After the 'rort' Sydney and West Coast  pulled with the live pick trading last year with the Nick Blakey acquisition does anyone know if the AFL have changed the rules on that this year?

From memory once Blakey was bid upon Sydney traded out pick 22 for a future 3rd round selection to West Coast. Once the Blakey was acquired  West Coast traded back pick 26 to Sydney for a future 2nd round selection. Sydney got Blakey and  kept a pick in 2nd round of the draft.  Very sneaky indeed. 

If the AFL haven't changed the rules around this I can see GWS and Freo doing something very similar this year as it will suit both their agendas with their academy selections.

-  Say Adelaide bid on Green at 4. GWS will then trade out pick 6 to Freo for say picks 22, 58 and future 2nd round pick

- GWS match the Green bid with picks 22, 40, 58, 59....  ect

- After Green is acquired. Freo will trade out pick 10 to GWS for a future 1st round pick

End result Freo get pick 6 & 7 and avoid having to use pick 10 on Henry. GWS get Green and Pick 10. Both clubs may go into draft deficit points wise but not sure that is a big deterrent.  

This would be a bad look for the AFL and they need to do something about as this was not the intention of the live pick trading. This sort of trading could become more prevalent in the years to come

The consequence for the Dees on this sort of deal is that either pick 8 becomes pick 9 as GWS' pick 6 is not gobbled up by Green bid matching or Freo will not look to swap Pick 10 and 22 for pick 8 with us as they avoid a Henry bid this way. 

Be great if someone had some information on why this cannot happen? 

I think the AFL closed the loophole exposed by Sydney and WCE last year.  I think it was called 'parking' their picks.

But the first part of the hypothetical Freo/GWS trade you describe can still happen.  This article describes a hypothetical where Carlton bid for Henry at 9. Draft Night Pick Swaps

"The AFL has confirmed that under its rules, a club in Fremantle's situation would be able to use its five minutes on the clock to trade picks with another club, move down the order, and then match the Academy bid with a later selection/s".  ie hypothetically trade out pick 10 to GCS for 15 and 20 then use 15 and part of 20 (it slips to 22) for Henry.  So they get Henry and another pick at 22.

This is different to 'parking' picks.

Lots of back room wheeling and dealing is happening!  Lots to play out.

As an aside the article says we are also interested in Henry.

Edited November 7, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

 

7 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

 

But isn't the AFL article today saying that they can do this shuffling?

I reckon the 5 minute switcheroo shouldn't be permitted. Once a player is bid upon, match it or don't.

Not sure if there's anything stopping Freo trading 10 for Gold Coast's 2020 mid first round priority pick and pick 20, using 20 and later picks to match the Henry bid, then trading Gold Coast's future mid draft first with another club for a pick around the 15-20 mark to use on draft night.

Instead of using 2 clubs to rig the system clubs will just have to use 3 or 4.

At the end of the day academy players are still going to come incredibly cheaply as clubs slide as far down the order as they can to match a bid and trade back in to maintain a nice draft pick.

The only incentive to get Freo to trade up with us for pick 3 or pick 7 is that it will delay the Henry bid by at least another pick. It's far more likely they just plan contingency trades based on moving down the order.

22 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

But isn't the AFL article today saying that they can do this shuffling?

I reckon the 5 minute switcheroo shouldn't be permitted. Once a player is bid upon, match it or don't.

Yes I agree, I don’t like any of it. AFL just need to make a rule such as live trading cannot be done with any connection to academy points shuffling/maximisation.

Live trading does work for the Stocker type trades and is good for the game 

Trading of picks for points sake does nothing for the game. Just two clubs conspiring against the rest.  Stamp it out Gill.

Great to see the AFL making rules on the run, and allowing trading of picks to make up the points after a bid has been placed. Wonders never cease.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-11-07/get-set-for-draft-night-drama-why-clubs-are-holding-fire-on-pick-swaps

10 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

But isn't the AFL article today saying that they can do this shuffling?

I reckon the 5 minute switcheroo shouldn't be permitted. Once a player is bid upon, match it or don't.

Totally agree.

I don't see us switching 3, especially if we want Young.

However we could switch 8 if we thought the player we wanted could be, or is gone then and we can get 2 other players we are nearly as happy to have with lower picks.

It really is a chess game.

I think the clubs know who each other wants, down to about the first 10 picks and after that it is a bit more speculative, for the next 10 or so picks.

It’s all quite funny given it used to be about young blokes getting excited about going to an AFL club.  

Now it’s mathematical algorithms and actuarial studies is a prerequisite.  AFL gone mad.  Trade players and picks.

Keep the picks as picks.  No live trading for me.  

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I don't see us switching 3, especially if we want Young.

However we could switch 8 if we thought the player we wanted could be, or is gone then and we can get 2 other players we are nearly as happy to have with lower picks.

It really is a chess game.

I think the clubs know who each other wants, down to about the first 10 picks and after that it is a bit more speculative, for the next 10 or so picks.

That is how I see it playing out - our highest rated player at 3, and if who we want at 8 is gone, trade down. I think 8 for 10 and 22 with Freo would work for us and also for them assuming a bid for Henry does not come before 8 (or by us at 8).

19 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

That is how I see it playing out - our highest rated player at 3, and if who we want at 8 is gone, trade down. I think 8 for 10 and 22 with Freo would work for us and also for them assuming a bid for Henry does not come before 8 (or by us at 8).

Makes a lot of sense. But does anybody know if are we allowed to do 8 for 10 and 22, given 22 was originally our pick, traded to Freo in Langdon trade?

Reading a couple of previous posts suggest this may not be permitted under the new rules?

3 hours ago, whelan45 said:

Makes a lot of sense. But does anybody know if are we allowed to do 8 for 10 and 22, given 22 was originally our pick, traded to Freo in Langdon trade?

Reading a couple of previous posts suggest this may not be permitted under the new rules?

Yeah you’re right about that

3 hours ago, whelan45 said:

Makes a lot of sense. But does anybody know if are we allowed to do 8 for 10 and 22, given 22 was originally our pick, traded to Freo in Langdon trade?

Reading a couple of previous posts suggest this may not be permitted under the new rules?

I'd suggest we can. What you can't do is trade and then regain the same pick on the night. 

So, GWS can't trade pick 6 for, say, 14 and 17, use 14 on green then trade pick 6 back in for 17 and a future first.

 

I don't really like the idea of clubs being able to trade after a bid has been made but it does mean someone like GWS, if they don't trade for a higher pick before hand, won't get an extra top 10 pick.

As an example (I'm not sure what the points work out at), if Sydney bid at 5, GWS can trade 6 for 14 and 17 and use 14 on Green. They then get Green and a kid at 17. If they trade up to 4 or 5 and get in front of the bid they get a pick 4 or 5 and then Green with their other picks. I know which I prefer.

Edited November 8, 20195 yr by Good Lord George

On 11/7/2019 at 1:44 PM, Pulp Fritschon said:

After the 'rort' Sydney and West Coast  pulled with the live pick trading last year with the Nick Blakey acquisition does anyone know if the AFL have changed the rules on that this year?

Not sure on official AFL confirmation, but this was reported back in July:

"The AFL is set to close the academy draft loophole which Sydney exploited to "park" picks at other clubs, in a move that is likely to have ramifications for Greater Western Sydney this year.

The Swans created a stir last year when they manipulated the league's points bidding system to acquire academy graduate Nick Blakey at No.10 for picks 34, 39 and 40 – a price which was widely accepted as a bargain.

The Swans achieved this by trading pick 26 to West Coast for the Eagles' future third-round selection. Then after drafting Blakey, they made another deal with the Eagles to get pick 22 for a future second-round pick.

This meant they were able to use lower picks for the points needed to secure Blakey.

The manoeuvre allowed them to get back into the second round of last year's draft and pick up James Rowbottom, whom the club has been highly impressed with in his debut season.

Though the league approved of Sydney's move last year, they have informally notified list managers this week at the Gold Coast that they will not be able to employ the same strategy during this year's draft."

AFL to make changes to academy draft rules

 

4 hours ago, whelan45 said:

Makes a lot of sense. But does anybody know if are we allowed to do 8 for 10 and 22, given 22 was originally our pick, traded to Freo in Langdon trade?

Reading a couple of previous posts suggest this may not be permitted under the new rules?

Good question.

Going by the Cal Toomey tweet above:  " One pick swap is not allowed to be connected to another".  That 22 was part of the Langdon player trade rather than a pick swap, might make the 8 for 10 and 22 swap with freo ok. 

And, if Cal Toomey is correct  "You aren't even able to trade back a selection that was traded to you during the trade period itself (back to the same club that gave it)" it will be a nightmare for the AFL to track during the five minutes between drafts as so many picks changed hands during trading.  It would mean many picks can't go back to the original club in what is otherwise a genuine and honest pick swap.

Certainly a lot of grey areas which hopefully are clarified by draft time.  Otherwise its is another AFL hornets nest?

Edited November 9, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Good question.

Going by the Cal Toomey tweet above:  " One pick swap is not allowed to be connected to another".  That 22 was part of the Langdon player trade rather than a pick swap, might make the 8 for 10 and 22 swap with freo ok. 

And, if Cal Toomey is correct  "You aren't even able to trade back a selection that was traded to you during the trade period itself (back to the same club that gave it)" it will be a nightmare for the AFL to track during the five minutes between drafts as so many picks changed hands during trading.  It would mean many picks can't go back to the original club in what is otherwise a genuine and honest pick swap.

Certainly a lot of grey areas which hopefully are clarified by draft time.  Otherwise its is another AFL hornets nest?

but notice from the preceding post "Though the league approved of Sydney's move last year, they have informally notified list managers this week at the Gold Coast that they will not be able to employ the same strategy during this year's draft."

this implies there is no formal afl rule, which allows the afl to interpret on the fly (surprise, surprise). i'd expect they would only apply the new rule in the same situation as last year including it being just during the draft night (unless something really looked obvious and smelly and deliberately setup during trade time to circumvent new rule ) . if a pick from trade time got traded back during draft night and it was obviously innocuous i suspect they'd let it go.

They need to not allow live trades on NGA bids. If GWS have pick 6 and green is worth that or better, they should not have 5 minutes to trade that for picks 14 and 17 or whatever.  They should be forced to use pick 6.  The AFL are allowing the draft to be rorted. If it is allowed next year with 15 if the top 40 NGA picks it will be a complete farce

18 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

They need to not allow live trades on NGA bids. If GWS have pick 6 and green is worth that or better, they should not have 5 minutes to trade that for picks 14 and 17 or whatever.  They should be forced to use pick 6.  The AFL are allowing the draft to be rorted. If it is allowed next year with 15 if the top 40 NGA picks it will be a complete farce

i'd agree with that, but at least this year they will allow it. and agree next year especially,  could be a complete fiasco if no changes made.

otoh they can still do a lot of similar similar pick switching in the trade period to avoid paying proper price

Edited November 9, 20195 yr by daisycutter

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'd agree with that, but at least this year they will allow it. and agree next year especially,  could be a complete fiasco if no changes made.

otoh they can still do a lot of similar similar pick switching in the trade period to avoid paying proper price

They’ll still do the pre trade stuff.  I suspect why MFC were so happy to trade out next years first for this years pick 8 is we are stocking up on 2nd and 3rds next year knowing it will be easy to trade back down to a 1st rounder next year with all the trading that will go on with nga players.  I bet we end up with a decent first round pick next year in a diluted draft.

16 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

They’ll still do the pre trade stuff.  I suspect why MFC were so happy to trade out next years first for this years pick 8 is we are stocking up on 2nd and 3rds next year knowing it will be easy to trade back down to a 1st rounder next year with all the trading that will go on with nga players.  I bet we end up with a decent first round pick next year in a diluted draft.

hope so

there is a lot of good players being picked up by GWS and Sydney through their academy programs. What exactly is melbourne doing in this space?

10 hours ago, Dees247 said:

Yeah you’re right about that

A way around it might be get Adelaide involved and they get 22 and we get their 23?

I think the AFL are more interested in making the draft night entertaining for TV than making it fairer for the clubs. 
So making it a strategic version of “Bingo” makes sense, keeps the punters interested and ratings higher.

its all about the $$$$

Edited November 9, 20195 yr by PaulRB

30 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I think the AFL are more interested in making the draft night entertaining for TV than making it fairer for the clubs. 
So making it a strategic version of “Bingo” makes sense, keeps the punters interested and ratings higher.

its all about the $$$$

that is mostly true, but there are still other considerations, even if somewhat nominal