Mid-season rookie draft

[Chelly 827]

The introduction of  mid-season rookie draft will assist clubs with players who incur major injuries early in the season.

AFL to introduce mid-season rookie draft in 2019

For eg., the  MFC might have found a temporary replacement for Jake Lever.

[Mt. Dee-Maaan 608]

not sure i like this.. already way too much media, time and $ spent on the trade period as it is.. the season should be a marathon and a war of attrition, if teams cannot plan ahead and have enough depth, than bad luck.. 

[buck_nekkid 6,046]

Agree.  MAssive disruption.  what if Casey have a star player that is helping them to be top of the table, and then they are ‘drafted’ by Fremantle?  Poor fella has to give up the tools (or uni or whatever) and head over to a new system, new home etc.  Won’t get a game for that year.  maybe select them mid-year for delivery at the end of year?  Mid-year just can’t work.

[DubDee 26,117]

why is there still a rookie draft and rookie list?

just add the rookies to the main list and clubs will take more picks in the national draft.  no reason for rookies to be paid a 1/4 of someone drafted at pick 88.  they do all the same work.

[old55 23,687]

1 hour ago, buck_nekkid said:

Agree.  MAssive disruption.  what if Casey have a star player that is helping them to be top of the table, and then they are ‘drafted’ by Fremantle?  Poor fella has to give up the tools (or uni or whatever) and head over to a new system, new home etc.  Won’t get a game for that year.  maybe select them mid-year for delivery at the end of year?  Mid-year just can’t work.

Players have to nominate.  They can't be kidnapped it's against the law.  Said star could just wait fot the National Draft.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Fifty-5

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

I've got no problems with it. 

The state leagues - get over themselves, few people care. Sign players to contracts that preclude them from the mid year draft if you wish. Limit it to 2 players from any one side maybe, it would rarely be more than that anyway.

Attrition - a nice idea but the game has seemingly more injuries than ever before, concussion is a serious thing now as is mental health. 1 addition per side won't stop the game being a war of attrition and it will give teams a fresh look. Should be handy for the bottom sides as well as the top teams

Players relocating - no real issue here. There's enough money in the game to make it worth while. Uni students can defer very easily. Clubs can help tradies find work post footy pretty easily. In the mean time I'd be guessing these guys would get something like 30-40k to relocate for a few months. Maybe the deal includes a minimum one year contract for the next season? 

[old55 23,687]

Does the club a player is drafted from get a bonus payment from the AFL in the existing drafts?  They probably should, with higher payments for higher draftees.  Good reward and incentive to clubs.

This mid year draft could have the highest payment scheme to compensate for the disruption caused.

[Gorgoroth 13,019]

Another idiotic idea by the floggers in charge!

[SFebes 4,884]

I don't like it. It's good for individual players, but not for the clubs getting raped. Some of these grassroots clubs need success to stay afloat. Another stupid Gil idea.

[binman 43,762]

It will advantage teams with crack recruiting teams.

Wait a minute......

[old55 23,687]

I think it's a good idea as long as the providing lower clubs receive decent  cash compensation for losing their investment.

Good opportunity for players.  Good for clubs who find themselves in a hole because of a spate of injuries in a certain role.

I suspect it will only be exercised a handful of times a year. But that's fine.

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,229]

I think this is a good idea and actually gives hard working players in the state leagues another avenue to get on an AFL list.

[Maldonboy38 6,406]

Don't like this idea at all. Really disruptive to the state leagues, and could lead to some very bad list management decisions based on possible short term gains rather than a long, thought out planned process. 

[old55 23,687]

1 hour ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Don't like this idea at all. Really disruptive to the state leagues, and could lead to some very bad list management decisions based on possible short term gains rather than a long, thought out planned process. 

Clubs need to have a vacant Rookie list spot available to exercise the option of a pick - it's hard to see how this would have "very bad list management decisions based on possible short term gains rather than a long, thought out planned process"

I've addressed that state league clubs should get substantial financial compensation

[Guest]

I don't mind the concept of injury replacements, but why this element:

• Clubs have first rights to re-contract their drafted player or he becomes a delisted free agent.

It doesn't fit the 'injury replacement' premise of the rule and could open the system to abuse.

Better model would be that the drafted player returns to their original status - a VFL/SANFL/WAFL/NEAFL player who can nominate for the next National drafts as usual. The AFL club had the benefit of a healthy body. The drafted player received AFL exposure and will likely be picked up in the National Draft at an appropriate draft pick 'cost'.

But I guess you don't want lower clubs auditioning players for Top 8 clubs to pick off with late 1st or 2nd round picks based on exposed form. So in true AFL fashion I'm going to complicate it by saying the rule should be:

Clubs finishing in the bottom 6 have first rights to re-contract their drafted player or he returns to his pre-midseason draft status.

Also, you would think this means the end to carrying any mature backup ruckmen on your list. Draft them young, if not first 22 by age 24, delist and use mid-season draft if major injury.