The Trade in Draft Picks

[Whispering_Jack 30,672]

The AFL’s official trade period for 2021 is done and dusted but there’s still one commodity that remains open for trading all the way up to and including the two draft nights on 24 & 25 November. That is, trading which does not involve players but rather, draft picks. From Monday until a week before the draft, the AFL clubs will be able to trade their existing picks and they can do likewise during the progress of the actual draft.

Collingwood is one club that is actually keen to trade its first pick (#27) according to a report on p88 of today’s Herald Sun by Sam Landsberger entitled “Pies still in trade game” (no link available due to paywall).  He’s suggesting that the “Magpies are set to spend the next four weeks hitting the phones – to rival clubs …. ”.

No doubt, one of the calls will be made to Melbourne’s list guru who has indicated that he’s keen to improve its list position and, in what appears to be a level draft pool, a deal could lead to the mutual benefit of both clubs.

 

[Sydney Pennski 299]

Depends on what we want out of the draft. Some clubs need points protection to ensure that they can match bids on players (eg Collingwood with Nick Daicos) while others want specific players or player types and the comfort of knowing they’re likely to be available at a particular point in the draft. I suspect we might be after the latter but I have no idea as to who.

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

This is a similar article moving-on-up-clubs-eye-pick-swaps-with-pies-dogs

Both clubs have more picks than list spots, a 'loophole' the AFL closed a few years ago to stop clubs getting elite NGA, Academy and F/S talent for 'nothing' picks. 

It  was relaxed last year due to covid impact on list sizes, altho I don't see a connection as it benefited only a few clubs in a highly compromised draft.  From what I can find the AFL has allowed the 'loophole' to stay this year. 

Bulldogs are the really luck ones:  JUH last year, Darcy this year!  

Once Dogs and Pies trade out their first pick; a 20'something, 2nd round pick, they will get 2 of the top 3 players this year for just 3rd and 4th round picks. 

Given the AFL stopped the matching of NGA bids in the top 20 this year they should have stopped the picks/list spots 'loophole' again.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Premiers

[Skuit 10,031]

I find it particularly infuriating that as we probably get shut out from our first ever real NGA prospect, in rules that were practically instituted by the AFL overnight, the Pies and Dogs will get a top-five father-son dip this year - those two teams being the ones which have benefitted the most from NGA along with North.

Still can't believe there wasn't a better phase-out of the system put in place, with points-matching of the picks which have come before. I love the father-son clause and hope it lives on forever, but in a competition which prides itself and thrives on equality, it's ridiculous that Footscray got a #1 freebie last year and Collingwood get to pick up Quaynor and the 'Filipino' Reef McInnes for next to nothing. North and Freo have also scored top-ten picks in Thomas and Henry. 

I'm staggered that our club and others might have signed off on the abrupt rule change, rather than a more gradual phase out. What sucks the most is that there were some decent ideas behind the concept, but when the loose rules were exploited by the clubs, the AFL just threw everything out the window. These were the rules that the AFL set up themselves, 

[deejammin' 2,373]

16 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I find it particularly infuriating that as we probably get shut out from our first ever real NGA prospect, in rules that were practically instituted by the AFL overnight, the Pies and Dogs will get a top-five father-son dip this year - those two teams being the ones which have benefitted the most from NGA along with North.

Still can't believe there wasn't a better phase-out of the system put in place, with points-matching of the picks which have come before. I love the father-son clause and hope it lives on forever, but in a competition which prides itself and thrives on equality, it's ridiculous that Footscray got a #1 freebie last year and Collingwood get to pick up Quaynor and the 'Filipino' Reef McInnes for next to nothing. North and Freo have also scored top-ten picks in Thomas and Henry. 

I'm staggered that our club and others might have signed off on the abrupt rule change, rather than a more gradual phase out. What sucks the most is that there were some decent ideas behind the concept, but when the loose rules were exploited by the clubs, the AFL just threw everything out the window. These were the rules that the AFL set up themselves, 

I’d argue the Sydney teams have benefitted most from academy picks. But yes, I agree, a knee jerk reaction that ends up making the bulldogs good fortune even more pronounced. By bringing in this rule the AFL have made JUH’s pick match not only unfair but have stopped Melbourne and a few other clubs from keeping their NGA players who are far lower rated, making the disparity more pronounced. Did I think matching pick one for an academy player was unfair, yeah probably, but it’s even more unfair if the very next year teams miss out on NGA pick matching at pick 5-20.
Would the clubs really have been upset if it was just the first 5-10 picks that couldn’t be matched? If a team wants to take Mac Andrew with a top 5 or even top 10 pick I think they should get him but 11-20? Really? A team being able to match pick 19 for an NGA player is unfair??
I agree with you re father-sons, it’s a romantic part of our game that I think most love and if occasionally a team benefits, good for them. But academy picks have been an issue since Mills and Heeney and at that time few clubs had academies at all and it was a very rigged system. Now that most clubs have academies the AFL limits it? Wtf?

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

After trading out their round 2 picks for yet unknown later/future picks:

• Pies have picks – No.36, 46, 48, 55, 58, 78 and 79
• Dogs have picks No. 43, 44, 45, 52, 93

We currently have 37, 49, 57 ie 952 draft points.  Once Pies and Dogs use their picks for F/s our picks become 36, 43, 49 ie 1167 draft points.  If Pies/Bulldogs bring in more picks below our #57 it will further improve the value of our picks.

I don't usually put much store on draft points but this year Mac Andrew is in the mix. 

While there are many options for us, I wonder whether we might keep our powder dry until draft night.  Use pick #17 and wait and see where MA is taken.  If he is still on the board after pick 20 we can easily match the bid and have points left for another pick in the #45 - 50 range.  If he isn't on the board we can then upgrade some picks or trade them into 2022.

Footnote:  Hope I have the arithmetic right on how our picks move up after Pies and Dogs match F/S.😬  The logic is sound but maybe folks check the calcs before relying on them...

Edited October 14, 2021 by Premiers

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

I was fairly upset about the change to NGA rules that prevents us matching an AM top 20 bid.  Now that we are Premiers, I don't care about how the AFL manipulate the rules.

[Skuit 10,031]

2 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

I’d argue the Sydney teams have benefitted most from academy picks. But yes, I agree, a knee jerk reaction that ends up making the bulldogs good fortune even more pronounced. By bringing in this rule the AFL have made JUH’s pick match not only unfair but have stopped Melbourne and a few other clubs from keeping their NGA players who are far lower rated, making the disparity more pronounced. Did I think matching pick one for an academy player was unfair, yeah probably, but it’s even more unfair if the very next year teams miss out on NGA pick matching at pick 5-20.
Would the clubs really have been upset if it was just the first 5-10 picks that couldn’t be matched? If a team wants to take Mac Andrew with a top 5 or even top 10 pick I think they should get him but 11-20? Really? A team being able to match pick 19 for an NGA player is unfair??
I agree with you re father-sons, it’s a romantic part of our game that I think most love and if occasionally a team benefits, good for them. But academy picks have been an issue since Mills and Heeney and at that time few clubs had academies at all and it was a very rigged system. Now that most clubs have academies the AFL limits it? Wtf?

I didn't include the Northern academies in my assessment. It's a complex issue and I'm not sure what I think. My best solution for now would be that those clubs north of the Barrasi Line had a joint, independent academy (possibly by state). And then they can all fight over them in the draft, with some sweeteners. 

[deejammin' 2,373]

6 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I didn't include the Northern academies in my assessment. It's a complex issue and I'm not sure what I think. My best solution for now would be that those clubs north of the Barrasi Line had a joint, independent academy (possibly by state). And then they can all fight over them in the draft, with some sweeteners. 

I think the Victorian academy draft concessions came in to abate complaints about the northern academies after Mills?

I’m not really sure what I think either, I think deep down I think all academy players should be open slather in the draft, I don’t really like anything that compromises the draft (other than F/S) but I do understand the arguments around growing the game by keeping young locals in NSW and QLD. Although this does tend to even out in the ‘go home factor’?

I agree with you though that the quick rule change was not a good idea and I feel that if the AFL was going to neutralise the academy system the first time a Victorian team used it to get a top talent they probably shouldn’t haven’t introduced it at all.

Edited October 14, 2021 by deejammin'

[Skuit 10,031]

4 minutes ago, Premiers said:

I was fairly upset about the change to NGA rules that prevents us matching an AM top 20 bid.  Now that we are Premiers, I don't care about how the AFL manipulate the rules.

One of the aggravating factors during our time at the bottom of the ladder was that it coincided with the introduction of two new clubs, and massive draft concessions. Even as recently as 2019 we were robbed of pick 2, and thank [censored] for that. But it's pretty good to be premiers when there's momentum for a Tasmanian and maybe even a northern team. Right now, it feels like WGAF. 

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

8 minutes ago, Skuit said:

One of the aggravating factors during our time at the bottom of the ladder was that it coincided with the introduction of two new clubs, and massive draft concessions. Even as recently as 2019 we were robbed of pick 2, and thank [censored] for that. But it's pretty good to be premiers when there's momentum for a Tasmanian and maybe even a northern team. Right now, it feels like WGAF. 

That also annoyed me.  Then.  Not now we are Premiers.

The irony is those clubs that built their lists from the draft and F/S before the franchise clubs have been caught out by  their past success (limited access to top draft picks) and covid list/TPP restrictions, meaning they can't easily move out players.  WCE, Richmond, Hawks, Geelong and maybe Collingwood are in that category..  Clubs like us who rebuilt and were Premiership ready before covid hit are now benefitting. 

The worm has turned. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Premiers

[TRIGON 4,790]

I'd prefer to see the AFL run all the academies Australia-wide and run them well; the talent spilling into a general pool.

I can see sense in having some form of mechanism that balances the fact that some of the expansion clubs (Gold Coast, Fremantle, GWS) have insufficient history to allow for a pipeline of Father-Son prospects. This is where some sort of geographical zone draft concessions (bidding system) may apply; providing that the prospects aren't already part of the Father-Son process.

Fair bit of bistro-maths would be required to work out what a fair bidding system (comparative to the benefits of Father-Sons picks) would look like. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by TRIGON

[The heart beats true 18,145]

I think the AFL has got the academy system all wrong. Under these new rules there’s a disincentive for clubs to invest in junior players who look to be stars (likely to go top 20). Surely that’s not how the system should work.

Why don’t they put the emphasis on the clubs to BETTER invest in the talent by asking at age 17 they limit each Academy draft pool down to 5. Then those 5 are the only ones they can match bids on (before they’ve played their last year of junior footy). Most clubs don’t have one kid, so it’s not a massive issue, but when you’ve got talent you can invest more into them - and if you get the pick wrong well then it’s no different to the draft. The kids get better access to the clubs which helps their development, and the decision is all on the clubs. 

[BAMF 4,385]

Back to the OP.

Collingwood have pick 27 (703 points) which is reportedly on the table. Tim Lamb advised during trade week interviews that we would be aiming to move up the draft order as high as we could. We could be on here. I would be pretty happy if we could snare this pick.

We currently have:

• 17 - 1025 Points
• 37 - 483 points
• 49 - 287 points
• 57 - 182 points
• 94 - 0 points

We could look at trading pick 37, 49 and 57 (952 points) for pick 27 (703 Points). Pies have a few late picks not worth anything that we may have to take if the rules about not stacking picks for points apply still but could use one on a smokey/Woey and pass on the other. 

Without investigating too much further, I imagine another club might be able to trump us in points but I wouldnt be surprised if this happens.

 

[TRIGON 4,790]

40 minutes ago, BAMF said:

Back to the OP.

Collingwood have pick 27 (703 points) which is reportedly on the table. Tim Lamb advised during trade week interviews that we would be aiming to move up the draft order as high as we could. We could be on here. I would be pretty happy if we could snare this pick.

We currently have:

• 17 - 1025 Points
• 37 - 483 points
• 49 - 287 points
• 57 - 182 points
• 94 - 0 points

We could look at trading pick 37, 49 and 57 (952 points) for pick 27 (703 Points). Pies have a few late picks not worth anything that we may have to take if the rules about not stacking picks for points apply still but could use one on a smokey/Woey and pass on the other. 

Without investigating too much further, I imagine another club might be able to trump us in points but I wouldnt be surprised if this happens.

 

Thanks @BAMF, I was looking at this last week. Thought even 37 and 49 for 27 would be beneficial to Collingwood; nets them 63 extra points. A lot depends on how early other clubs bid on Daicos; how that affects their need for points.

[deejammin' 2,373]

1 hour ago, BAMF said:

Back to the OP.

Collingwood have pick 27 (703 points) which is reportedly on the table. Tim Lamb advised during trade week interviews that we would be aiming to move up the draft order as high as we could. We could be on here. I would be pretty happy if we could snare this pick.

We currently have:

• 17 - 1025 Points
• 37 - 483 points
• 49 - 287 points
• 57 - 182 points
• 94 - 0 points

We could look at trading pick 37, 49 and 57 (952 points) for pick 27 (703 Points). Pies have a few late picks not worth anything that we may have to take if the rules about not stacking picks for points apply still but could use one on a smokey/Woey and pass on the other. 

Without investigating too much further, I imagine another club might be able to trump us in points but I wouldnt be surprised if this happens.

 

I think we need two picks to upgrade Chandler and Jordan but we also have a pick at 116 right?

If we do have another pick in the hundreds then I don’t mind it, particularly if we’re keeping one or both of Hore and Declase or looking at a delisted free agent or train-on pre season draft player.

17 and 27, 94 + 116 upgrade Chandler and Jordan would get us two really good young players and then Woey or Hore and/or Declase  or someone else looks pretty good.

Probably need a category B developing ruck to round that out though.

Edited October 15, 2021 by deejammin'

[The Lobster Effect 893]

If the AFL wanted to bring in NGA  restrictions then the fairest thing to do would have been to not bring in the 'can't bid in the first 20 picks rule' but instead allow clubs to only be allowed to take advantage of the rule once. After about 5 years the draft would no longer be compromised.

So for example Collingwood and the Bulldogs can't get another player this way because they've had their turn. Seems unfair that due to timing those clubs get to take advantage of the rule but others miss out. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,241]

4 minutes ago, The Lobster Effect said:

If the AFL wanted to bring in NGA  restrictions then the fairest thing to do would have been to not bring in the 'can't bid in the first 20 picks rule' but instead allow clubs to only be allowed to take advantage of the rule once. After about 5 years the draft would no longer be compromised.

So for example Collingwood and the Bulldogs can't get another player this way because they've had their turn. Seems unfair that due to timing those clubs get to take advantage of the rule but others miss out. 

It's typical AFL knee jerk reaction.

I don't want to make this a 'race' type discussion, but I find it strange that the indigenous players are included within the rules with players with international backgrounds. Indigenous Australians are ingrained in our game going back 50-100 years. So for example, Jamarra Ugle-Hagan having an indigenous background is very different to a Mac Andrew who moved to Australia as a toddler from war torn Sudan.

I think the NGAs are a great way to bring International based kids into the game a reach a broader audience. These kids are more likely to go to soccer if they aren't provided strong AFL pathways.

This is where I think the AFL have stuffed up and clubs like Melbourne, who have developed a raw Mac should reap the rewards of putting time into these players. So my change would be to do the following:

1. Indigenous Australians to be removed from the NGA as options within either the top 20 or 40.

2. Players who were born outside Australia to be fair game at any pick.

[Axis of Bob 11,852]

I think the merits of NGA and FS picks can be debated, and the Bulldogs have certainly been great beneficiaries, but there are certainly tradeoffs for those clubs that can access those early FS/NGA players 'out of order'.

Last year the Dogs selected Ugle-Hagan, but they only took 2 selections in total (other being Dominic Bedendo at pick 55). This year they will do something similar (if Darcy is picked at 3 as some on this thread suggest) by selecting Darcy and then their next pick being at 53 ish. They will get 2 good players in 2 years ..... plus a bunch of hopes and prayers. I'm sure that they would happily make that tradeoff but it's not without its downside.

Collingwood is the same but with a list in a different place. They will get Daicos but they'll get nothing else (except for late picks) when they are in the early stages of a big rebuild. They need to build a group of good young players but will only really only get one of them this year. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,241]

Further to my point above, if I'm Melbourne I consider legal action to re-coup economic damages from the AFL for the time and money spent developing players. Further, we also challenge the ruling in this situation. I'm a bit disappointed we haven't done something like this.

Might sound extreme but why shouldn't? The AFL have moved the goalposts after the fact and in such a short time period we are unable to adjust.

[deebug 1,754]

The only winners, if the club were to take legal action would be the lawyers😔

[Mach5 4,768]

2 hours ago, TRIGON said:

I'd prefer to see the AFL run all the academies Australia-wide and run them well; the talent spilling into a general pool.

I can see sense in having some form of mechanism that balances the fact that some of the expansion clubs (Gold Coast, Fremantle, GWS) have insufficient history to allow for a pipeline of Father-Son prospects. This is where some sort of geographical zone draft concessions (bidding system) may apply; providing that the prospects aren't already part of the Father-Son process.

Fair bit of bistro-maths would be required to work out what a fair bidding system (comparative to the benefits of Father-Sons picks) would look like. 

The devil is in the detail...

[TRIGON 4,790]

19 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

The devil is in the detail...

Hell yes, easier said than done.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

I think the merits of NGA and FS picks can be debated, and the Bulldogs have certainly been great beneficiaries, but there are certainly tradeoffs for those clubs that can access those early FS/NGA players 'out of order'.

Last year the Dogs selected Ugle-Hagan, but they only took 2 selections in total (other being Dominic Bedendo at pick 55). This year they will do something similar (if Darcy is picked at 3 as some on this thread suggest) by selecting Darcy and then their next pick being at 53 ish. They will get 2 good players in 2 years ..... plus a bunch of hopes and prayers. I'm sure that they would happily make that tradeoff but it's not without its downside.

Collingwood is the same but with a list in a different place. They will get Daicos but they'll get nothing else (except for late picks) when they are in the early stages of a big rebuild. They need to build a group of good young players but will only really only get one of them this year. 

This is a great point. In a lot of ways the current system is much harder on clubs at the bottom. If they don’t take Daicos and he becomes a star somewhere else there will be blood, but if they do that’s literally all they get.

Our system of clustered players is going to become the preference because we won the flag. It’s hard to argue against it, even going back to Lewis, Franklin and Roughead. 2019 we got oddly lucky. Went backwards massively and got a huge reward.

[Axis of Bob 11,852]

39 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

This is a great point. In a lot of ways the current system is much harder on clubs at the bottom. If they don’t take Daicos and he becomes a star somewhere else there will be blood, but if they do that’s literally all they get.

Our system of clustered players is going to become the preference because we won the flag. It’s hard to argue against it, even going back to Lewis, Franklin and Roughead. 2019 we got oddly lucky. Went backwards massively and got a huge reward.

It depends whether you are low enough to get a pick before your player is bid on. For example, Collingwood had pick 2 this year which would have allowed them to pick a top player as well as Daicos, but they traded their pick 2 away last year because they didn't realise how terrible they would be. Collingwood made their own bed for this one, effectively trading away their FS advantage for picks last year. 

In effect, in 2020 Collingwood traded their 1st and 2nd round 2021 picks (picks 2 and 21) for 2020 picks 24, 30 (for pick 2), 41, 42 (for pick 21). Note that I'm not including picks past the 3rd round as they are steak knives at best. At the time they didn't realise that they were giving up picks 2 and 21 but they could have had a large advantage by selecting a two top 3 players this year.