership 

now this rubbish just as mfc are becoming a top team

they (AFL) said you need to draft, develop and manage players to get to the top and not handouts 

so dismiss this new draft asap

[daisycutter 29,783]

40 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

I think it makes better sense to leave the draft sequence alone, but make top 6 teams pay market value via draft points for free agents they recruit. The bonus for them is the player chooses their club and they don't need to trade with that club. Teams 7-18 (or thereabouts) lose no points, or at worst, points determined by where they finish on the ladder over preceding 2 years.

it's even worse now, moonie, the losing club gets an afl compensation pick which is really a pick "paid" by all the other clubs as they all effectively get pushed down the draft list. the afl needs to provide some "penalty" to the receiving club (if a top 8 club) in either a loss of draft points (a'la father son, academy) or a reduction in salary cap. It is too much of a golden egg to the top clubs

[Jibroni 5,018]

1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

nope

you go where you're drafted, until you are a free agent

 

In that case we never would have got Jesse Hogan and still have T Scully.

Why should a player be forced to go somewhere and stay if the club is not for him? 

[whatwhat say what 23,007]

3 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

In that case we never would have got Jesse Hogan and still have T Scully.

Why should a player be forced to go somewhere and stay if the club is not for him? 

Eh? $cully was out of contract and cos of the rules at the time was essentially a free agent for GW$

So we would always get Hogan as our compo for losing $cully was acquisition of the pre-draft selection, where we picked Hogan

Completely different circumstance to what I am referring to; I’m talking about players under contract, e.g. Ryan Ferguson, who are told that they are no longer wanted and then refuse to be traded to Hawthorn when the deal is there, or Howe, who got mega-money offers from both the northern franchises but instead took less money than he was on at our club to go to the filth a year later when his contract was up

As long as a player’s contract can be ‘honoured’ (e.g. length and value) then they should not have a choice when it comes to being traded out - it’s the logical converse effect of allowing free agency (e.g. a player can walk where they want when out of contract after a certain number of years service)

 

[Jibroni 5,018]

29 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

Eh? $cully was out of contract and cos of the rules at the time was essentially a free agent for GW$

So we would always get Hogan as our compo for losing $cully was acquisition of the pre-draft selection, where we picked Hogan

Completely different circumstance to what I am referring to; I’m talking about players under contract, e.g. Ryan Ferguson, who are told that they are no longer wanted and then refuse to be traded to Hawthorn when the deal is there, or Howe, who got mega-money offers from both the northern franchises but instead took less money than he was on at our club to go to the filth a year later when his contract was up

As long as a player’s contract can be ‘honoured’ (e.g. length and value) then they should not have a choice when it comes to being traded out - it’s the logical converse effect of allowing free agency (e.g. a player can walk where they want when out of contract after a certain number of years service) 

 

Sorry mate my bad, yes I agree if a player has honoured his contract  then he has the right to do what he pleases.

[deanox 10,022]

22 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

....

"Under the first model - which is unlikely to be in place even for 2019, though it has not been ruled out - the top 10 picks would remain in the current format of reverse ladder order, with selections 1-10 going to non-finalists. The eighth-placed team would receive pick 11, then the bottom side would receive pick 12, the seventh team would receive pick 13 and the 17th side pick 14.

Under this "alternating" model, the order of selections (after No.11) would continue to alternate - pick 15 to the sixth side, pick 16 to the 16th club - until pick 23, when the 12th placed side would have the choice, rather than the losing grand finalist. Teams that finished 11th, 10th and 9th would follow (picks 24, 25 and 26). The top two sides would end up with picks 27 and 28."

Taking off my "they screwed the MFC" glasses,  I actually don't mind this. Even without free agency, the draft is an insufficient balancing tool. As it stands effectively the only difference between finishing first and last is one pick - the bottom side gets pick 1, then after that 18th and first have consecutive picks. 

One of the biggest problems is the time required for list regeneration: to improve you need to turn over alot of your lost quickly and the current draft makes that hard. This format will mean the bottom sides can rapidly improve. 

It will mean a reduced likelihood of developing cultural issues associated with losing all the time. 

It will mean quality senior players are more likely to hang around because improvement won't need 3-4 drafts.

It also means top sides will be more inclined to trade players to lower clubs to get back into the top 20. 

Yes,  it might affect us, by reducing our potential "reign" but overall i think it will be a good thing. 

 

I'm concerned about how high up it extends, and wonder if it should be bottom 6 only. But by extending up it reduces the benefit of a crash season being a big benefit and reduces the benefit of tanking.

 

[DV8 2,271]

On 8/24/2018 at 12:13 PM, Demon Disciple said:

And there it is. All Gil cares about is $$$. He couldn’t give a stuff about the sanctity of the game. Hell he’d sell the AFL’s soul if it meant making an extra buck.

The worst ever CEO and by the length of the Flemington straight.

He can't... they already lost it when going Fully Professional.

The Emporer has no soul to sell.

[DV8 2,271]

On 8/25/2018 at 10:39 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

As I understand it free agency was bought in as the quid pro quo for the AFLPA not challenging the present restrictions on the basis of restraint of trade. Anything that reduces the ability of a player to maximise his wage will be resisted. Your suggestion which sounds sensible could in practice reduce the amount offered by the higher ranked clubs so it would be resisted unless it was part of an overall renegotiation including reducing the number of years before free agency applies.

It's time for the AFLPA to perhaps become a little more transparent about its longer term goals. There are so many competing interests and it is hard to believe that it can be even handed when representing all those interests.

Give the lower clubs a subsidised Bonus Salary-Cap space, & on a sliding scale...  as they rise up the ladder the Salary-Cap gap reduces more and more,,, til finally the top team having the least Salary-Cap.

Same with the Footy Dept' spend.

 

Same for all clubs. No favourites...  like newly established clubs. Apart from the inducting of players onto the initial list.

 

edit:  We cannot have the most powerful, being able to give the best players all they ever dreamed of.   Most money and Most success.

... that's a recipe for disaster,  and is non communal.

 

 

I think this would remove the financial angle of, 'restraint of trade', based on dollars.

Edited September 1, 2018 by DV8

[DV8 2,271]

On 8/25/2018 at 12:09 PM, deanox said:

Taking off my "they screwed the MFC" glasses,  I actually don't mind this. Even without free agency, the draft is an insufficient balancing tool. As it stands effectively the only difference between finishing first and last is one pick - the bottom side gets pick 1, then after that 18th and first have consecutive picks. 

One of the biggest problems is the time required for list regeneration: to improve you need to turn over alot of your lost quickly and the current draft makes that hard. This format will mean the bottom sides can rapidly improve. 

It will mean a reduced likelihood of developing cultural issues associated with losing all the time. 

It will mean quality senior players are more likely to hang around because improvement won't need 3-4 drafts.

It also means top sides will be more inclined to trade players to lower clubs to get back into the top 20. 

Yes,  it might affect us, by reducing our potential "reign" but overall i think it will be a good thing. 

 

I'm concerned about how high up it extends, and wonder if it should be bottom 6 only. But by extending up it reduces the benefit of a crash season being a big benefit and reduces the benefit of tanking.

 

I prefer the missed finals for 5 Yrs idea.  And if so, go to the arrow head of the draft, for the bonus.

 

But also do a lottery system... firstly, those with priority picks. and then the bottom 6 ladder position at end of H&A... use the lottery system.

This helps imo, to cutout the planning, for a spot and certain player concept.

Edited September 1, 2018 by DV8